"one advantage in the Blue Origin approach may be the ability to rush into the mass market for space tourism"
I'm not sure how much of a market there is for sub-orbital flights. Virgin Galactic had a flurry of sign-ups which peaked and then seemingly stayed about the same up until last years disaster. I suspect it will make people very wary about expressing a (financial) interest in Blue Origin's New Shepard. Then, of course, there's the money. What will a 4 minute free-fall trip cost? I suspect substantially less than VG as Amazon's business model seems to be run-at-a-loss.
I do agree with others here that SpaceX and Blue Origin are going down separate paths to their goals (whatever BO's might be) and as such aren't seemingly competing with each other. I don't believe there'a an absolute "right" or "wrong" approach, just a search for one that works. From that perspective, both Elon and Jeff are doing the "right" thing for themselves.
The key differences between SX and BO - SX plays wide, fast, and loose accepting more losses, while BO is narrow, slow, and tight.
SX fast - "well that didn't work, add grid fins in fraction of a year, it may work, oh, and add FT and half a dozen other changes in more better". Serial numbers in handfuls. BO slow - "hmm failure on booster recovery, remedy systems and take enough time to prove, possibly years, before next flight". Increment in serial number.
The key differences between SX and BO - SX plays wide, fast, and loose accepting more losses, while BO is narrow, slow, and tight.
SX fast - "well that didn't work, add grid fins in fraction of a year, it may work, oh, and add FT and half a dozen other changes in more better". Serial numbers in handfuls. BO slow - "hmm failure on booster recovery, remedy systems and take enough time to prove, possibly years, before next flight". Increment in serial number.
How do you know? BO is far more secretive, and has deeper pockets, so they can just be quiet until they have something to show. We don't know how many design iterations they have gone through, or how the significant the changes have been from earlier - failed - attempts.
Personally, I think they must secretly be in cahoots, because they way things are going Blue is working on solving one half of the puzzle while Spacex is working on the other half. (of course, there is some overlap, as seen yesterday) Then in 10-15 years when they get to the really tough parts that are no longer overlapping they will be in the perfect position to help each other out.
While Blue Origin is far more secretive... I know from chatting with one of them last year that they hate being called "BO" and prefer to be called "Blue" if people want to abbreviate ;)
They can fight it to the end of time if they want, but people will keep using the abbreviated company name.If Musk can convince people that the abbreviation for Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is "SpaceX" then Bezos still has a chance to get "Blue" to catch on.
SpaceX is thriving on sizable government contracts, augmented by a healthy commercial payload business. It is a modern "commercial" version of the classic defense contractor.
Blue Origin has only talked about joy rides for paying customers, which seems to me unlikely to pay the rent long term. I suspect that the company has eyes on some of the same business that SpaceX is working.
Blue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.
BE-4, of course, is being developed for ULA too, which is a conduit for some of that government money to Blue.
Personally, I see Blue thriving on those engines more than anything. Unlike SpaceX, they've already sold one to another company. I think they will sell more before it is all said and done.
They can fight it to the end of time if they want, but people will keep using the abbreviated company name.If Musk can convince people that the abbreviation for Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is "SpaceX" then Bezos still has a chance to get "Blue" to catch on.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.Blue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.
Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.
Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.Blue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.
Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.
Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.
- Ed Kyle
Financing differences:
Revenue of Space X: 0.5B
Valuation of SpaceX: 12B
Shares of Musk: unknown, after lots of rounds.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.Blue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.
Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.
Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.
- Ed Kyle
RLVs are all about mass fraction. Merlin 1D likely has much better T/W ratio than either of those engines.BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.Blue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.
Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.
Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.
- Ed Kyle
If you don't recall, then you aren't very familiar with this field. NK-33's T/W ratio was often touted. T/W ratio is key to getting a good mass fraction, which is essential for VTVL RLVs, especially if you're doing return-to-launchsite for the first stage.BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.Blue is a decade behind, but it may be leapfrogging SpaceX on the propulsion side with BE-3 and BE-4.
Not sure how you figure that. The Merlin 1D ithrust-to-weight ratio is the highest ever achieved for a rocket engine, has a 70-100% throttle capability, and has been constantly evolved and matured over more than a decade. For domestic use, which I would call Earth local space, the Merlin 1D is hard to beat on any metric.
Plus SpaceX is well into developing their own methane fueled engine, the Raptor, which will have almost 3X the amount of thrust the BE-4 does.
- Ed Kyle
Agreed. There is so much more to determining how good an engine is besides its thrust to weight ratio. Honestly I don't recall any other engines ever being associated with a thrust to weight ratio besides the Merlin.
Like their founders Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, SpaceX and Blue Origin have differences in their respective approaches, strategies, and paths to the future.Their technical approaches are actually quite similar. Both use aerosurfaces, both are transitioning to methane/LOx reusable first stages, both have done several VTVL demo flights with multiple demo vehicles. (and both have had crashes/explosions... this stuff is hard)
Whose seems likely to bear better fruit, extrapolating purely based on what we currently know of them?
SpaceX seems to have interwoven iterative R&D flight-testing with immediate servicing of govt launch contracts and private payload launches, for revenue purposes. In that interest, it has sought to achieve orbital flight first, then reusability, and finally leaving crewed flight for last.
Blue Origin has kept itself more private and undercover, while pursuing a focus on manned spaceflight for space tourism, along with reusability, while deferring higher orbital flight velocities for later. Meanwhile, it has signed R&D deals with other SpaceX competitors such as ULA with its specialization for cargo delivery, to defray costs.
What are the various pro's and cons of the technical and business strategies of each?
To me, one advantage in the Blue Origin approach may be the ability to rush into the mass market for space tourism sooner than SpaceX could. For basic space tourism, suborbital flight is all you need to start cashing in. Orbital spaceflight for tourism purposes may offer diminishing returns relative to the cost expenditure. Because suborbital brings spaceflight directly to the masses much sooner, then Blue Origin could get the early adopters and early enthusiasts who are willing to pay more to enjoy the experience sooner.
What are the opinions on how the market for suborbital space tourism stacks up revenue-wise, in comparison to conventional satellite launches and ISS resupply? Perhaps only time will tell, and may throw up some surprises.
As human beings, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are quite different, but in their roles in their business ventures there are probably more similarities than differences.
For comparing Merlin and BE-3, engine efficiency (ISP) is a bogus metric, since the higher ISP of Be-3 is obtained with less dense fuel, requiring larger tanks. You can't just ignore this. Compare the Falcon first stage to New Shepard, both designed to take off from the ground and reach a 100 km or so altitude. The ISP of BE-4 is unpublished, as far as I know, but assume it's similar to J2-X at 421 sec. The Merlin is 310.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
- Ed Kyle
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
- Ed Kyle
From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.
Agree 10t seems high, but the engine is rated to a minimum thrust of 20,000 lb force. Then, you can see it hover, or close enough that makes no difference, in the video. So the empty mass must be more than 9t.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
- Ed Kyle
From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.
The 10t dry mass seems high for 30t fuel. Centuar is 2t for 20t. The landing equipment does add weight but I doubt it is 5-7t.
There doesn't appear to be any load on tank as weight from capsule support ring is transferred direct legs and engine section.
I'm picking it uses autogenous, true gas and go with no He.
The capsule gross weight is 8000lbs. Quote from Blue.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass.
That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money.
The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
For comparing Merlin and BE-3, engine efficiency (ISP) is a bogus metric, since the higher ISP of Be-3 is obtained with less dense fuel, requiring larger tanks. You can't just ignore this. Compare the Falcon first stage to New Shepard, both designed to take off from the ground and reach a 100 km or so altitude. The ISP of BE-4 is unpublished, as far as I know, but assume it's similar to J2-X at 421 sec. The Merlin is 310.
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
- Ed Kyle
From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.
Now in terms of delta-V per unit mass, hydrogen can be better. But your inference, therefore less mass at liftoff, therefore less money, does not follow. The saving in first stage mass may not save much money (aluminum and kerosene are cheap), while the additional expenses to handle hydrogen may be considerable. It's the sum of these costs that counts, not either of these in isolation. For example, the Delta-IV heavy and the Falcon Heavy have similar performance. The Delta-IV has a hydrogen upper stage, which indeed reduces the liftoff mass (733 tons compared to Falcon Heavy's 1463 tons). But by all accounts the Falcon Heavy will be much cheaper, despite its larger mass.
In fact, the empirical evidence is opposite your claims. Rockets with hydrogen upper stages are known for being expensive (Atlas, Delta, H-II, Ariane). The low cost rockets (Falcon, Soyuz, Proton) do not use hydrogen in the upper stages.
Musk has previously announced intentions to make SpaceX an OEM that would sell launch vehicles to others to operate them.
Musk has previously announced intentions to make SpaceX an OEM that would sell launch vehicles to others to operate them.
Can tapping the space tourist market earlier through suborbital then accelerate advancements for Blue faster than what Spacex has been able to achieve through COTS?
From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.
As human beings, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are quite different, but in their roles in their business ventures there are probably more similarities than differences.
I don't know what you're trying to say here... Jeff isn't a walk around manager who has to have his finger in everything like Elon. I can't even imagine Elon running a company like Amazon. You won't be hearing any cutesy stories about Jeff teaching himself rocketry from scratch. You really won't find two more different entrepreneurs. This is a good thing in my opinion.
As human beings, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are quite different, but in their roles in their business ventures there are probably more similarities than differences.
I don't know what you're trying to say here... Jeff isn't a walk around manager who has to have his finger in everything like Elon. I can't even imagine Elon running a company like Amazon. You won't be hearing any cutesy stories about Jeff teaching himself rocketry from scratch. You really won't find two more different entrepreneurs. This is a good thing in my opinion.
Still same number of ground crew, except more complication since now you need deep cryogenic hydrogen. Your tanks are also a similar size, so you don't save on the hardware costs.
I don't see the advantage there.
Of course you are comparing a stage designed for a specific suborbital mission and a return landing every time with one designed for orbital launch . Here's another comparison.
Replace the Falcon 9 second stage with a BE-3 power LH2/LOX stage. You will find that the second stage weighs much less and that it should be possible to remove two of the first stage Merlin engines altogether and still put the same mass to GTO. Indeed the first stage can be shrunk, required to carry 30-80 tonnes less propellant. The entire rocket weighs 85-120 tonnes less at liftoff. Less rocket for the same payload. That's where the savings accrue.
- Ed Kyle
Still same number of ground crew, except more complication since now you need deep cryogenic hydrogen. Your tanks are also a similar size, so you don't save on the hardware costs.
I don't see the advantage there.
OK, the metric I choose is $/kg to orbit. The Saturn 5 is estimated at about $3.2 billion per launch, in current dollars (from Wikipedia), and orbits 120,000 kg. The N1 was estimated as 604 million 1985 dollars per launch ( http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n11964.htm ), or about 1.33 billion in current year dollars, and orbits 95,000 kg. So on this metric the N-1 wins by almost a factor of 2, 14000 $/kg to 26600 $/kg.Still same number of ground crew, except more complication since now you need deep cryogenic hydrogen. Your tanks are also a similar size, so you don't save on the hardware costs.
I don't see the advantage there.
Lets compare the Saturn V and the N-1. Both weigh about 6.25 million lbs GLOW. One was all first stage Kerolox and with hydrolox 2nd and 3rd stage, the other was all kerolox stages.
Saturn V had 2X the payload-momentum capacity. In terms of efficiency using any metric you want a hydrolox upper stage rocket wins, even with the N-1 using the most high-performance kerolox engine ever built (except for reliability :-\)
... In terms of efficiency using any metric you want a hydrolox upper stage rocket wins, even with the N-1 using the most high-performance kerolox engine ever built (except for reliability :-\)...metric of cost where you can only afford one engine. In that case, I'm confident kerolox wins over hydrolox. Delta IV is super expensive for its capability, while Zenit and Falcon 9 launchers are cheap.
Blue Origin likely would've been MUCH further along if Bezos had devoted as much mental bandwidth to Blue Origin as Musk has devoted to SpaceX. I think that might be changing, though.
...not that this was necessarily a suboptimal strategy. By focusing on Amazon, Bezos significantly increased his net worth, which gives more ammo for Blue Origin.
...
Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin could potentially put the screws to SpaceX but doing a launch into orbit. At that point they could likely start building their own manifest for future commercial launches. Wouldn't that be an interesting competition? I have no doubt that Blue Origin could grab a piece of the SpaceX manifest within a few years.
OK, the metric I choose is $/kg to orbit. The Saturn 5 is estimated at about $3.2 billion per launch, in current dollars (from Wikipedia), and orbits 120,000 kg. The N1 was estimated as 604 million 1985 dollars per launch ( http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n11964.htm ), or about 1.33 billion in current year dollars, and orbits 95,000 kg. So on this metric the N-1 wins by almost a factor of 2, 14000 $/kg to 26600 $/kg.Still same number of ground crew, except more complication since now you need deep cryogenic hydrogen. Your tanks are also a similar size, so you don't save on the hardware costs.
I don't see the advantage there.
Lets compare the Saturn V and the N-1. Both weigh about 6.25 million lbs GLOW. One was all first stage Kerolox and with hydrolox 2nd and 3rd stage, the other was all kerolox stages.
Saturn V had 2X the payload-momentum capacity. In terms of efficiency using any metric you want a hydrolox upper stage rocket wins, even with the N-1 using the most high-performance kerolox engine ever built (except for reliability :-\)
Look, it's perfectly clear hydrogen has more energy per kg than kerolox, and hence allows a lighter first stage for the same performance. That's simple physics and not in dispute. But hydrogen has drawbacks as well, and hence may not be the most economical choice. It's not a good first stage fuel (not dense enough). So now you need a two-fuel system. This implies different engines for the different stages, more specialists on your launch team, and now your second stage engine is produced in low volume. All of these can be solved, but it costs money. On the whole, is the hydrolox upper stage cheaper? Like all engineering, it's a question of tradeoffs.
Take Ed's example of a hydrolox upper state for Falcon, then reducing the first stage to 7 Merlins. That's three less Merlins, which are rumored to cost about $1 million each. How much does a BE-3 cost? If it's more than 3 million you are already behind. Even if it's less than 3 million, hydrogen might still be a losing proposition once you add in the ground infrastructure and support, amortized over missions. And if they get re-use working, then the cost of that additional first stage mass may be smaller yet, reducing hydrogen's advantage still more.
Overall, there can be no credible claim for a hydrolox upper stage reducing cost without running the numbers. And the empirical evidence runs the other way - the hydrolox upper stages belong to the high cost vendors. Why do you suppose that is, if a hydrolox upper stage should lead to a low system cost?
Oh boy, I was afraid of this. As soon as I saw the Blue Origin video, I just knew it was going to turn into a presumably never-ending battle between Blue fans and SpaceX fans on many levels.
I suppose this thread can be the main battleground so it doesn't take over other areas.
Sorry if this has been discussed to death before - but why did BlueOrigin go for the hydrolox approach from the start, as contrasted with SpaceX's choice of kerolox? Is it because Bezos has a purist attitude of only going for the most high-performance/top-rung propulsion systems, as compared to the economy of kerolox? Is it because when Bezos went hunting for rocket designers, he mainly found people whose expertise was in kerolox? Was Bezos' budgetary advantage the reason why they went for this more difficult fuel choice? Given what we know that New Shepard's mission profile is supposed to be, could the same capability have been developed more expensively or less expensively with the kerolox approach?For correct answer ask Bezo. My guess. The BE3 was also developed as an upper stage engine where hydrolox is king, especially for BLEO missions. Blue are trying to sell it as an upper stage engine to ULA, NASA and most likely Orbital.
Neither Bezos or Musk can easily sell large amounts of their stock. They need to maintain ownership of their primary companies to maintain control. If they sold $1 billion of their stock, their stock prices would likely dive.Bezos probably could, Musk probably couldn't. Amazon's market cap is a order of magnitude greater than Tesla's so a billion dollar sale is a drop in the bucket (in fact Bezos did a 500+ million sale last summer and the market didn't react). If Musk attempts a billion dollar sale right now he's handing over a significant portion of Tesla.
No, the last Saturn V cost 494 million in 1970 dollars (see http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm ), equal to more than 3 billion in 2015 dollars ( http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=494&year1=1970&year2=2015) . This does NOT include development costs, which are called out separately.OK, the metric I choose is $/kg to orbit. The Saturn 5 is estimated at about $3.2 billion per launch, in current dollars (from Wikipedia), and orbits 120,000 kg. The N1 was estimated as 604 million 1985 dollars per launch ( http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n11964.htm ), or about 1.33 billion in current year dollars, and orbits 95,000 kg. So on this metric the N-1 wins by almost a factor of 2, 14000 $/kg to 26600 $/kg.
Lets compare the Saturn V and the N-1. Both weigh about 6.25 million lbs GLOW. One was all first stage Kerolox and with hydrolox 2nd and 3rd stage, the other was all kerolox stages.
Saturn V had 2X the payload-momentum capacity. In terms of efficiency using any metric you want a hydrolox upper stage rocket wins, even with the N-1 using the most high-performance kerolox engine ever built (except for reliability :-\)
Congratulations. If you take cost of Saturn V program/# of launches and compare it to the flyaway (a.k.a. the marginal cost of 1 vehicle, no development operations or overhead costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyaway_cost) cost of the N-1 you have a metric where the N-1 is better.
Also the Saturn V could lift 140,000 kg to LEO, not 120,000 kg. Not sure which version of Wikipedia you're using...Apollo 17 was almost 140,000 kg into LEO, but this is not the LEO payload capacity.
My point is that as things get bigger efficient architecture becomes important. At EELV sizes and below, all kerosene can be the right choice. I've never said it isn't the right choice for Falcon 9, it is. However when you get to super-heavy lift, hydrolox is worth the trouble.I don't think this is clear even for super-heavy lift. The Saturn V and N-1 are the only examples, and neither ever reached steady state serial production. Plus they were built in countries with different cost structures, were special purpose vehicles designed for their explicit tasks, differed in reliability, etc.
Kudos to SpaceX for using the kerosene/LOX, almost-common engine approach. It gained them a foothold and works very well to LEO, but the company keeps having to re-develop its rocket to get into a competitive GTO payload range. Now that it wants to enter the heavy-GTO/GEO business, it is being forced to develop a really big rocket that requires 28 Merlin engines and a new launch pad. That's going to be both a technical and a fiscal challenge. Vulcan will do the same work using maybe four liquid engines and some solid boosters from an existing launch pad. Arianespace will do it using only two liquid engines and solid boosters. H3 will follow a similar approach. Blue Origin may or may not be planning to do the same work using no solids. All of the latter competitors gain by exploiting liquid hydrogen for beyond-LEO.
They were able to get to orbit much, much faster by keeping it simple. Musk couldn't afford to spend a decade and half a billion and still not be anywhere near orbit and a self-sustaining, high-revenue business.
From an economics perspective where money is actually limited, I'd say a full-kerolox rocket is far superior to a full-hydrolox rocket. Maybe methane/LOx (or another simple high-Isp and high-density hydrocarbon like propylene or propane) would be even better, I'm not sure.
Listing number of engines without cost makes your argument re: "fiscal challenge" pretty weak.Kudos to SpaceX for using the kerosene/LOX, almost-common engine approach. It gained them a foothold and works very well to LEO, but the company keeps having to re-develop its rocket to get into a competitive GTO payload range. Now that it wants to enter the heavy-GTO/GEO business, it is being forced to develop a really big rocket that requires 28 Merlin engines and a new launch pad. That's going to be both a technical and a fiscal challenge. Vulcan will do the same work using maybe four liquid engines and some solid boosters from an existing launch pad. Arianespace will do it using only two liquid engines and solid boosters. H3 will follow a similar approach. Blue Origin may or may not be planning to do the same work using no solids. All of the latter competitors gain by exploiting liquid hydrogen for beyond-LEO.
They were able to get to orbit much, much faster by keeping it simple. Musk couldn't afford to spend a decade and half a billion and still not be anywhere near orbit and a self-sustaining, high-revenue business.
From an economics perspective where money is actually limited, I'd say a full-kerolox rocket is far superior to a full-hydrolox rocket. Maybe methane/LOx (or another simple high-Isp and high-density hydrocarbon like propylene or propane) would be even better, I'm not sure.
A Falcon with a high energy upper stage would be tough to beat.
- Ed Kyle
A Falcon with a high energy upper stage would be tough to beat.
Depends on what that upper stage costs to develop and operate, as well as how long it takes to come online. For Space X, all kerelox allowed them to get to flight sooner. For B.O. lacking an good first stage engine has slowed the path to orbit, but orbit was not the goal.A Falcon with a high energy upper stage would be tough to beat.
Yes, its hard to imagine a hydrolox upper stage would not pay off, at least when it comes to recurrent cost per kg to GTO.
Now that it wants to enter the heavy-GTO/GEO business, it is being forced to develop a really big rocket that requires 28 Merlin engines and a new launch pad.
Vulcan will do the same work using maybe four liquid engines and some solid boosters from an existing launch pad.
Arianespace will do it using only two liquid engines and solid boosters. H3 will follow a similar approach.
A Falcon with a high energy upper stage would be tough to beat.
From a cost standpoint, can any of those other transportation systems beat $90M to place 6.4mT to GTO, or $135M to place 21.2mT to GTO? If not then I'm not sure how they are better.SpaceX advertises $90 million for 6.4 tonnes to GTO on Falcon Heavy. Europe is aiming for 11 tonnes for $95 million with Ariane 6-4. ULA is aiming for similar pricing for Vulcan. (I don't believe any of these numbers. Remember when SpaceX advertised that Falcon 9 would only cost $35 million, or when Boeing projected Delta 4 Medium at $75 million? Etc.)
Neither Bezos or Musk can easily sell large amounts of their stock. They need to maintain ownership of their primary companies to maintain control. If they sold $1 billion of their stock, their stock prices would likely dive.
Bezos probably could, Musk probably couldn't. Amazon's market cap is a order of magnitude greater than Tesla's so a billion dollar sale is a drop in the bucket (in fact Bezos did a 500+ million sale last summer and the market didn't react). If Musk attempts a billion dollar sale right now he's handing over a significant portion of Tesla.
Falcon 9 and Heavy are basically just variations of one rocket engine using a single propellant combo and a single stage type. That incredibly streamlines manufacturing, testing, and ground support equipment.A Falcon with a high energy upper stage would be tough to beat.
Yes, its hard to imagine a hydrolox upper stage would not pay off, at least when it comes to recurrent cost per kg to GTO.
Apollo 17 was almost 140,000 kg into LEO, but this is not the LEO payload capacity.
(a) It includes the mass of the third stage, about 11,000 kg
(b) It was a *very* low orbit, that would have decayed within a few days. This helped Apollo but is not useful for LEO missions.
(c) It's a special payload that does not need a payload fairing.
Include these and the mass of anything else it could put into LEO would be near 120,000 kg. Since it was special purpose we'll never know exactly.
From a cost standpoint, can any of those other transportation systems beat $90M to place 6.4mT to GTO, or $135M to place 21.2mT to GTO? If not then I'm not sure how they are better.SpaceX advertises $90 million for 6.4 tonnes to GTO on Falcon Heavy. Europe is aiming for 11 tonnes for $95 million with Ariane 6-4. ULA is aiming for similar pricing for Vulcan. (I don't believe any of these numbers. Remember when SpaceX advertised that Falcon 9 would only cost $35 million, or when Boeing projected Delta 4 Medium at $75 million? Etc.)
More important than these price claims is mission capability and success rate. I can only wonder about the reliability of a 28-engine, 3 million pound gross weight launch vehicle designed to only lift 6.4 tonnes to GTO.
- Ed Kyle
I don't think SpaceX will ever have a high-Isp upper stage for Falcon 9. Probably not Falcon Heavy, either.The engines maybe similar numbers used in their RLV will most likely be a lot different. Blue will most likely use 4-6 while Elton is talk of dozens in BFR.
Although I'm fairly sure this has been delayed by at least a year or two because of the 2015 incident, I think they'll long-term go for something fully reusable and fully methane/LOx (or a similar simple hydrocarbon) to replace Falcon Heavy if they ever do decide to replace it.
Interesting, actually, that in spite of starting out with very different strategies, both SpaceX and Blue Origin are converging on staged-combustion methane/LOx as their workhorses. Nearly the same thrust, too. And VTVL.
From a cost standpoint, can any of those other transportation systems beat $90M to place 6.4mT to GTO, or $135M to place 21.2mT to GTO? If not then I'm not sure how they are better.SpaceX advertises $90 million for 6.4 tonnes to GTO on Falcon Heavy. Europe is aiming for 11 tonnes for $95 million with Ariane 6-4. ULA is aiming for similar pricing for Vulcan.
(I don't believe any of these numbers. Remember when SpaceX advertised that Falcon 9 would only cost $35 million, or when Boeing projected Delta 4 Medium at $75 million? Etc.)
More important than these price claims is mission capability and success rate. I can only wonder about the reliability of a 28-engine, 3 million pound gross weight launch vehicle designed to only lift 6.4 tonnes to GTO.
It is about going straight for the highest performance engines.
Article in The Space Review on New Shepard's latest flight, and what its early revenue sources could be:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2871/1
So they're mentioning micro-gravity experiments ahead of space tourism. Is there a significant market for micro-gravity payloads?
Blue doesn't need to get regulatory approval to send up instruments.
Who said Falcon Heavy was only designed to lift 6.4mT to GTO? You know Musk has stated that FH is capable of throwing 14mT to Mars.6.4 tonnes appears to be for booster recovery missions. Expendable missions can lift much more, but will have to also cost much more since the boosters will be lost.
Article in The Space Review on New Shepard's latest flight, and what its early revenue sources could be:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2871/1
So they're mentioning micro-gravity experiments ahead of space tourism. Is there a significant market for micro-gravity payloads?
Absolutely! I've been following ACME Advanced Materials for a while. This is one of those very nice areas that could substantially expand the spaceflight market.Article in The Space Review on New Shepard's latest flight, and what its early revenue sources could be:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2871/1
So they're mentioning micro-gravity experiments ahead of space tourism. Is there a significant market for micro-gravity payloads?
Here is one possible payload, producing high performance silicon wafers.
http://www.abqjournal.com/583056/biz/biz-most-recent/new-investment-boosts-space-wafer-technology.html
appears to be for booster recovery missions. Expendable missions can lift much more, but will have to also cost much more since the boosters will be lost.
Blue Origin's big orbital rocket appears to have legs in released artwork, so it will also be losing payload capability to allow recovery. The capability losses for stage recovery are substantial for beyond-LEO missions.
From the calculations upthread, New Shepard has an estimated empty mass of 10t, and holds about 30t of fuel. So the delta-V will be 421 * 9.8 * ln(4) = 5.7 km/sec. For the Falcon first stage, it's suspected the empty mass is about 30t, and it's known to hold 386t of fuel (without sub-cooling). So the total delta-V is 310*9.8*ln(416/30), or about 7.9 km/sec. So in terms of delta-v provided per stage, the stage using Merlin is far more efficient than the stage using a BE-3.
Of course you are comparing a stage designed for a specific suborbital mission and a return landing every time with one designed for orbital launch . Here's another comparison.
Replace the Falcon 9 second stage with a BE-3 power LH2/LOX stage. You will find that the second stage weighs much less and that it should be possible to remove two of the first stage Merlin engines altogether and still put the same mass to GTO. Indeed the first stage can be shrunk, required to carry 30-80 tonnes less propellant. The entire rocket weighs 85-120 tonnes less at liftoff. Less rocket for the same payload. That's where the savings accrue.
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin likely would've been MUCH further along if Bezos had devoted as much mental bandwidth to Blue Origin as Musk has devoted to SpaceX. I think that might be changing, though.
...not that this was necessarily a suboptimal strategy. By focusing on Amazon, Bezos significantly increased his net worth, which gives more ammo for Blue Origin.
Blue were doing VTVL in2007.Look up Goddard on you tube.
Isn't the difference between the two the value supply chain strategy?
Bezos-Blue-Amazon uses existing mostly legacy suppliers.
Musk-Tesla-SpaceX builds it's own supply chain based on Musk's belief, backed by experience, he can build a better, higher quality and lower cost supply chain that answers only to the needs of Tesla and SpaceX.
I see Musk as pursuing a Chinese type of strategy of acquiring technogy with strategic partnerships and as soon as possible becoming independent and self sufficient. It's all about control.
Bezos out of necessity must form partnerships. Selling books required working with publishers, even when disrupting the business model they evolved into existance. Selling other goods that customers wanted required going with existing manufacturers rather than designing Amazon brand products. Amazon was the next stage of Sam Waltons Walmart. Amazon partners with all package delivery companies.
Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work). SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.
Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work). SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.
So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?
I'm just wondering how Blue achieved such a success by getting a full flyback by the 2nd flight, as compared to so many flights with Grasshopper and F9R.
New Shepard doesn't achieve orbit, but F9R booster doesn't either. Is it fair to say that both re-enter the atmosphere at comparably similar velocities? How similar is the re-entry profile of both?
I've read that given F9R booster's braking burn, that it's actually doing re-entry at lower velocity than New Shepard is.
How well-positioned is Blue to give SpaceX a run for their money, overall? Could Blue one day take a share of SpaceX's business directly, or will it be done through partners like ULA mainly? Is Blue just going to focus purely on manned space tourism flights?
So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?
Blue Origin likely would've been MUCH further along if Bezos had devoted as much mental bandwidth to Blue Origin as Musk has devoted to SpaceX. I think that might be changing, though.
...not that this was necessarily a suboptimal strategy. By focusing on Amazon, Bezos significantly increased his net worth, which gives more ammo for Blue Origin.
Couldn't disagree more. Bezos is right on plan. The timing might be off a bit but Both Blue and SX worked from the very beginning for a reusable stage.
Going to put this up as a "Historical reminder".
These facts can be found in the older NSF files available with NSF searches.
Back when SpaceX promoted the early Falcon9 their planning, simulation, engineering, and testing were all for the F9 design to parachute down for a water recovery and reuse. This as we know was a complete failure. SX next went on to the grasshopper tests, and a new approach to recovery we see in work today.
Results count, plain and simple. Blue delivered a first stage recovery on its 2nd try per their design, and concept (and a lot of hard engineering work). SX with 19 launches has yet to accomplish a first stage recovery.
We can be shallow and try and nit pick who's stage is bigger, or who's mission was more difficult, who's richer; it doesn't matter. No matter how much spin, or negative PR a company wishes to put out, its the end result of "stage recovery" that matters.
In the end results count ;)
What BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system. It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies. It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does. So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.
As for plans, I can tell you that internally, RTLS was the plan much much earlier than the re-use video came out - almost all the way back to original F9 flight.
What BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system. It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies. It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does. So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".
I have to disagree with you here, if Blue put an upperstage on the New Shepard Stage it has the performance to put a small payload in orbit. It almost went to Mach 4 at 100 km, a Falcon 9 1st stage sep is near Mach 5 at 80 km. So if you trade altitude for speed (there is a reason the earliest technicians who worked on the first satellite launches thought the rocket was going too low, trading altitude for speed)
QuoteIf you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.
Why does it have to be a race?
Blue Origin is going for human +spaceflight +re-usability simultaneously, but starting from suborbital to build up to orbital. SpaceX went orbital first, and now is working on re-usability followed by human spaceflight.
Also we said the same about ULA and SpaceX back in the Falcon 1 days, doent take long to catch up. I for one am looking forward to the competition.QuoteAs for plans, I can tell you that internally, RTLS was the plan much much earlier than the re-use video came out - almost all the way back to original F9 flight.
As I recall the first couple flights of Falcon 9 still had cork and parachutes.....
So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?
No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.
If you go by results, Blue is ahead. They just got results, something spacex has been trying to do for a year. Once spacex lands they will once again be ahead in the business of landing high-speed rocket stages.
But right now if you look at results all they've done is crash rockets in to a barge/the sea in a somewhat out-of-control manner.
If you want to hover, or nearly so, on landing, that sets the empty weight at 20,000 lbs. A hydrogen stage needs a mass fraction of about 0.9, so that implies a fully fueled weight of 200,000 lbs. Add the second stage and payload, and you will need at least 3 engines (330,000 lbs of thrust) to take off. So a three-engine booster with BE-3s would be the smallest size that allows vertical landing. That's a small but reasonable size vehicle, about half the size of the Delta-IV. It might therefore put about 4500 lbs (2000 kg) into LEO. A five engine variant might put a BO capsule (8000 lbs, 3600 kg) into orbit.Thought experiment: [add 4 more engines and 5x fuel]. In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
Exactly... So what they recovered wasn't a first stage of an orbital system, but a much smaller suborbital vehicle.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?
No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
Thought experiment:
Take new shepard booster, and stretch/increase the diameter of the tanks so the volume is 5X. Now add 4 more BE-3's (around the central one). Maybe do a bit of structural optimization and mass fraction gets even better.
There you go. Now you have an orbital booster with a reasonable mass fraction that can land without hoverslamming. Most of the weight is on the ends of that rocket, so making the tanks bigger won't add that much weight.
If Merlin could throttle down even to 40%, spacex could land without hoverslamming. In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing. But it can't.
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.
If you go by results, Blue is ahead. They just got results, something spacex has been trying to do for a year. Once spacex lands they will once again be ahead in the business of landing high-speed rocket stages. But right now if you look at results all they've done is crash rockets in to a barge/the sea in a somewhat out-of-control manner.
For now.
What about a center BE-3 to facilitate landing flanked by a pair of the BE-4s for the heavy lifting. I've not heard any speculation on a mixed engine config.If you want to hover, or nearly so, on landing, that sets the empty weight at 20,000 lbs. A hydrogen stage needs a mass fraction of about 0.9, so that implies a fully fueled weight of 200,000 lbs. Add the second stage and payload, and you will need at least 3 engines (330,000 lbs of thrust) to take off. So a three-engine booster with BE-3s would be the smallest size that allows vertical landing. That's a small but reasonable size vehicle, about half the size of the Delta-IV. It might therefore put about 4500 lbs (2000 kg) into LEO. A five engine variant might put a BO capsule (8000 lbs, 3600 kg) into orbit.Thought experiment: [add 4 more engines and 5x fuel]. In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
However, using the same reasoning, it looks hard to build a small, vertical landing, rocket with the BE-4. The nominal thrust is 550,000 lbs. If it can throttle as deeply as the BE-3 (18%), the min thrust will be 100,000 lbs. Using fuel that both denser and lower performance, it will need a mass fraction much closer to kerosene. Therefore the fueled weight will be something around 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 pounds. 4-5 engines would be needed for takeoff. That's a BIG rocket, in the same class as the Delta-IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy. Technically reasonable but probably not enough market.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.What about a center BE-3 to facilitate landing flanked by a pair of the BE-4s for the heavy lifting. I've not heard any speculation on a mixed engine config.If you want to hover, or nearly so, on landing, that sets the empty weight at 20,000 lbs. A hydrogen stage needs a mass fraction of about 0.9, so that implies a fully fueled weight of 200,000 lbs. Add the second stage and payload, and you will need at least 3 engines (330,000 lbs of thrust) to take off. So a three-engine booster with BE-3s would be the smallest size that allows vertical landing. That's a small but reasonable size vehicle, about half the size of the Delta-IV. It might therefore put about 4500 lbs (2000 kg) into LEO. A five engine variant might put a BO capsule (8000 lbs, 3600 kg) into orbit.Thought experiment: [add 4 more engines and 5x fuel]. In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
However, using the same reasoning, it looks hard to build a small, vertical landing, rocket with the BE-4. The nominal thrust is 550,000 lbs. If it can throttle as deeply as the BE-3 (18%), the min thrust will be 100,000 lbs. Using fuel that both denser and lower performance, it will need a mass fraction much closer to kerosene. Therefore the fueled weight will be something around 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 pounds. 4-5 engines would be needed for takeoff. That's a BIG rocket, in the same class as the Delta-IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy. Technically reasonable but probably not enough market.
A 1xBE4 VTOHL with wings is possible and maybe what Boeing has planned to power their DARPA XS1 RLV with. A single BE4 XS1 may not be physically that much bigger than 2-3 xBE3 version, as LNG tanks are considerably smaller than LH.If you want to hover, or nearly so, on landing, that sets the empty weight at 20,000 lbs. A hydrogen stage needs a mass fraction of about 0.9, so that implies a fully fueled weight of 200,000 lbs. Add the second stage and payload, and you will need at least 3 engines (330,000 lbs of thrust) to take off. So a three-engine booster with BE-3s would be the smallest size that allows vertical landing. That's a small but reasonable size vehicle, about half the size of the Delta-IV. It might therefore put about 4500 lbs (2000 kg) into LEO. A five engine variant might put a BO capsule (8000 lbs, 3600 kg) into orbit.Thought experiment: [add 4 more engines and 5x fuel]. In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
However, using the same reasoning, it looks hard to build a small, vertical landing, rocket with the BE-4. The nominal thrust is 550,000 lbs. If it can throttle as deeply as the BE-3 (18%), the min thrust will be 100,000 lbs. Using fuel that both denser and lower performance, it will need a mass fraction much closer to kerosene. Therefore the fueled weight will be something around 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 pounds. 4-5 engines would be needed for takeoff. That's a BIG rocket, in the same class as the Delta-IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy. Technically reasonable but probably not enough market.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.What about a center BE-3 to facilitate landing flanked by a pair of the BE-4s for the heavy lifting. I've not heard any speculation on a mixed engine config.If you want to hover, or nearly so, on landing, that sets the empty weight at 20,000 lbs. A hydrogen stage needs a mass fraction of about 0.9, so that implies a fully fueled weight of 200,000 lbs. Add the second stage and payload, and you will need at least 3 engines (330,000 lbs of thrust) to take off. So a three-engine booster with BE-3s would be the smallest size that allows vertical landing. That's a small but reasonable size vehicle, about half the size of the Delta-IV. It might therefore put about 4500 lbs (2000 kg) into LEO. A five engine variant might put a BO capsule (8000 lbs, 3600 kg) into orbit.Thought experiment: [add 4 more engines and 5x fuel]. In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
However, using the same reasoning, it looks hard to build a small, vertical landing, rocket with the BE-4. The nominal thrust is 550,000 lbs. If it can throttle as deeply as the BE-3 (18%), the min thrust will be 100,000 lbs. Using fuel that both denser and lower performance, it will need a mass fraction much closer to kerosene. Therefore the fueled weight will be something around 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 pounds. 4-5 engines would be needed for takeoff. That's a BIG rocket, in the same class as the Delta-IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy. Technically reasonable but probably not enough market.
Your idea might work if there was a LNG BE3 size engine.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.What about a center BE-3 to facilitate landing flanked by a pair of the BE-4s for the heavy lifting. I've not heard any speculation on a mixed engine config.
Your idea might work if there was a LNG BE3 size engine.
Nope nope nope. The Blue Origin New Shepard was going Mach 0 at 100km. The two aren't even close to comparable.What BO recovered was not a first stage of an orbital system. It is a suborbital carrier, capable of much much lower energies. It looks like a stage, but does more or less what VG does. So they have "vehicle recovery", but not "stage recovery".
I have to disagree with you here, if Blue put an upperstage on the New Shepard Stage it has the performance to put a small payload in orbit. It almost went to Mach 4 at 100 km, a Falcon 9 1st stage sep is near Mach 5 at 80 km. ...
Exactly... So what they recovered wasn't a first stage of an orbital system, but a much smaller suborbital vehicle.So just comparing the reusability results of both - can we say that the return flight and recovery of New Shepard is more or less equivalent to a return flight of F9R Booster in terms of engineering difficulty?
No. As has been discussed in the other thread to make the engineering efforts comparable BO engineers would somehow have to load about five times as much fuel into a vehicle with the same dry mass, which would make it unable to take off. Or alternatively somehow magically shave ~80% off the vehicles dry weight. Which would make it unable to land the way it did. Safe to say there are significant challenges ahead.
Thought experiment:
Take new shepard booster, and stretch/increase the diameter of the tanks so the volume is 5X. Now add 4 more BE-3's (around the central one). Maybe do a bit of structural optimization and mass fraction gets even better.
There you go. Now you have an orbital booster with a reasonable mass fraction that can land without hoverslamming. Most of the weight is on the ends of that rocket, so making the tanks bigger won't add that much weight.
If Merlin could throttle down even to 40%, spacex could land without hoverslamming. In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing. But it can't.
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.
If you go by results, Blue is ahead. They just got results, something spacex has been trying to do for a year. Once spacex lands they will once again be ahead in the business of landing high-speed rocket stages. But right now if you look at results all they've done is crash rockets in to a barge/the sea in a somewhat out-of-control manner.
For now.
Except unlike VG, their system is along the right path to eventually build an orbital rocket. More engines, larger tanks, stronger structures... But at least they're headed the right way.
Which is why this is comparable to a grasshopper (well, GH2 was derived from a real stage...). It only flew higher.
So no.
Basically, the question can be phrased as "how much work needs to be done to covert the current achievement to a reusable booster", and the answer is in your own post.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.What about a center BE-3 to facilitate landing flanked by a pair of the BE-4s for the heavy lifting. I've not heard any speculation on a mixed engine config.
Your idea might work if there was a LNG BE3 size engine.
You could have 3 propellant tanks in the core. Separate LNG and LH tanks with common LOX tank. The LH required is just for augmenting the liftoff and the landing. Just need one extra well insulated bulkhead. Of course this is kind of a wacky idea. :)
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.What about a center BE-3 to facilitate landing flanked by a pair of the BE-4s for the heavy lifting. I've not heard any speculation on a mixed engine config.
Your idea might work if there was a LNG BE3 size engine.
You could have 3 propellant tanks in the core. Separate LNG and LH tanks with common LOX tank. The LH required is just for augmenting the liftoff and the landing. Just need one extra well insulated bulkhead. Of course this is kind of a wacky idea. :)
At risk of getting OT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripropellant_rocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-701
Since the rocket engines that are used for ascent are used for propulsive landing you get them to use on landing basically for free. With parachutes or wings additional systems are added to the rocket that are just dead weight during the boost phase. Adding extra tanks and rockets only used for landing negates the principal advantage of propulsive landing.
It's worth noting that MVac has a much higher throttle range than the first stage M1D. This shows that SpaceX certainly has the capability of installing a higher throttle range engine on the center (perhaps with chopped nozzle) if they really need it.
My guess is they'd just use a modified version of M1D, but it's not impossible to use something more like a MVac without a nozzle extension.
It's in their new user's guide which was just released. (Which unfortunately is nearly silent on payload performance.)It's worth noting that MVac has a much higher throttle range than the first stage M1D. This shows that SpaceX certainly has the capability of installing a higher throttle range engine on the center (perhaps with chopped nozzle) if they really need it.
My guess is they'd just use a modified version of M1D, but it's not impossible to use something more like a MVac without a nozzle extension.
I believe that the 1st stage M1D has a similar throttle range (if not nearly identical) as M1D-Vac. SpaceX have been very hush-hush about the M1D throttle range, sandbagging it quite a bit.
It's worth noting that MVac has a much higher throttle range than the first stage M1D. This shows that SpaceX certainly has the capability of installing a higher throttle range engine on the center (perhaps with chopped nozzle) if they really need it.
My guess is they'd just use a modified version of M1D, but it's not impossible to use something more like a MVac without a nozzle extension.
It is likely easier and cheaper to make a landing guidance system that can deal with a greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio than make a new smaller engine. SpaceX had already tested this out using Grasshopper and it looks like they will soon get a Falcon stage back.Since the rocket engines that are used for ascent are used for propulsive landing you get them to use on landing basically for free. With parachutes or wings additional systems are added to the rocket that are just dead weight during the boost phase. Adding extra tanks and rockets only used for landing negates the principal advantage of propulsive landing.
My question was directed at the development of their orbital capable rocket - in its simplest description, why not design in a lesser thrust engine into the mix when figuring out propulsive needs. The lower thrust engine is part of the total thrust needed for the mission, but also is the engine used for landing. Duel fuel plus oxidizer probably eliminate a BE-3 and BE-4 pairing, but a methane version of a BE-3 (i.e. Low power BE-4 variant) with BE-4 engines could be interesting.
Some people here have commented that with LH2 being overkill for mere suborbital flights, the New Shepard vehicle is likely intended to be placed on top of an orbital launch stack - thereby making it into a reusable upper stage, something which Musk has already said would not be possible with Falcon-9. Will Bezos then be likely to achieve a fully reusable orbital launch stack before Musk does? Enquiring minds (and amazing peoples) wanna know.The new shepard is not designed to be used in that capacity. To be a recoverable S2 you need significantly more TPS than a first stage, regardless of anything else. The engine perhaps, but not the entire vehicle.
Presumably, the more of your stack is reusable, the more competitive your position will be on launch costs.
Does SpaceX see where Blue Origin are heading, and how are they reacting to this? I can't picture Elon just waking up one morning to learn that he's been disrupted.
The new shepard is not designed to be used in that capacity. To be a recoverable S2 you need significantly more TPS than a first stage, regardless of anything else. The engine perhaps, but not the entire vehicle.
1kg of mass on a first stage costs about 0.1kg of payload. 1kg of the second stage, costs 1kg of payload. And 1kg of propellant means 1.15kg of payload or so. Not only would you need TPS, you would need a way of landing. Which means fuel and propulsion. And normal US engines can't be used on atmosphere and are just too powerful for an empty stage.
The new shepard is not designed to be used in that capacity. To be a recoverable S2 you need significantly more TPS than a first stage, regardless of anything else. The engine perhaps, but not the entire vehicle.
What would better TPS for NS require, other than slathering on more ablative phenolic stuff? Would there be some extreme mass penalty, or could it be accomplished without adding a huge amount of weight? Or would it require some major redesign?
New Shepard is the wrong shape for an orbital stage (something like their biconic capsule but longer, reentering on the side, would be better). Also, it has really crappy mass ratio. It wouldn't even reach orbit if put on a typical first stage.
Whoever said New Shepard itself is a reusable upper stage design is wrong and can't do math.
Agreed. And at that point, the expendable upper stage would bare almost no resemblance whatsoever to New Shepard except the engine and propellant used.New Shepard is the wrong shape for an orbital stage (something like their biconic capsule but longer, reentering on the side, would be better). Also, it has really crappy mass ratio. It wouldn't even reach orbit if put on a typical first stage.
Whoever said New Shepard itself is a reusable upper stage design is wrong and can't do math.
It's an interesting approach they've taken, but in a real way NS is a pathfinder for both the the reusable LOX/Methane first stage of their orbital vehicles, and for the expendable LOX/LH2 stage for their orbital vehicle. The orbital LOX/LH2 upper stage will use a BE-3U engine instead of a BE-3 engine, and will ditch all of the reusability hardware, and likely will be further lightweighted from there. The first stage though might end up looking like a bigger, taller New Shepard that runs on LOX/Methane.
~Jon
Agreed. And at that point, the expendable upper stage would bare almost no resemblance whatsoever to New Shepard except the engine and propellant used.New Shepard is the wrong shape for an orbital stage (something like their biconic capsule but longer, reentering on the side, would be better). Also, it has really crappy mass ratio. It wouldn't even reach orbit if put on a typical first stage.
Whoever said New Shepard itself is a reusable upper stage design is wrong and can't do math.
It's an interesting approach they've taken, but in a real way NS is a pathfinder for both the the reusable LOX/Methane first stage of their orbital vehicles, and for the expendable LOX/LH2 stage for their orbital vehicle. ...
But yes, agreed that it is a pathfinder for a first stage.
My post was responding to the mistaken notion that New Shepard is basically the same thing as a reusable upper stage, which is clearly very far from the truth.
Some people here have commented that with LH2 being overkill for mere suborbital flights, the New Shepard vehicle is likely intended to be placed on top of an orbital launch stack - thereby making it into a reusable upper stage, something which Musk has already said would not be possible with Falcon-9. Will Bezos then be likely to achieve a fully reusable orbital launch stack before Musk does? Enquiring minds (and amazing peoples) wanna know.
Presumably, the more of your stack is reusable, the more competitive your position will be on launch costs.
Does SpaceX see where Blue Origin are heading, and how are they reacting to this? I can't picture Elon just waking up one morning to learn that he's been disrupted.
If you go by results, Blue is ahead. They just got results, something spacex has been trying to do for a year. Once spacex lands they will once again be ahead in the business of landing high-speed rocket stages. But right now if you look at results all they've done is crash rockets in to a barge/the sea in a somewhat out-of-control manner.
For now.
Elon has said that with the Raptor engine, the F9 2nd stage might become re-usable.
Elon has said that with the Raptor engine, the F9 2nd stage might become re-usable.
Do you have a link to that? I can't remember Elon ever mentioning a Raptor based upper stage.
Masten is ahead in the rapidly-reusable race. Miles ahead of almost everyone else, with hundreds of test flights.If you go by results, Blue is ahead. They just got results, something spacex has been trying to do for a year. Once spacex lands they will once again be ahead in the business of landing high-speed rocket stages. But right now if you look at results all they've done is crash rockets in to a barge/the sea in a somewhat out-of-control manner.
For now.
By your logic, Armadillo Aerospace was ahead of them all. They landed a "rocket" many years ago.
If you are going to point out that their contraptions are quite a ways away from becoming first stages of operational orbital LV, well... so is Bezos.
It's unfair to compare Blue and SpaceX. They're not even remotely similar to each other and Blue is developing in an environment SpaceX helped create, when SpaceX didn't have that luxury. If they grew over the same timescale, in the same environment with similar business models, you could compare them. It's like comparing Textron Aviation with Boeing. Two american aerospace companies, but vastly different in every other way.
These comparisons are fruitless and useless until they actually start eating from the same market share. Right now, they do not.
The odds are even for Masten and BO to orbital.There is at least an order of magnitude difference in both available human and financial resources between the two companies. I find these odds not likely
Blue Origin competitors:
1) Virgin Galactic (sub-orbital tourist flights)
2) Aerojet Rocketdyne (rocket engine for Vulcan)
Blue Origin is winning in both of their chosen markets.
I don't see why anyone compares BO to SX. They are not in any of the same markets.
AR (and its preceeding, acquired companies, has been selling and dominating the domestic LRE market for 50+ years. Should BO make an BE4 with ULA's help, the moment it is incorporated into the manufacturing of a Vulcan, then you can say that BO is the domestic market leader in large, high performance hydrocarbon engines, ahead of SX and AR. Which may change when SX does same with Raptor.
I think that Musk has been trying to fight off comparisons of the two companies and their launch vehicles.QuoteI don't see why anyone compares BO to SX. They are not in any of the same markets.
Well, because Musk and Bezos do. They are very competitive with each other, see twitter.
Wrong. To win at a market, you have to participate. That means you have to sell an engine.If a Vulcan falls in the forest, but no one is around, is this a market ?
AR (and its preceeding, acquired companies, has been selling and dominating the domestic LRE market for 50+ years. Should BO make an BE4 with ULA's help, the moment it is incorporated into the manufacturing of a Vulcan, then you can say that BO is the domestic market leader in large, high performance hydrocarbon engines, ahead of SX and AR. Which may change when SX does same with Raptor.
Wrong. To win at a market, you have to participate. That means you have to sell an engine.
QuoteI don't see why anyone compares BO to SX. They are not in any of the same markets.
Well, because Musk and Bezos do. They are very competitive with each other, see twitter.
Also, if SpaceX's strategy is the one of secrecy I suppose they must have had a change in strategy back in 2005 when they applied for the pintle injector tip patent.
(well, it's better than the TOTALLY IRRELEVANT one I put up just before)...
Also, if SpaceX's strategy is the one of secrecy I suppose they must have had a change in strategy back in 2005 when they applied for the pintle injector tip patent.
That was discussed before, IIRC speculation was that Tom Mueller wanted that patent because it was prior art he brought with him (from his garage where he was building rocket engines), and also to make sure it wasn't usable by others. I might be misremembering, I don't even have a clue where the threads might be.... But they haven't patented anything since, if I am not mistaken. It definitely is an interesting difference in strategy.
Bezos tried to patent one click ordering, I think BO probably has the patent happy approach in its genes... some critics say many of their patents won't stand up to any scrutiny.
Contrast that with Tesla who patent a lot of things but then license everything freely to grow the industry. Also contrast it with IBM who patents a huge number of things (many years we are number one in the world) but partly it's to protect and partly it is to be able to trade for patents needed.
There's probably an entire subthread here on IP strategies in general...
See this BI article where Musk expounds on patent strategies.
http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-patents-2012-11
See this Tesla blog post where they discuss why they give away all patents
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
See this Quora answer on why SpaceX and Tesla take opposite strategies... you might recognise some names
https://www.quora.com/Should-Elon-Musk-make-SpaceX-patents-and-trade-secrets-available-for-all-who-would-use-them-in-good-faith-as-he-did-with-the-Tesla-patents
NOTE: it should go without saying that I'm not an official IBM spokesperson, although I'm an employee, I'm just stating my own view of why IBM does what it does. If you want an official IBM position on anything, you should go through channels....
This is all getting interesting. What are we going to have in 5 years? A new Orbital/ATK rocket with solids derived from SLS booster, strap on solids for Vulcan, and a BO upper stage. Then we have Vulcan with strap on solids from ATK, engines from BO, and Centaur with an Orbital engine. Then we have SpaceX with Falcon Heavy coming on line, and possibly a Raptor upper stage. Everyone but SpaceX is selling to each other. I wonder if that will save money over time?
...inrelevent...
Edit. In 5 years BO may have their New Sheppard orbital vehicle with reusable first and second stage that may compete with these other ones.
@Lar & Space GhostNot quite clear on what you are trying to say. Could you clarify?
The reason for this topic:
form NASA Selects Orbital ATK to Begin Negotiations for Space in Iconic VAB (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40112.20)This is all getting interesting. What are we going to have in 5 years? A new Orbital/ATK rocket with solids derived from SLS booster, strap on solids for Vulcan, and a BO upper stage. Then we have Vulcan with strap on solids from ATK, engines from BO, and Centaur with an Orbital engine. Then we have SpaceX with Falcon Heavy coming on line, and possibly a Raptor upper stage. Everyone but SpaceX is selling to each other. I wonder if that will save money over time?
...inrelevent...
Edit. In 5 years BO may have their New Sheppard orbital vehicle with reusable first and second stage that may compete with these other ones.
It's unfair to compare Blue and SpaceX. They're not even remotely similar to each other and Blue is developing in an environment SpaceX helped create, when SpaceX didn't have that luxury.
It's unfair to compare Blue and SpaceX. They're not even remotely similar to each other and Blue is developing in an environment SpaceX helped create, when SpaceX didn't have that luxury.
SpaceX had the luxury of hundreds of millions of dollars of US government investment...
...and a NASA developed engine, which BO didn't.
BO had the choice of which route they chose. They did, in fact, compete for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, lost out on the bulk of the money, but did get a sizable amount for capsule abort capability, composite capsule, and especially BE-3 development.It's unfair to compare Blue and SpaceX. They're not even remotely similar to each other and Blue is developing in an environment SpaceX helped create, when SpaceX didn't have that luxury.
SpaceX had the luxury of hundreds of millions of dollars of US government investment and a NASA developed engine, which BO didn't.
BO did, in fact, use govt engines (off the shelf, BO didn't even make them) early on for their first test bed (for a concept for launch that they ultimately abandoned), so you are incorrect that they didn't have a govt engine. Engine was more govt (actually, military) than Merlin was.
BlueOrigin is more an engine development company now.
It's unfair to compare Blue and SpaceX. They're not even remotely similar to each other and Blue is developing in an environment SpaceX helped create, when SpaceX didn't have that luxury.
SpaceX had the luxury of hundreds of millions of dollars of US government investment...
SpaceX won a competitive contract to perform specified work on spacecraft development. That is not an "investment" - the U.S. Government does not own a stake in SpaceX. You can call it other things, but it's not an investment.
It is an investment in the sense that the US government has spent many hundreds of millions in tax payers money to enable a company to develop a capacity deemed in the national interest and of which the US government as so far been the primary beneficiary. Nothing wrong with that, but it is an input that BO hasn't had.
Yup, but I believe their initial concept was a jet-engine-based first stage, which you won't find in their Wikipedia article. My point still stands. Blue Origin is not a bunch of Randian anti-government libertarian bootstrapping purists (or if they are Randian, they're hypocritical).BO did, in fact, use govt engines (off the shelf, BO didn't even make them) early on for their first test bed (for a concept for launch that they ultimately abandoned), so you are incorrect that they didn't have a govt engine. Engine was more govt (actually, military) than Merlin was.
I believe the engines you are referring to were jet engines, used to for a controls testbed. All of their rocket engines have been developed in house.
Charon was tested in 2005, the Ars interview with Bezos from the factory tour has them abandoning non-rocket spaceflight options not long after company founding in 2000.Yup, but I believe their initial concept was a jet-engine-based first stage, which you won't find in their Wikipedia article. My point still stands. Blue Origin is not a bunch of Randian anti-government libertarian bootstrapping purists (or if they are Randian, they're hypocritical).BO did, in fact, use govt engines (off the shelf, BO didn't even make them) early on for their first test bed (for a concept for launch that they ultimately abandoned), so you are incorrect that they didn't have a govt engine. Engine was more govt (actually, military) than Merlin was.
I believe the engines you are referring to were jet engines, used to for a controls testbed. All of their rocket engines have been developed in house.
With my comment of BO being a engine development company now, I ment the following.
BO now has a workforce of about 5ta's00 people, I think more than 300 are spending their time developing engines. BO is expanding / hiring people. Those will most likely be occupied with stage development.
SpaceX has a much larger workforce. I think SpaceX engine development team also contains about 300 people. I don't think SpaceX will grow a lot more (in workforce size), BlueOrigin will grow in the coming five years.
In my oppinion on engine development BO has accomplished more then SpX. Engines are the most complicated parts of rockets, I expect BO to easily be able to design and produce light weight stages in the comming years. I'm wondering which launchers SpaceX will design with the Raptor engine.
I expect the dod to favor BO's orbital launcher or ULA Vulcan over Falcon 9FT because of lower launch loads. But that's my impression, and I could be wrong.
Blue philosophy to low cost: Medium performing versions of high performance architectures, reusability
SpaceX philosophy to low cost: High performing versions of low performance architectures with high commonality, reusability
Blue philosophy to development: Methodically develop technology until it is mature enough to build a stage of able to be reused the first [or second] time it flies. (Gradatim Ferociter)
SpaceX philosophy to development: build something as fast as you can, then iterate until you can get enough performance to try reuse, then trial and error until you figure out reuse.
SpaceX's approach was also out of necessity to get a revenue stream. Now that they have that, is their philosophy for Raptor and BFR closer to Blue Origin's?
Blue philosophy to low cost: Medium performing versions of high performance architectures, reusabilityDisagree. You're conflating "performance" with "Isp."
SpaceX philosophy to low cost: High performing versions of low performance architectures with high commonality, reusability
....
You could make that claim with Falcon 9 v1.0 with the ganged-together Merlin 1Cs and the heavy thrust structure, but NOT the high-performance v1.1 and /certainly/ not for the "full thrust" Falcon 9. Raptor and the vehicle it's designed for will put this structural efficiency to an even higher level.
this article might be relevant, since its talking about SX launch cost before and after reuse:
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/
Blue Origin's VBB rocket with methalox staged combustion, medium-large engines will probably have similar performance as F9 FT, but without being optimized.
I would add to that^, that Bezos is mass market serving, consumer oriented, demand driven Businessman. That's what he does. Musk, on the other hand, is an Engineer first and foremost, driven by vision and challenge, who creates markets and demand to enable technological advancement toward his goals.
It's not what one studies, but rather how one perceives the World. Obviously, that is only my take on those personalities and IMBW, but that is what I get from their public image and achievementsI would add to that^, that Bezos is mass market serving, consumer oriented, demand driven Businessman. That's what he does. Musk, on the other hand, is an Engineer first and foremost, driven by vision and challenge, who creates markets and demand to enable technological advancement toward his goals.
Hmm, one studied electrical engineering and CS, the other physics. I feel that the differences between the two you describe is not quite objective.
That's actually a very big difference. Electrical engineering and CS are highly abstract and somewhat specialized, you don't get a good understanding about how the physical world actually works. Physics gives you a profound trunk of context on which to hang all the knowledge of all the physical sciences and engineering disciplines. The EEs I tutored always hated to use units properly, for instance, even though the unit (along with the order of magnitude) is actually much, much more important than the precise number... Physics gives you a big-picture context that perfectly suits Musk's work at Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City, the Hyperloop, etc. With a firm grasp of physics, you can drill down to just about any engineering problem in any field and get a first-order handle on the main issues involved. Physics is Musk's secret to being able to have an insight able to drill down to any technical aspect of any part of SpaceX, almost to a fractal degree.I would add to that^, that Bezos is mass market serving, consumer oriented, demand driven Businessman. That's what he does. Musk, on the other hand, is an Engineer first and foremost, driven by vision and challenge, who creates markets and demand to enable technological advancement toward his goals.
Hmm, one studied electrical engineering and CS, the other physics. I feel that the differences between the two you describe is not quite objective.
Studying physics most certainly determines how one is able to perceive the world.It's not what one studies, but rather how one perceives the World....I would add to that^, that Bezos is mass market serving, consumer oriented, demand driven Businessman. That's what he does. Musk, on the other hand, is an Engineer first and foremost, driven by vision and challenge, who creates markets and demand to enable technological advancement toward his goals.
Hmm, one studied electrical engineering and CS, the other physics. I feel that the differences between the two you describe is not quite objective.
I'm pretty sure your saying the same thing I was saying. I would argue the architecture or F9 has not changed. Your statement",....No, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with the claim that kerolox is fundamentally "medium-performing" vs hydrolox.
I'm pretty sure your saying the same thing I was saying. I would argue the architecture or F9 has not changed. Your statement",....No, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with the claim that kerolox is fundamentally "medium-performing" vs hydrolox.
Again, I elevate structural efficiency to at least as high as Isp. Anyone can make a hydrolox engine. Not everyone can perfect high structural efficiency to the level that SpaceX has. That's fundamentally in their architecture.
Did SpX employees use safety harnesses when they work hights?)
In my oppinion Merlin started as a low performance version of a low tech design (on falcon 1).
With falcon 9v1.0 they moved to a medium performanace medium tech (merlin C). Then the important intermediate step F9v1.1 (high mid). Now with F9FT they have a very high performance version of a medium (combustion cycle) engine. (Possibly to high performance).
With Raptor it looks like SpaceX is developing a high performance high tech engine.
SpaceX has optimised the merlin engine the past decade.
They also are incrementaly improving there launch system and capsule.
SpX started with a cheap small launch vehicle (falcon 1). After winning the COTS contract, they moved to a cheap EELV. They terminated F1 after the F9 became operational.
SpaceX uses a lot of very toxic propallents (draco), and igniter fluids).
I have the impresion BlueOrigin has chosen for greener alternatives. I think they use HTP+catalist bipropalent igniters. They have chosen to develop BE-2 HTP-cathalist & RP-1, a green hypergolic engine. The LOXLH2 BE-3 has only water as emmision. BE-4 LOxLCH4 will emit CO2, water and possibly a small bit of shoot. The fuel rich buring merlins emit loads shoot.
Blue missed a large cots contract. Otherwisere they might possibly have developed a HTP RP-1 EELV.
They decided to launch suborbital first. With the aim to launch tourists later. They want to launch withut greenhouse gas emmisions, so BE-3 became LOxLH2, with is very usefull for high performance upperstage. (I think new shepard is as complex as Falcon1 and the grasshopper s combined.)
After goeing suborbital BO also wants orbital. They are developing BE-4 the medium performance high technology cycle LOxLCH4 engine. BO's orbital launcher will most likely also start expenddable, but it will be medium performance high tech. Compare this to Falcon 9 v1.0.
I hope BlueOrigin choses to build a decent landing ship (not a DPS submergeble barge), and decent ground handling equipment.
(Did I saw it correctly that a SpX employe worked on top of the stage. Went out of the manbucket of the high reacher. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED / VERY DANGEROUS. In europe when you work with a high reacher, you have to stay inside the basket. And you have to ware a safety harness that is fixed with the basket. Did SpX employees use safety harnesses when they work hights?)
That's actually a very big difference. Electrical engineering and CS are highly abstract and somewhat specialized, you don't get a good understanding about how the physical world actually works. Physics gives you a profound trunk of context on which to hang all the knowledge of all the physical sciences and engineering disciplines. The EEs I tutored always hated to use units properly, for instance, even though the unit (along with the order of magnitude) is actually much, much more important than the precise number... Physics gives you a big-picture context that perfectly suits Musk's work at Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City, the Hyperloop, etc. With a firm grasp of physics, you can drill down to just about any engineering problem in any field and get a first-order handle on the main issues involved. Physics is Musk's secret to being able to have an insight able to drill down to any technical aspect of any part of SpaceX, almost to a fractal degree.I would add to that^, that Bezos is mass market serving, consumer oriented, demand driven Businessman. That's what he does. Musk, on the other hand, is an Engineer first and foremost, driven by vision and challenge, who creates markets and demand to enable technological advancement toward his goals.
Hmm, one studied electrical engineering and CS, the other physics. I feel that the differences between the two you describe is not quite objective.
Studying physics most certainly determines how one is able to perceive the world.It's not what one studies, but rather how one perceives the World....I would add to that^, that Bezos is mass market serving, consumer oriented, demand driven Businessman. That's what he does. Musk, on the other hand, is an Engineer first and foremost, driven by vision and challenge, who creates markets and demand to enable technological advancement toward his goals.
Hmm, one studied electrical engineering and CS, the other physics. I feel that the differences between the two you describe is not quite objective.
Then you misunderstand what an effective physics education entails. It's not just a topic taught in schools but a whole way of thinking about the world (okay, Universe). There is actually a recent article about the topic, entitled "Why Physics Is Not a Discipline." http://goo.gl/rjEPCpAny attempt to control perception/cognition is a discipline by definition, unless you are going to claim it is a matter of pure chance that the word 'discipline' had been arbitrary assigned to mean 'area of study'. That said, I am in full agreement with that article you linked.
It's unfair to compare Blue and SpaceX. They're not even remotely similar to each other and Blue is developing in an environment SpaceX helped create, when SpaceX didn't have that luxury.
SpaceX had the luxury of hundreds of millions of dollars of US government investment and a NASA developed engine, which BO didn't.
It bothers me when people CONTINUE to claim New Shephard is a reusable upper stage. No. It's a pathfinder for the tech for a reusable first stage and an EXPENDABLE upper stage. A reusable upper stage is a WHOLE 'nother ball game, and do not underestimate the difficulty. First stage orbital reuse is a lot harder than suborbital booster reuse, and SECOND stage orbital use is a huge step beyond first stage orbital reuse.
Please stop this.
Both are very hard when you try to do them simultaneously (sorry).
A capsule or even a glider aren't that hard to build to survive reentry. But mass fraction is terrible, and mass fraction is essential for an upper stage in order to get anything useful to orbit. A typical upper stage should be capable of 7km/s or so with good payload. Many upper stages get 9.5km/s (for instance, Delta IV Heavy upper stage) with a small payload (F9 upper stage gets >10km/s).
Getting good mass fraction while also having all that TPS and recovery systems is very difficult. New Shephard is nowhere close to that, probably isn't even reentering the right end.
They both have the right approach given their goals.
Blue's goal seems to be to "Have millions of people living in a working in space." So they are heavily focused on lower the cost of HSF. Suborbital is the only large enough market to be able to have enough people fly to realize cost savings. Then once they have lowered the cost with suborbital, they can start doing orbital tourism, and because of the lower costs due to the suborbital market maturing, there will be a big enough market to be able to mature and lower the cost yet again. Launching payloads will not be that effective since humans make the problem 2X more complex.
Musk wants to go to Mars. (note how I say Musk not Spacex-I have no guarantee that all of Spacex's owners share that passion) To do this mostly he needs to be able to launch tons of cargo cheaply. So he is working on that problem first. He won't need to launch nearly as many people to achieve his goal, but will need more energetic launches. So he has gone down the path of make it big first, then put people on it. Makes total sense.
Personally, I think they must secretly be in cahoots, because they way things are going Blue is working on solving one half of the puzzle while Spacex is working on the other half. (of course, there is some overlap, as seen yesterday) Then in 10-15 years when they get to the really tough parts that are no longer overlapping they will be in the perfect position to help each other out.
Cahoots, well, that may be an interesting possibility. BFR really opens up possibilities. What if there are multiple BFR's on the horizon?
I suspect Blue will eventually build a BFR. It won't be for many years though. As for the dragon capsule, it is reusable, it's just not contracted for that I believe. They have done reusabillity testing on some of them.
I suspect Blue will eventually build a BFR. It won't be for many years though. As for the dragon capsule, it is reusable, it's just not contracted for that I believe. They have done reusabillity testing on some of them.
You think? I think Blue will start developing its own FalconHeavy as soon as its first orbital rocket is working. Their first orbital rocket will likely be in the F9R class - it'll be reusable from the start, and it will have comparable lift capacity as Falcon9. Then after Blue Heavy is working, then they'll go for their own SuperHeavy comparable to MCT.
As a businessman, Bezos knows the value of economies of scale, and while he won't be fixated on Mars in particular, I think he'll want a SuperHeavy transport to the Moon. He keeps talking about building the "basic infrastructure", analogous to pre-existing phone and fiber lines which were the backbone for his internet business.
To build heavy-duty infrastructure, you want very heavy lift capacity. And that then sets the scene for all those other small businesses to access the infrastructure and make use of it, to allow a space economy, which is what Bezos wants.
I wonder whether if Blue is thinking in terms of multi-core modularity for scalability, a la Angara, or UMLV, or FalconHeavy.
You either go with heavy lift launchers or reusable launchers. Don't need both for space infrastructure. You only do both in one launcher if you want to plop a city on Mars.
Also according the NSF tea readers. The first Blue orbital capable launcher will be more likely to be in the Delta II class.
You either go with heavy lift launchers or reusable launchers. Don't need both for space infrastructure. You only do both in one launcher if you want to plop a city on Mars.
Also according the NSF tea readers. The first Blue orbital capable launcher will be more likely to be in the Delta II class.
I suspect Blue will eventually build a BFR. It won't be for many years though. As for the dragon capsule, it is reusable, it's just not contracted for that I believe. They have done reusabillity testing on some of them.
You think? I think Blue will start developing its own FalconHeavy as soon as its first orbital rocket is working. Their first orbital rocket will likely be in the F9R class - it'll be reusable from the start, and it will have comparable lift capacity as Falcon9. Then after Blue Heavy is working, then they'll go for their own SuperHeavy comparable to MCT.
As a businessman, Bezos knows the value of economies of scale, and while he won't be fixated on Mars in particular, I think he'll want a SuperHeavy transport to the Moon. He keeps talking about building the "basic infrastructure", analogous to pre-existing phone and fiber lines which were the backbone for his internet business.
To build heavy-duty infrastructure, you want very heavy lift capacity. And that then sets the scene for all those other small businesses to access the infrastructure and make use of it, to allow a space economy, which is what Bezos wants.
I wonder whether if Blue is thinking in terms of multi-core modularity for scalability, a la Angara, or UMLV, or FalconHeavy.
You either go with heavy lift launchers or reusable launchers. Don't need both for space infrastructure. You only do both in one launcher if you want to plop a city on Mars.
Also according the NSF tea readers. The first Blue orbital capable launcher will be more likely to be in the Delta II class.
IMHO Jon is right. A F9R class vehicle that deliver 6-7 passengers to LEO for 5-$10m a seat should be enough to create a new market. The same RLV could also be used for supplying a fuel depot, this would enable BLEO HSF eg moon.
As market develops introduce reusable US and larger RLVs that can lower launch costs even more.
IMHO Jon is right. A F9R class vehicle that deliver 6-7 passengers to LEO for 5-$10m a seat should be enough to create a new market. The same RLV could also be used for supplying a fuel depot, this would enable BLEO HSF eg moon.
As market develops introduce reusable US and larger RLVs that can lower launch costs even more.
With a full RLV, I don't think you need an F9R class vehicle to deliver 6-7 people to LEO...
~Jon
May need to factor in reusable US in future. So 20t expendable, 10t fully reusable.IMHO Jon is right. A F9R class vehicle that deliver 6-7 passengers to LEO for 5-$10m a seat should be enough to create a new market. The same RLV could also be used for supplying a fuel depot, this would enable BLEO HSF eg moon.
As market develops introduce reusable US and larger RLVs that can lower launch costs even more.
With a full RLV, I don't think you need an F9R class vehicle to deliver 6-7 people to LEO...
~Jon
No, you likely need something bigger. :) Unless you think 'Blue' is sitting on a real propulsion breakthrough that will allow a fully reusable launch vehicle to deliver ~10 mt to LEO (what you'll need for a 6-7 people spacecraft) with a LV that is smaller than F9R.
No, you likely need something bigger. :) Unless you think 'Blue' is sitting on a real propulsion breakthrough that will allow a fully reusable launch vehicle to deliver ~10 mt to LEO (what you'll need for a 6-7 people spacecraft) with a LV that is smaller than F9R.
THIS.No, you likely need something bigger. :) Unless you think 'Blue' is sitting on a real propulsion breakthrough that will allow a fully reusable launch vehicle to deliver ~10 mt to LEO (what you'll need for a 6-7 people spacecraft) with a LV that is smaller than F9R.
I guess my point is that most of the mass in a traditional crewed spacecraft are in the very things you need to make an RLV work in the first place. If you design a crewed RLV right, my guess is you can get the mass per person much lower than 1.5mT each...
~Jon
I should also point out though, that the approach Blue Origin has taken to-date has been more of a traditional capsule with launch escape system. The capsule on New Shepard seats 6 and weighs ~8000lb, though would likely be heavier for an orbital version. I think we're way too early in the age of the reusable space vehicles for most of the big players to have really thought through how to make passenger carrying full RLVs work best.It also has a bunch of these HUGE windows. You probably have nearly a ton of mass in those alone, with another ton in reinforcement for the window opening and parasitic mass for all that. Plus more volume than strictly required (6 passengers must have room to float around to look out the windows, not packed in like Cattle-class).
~Jon
After watching SX just recover a first stage from a GTO launch, I would have to say that their strategy is rock solid.
The first two successful landings were LEO and we were all wondering if there was even enough fuel to make a landing after GTO launch. Question answered.
If I were at BO, ULA or Arianespace, I would consider swallowing my pride and going into copycat mode.
SpaceX got started nearly 15 years ago, I remember when they were one of the pages listed on the Xprize entries. Blue Origin has really only been around half as long, from what I can remember.Blue Origin predate SpaceX by over a year, they were just much less public for their early existence.
And slower.SpaceX got started nearly 15 years ago, I remember when they were one of the pages listed on the Xprize entries. Blue Origin has really only been around half as long, from what I can remember.Blue Origin predate SpaceX by over a year, they were just much less public for their early existence.
And slower.SpaceX got started nearly 15 years ago, I remember when they were one of the pages listed on the Xprize entries. Blue Origin has really only been around half as long, from what I can remember.Blue Origin predate SpaceX by over a year, they were just much less public for their early existence.
And slower.
That should help pay for a orbital LV and its facilities.And slower.SpaceX got started nearly 15 years ago, I remember when they were one of the pages listed on the Xprize entries. Blue Origin has really only been around half as long, from what I can remember.Blue Origin predate SpaceX by over a year, they were just much less public for their early existence.
They've taken a while to hit their stride, but their progress seems to be accelerating. And with Bezos cashing in $671M worth of Amazon stock this week, that may potentially accelerate even further (assuming that Blue is one of the reasons for him selling those shares)...
~Jon
And slower.SpaceX got started nearly 15 years ago, I remember when they were one of the pages listed on the Xprize entries. Blue Origin has really only been around half as long, from what I can remember.Blue Origin predate SpaceX by over a year, they were just much less public for their early existence.
They've taken a while to hit their stride, but their progress seems to be accelerating. And with Bezos cashing in $671M worth of Amazon stock this week, that may potentially accelerate even further (assuming that Blue is one of the reasons for him selling those shares)...
And slower.SpaceX got started nearly 15 years ago, I remember when they were one of the pages listed on the Xprize entries. Blue Origin has really only been around half as long, from what I can remember.Blue Origin predate SpaceX by over a year, they were just much less public for their early existence.
[...]
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
- Ed Kyle
In fact, the empirical evidence is opposite your claims. Rockets with hydrogen upper stages are known for being expensive (Atlas, Delta, H-II, Ariane). The low cost rockets (Falcon, Soyuz, Proton) do not use hydrogen in the upper stages.
Arianespace will do it using only two liquid engines and solid boosters. H3 will follow a similar approach.
Not sure why you think having multiple engine designs is a good thing. Sure it may wring out the last percentage of "efficiency", but the #1 goal should be cost, which is the efficiency of the entire system. And multiple engine designs, while maybe individually more efficient, are a drag on overall costs compared to a single engine type system like Falcon Heavy.
Falcon 9 and Heavy are basically just variations of one rocket engine using a single propellant combo and a single stage type. That incredibly streamlines manufacturing, testing, and ground support equipment.
Add another propellant combination, especially hydrolox, and you need a new type of rocket stage with different manufacturing considerations (significantly different temperatures changes what the optimal materials are, hydrogen embrittlement becomes a concern, insulation becomes very important whether foam or MLI, etc), a totally new engine that needs to be tested from scratch, new ground support equipment, different training, for hydrogen you have to be really careful about leaks and even condensing out oxygen from the air onto your pipes and stuff, etc.
Basically, you have double as much equipment. Maybe you can get double the payload to GTO for the same lift-off mass, but you might be just better off with another stage of the same propellant combo and same engine and stage type, etc... Basically, Falcon Heavy. Which also has the bonus of getting MUCH more payload to LEO.
The "empirical evidence" makes it clear: Blue Origin should abandon the BE-3 and the three-stage version of New Glenn to reduce operational costs and be more competitive.I don't think the analysis is quite so black and white for New Glenn.
I'm not so sure it's so clear (even if you cited me for part of your argument). New Glenn is an interesting concept with a different set of trades. Blue is using two more cryogenic propellants, yes, and up to three stages, BUT, they aren't pushing the structures NEARLY as hard as SpaceX is. And single-stick may offer some advantages over the clustering approach.[...]
BE-4 and BE-3 both have higher efficiency than Merlin. This will provide more payload, especially to deep space, for the same rocket mass. That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money. The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.
- Ed Kyle
In fact, the empirical evidence is opposite your claims. Rockets with hydrogen upper stages are known for being expensive (Atlas, Delta, H-II, Ariane). The low cost rockets (Falcon, Soyuz, Proton) do not use hydrogen in the upper stages.Arianespace will do it using only two liquid engines and solid boosters. H3 will follow a similar approach.
Not sure why you think having multiple engine designs is a good thing. Sure it may wring out the last percentage of "efficiency", but the #1 goal should be cost, which is the efficiency of the entire system. And multiple engine designs, while maybe individually more efficient, are a drag on overall costs compared to a single engine type system like Falcon Heavy.Falcon 9 and Heavy are basically just variations of one rocket engine using a single propellant combo and a single stage type. That incredibly streamlines manufacturing, testing, and ground support equipment.
Add another propellant combination, especially hydrolox, and you need a new type of rocket stage with different manufacturing considerations (significantly different temperatures changes what the optimal materials are, hydrogen embrittlement becomes a concern, insulation becomes very important whether foam or MLI, etc), a totally new engine that needs to be tested from scratch, new ground support equipment, different training, for hydrogen you have to be really careful about leaks and even condensing out oxygen from the air onto your pipes and stuff, etc.
Basically, you have double as much equipment. Maybe you can get double the payload to GTO for the same lift-off mass, but you might be just better off with another stage of the same propellant combo and same engine and stage type, etc... Basically, Falcon Heavy. Which also has the bonus of getting MUCH more payload to LEO.
The "empirical evidence" makes it clear: Blue Origin should abandon the BE-3 and the three-stage version of New Glenn to reduce operational costs and be more competitive. The two-stage version using common BE-4 methalox engines is good enough, they don't need a deep cryogenic fuel that will only add to complexity and cost!
Optimize for cost, not performance!
I'm not so sure it's so clear (even if you cited me for part of your argument). New Glenn is an interesting concept with a different set of trades. Blue is using two more cryogenic propellants, yes, and up to three stages, BUT, they aren't pushing the structures NEARLY as hard as SpaceX is. And single-stick may offer some advantages over the clustering approach.
And single-stick may offer some advantages over the clustering approach.
You'd say that. But you'd also say that a rocket with only first-stage reusability would require a minimum of 6-8 launches/year to be economically viable (apparently based on a Lockheed Martin study), while a rocket with full reusability would require at least 40 launches. (I'm assuming the latter case is because recovery systems on a second stage eat into payload capacity on a 1:1 basis, and have to endure additional stresses, compared to reuse of a first stage. So the flight rate has to be higher to make up for the increased complexity of the system.)
If New Glenn only reused the first stage, the expendable second stage would be oversized and overpriced for most commercial payloads, unless they launch multiple payloads with the excess capacity, like what notsorandom said and what Arianespace did in the early days of Ariane 5. But they'd need to have at least 12 customers (at least 6 flights * at least 2 satellites, or perhaps more) ready every year.
If it was fully reusable, it would require launch rates of at least half this year's total number of orbital launch attempts. Launching commercial payloads one at a time might help in this case.
The "build it and they will come" strategy, it's very risky. ITS is that but on a bigger scale. I'm hoping both of them work, though.
Did either Blue Origin or SpaceX ever consider Roosevelt Roads as a launch site? With all the empty water in most Easterly directions it would allow access to almost any orbit from a launch very close to the Equator. It has port facilities and fuel and rail and highway access. Also PR is pretty hurt economically and could use the biz and is part of the USA.SpaceX apparently considered the area, but passed in favor of Boca Chica, Texas. Anyone contemplating operating a noisy high-tech venture in the area of a former military installation on Puerto Rico would have to contemplate the history of something called "the Vieques effect".
I think it's time to get this thread back to New Glenn.
More general Blue Origin vs SpaceX discussion can go to this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38883.0).
Not quite yet, I want to make one more point...New Glenn - "Too big too fast, needs a much more gradual approach."
BE-4 - "Too lame, needs much more performance."
New Glenn, after the first F9 reuse. - "Too late. What difference does it make?"
I find it funny too. SpaceX faced vast headwind from other industry, saying that their plan cant work and even if it does technologically, isnt economically viable. Now we get the same sort of attitude towards NG, from the point of view of SpaceX defenders. I find that rather ironic.
To me, BO looks like it has similar goals like SpaceX, but is going in a totally different direction about them, even if the tools they use like engine cluster and VTVL are similar. Re-usability will work for both of them, doesn't matter who has done it first. Also, if SpaceX can make the second stage reusable on FH, so can Blue with the second stage on NG.
Both want to support a space faring civilization. BO Moon centered, SpaceX Mars centered. Both grab launch contracts on the way.. because thats how they get experience and money. That isn't to say that BO will not send something to Mars or that SpaceX will not service Moon targets. Its just the center is different, the means are similar and the effect on us Earthlings is just great. Maybe the Moon is better than Mars. Maybe Mars is better than the Moon. But you know whats better than either: Both!
I brought the conversation here, since I think I sparked it by saying that by all rights, NG should be "a better rocket" than F9/FH.We don't know too much about Blue Origin's long term plans for NG yet. Brett Alexander (Director of Business Development & Strategy at Blue Origin) indicated that NG is primarily a human spaceflight vehicle and that normal commercial satellite launch is a more secondary consideration (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lftY2-NKX0E&feature=youtu.be&t=5h24m48s). If they are aiming for different markets, it would make sense for NG's operational requirements to be different than F9/H's.
I stand by that statement, but it is only a small part of the picture.
NG will be years late. BO has been a follower, but certainly not a fast one.
NG is large. For a rapidly fully reusable rocket, large is not a disadvantage (since costs are "mostly fuel") and so I take that as an advantage.
However, in order to be "rapidly and fully reusable", NG needs a large market. F9/H have the BFC. NG will try for oneWeb's market, but that's a) smaller, b) IMO, still very much in doubt, and c) outside of Bezos' control.
If no market, then no rapid reuse. If no rapid reuse, NG's size becomes a liability.
So, from a Blue Origin perspective, we're building [the] New Glenn launch vehicle. We firmly believe you have to grow the market and that market is human spaceflight. We've designed a launch vehicle that is larger than the Delta IV Heavy, it is a heavy launch vehicle and it is primarily aimed towards the human spaceflight market, which does not exist. We have the luxury of doing that, based on our founder and his good fortune. But we're not, at the same time, assuming that that vehicle won't be usable for other things or for normal commercial satellite launch, which we have a couple of contracts for commercial satellite launches on that.Note: emphasis mine.
I brought the conversation here, since I think I sparked it by saying that by all rights, NG should be "a better rocket" than F9/FH.We don't know too much about Blue Origin's long term plans for NG yet. Brett Alexander (Director of Business Development & Strategy at Blue Origin) indicated that NG is primarily a human spaceflight vehicle and that normal commercial satellite launch is a more secondary consideration (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lftY2-NKX0E&feature=youtu.be&t=5h24m48s). If they are aiming for different markets, it would make sense for NG's operational requirements to be different than F9/H's.
I stand by that statement, but it is only a small part of the picture.
NG will be years late. BO has been a follower, but certainly not a fast one.
NG is large. For a rapidly fully reusable rocket, large is not a disadvantage (since costs are "mostly fuel") and so I take that as an advantage.
However, in order to be "rapidly and fully reusable", NG needs a large market. F9/H have the BFC. NG will try for oneWeb's market, but that's a) smaller, b) IMO, still very much in doubt, and c) outside of Bezos' control.
If no market, then no rapid reuse. If no rapid reuse, NG's size becomes a liability.Quote from: Brett AlexanderSo, from a Blue Origin perspective, we're building [the] New Glenn launch vehicle. We firmly believe you have to grow the market and that market is human spaceflight. We've designed a launch vehicle that is larger than the Delta IV Heavy, it is a heavy launch vehicle and it is primarily aimed towards the human spaceflight market, which does not exist. We have the luxury of doing that, based on our founder and his good fortune. But we're not, at the same time, assuming that that vehicle won't be usable for other things or for normal commercial satellite launch, which we have a couple of contracts for commercial satellite launches on that.Note: emphasis mine.
Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
SX is a business with 6000+ employees. Its operating on at least a breakevan basis and funding all development from income. It has launched many payloads to LEO,GTO etc. It has serviced ISS and returned ISS payloads to earth. It has recovered a number of boosters used reused one and has recovered its first fairing. this year it due to test the worlds heaviest lift rocket and put humans into orbit...something only done by 3 nations. It has a manifest of 70 launches worth $10 billion +. Its income could be as high as $4 billion this year.
BO has 1200 employees has never launched anything to orbit and has virtually zero income as yet. BO does have the backing of the worlds second richest man but the drain on even his finances must be significant. How much dilution of his interest in AMZN is he prepared to take, the company generates no dividends so he has to sell stock to finance BO. Evan when NG is ready to fly he will be competing against a flight proven reusable system which can be turned around in 24hrs, i doubt NG will be able to match this on day one or potentially for some time as they learn the business.
Bezos problem is hes trying to catch a moving target and a target with $4-$5 billion in revenues much of that revenue is being plowed back into spacex product producing more advanced solutions. Soon after NG is due to become operational ITS is due with 300 tonnes reusable payload to LEO reluanchable within 24hrs...If u are trying to build infrastructure in space NG vs SX suite of well proven rockets or BFR 300 ton lift capability....game over before it begins.
BO is a vanity project, bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
All this is without taking into account the massive revenue which would be derived by SX constellation. SX has momentum and now has size and it not like old space, sitting on 40 yr old tech waiting for next Gov project to milk.
Too early to count Blue Origin out. Once they posts prices then we will know.
They said that, I know, but have said very little about that HSF market.Jeff Bezos has made it pretty clear that Blue Origin has grand plans on the scale of SpaceX's. Unfortunately, I suspect that any public announcements of what exactly those plans might entail will likely wait until New Glenn is much closer to flight.
Tourism? Are they banking on Bigelow and LEO "space hotels"? SpaceX-like round the moon trips?
That can be part of the plan, but can't be all of it, I don't think.
And the rest is even vaguer.
Too early to count Blue Origin out. Once they posts prices then we will know.
It is also too early to say SX has the market. One more anomaly that delays them several months could give all the other players a chance to win 'wait weary" customers over to their manifests.
Not that is news to either company.
I think SpaceX's business approach was to make money ASAP, because even though Musk is a billionaire, he did have limited amount to invest. Thus having a booster to launch satellites.
Bezo's is spending his own money, and can go at his own pace. He might make money on moon mining and infrastructure. He also is probably hoping to get NASA involved in some phase of this infrastructure with SLS launches. He would get the first contracts for supplies, and eventually in space manufacturing of things space related using moon materials.
Don't know which will be better in the long run, but SpaceX is making money.
Too early to count Blue Origin out. Once they posts prices then we will know.
For the commercial marketplace they want redundant service providers - they don't want to depend on a monopoly, no matter how benign it might be. So Blue Origin is poised to be the second reusable rocket provider, which means they are well position for the long term to be the "other guys" that commercial customers look at.
What we also don't know about is how reusable rockets will expand the space payload market. It is thought that it will, but how and when is unknown. But I think Blue Origin is well positioned to be a player in an expanded market.
Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
SX is a business with 6000+ employees. Its operating on at least a breakevan basis and funding all development from income. It has launched many payloads to LEO,GTO etc. It has serviced ISS and returned ISS payloads to earth. It has recovered a number of boosters used reused one and has recovered its first fairing. this year it due to test the worlds heaviest lift rocket and put humans into orbit...something only done by 3 nations. It has a manifest of 70 launches worth $10 billion +. Its income could be as high as $4 billion this year.
BO has 1200 employees has never launched anything to orbit and has virtually zero income as yet. BO does have the backing of the worlds second richest man but the drain on even his finances must be significant. How much dilution of his interest in AMZN is he prepared to take, the company generates no dividends so he has to sell stock to finance BO. Evan when NG is ready to fly he will be competing against a flight proven reusable system which can be turned around in 24hrs, i doubt NG will be able to match this on day one or potentially for some time as they learn the business.
Bezos problem is hes trying to catch a moving target and a target with $4-$5 billion in revenues much of that revenue is being plowed back into spacex product producing more advanced solutions. Soon after NG is due to become operational ITS is due with 300 tonnes reusable payload to LEO reluanchable within 24hrs...If u are trying to build infrastructure in space NG vs SX suite of well proven rockets or BFR 300 ton lift capability....game over before it begins.
BO is a vanity project, bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
All this is without taking into account the massive revenue which would be derived by SX constellation. SX has momentum and now has size and it not like old space, sitting on 40 yr old tech waiting for next Gov project to milk.
They have differing objectives so comparing them in light of the original question is akin to asking if an FA18 will ever be a popular form of mass transit.
Musk has done wonders and is quite open. Bezos is much less so
SpaceX is doing well right now, very well. A very long time ago Ford had the automobile market sewn up. Now they have significant competition and it's arguably a better situation.
Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
SX is a business with 6000+ employees. Its operating on at least a breakevan basis and funding all development from income. It has launched many payloads to LEO,GTO etc. It has serviced ISS and returned ISS payloads to earth. It has recovered a number of boosters used reused one and has recovered its first fairing. this year it due to test the worlds heaviest lift rocket and put humans into orbit...something only done by 3 nations. It has a manifest of 70 launches worth $10 billion +. Its income could be as high as $4 billion this year.
BO has 1200 employees has never launched anything to orbit and has virtually zero income as yet. BO does have the backing of the worlds second richest man but the drain on even his finances must be significant. How much dilution of his interest in AMZN is he prepared to take, the company generates no dividends so he has to sell stock to finance BO. Evan when NG is ready to fly he will be competing against a flight proven reusable system which can be turned around in 24hrs, i doubt NG will be able to match this on day one or potentially for some time as they learn the business.
Bezos problem is hes trying to catch a moving target and a target with $4-$5 billion in revenues much of that revenue is being plowed back into spacex product producing more advanced solutions. Soon after NG is due to become operational ITS is due with 300 tonnes reusable payload to LEO reluanchable within 24hrs...If u are trying to build infrastructure in space NG vs SX suite of well proven rockets or BFR 300 ton lift capability....game over before it begins.
BO is a vanity project, bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
All this is without taking into account the massive revenue which would be derived by SX constellation. SX has momentum and now has size and it not like old space, sitting on 40 yr old tech waiting for next Gov project to milk.
Agree. in particular, "Bezos problem is hes trying to catch a moving target and a target with $4-$5 billion in revenues" ... um, Amazon has brought down much bigger fish than that. Blue has fast-follower in its genetic makeup, it can't possibly NOT have it with Jeff at the helm.
...
I call it a vanity project because if u consider the case above nobody could write a business case which would get support from investors for the project Bezos is undertaking, far to many leaps of faith required. Maybe Bezos will succeed but if you read in detail what I have written above, none of it is untrue. Bezos is behind in almost every way and Musk is charging. For some reason people seem to believe that Bezos will be able to build NG and in some way be competitive without going through the growing pains SX had to. That's seems extremely unlikely to me. BO rocket is probably take awhile to become reusable for orbital flights meanwhile Musk will not stand still waiting for him to get his act together.
Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
SX is a business with 6000+ employees. Its operating on at least a breakevan basis and funding all development from income. It has launched many payloads to LEO,GTO etc. It has serviced ISS and returned ISS payloads to earth. It has recovered a number of boosters used reused one and has recovered its first fairing. this year it due to test the worlds heaviest lift rocket and put humans into orbit...something only done by 3 nations. It has a manifest of 70 launches worth $10 billion +. Its income could be as high as $4 billion this year.
BO has 1200 employees has never launched anything to orbit and has virtually zero income as yet. BO does have the backing of the worlds second richest man but the drain on even his finances must be significant. How much dilution of his interest in AMZN is he prepared to take, the company generates no dividends so he has to sell stock to finance BO. Evan when NG is ready to fly he will be competing against a flight proven reusable system which can be turned around in 24hrs, i doubt NG will be able to match this on day one or potentially for some time as they learn the business.
Bezos problem is hes trying to catch a moving target and a target with $4-$5 billion in revenues much of that revenue is being plowed back into spacex product producing more advanced solutions. Soon after NG is due to become operational ITS is due with 300 tonnes reusable payload to LEO reluanchable within 24hrs...If u are trying to build infrastructure in space NG vs SX suite of well proven rockets or BFR 300 ton lift capability....game over before it begins.
BO is a vanity project, Bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
All this is without taking into account the massive revenue which would be derived by SX constellation. SX has momentum and now has size and it not like old space, sitting on 40 yr old tech waiting for next Gov project to milk.
My prediction: Whoever loses people has the real problem.
That is true for everyone SpaceX, Blue Origin, Starliner, SLS, ...
Both Bezos and Musk sell their vision to the public. Abstract risks are easy to ignore, tangible ones not so much. Who wants to go to space if there is a real chance, as seen on TV, to not to even get there?
Does not that matter much if the goal is a tourist hop or Mars. Tourists want to come back, colonists want to arrive.
Exactly. Bezos first real jobs were on Wallstreet. He knows how money works.Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
...
BO is a vanity project, Bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
..
I keep seeing this assumption that Bezos has to sell stock to generate cash for Blue Origin, which I think is a complete misunderstanding of his wealth. He would be foolish if he hadn't long ago started diversifying his holdings. As Bezos Expeditions, his venture fund shows, he's been an early investor is many unicorns including Uber, Twitter, and AirBnB. He could likely plow several billion a year into Blue without ever touching an Amazon share.
Exactly. Bezos first real jobs were on Wallstreet. He knows how money works.Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
...
BO is a vanity project, Bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
..
I keep seeing this assumption that Bezos has to sell stock to generate cash for Blue Origin, which I think is a complete misunderstanding of his wealth. He would be foolish if he hadn't long ago started diversifying his holdings. As Bezos Expeditions, his venture fund shows, he's been an early investor is many unicorns including Uber, Twitter, and AirBnB. He could likely plow several billion a year into Blue without ever touching an Amazon share.
That said they also seem to think he has a controlling interest in Amazon rather than a plurality and that somehow going from owning 17% of AMZN to 15% of AMZN over 10 years would be an issue for him.
And then there is the whole view of there only being one "winner" in space as if there can't be more than one reusable launch provider. As if once Ford released the Model-T it was "game over" for every other current and future automaker.
Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
SX is a business with 6000+ employees. Its operating on at least a breakevan basis and funding all development from income. It has launched many payloads to LEO,GTO etc. It has serviced ISS and returned ISS payloads to earth. It has recovered a number of boosters used reused one and has recovered its first fairing. this year it due to test the worlds heaviest lift rocket and put humans into orbit...something only done by 3 nations. It has a manifest of 70 launches worth $10 billion +. Its income could be as high as $4 billion this year.
BO has 1200 employees has never launched anything to orbit and has virtually zero income as yet. BO does have the backing of the worlds second richest man but the drain on even his finances must be significant. How much dilution of his interest in AMZN is he prepared to take, the company generates no dividends so he has to sell stock to finance BO. Evan when NG is ready to fly he will be competing against a flight proven reusable system which can be turned around in 24hrs, i doubt NG will be able to match this on day one or potentially for some time as they learn the business.
Bezos problem is hes trying to catch a moving target and a target with $4-$5 billion in revenues much of that revenue is being plowed back into spacex product producing more advanced solutions. Soon after NG is due to become operational ITS is due with 300 tonnes reusable payload to LEO reluanchable within 24hrs...If u are trying to build infrastructure in space NG vs SX suite of well proven rockets or BFR 300 ton lift capability....game over before it begins.
BO is a vanity project, Bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
All this is without taking into account the massive revenue which would be derived by SX constellation. SX has momentum and now has size and it not like old space, sitting on 40 yr old tech waiting for next Gov project to milk.
I keep seeing this assumption that Bezos has to sell stock to generate cash for Blue Origin, which I think is a complete misunderstanding of his wealth. He would be foolish if he hadn't long ago started diversifying his holdings. As Bezos Expeditions, his venture fund shows, he's been an early investor is many unicorns including Uber, Twitter, and AirBnB. He could likely plow several billion a year into Blue without ever touching an Amazon share.
Moved from another thread...this place more approriateYou are making the ALL same mistakes about Blue that people made about SpaceX. Calling it a vanity project shows you are taking it personally rather than objectively.
SX is a business with 6000+ employees. Its operating on at least a breakevan basis and funding all development from income. It has launched many payloads to LEO,GTO etc. It has serviced ISS and returned ISS payloads to earth. It has recovered a number of boosters used reused one and has recovered its first fairing. this year it due to test the worlds heaviest lift rocket and put humans into orbit...something only done by 3 nations. It has a manifest of 70 launches worth $10 billion +. Its income could be as high as $4 billion this year.
BO has 1200 employees has never launched anything to orbit and has virtually zero income as yet. BO does have the backing of the worlds second richest man but the drain on even his finances must be significant. How much dilution of his interest in AMZN is he prepared to take, the company generates no dividends so he has to sell stock to finance BO. Evan when NG is ready to fly he will be competing against a flight proven reusable system which can be turned around in 24hrs, i doubt NG will be able to match this on day one or potentially for some time as they learn the business.
Bezos problem is hes trying to catch a moving target and a target with $4-$5 billion in revenues much of that revenue is being plowed back into spacex product producing more advanced solutions. Soon after NG is due to become operational ITS is due with 300 tonnes reusable payload to LEO reluanchable within 24hrs...If u are trying to build infrastructure in space NG vs SX suite of well proven rockets or BFR 300 ton lift capability....game over before it begins.
BO is a vanity project, Bezos loves space but SX has just got to big to catch even for a guy with pockets as deep as Bezos. Bezos is going to keep going but i predict3-4 years from now after having spent maybe 10-20% of his fortune he is going to have to accept he didnt move quick enough in the early days.....he lost this race between 2000-2009 when he had BO on the back burner and Musk was working 24 hrs a day to make things happen.
All this is without taking into account the massive revenue which would be derived by SX constellation. SX has momentum and now has size and it not like old space, sitting on 40 yr old tech waiting for next Gov project to milk.
I keep seeing this assumption that Bezos has to sell stock to generate cash for Blue Origin, which I think is a complete misunderstanding of his wealth. He would be foolish if he hadn't long ago started diversifying his holdings. As Bezos Expeditions, his venture fund shows, he's been an early investor is many unicorns including Uber, Twitter, and AirBnB. He could likely plow several billion a year into Blue without ever touching an Amazon share.
I believe Reuters reported today that Bezos says his business plan for BO is to sell $1 billion of AMZN stock each year until it's self funding. No need to assume anymore
Some paraphrasing from the full video:
[...]
Bezos: Our satellite customers are going to be a super important base for us. Ultimately, most of our flights will be taking people into space. Humans on New Glenn years after first flight (2020).
He has to sell stocks. His salary is less than $2M and Amazon does not give away much dividends. So unless he has some other very important source of income, he definitely has to sell stocks.I believe Reuters reported today that Bezos says his business plan for BO is to sell $1 billion of AMZN stock each year until it's self funding. No need to assume anymore
Except that he made it relatively clear that he was joking. He explicitly stated that he does not reveal how much money he is investing in Blue Origin.
On that sort of timescale SpaceX are very likely to have been doing commercial crew for a few years and potentially more than one circumlunar mission. So I wonder what Blue Origin's selling points will be? Price? Types of mission? Spacecraft features (e.g. large windows) ?As of now, they still stand a chance of establishing a spotless flight record.
Blue Origin has yet to do any business at all. So far, it is a vanity project.
Perhaps it will take advantage of second-mover advantage. But we have yet to see if it can do any commercial business.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has been in business and doing business almost from day one.
So far, there is nothing to compare.
I think this shakes out to Blue continually nipping at SpaceX's heels to the benefit of all of us. Maybe they pass eventually but by that time the whole thing is so big it doesn't matter. Musk doesn't care who is biggest, he just wants us an interplanetary species.
Blue Origin has yet to do any business at all. So far, it is a vanity project.Calling Blue a vanity project is essentially an ad hominem attack on Bezos and Blue employees in the hopes that will dissuade people on this forum from taking Blue seriously. It is a false characterization, meaningless and it is no different than when people made the same accusations of Musk being yet another billionaire playing with rockets.
Perhaps it will take advantage of second-mover advantage. But we have yet to see if it can do any commercial business.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has been in business and doing business almost from day one.
So far, there is nothing to compare.
I think Blue could destroy SpaceX if Bezos wanted to, I can think of the moves to do it (some underhanded, some expensive, all mean spirited) ... But I don't think he wants to.That's be an entertaining thread...
Only in America you could have companies like SpaceX or BlueOrigin, but also only in America a company would be allowed to openly destroy a competitor with schemes like selling services under cost.
I think Blue could destroy SpaceX if Bezos wanted to, I can think of the moves to do it (some underhanded, some expensive, all mean spirited) ... But I don't think he wants to.
No, they don't. They lost a VTVL vehicle in flight. Anyway, I'd take 40 consecutive successful launches (with a failure before that) over a 5 flight "flawless" record any day. Only someone with a naive understanding of statistics would do otherwise.On that sort of timescale SpaceX are very likely to have been doing commercial crew for a few years and potentially more than one circumlunar mission. So I wonder what Blue Origin's selling points will be? Price? Types of mission? Spacecraft features (e.g. large windows) ?As of now, they still stand a chance of establishing a spotless flight record.
I think Blue could destroy SpaceX if Bezos wanted to, I can think of the moves to do it (some underhanded, some expensive, all mean spirited) ... But I don't think he wants to.
As of now, they still stand a chance of establishing a spotless flight record.No, they don't. They lost a VTVL vehicle in flight. Anyway, I'd take 40 consecutive successful launches (with a failure before that) over a 5 flight "flawless" record any day. Only someone with a naive understanding of statistics would do otherwise.
A Goddard got the FTS medicine after loosing control during a full power test.I believe that particular flight was actually PM2 (pictured below), an early developmental vehicle for New Shepard. According to the brief statement (https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/successful-short-hop-setback-and-next-vehicle) by Blue Origin at the time, it was lost due to a flight instability.
As of now, they still stand a chance of establishing a spotless flight record.No, they don't. They lost a VTVL vehicle in flight. Anyway, I'd take 40 consecutive successful launches (with a failure before that) over a 5 flight "flawless" record any day. Only someone with a naive understanding of statistics would do otherwise.
They've lost at least two.
A Goddard got the FTS medicine after loosing control during a full power test.
The first New Sheppard propulsion module did not land but impacted instead. IIRC loss of hydraulic power during decent. Not so much a problem at that point the time. Now I'd say it would be one.
Elon Musk tweeted on Friday 7th April that he thinks falcon will be 100% reusable by end of 2018. That isn't Evan on BO schedule. Bezos going to need to keep selling his AMZN stock for a few more years. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable faster than Bezos is catching up.
Elon Musk tweeted on Friday 7th April that he thinks falcon will be 100% reusable by end of 2018. That isn't Evan on BO schedule. Bezos going to need to keep selling his AMZN stock for a few more years. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable faster than Bezos is catching up.This post really feels like trolling to me but I'll respond anyways.
.. Musk isQuick checkmoving the boundaries of what is achievablesaying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
.. Musk isQuick checkmoving the boundaries of what is achievablesaying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
SpaceX's biggest risk is the ITS.
Forbes puts Bezos' net worth about over $75 billion (https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/). I have more confidence in his ability to finance BO's space efforts than I in NASA's ability to finance its own program.
For a second there I though you were talking about what just one Space Shuttle launch could do... Musk isQuick checkmoving the boundaries of what is achievablesaying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
More than 91 metric tons of working hardware in orbit. Actual reused orbital booster.
Forbes puts Bezos' net worth about over $75 billion (https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/). I have more confidence in his ability to finance BO's space efforts than I in NASA's ability to finance its own program.
$75 billion vs. Uncle Sam's $3.9 trillion/year ;)
When I look at the size comparison of New Glenn to Falcon Heavy, it sure does look huge for something that's supposed to be Blue's initial orbital model:Infrastructure costs are considerably bigger for larger RLV but actually operational costs are not a lot more than for smaller RLV. The $/kg to LEO for larger RLV are lot lower than for one half size especially if you are not trying to recover development costs.
https://www.ft.com/content/e07c7a9e-1cf7-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4d5c1cd0-1d45-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=600)
The darn thing looks as big as SLS
SpaceX's biggest risk is the ITS. This is not a commercial investment in the classic sense. It's a philosophical driven project to populate another planet. The scale is monstrously huge, insanely high risks, with little commercial potential. There isn't a demand of a million people waiting in line with a quarter million to put down for a ticket to Mars. There isn't tons of Mars habitat modules waiting for a truck.
Blue Origin is far more sustainable and offering a new class of wide bodied LV which may attract satellite companies some relief from confining their ever growing satellites to current payload shroud constraints.
ITS is wonderful from a human species perspective, but EM's plans to start colonizing Mars in the next decade has no business case. Worse, all he's presented so far is the transport system. He, or another entity, still have to come up with the Mars habitat and sustainable facilities.
He needs to use the system, or a modified version of it, for the satellite market, and for tourists in Earth orbit and eventually Cis Lunar space. Then with those profits, move forward to his non-profit Mars ambitions.
This was what was said about building railways in undeveloped country as well. I think you're failing to give Musk credit. I suspect he's not unware of the need for earthmoving equipment and general cargo and habs with ECLSS and ISRU and all the rest. (and of course there's the Boring Company to keep in mind... that has NO applicability to Mars habs at all... none.. just a distraction. And don't forget Tesla... electric vehicle tech and battery tech has NO applicability to Mars transport at all... And don't forget SolarCity (now part of Tesla)... solar panel manufacturing and mounting and power converter tech has NO applicability to Mars power need at all ... NONE... just a distraction )
Bezos has said he's working toward "millions living and working in space" but you're not critiquing his lack of plans for asteroid smelters and silicon chip fabs and on orbit farming....
Same same.
Musk wants people living on Mars - Bezos wants people working there (or in space, generally).
Is this a chicken-and-egg distinction?
His goal is to reduce the access barrier, and allow others with more specific application goals to attempt them.
Musk wants people living on Mars - Bezos wants people working there (or in space, generally).
Is this a chicken-and-egg distinction?
Somehow the goal of aiming for space generally as compared to Mars specifically seems to at least be more flexible. If you're throwing all/most of your eggs at the Mars basket, is it more likely to make you succeed, or box you in?
When the Augustine Commission specifically emphasized "Flexible Path", it seemed to be for a reason.
But while everyone's launch manifest continues to be filled, once a rocket as large as New Glenn hits the marketplace, it's surely going to make big waves, especially since it's going to be partially reusable from the get-go. I'm wondering what kind of pressure NewGlenn will put on SpaceX's pricing as time goes on?
Infrastructure costs are considerably bigger for larger RLV but actually operational costs are not a lot more than for smaller RLV. The $/kg to LEO for larger RLV are lot lower than for one half size especially if you are not trying to recover development costs.
For HSF seat price for 25 seat vehicle will be lot lower than for 6 seat. That is market Blue is targetting.
I am not sure all competition is good.
What about US steel makers facing dumping from China.
I think you could easily call Bezos the dumper in this case, he has no chance to compete with SpaceX unless he is prepared to dump huge amounts of cash and undercut SX on an unprofitable basis.
In this case the buyers of satellite launch services are winners but SpaceX needs the cash to build ITS so people who believe in Mars colony could well end up being the losers.
SX will fight back but the profitability in the industry will be reduced significantly possibly.
I am not sure all competition is good. What about US steel makers facing dumping from China. Sure steel buyers do ok but USA looses a vital industry and who knows how the Chinese will behave in future. Hence gov takes action against the dumpers.This is speculation wrapped in wild assumption. You don't know the projected fabrication costs, you don't know the projected overheads, you don't know the targeted refurbishment period, you don't know how many boosters they'll have in their fleet, you don't know the costs of the upper stage and fairing and when they're targeting to reuse those elements, and to top it all of you also don't know how many they're charging for a launch, aside from the statement that they intend to be industry leading. In all, you have no grounds to accuse them of large undercutting on an unprofitable basis. He's spending big on infrastructure and assets, things that will hopefully pay themselves off in the long term, not an ongoing subsidisation of an established and unchanging entity.
I think you could easily call Bezos the dumper in this case, he has no chance to compete with SpaceX unless he is prepared to dump huge amounts of cash and undercut SX on an unprofitable basis. In this case the buyers of satellite launch services are winners but SpaceX needs the cash to build ITS so people who believe in Mars colony could well end up being the losers. SX will fight back but the profitability in the industry will be reduced significantly possibly.
SX will fight back but the profitability in the industry will be reduced significantly possibly.The profitability of the customers may rise significantly because of it. And who knows what kind of new opportunities may arise because of it. If you want low cost to LEO, GTO, GEO, TLI, and TMI this is the way to get if. It may slow down Elon Musk's Mars plans, but it may help build a sustainable space economy faster which will probably be more important in the long haul.
SX will fight back but the profitability in the industry will be reduced significantly possibly.The profitability of the customers may rise significantly because of it. And who knows what kind of new opportunities may arise because of it. If you want low cost to LEO, GTO, GEO, TLI, and TMI this is the way to get if. It may slow down Elon Musk's Mars plans, but it may help build a sustainable space economy faster which will probably be more important in the long haul.
Where I see things opening up for potential change is with New Armstrong. Despite SpaceX's head start, Blue is likely to have a much easier transition path from New Glenn to New Armstrong than SpaceX from the Falcon family to ITS. Add in the fact that ITS is a specialized design for Musk's Mars plans and a generalist New Armstrong in the same payload class and things change. A reusable general purpose super heavy lifter could give Blue the Moon, especially as ITS is particularly ill-suited to support that market with its design reliance on in situ fuel production and aerobraking.
Musk went from "MCT" to "ITS" and took great care to show how it is a solar system vehicle, not just a Mars vehicle.
NA, meanwhile, is just a name. You haven't seen a design, not to mention hardware.
Remember that the Saturn V would've been the largest non-nuclear explosion on a Bad Day...and New Glenn is a bit bigger
A FEW BILLION OFF
If Jeff Bezos is spending a billion a year on his space venture, he just started
Tim Fernholz & Christopher Groskopf
April 12, 2017
[...]
Blue Origin is about to crank out Saturn-sized launch vehicles and no one thinks about the certifications it's going to need just to fly? Remember that the Saturn V would've been the largest non-nuclear explosion on a Bad Day...and New Glenn is a bit bigger.
[...]
ITS is wonderful from a human species perspective, but EM's plans to start colonizing Mars in the next decade has no business case. Worse, all he's presented so far is the transport system. He, or another entity, still have to come up with the Mars habitat and sustainable facilities.
Musk went from "MCT" to "ITS" and took great care to show how it is a solar system vehicle, not just a Mars vehicle.
NA, meanwhile, is just a name. You haven't seen a design, not to mention hardware.
An important point, going to New Glenn alone. For good and bad, SpaceX has flown lots of orbital hardware from CCAFS, KSC and VAFB which goes through the specifications and needs of the range, the FAA, NASA and commercial customers. Blue Origin has flown one rocket in the isolated, open desert.
Blue Origin is about to crank out Saturn-sized launch vehicles and no one thinks about the certifications it's going to need just to fly? Remember that the Saturn V would've been the largest non-nuclear explosion on a Bad Day...and New Glenn is a bit bigger.
I'd want extra safety precautions before one of those birds is let off the chain. Size does matter--and that means more precautions. Not just for GSE but for the entire range.
Blue Origin's business strategy must also include one hell of a catastrophic insurance plan if their AFTS goes awry with a New Glenn.
Perhaps also Blue Origin will be a "real" business when its money comes from outside the company, not personally financed.
Having Blue in the mix gives a greater chance that prices per kg into orbit will go down.And that's the key to seeing market growth and people starting to think of as "space" being a place where they can set up and run a business.
I fail to see how you can view ITS as not being general purpose. It (the whole system, including the booster) must drastically lower cost of access to space to make a Mars colony possible.I'm sure no doubts it will be versatile.Quote from: Lars-J"To make a Mars colony possible." Yes. But for any applications in LEO?A slightly modified cargo version of ITS (with the same booster) can deliver hundreds of tons to LEO. It could also be used for GTO/GEO, plus deliver and land payloads to the moon and other destinations. The system as described to us will be far more general purpose than you give it credit.
Ever noticed how many pickup trucks and how few 18 wheeler cabs there are in the parking lots of shopping malls?
One is ludicrously oversized for shopping trips and the other is not. OTOH if you want to ship 80 tonnes cross country the reverse is true.
Having Blue in the mix gives a greater chance that prices per kg into orbit will go down.And that's the key to seeing market growth and people starting to think of as "space" being a place where they can set up and run a business.I fail to see how you can view ITS as not being general purpose. It (the whole system, including the booster) must drastically lower cost of access to space to make a Mars colony possible.I'm sure no doubts it will be versatile.Quote from: Lars-J"To make a Mars colony possible." Yes. But for any applications in LEO?A slightly modified cargo version of ITS (with the same booster) can deliver hundreds of tons to LEO. It could also be used for GTO/GEO, plus deliver and land payloads to the moon and other destinations. The system as described to us will be far more general purpose than you give it credit.
Ever noticed how many pickup trucks and how few 18 wheeler cabs there are in the parking lots of shopping malls?
One is ludicrously oversized for shopping trips and the other is not. OTOH if you want to ship 80 tonnes cross country the reverse is true.
They doubt it will be economic.
Using round numbers it's only less than $1000//lb if every one of those payload lbs carries something.
If not then it's the launch price divided by the price and as Arianespace discovered getting just 2 payloads to ride share is tough. Getting 10?
If NA that will apply to them as well.
$1000/lb? No. $4/lb is the goal for the tanker version of ITS.Having Blue in the mix gives a greater chance that prices per kg into orbit will go down.And that's the key to seeing market growth and people starting to think of as "space" being a place where they can set up and run a business.I fail to see how you can view ITS as not being general purpose. It (the whole system, including the booster) must drastically lower cost of access to space to make a Mars colony possible.I'm sure no doubts it will be versatile.Quote from: Lars-J"To make a Mars colony possible." Yes. But for any applications in LEO?A slightly modified cargo version of ITS (with the same booster) can deliver hundreds of tons to LEO. It could also be used for GTO/GEO, plus deliver and land payloads to the moon and other destinations. The system as described to us will be far more general purpose than you give it credit.
Ever noticed how many pickup trucks and how few 18 wheeler cabs there are in the parking lots of shopping malls?
One is ludicrously oversized for shopping trips and the other is not. OTOH if you want to ship 80 tonnes cross country the reverse is true.
They doubt it will be economic.
Using round numbers it's only less than $1000//lb if every one of those payload lbs carries something.
If not then it's the launch price divided by the price and as Arianespace discovered getting just 2 payloads to ride share is tough. Getting 10?
If NA that will apply to them as well.
To be honest I am not sure many people will want to move to Mars after all I don't see a massive rush for real estate in Antarctica or northern Canada and both those places are way more hospitable than Mars
Unlike Mars those two places don't have the potential to ever become completely independent.
The big advantage of SpaceX's plan is that it's got a better high concept. Saying, "I want to build a colony on Mars," is a very concrete and easily visualized goal in comparison to "I want to see millions of people working in space."
To be honest I am not sure many people will want to move to Mars after all I don't see a massive rush for real estate in Antarctica or northern Canada and both those places are way more hospitable than Mars
Unlike Mars those two places don't have the potential to ever become completely independent.
...As I've said other places, Bezos' net worth is more than the combined value or the top 3 IPOs in history. His "excuse" for not taking it public is that he'd have access to significantly less money than he does by keeping it private. And he'd lose control of the company and likely be forced to focus on "share holder value" rather than building capabilities and infrastructure that may not pay off for 20 years if ever.
What's Bezos' excuse for not taking Blue Origin public sooner rather than later?
So you feel Bezos' billions means capital isn't a constraint for him, and that control is a necessity at this juncture.
When would these assumptions change, to enable him to go public? Will it be once Blue is clearly profitable?
And at least Bezos is just focused on one vision - the space vision - whereas Musk is trying spearhead multiple transformative efforts. I sometimes feel Musk should just do the Keiretsu thing and set up a holding company as a central hub to underpin his agenda, and then he can use it to shift cash amongst his various transformative enterprises (SpaceX, Tesla, Boring Company, etc) as needed.
ITS seems like a big leap of faith - the kind of huge leap Bezos hasn't yet made, and likely wouldn't make by departing from "Gradatim Ferociter".
ITS seems like a big leap of faith - the kind of huge leap Bezos hasn't yet made, and likely wouldn't make by departing from "Gradatim Ferociter".
Is ITS really more of a leap from FH than NG is from NS? People seem to underestimate the size of NG.
ITS seems like a big leap of faith - the kind of huge leap Bezos hasn't yet made, and likely wouldn't make by departing from "Gradatim Ferociter".
Is ITS really more of a leap from FH than NG is from NS? People seem to underestimate the size of NG.
ITS is:
1. Bigger than any rocket that ever existed. Seriously, ITS is in the bloody Sea Dragon range. You'd have to to attach three Saturn V together to get more payload to LEO.
2. Made primarily of composite materials, which was never done before.
3. Reuses the second stage, which is also a brand new thing.
New Glenn, on the other hand, is just a scale-up of Falcon 9 with some incremental improvements.
So, NG is certainly more realistic, at this point, than ITS.
NG is 35x thrust of NS. It's (at least) two stages. Has far more complicated maneuvering and entry procedures than NS. It uses a more advanced cycle.ITS seems like a big leap of faith - the kind of huge leap Bezos hasn't yet made, and likely wouldn't make by departing from "Gradatim Ferociter".
Is ITS really more of a leap from FH than NG is from NS? People seem to underestimate the size of NG.
ITS is:
1. Bigger than any rocket that ever existed. Seriously, ITS is in the bloody Sea Dragon range. You'd have to to attach three Saturn V together to get more payload to LEO.
2. Made primarily of composite materials, which was never done before.
3. Reuses the second stage, which is also a brand new thing.
New Glenn, on the other hand, is just a scale-up of Falcon 9 with some incremental improvements.
So, NG is certainly more realistic, at this point, than ITS.
So the step is relatively smaller for SpaceX, unquestionably.
But we weren't talking about the industry, we were talking about the companies. For SpaceX, who has already changed the definition of what is possible and (assuming it works) will do so again with Falcon Heavy by recovering all 4 stages, ITS will be a smaller relative step than New Glenn will be from New Shepard.So the step is relatively smaller for SpaceX, unquestionably.
SpaceX doesn't exist in a vacuum. For the industry, and thus for SpaceX, ITS is a far bigger step than Falcon.
ITS is wonderful from a human species perspective, but EM's plans to start colonizing Mars in the next decade has no business case. Worse, all he's presented so far is the transport system. He, or another entity, still have to come up with the Mars habitat and sustainable facilities.
Musk has said that ITS will be the hab for the first missions. However, I agree with your general point that we're not seeing surface infrastructure, and that has a long lead time.
Cheers, Martin
Even though I'm not a big fan of Bezos I consider Blue's approach lower risk and feel it has a much greater chance of success.
As for facilities and a rocket in between New Shepard and New Glenn they already have that with Vulcan and ULA.
By the time New Glenn flies the BE-4 and BE-3 will already have a flight history.
The most amazing thing about the efficiency? Unlike those trying to shave the last excess gram off a rover payload, SpaceX optimizes for cost. The efficiency is there because it's the cheapest way to get that payload mass to orbit.
It helps that Bezos has the money to go with his approach, whereas Musk, always the perennial extreme risk taker, did not. Considering how little money Musk had at one time, SpaceX's achievements since his and SpaceX's near bankruptcy in 2008 are pretty astounding. It has dozens of launches under its belt, has proven out first stage reuse on an orbital rocket, currently has the world record holder for most efficient LV to LEO, and it even delivers more of its mass to GTO than the Atlas V! It's also worth remembering that the Falcon Heavy will top that record while also being the most potent rocket since the Energia (by payload). While the New Glenn is a big rocket, that's also something of a hindrance in terms of reuse. It's not even as efficient a lifter as the Saturn V or a Delta IV, and it's coming decades after both. Given reuse is all about getting the costs down, I'm surprised to see Blue Origin isn't as aggressively mass optimizing its rocket as it could. There's no good reason why a New Glenn shouldn't top 4% or even 4.5% of mass reaching orbit. In comparison, were SpaceX to build a similar RLV with 8 Raptor engines (7/1 config), you can pretty much guarantee it'd be setting new efficiency records.
Even though I'm not a big fan of Bezos I consider Blue's approach lower risk and feel it has a much greater chance of success.I agree that having $75 billion to play with is preferable. Not exactly a fair comparison, though. With that much money, it barely even matters what approach Bezos takes.
As for facilities and a rocket in between New Shepard and New Glenn they already have that with Vulcan and ULA.
By the time New Glenn flies the BE-4 and BE-3 will already have a flight history.
Even though I'm not a big fan of Bezos I consider Blue's approach lower risk and feel it has a much greater chance of success.I agree that having $75 billion to play with is preferable. Not exactly a fair comparison, though. With that much money, it barely even matters what approach Bezos takes.
As for facilities and a rocket in between New Shepard and New Glenn they already have that with Vulcan and ULA.
By the time New Glenn flies the BE-4 and BE-3 will already have a flight history.
Sure it does. Just look at how Paul Allen is squandering his resources on a dead end.
Bezos is smart, making shrewd choices so far.
Sure it does. Just look at how Paul Allen is squandering his resources on a dead end.
Squandering? He's only spending part of the interest he makes on his investments, and since he has no children he has the luxury to spend his money on whatever he wants
Stratolaunch is still being built even though it doesn't make sense. And Paul Allen still has a lot of money left even though he didn't have $75b.
I thought of Stratolaunch in particular when I wrote that. I stand by my point.
In the meantime Musk will be making money off launching 20+ something satellites a year at about $20-30 million per launch profit, which is $4-6 billion profit per year to roll into the BFR/ITS system.
He is already landing orbital rockets.That may be the perception in the MSM but as we know SX has so far landed a sub orbital stage of an orbital rocket. That's an impressive achievement and more than any previous LV mfg has managed but is not the whole deal.
He is already landing orbital rockets.That may be the perception in the MSM but as we know SX has so far landed a sub orbital stage of an orbital rocket. That's an impressive achievement and more than any previous LV mfg has managed but is not the whole deal.
However Bezos has not achieved orbit, which means they have no experience beyond whatever NG's top speed was. That is also an impressive achievement
(fan)I thought at first "lede" was a spelling mistake for "lead"but I see it wasn't. Not a word I imagine is seen much outside of journalism school. :)
You're quibbling. As is your wont. While S1 is suborbital, it's a FAR harder problem than landing NS. (which granted, you acknowledge, but it's not your lede)
Thank you for that advice. Rest assured I will treat it with every bit of the consideration it deserves.
(mod)
Maybe try not quibbling? It will make your posts better.
He is already landing orbital rockets.That may be the perception in the MSM but as we know SX has so far landed a sub orbital stage of an orbital rocket. That's an impressive achievement and more than any previous LV mfg has managed but is not the whole deal.
However Bezos has not achieved orbit, which means they have no experience beyond whatever NG's top speed was. That is also an impressive achievement
As far as ULA goes my suspicion is that they'll draw out their decision until the first engine went through a full test campaign and certification to their and much more importantly their customers requirements. - No matter if it's BE-4 or AR-1.Sounds probable. The fact is Blue does have a complete engine on the stand. Does anyone know where the AR-1 is?
Certainly more expensive and the added drama doesn't help either but getting the engine choice wrong is no option for ULA.True. Potentially (depending on the scheduling) ULA may be thinking that if things work out right they could entirely avoid having to do a Vulcan version for the AR-1. I'm not saying they are, but they must be considering the resources needed to do it. The devils in the details. How different are the AR-1 and BE-4 envelopes for example?
Blue Origin was supposed to have tested BE4 by the end of 2016. Now the latest is they have damaged the test stand leading to further delays. It could actually end up that Raptor is operational before BE4. The company that owns Raptor owns space, the performance is just so much greater.
Bezos is putting in about $1 bill a year into his efforts and he has 1200 staff working the problem so as long as he keeps investing he's going to get NG into orbit. However SpaceX isn't standing still and it has 6000+ people working the problems and currently probably revenues of $2 bill +. Also Bezos is going to have more failures and issues for sure, he probably delivers NG a couple of years late and reusability takes another year or so to achieve. By this time SpaceX could be on the verge of huge revenues from its satellite constellation and will probably have Raptor operational and ITS may only be a few years out.
Very hard to see Bezos catching up, it was easier for SpaceX to catch ULA, Boeing & Lockheed as these companies wouldn't lift a finger without government sending them a cheque, SpaceX churns every penny back into advancing the product and they are starting to generate a lot of revenue.
Blue Origin was supposed to have tested BE4 by the end of 2016. Now the latest is they have damaged the test stand leading to further delays. It could actually end up that Raptor is operational before BE4. The company that owns Raptor owns space, the performance is just so much greater.
Bezos is putting in about $1 bill a year into his efforts and he has 1200 staff working the problem so as long as he keeps investing he's going to get NG into orbit. However SpaceX isn't standing still and it has 6000+ people working the problems and currently probably revenues of $2 bill +. Also Bezos is going to have more failures and issues for sure, he probably delivers NG a couple of years late and reusability takes another year or so to achieve. By this time SpaceX could be on the verge of huge revenues from its satellite constellation and will probably have Raptor operational and ITS may only be a few years out.
Very hard to see Bezos catching up, it was easier for SpaceX to catch ULA, Boeing & Lockheed as these companies wouldn't lift a finger without government sending them a cheque, SpaceX churns every penny back into advancing the product and they are starting to generate a lot of revenue.
After reading all this Negative Nancyism, I can't help but think of another company that dominated transportation of its era - Pan American Airways. Back in the 1930s with their clipper ships, Pan Am basically created most of what we take for granted today in the airline industry. It was basically unstoppable. And yet...where is Pan Am today? Gone the way of the dodo.
No one knows what the future will bring, but just because SpaceX may be dominant today, does not mean they will remain dominant forever.
From what I read, the AR-1 is not a direct drop in replacement for the RD-180 on Atlas. Since the RD-190 is about 850 thousand lbs thrust vs 500 or 550 for AR-1, it would require two AR-1's and more fuel, so it too would be a larger diameter rocket than Atlas V, but probably not as long/tall as a BE-4 Vulcan at the same diameter.The question is how closely do the BE-4 and AR-1 envelopes match as the further apart they are (and the thrust levels they can generate) the more an AR-1 engined Vulcan diverges from a BE-4 engined Vulcan.
Seems silly to me, but BE-4 is going to be used on New Glenn which can or will be a competitor to both SpaceX and ULA. ULA would/could be at the mercy of Blue Origin if they decide to not sell to them at some point. So it seems the AR-1 would give us three competitors for rockets/engines.Not really. In other industries competitors in one are are suppliers to each other in other areas. NG seems a long way from any kind of revenue generating service and I'm guessing this is already offsetting some of Blues operating costs. Likewise I'd expect ULA to make any selection dependent on some kind of guarantee of supply, and any contract to buy them to have clauses in to guarantee ongoing supply of them. I'm pretty sure ULA's long history of dealing with govt contracts mean they are very good at writing a solid contract.
Blue has to most money to get their engines and rockets perfected before use. SpaceX evolves their rockets/engines while making money. Orbital and ULA rely too much on government and the election cycles thus cost more money.A lot of of the launch vehicle and launch services industries are very much driven by the needs of governments, especially in the US the USG.
By all accounts and rumors the BE-4 contract is very comprehensive and everything but the usual rocket engine contract.Wow. So even if Bezos get's bored and pulls out of the rocket business tomorrow ULA still get their engine?
via a talk: ULA has the right of first refusal on everything (IP, machinery, factories, ...) should Blue want out of the deal for any reason. Insight into the whole BE-4 process for ULA and relevant national authorities since the first agreement.
Rumors: A fixed price got locked in long ago way below what AR thought at the time their engine might cost. (Rumor was IIRC at ~2/3 the price.) A system how price adjustments get done and how they are calculated is in place, in both directions.
All subject to the BE-4 delivering as agreed upon. No performance no contract. For some reason ULA is not interested in another RS-68.
(Another reason why I think they'll wait for full certification before deciding.)
After reading all this Negative Nancyism, I can't help but think of another company that dominated transportation of its era - Pan American Airways. Back in the 1930s with their clipper ships, Pan Am basically created most of what we take for granted today in the airline industry. It was basically unstoppable. And yet...where is Pan Am today? Gone the way of the dodo.It's a fair point.
No one knows what the future will bring, but just because SpaceX may be dominant today, does not mean they will remain dominant forever.
Rumors: A fixed price got locked in long ago way below what AR thought at the time their engine might cost. (Rumor was IIRC at ~2/3 the price.) A system how price adjustments get done and how they are calculated is in place, in both directions.
Wow. So even if Bezos get's bored and pulls out of the rocket business tomorrow ULA still get their engine?
Now that's what I mean by guaranteeing supply. If it delivers the full spec at 2/3 the price of AR-1 it's no wonder they are quite keen on it.
So Blue gets some money and an engine that is accepted for national and HSF use out of the deal without doing all of the political work themself. That obviously does not make a rocket but every step helps. In all the talks they were very clear that New Glenn and Vulcan will use the very same engine. "Same part number"NSS is a big part of the US launch market and any company who wants to supply a big LV (and TBH even a small LV, given the Space Test Prgram is loosely a part of the NSS missions list) needs to be talking to the DoD and USAF about getting on the supplier list.
Even though I'm not a big fan of Bezos I consider Blue's approach lower risk and feel it has a much greater chance of success.
As for facilities and a rocket in between New Shepard and New Glenn they already have that with Vulcan and ULA.
Assuming the BE-4 price is notably lower than AR-1, I wonder what relationship it has to the BE-4 cost?! Does Jeff Bezos care about profit at this point? Is he gambling that NG will be more competitive than Vulcan and so maybe Blue won't need to make that many for ULA?
New Glenn's payload capabilities are listed as 45000 kg & 13000 kg for LEO & GEO, While Falcon Heavy's are listed at 63800 kg & 21200 kg for LEO & GEO. Why such a huge advantage for FH?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
New Glenn's payload capabilities are listed as 45000 kg & 13000 kg for LEO & GEO, While Falcon Heavy's are listed at 63800 kg & 21200 kg for LEO & GEO. Why such a huge advantage for FH?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
The Falcon Heavy figures are fully expendable. New Glenn Figures are for first stage reuse.
I also suspect given Blue's tendency to underpromise and overdeliver, that there figures are conservative and with margin. I don't expect FH to ever actually fly payloads anywhere near its listed expendable performance to LEO/GEO
Correct.New Glenn's payload capabilities are listed as 45000 kg & 13000 kg for LEO & GEO, While Falcon Heavy's are listed at 63800 kg & 21200 kg for LEO & GEO. Why such a huge advantage for FH?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
The Falcon Heavy figures are fully expendable. New Glenn Figures are for first stage reuse.
I also suspect given Blue's tendency to underpromise and overdeliver...Wait, wasn't Blue supposed to have tested BE-4 back in 2016?
Blue Origin doesn't seem to have the mass fraction capability that SpaceX does. Heavier tanks and engines. This makes a big difference, and I'm not sure that people take this into account when estimating New Glenn's capabilities (not that it really matters, as New Glenn has sufficient performance).New Glenn's payload capabilities are listed as 45000 kg & 13000 kg for LEO & GEO, While Falcon Heavy's are listed at 63800 kg & 21200 kg for LEO & GEO. Why such a huge advantage for FH?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
The Falcon Heavy figures are fully expendable. New Glenn Figures are for first stage reuse.
I also suspect given Blue's tendency to underpromise and overdeliver, that there figures are conservative and with margin. I don't expect FH to ever actually fly payloads anywhere near its listed expendable performance to LEO/GEO
Expendable or not has nothing to do with the LEO to GTO payload difference. Either Blue Origin is sandbagging their GTO numbers or they are doing something very strange. Or this could be a clue that they are working on a fully reusable upper stage much sooner than we think?
It seems to me that the arrival (operationalization) of New Glenn will be the landmark moment which alters the relative perceptions of the 2 companies. At that point, we'll be seeing this whole other new orbital rocket reusably launching and landing - something nobody else in the world can do, except SpaceX. At that point, the optics will undergo a sea-change, along with overall public perceptions. And given the size of New Glenn, it's going to make quite a splash, to make F9R seem small. New Glenn will then be seen as competing with Falcon Heavy, rather than with the smaller F9R.SpaceX will be testing ITS at around that time. So SpaceX. (Not that I'm worried about Blue Origin. Doesn't really matter that SpaceX will have a bunch of advantages, as Bezos is stupendously wealthy and so will be able to keep up just fine.)
At that juncture, who's going to dominate the headlines more, and be seen as the 'space leader'?
(Or will it just come down to who blows up less often?)
Bezos would have to be hit by a bus for it not to happen.
But that means they're so much cooler and more sophisticated. They've got turtles in their logo, which means they're intentionally slow. ...slow is supposed to be better, or something??Bezos would have to be hit by a bus for it not to happen.
Or just get bored with it all. They still don't seem to be in much of a hurry.
Okay, I just want to point out that Blue Origin's orbital rocket is NOTIONAL. Got that? It doesn't exist. It's a paper rocket. So all this comparison is a bit moot. More than a bit. All you have to compare right now is the current iteration of the Falcon 9 and the New Shepard. Should we also add in the N1 or the Buran? They at least got to bending metal - NG isn't even at that point yet. And the B4 is destroying power packs - it's embryonic still and who knows what will hatch.
Just maybe ease these debates a little - at least until there's a real comparative. I know it's tough in the absence of real news and info, but really a game of Dungeons and Dragons has about as much basis in reality.
They are sandbagging both numbers, and have clearly stated such. Because GTO requires so much more delta v, it's exponentially sandbagged.New Glenn's payload capabilities are listed as 45000 kg & 13000 kg for LEO & GEO, While Falcon Heavy's are listed at 63800 kg & 21200 kg for LEO & GEO. Why such a huge advantage for FH?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
The Falcon Heavy figures are fully expendable. New Glenn Figures are for first stage reuse.
I also suspect given Blue's tendency to underpromise and overdeliver, that there figures are conservative and with margin. I don't expect FH to ever actually fly payloads anywhere near its listed expendable performance to LEO/GEO
Expendable or not has nothing to do with the LEO to GTO payload difference. Either Blue Origin is sandbagging their GTO numbers or they are doing something very strange. Or this could be a clue that they are working on a fully reusable upper stage much sooner than we think?
But that means they're so much cooler and more sophisticated. They've got turtles in their logo, which means they're intentionally slow. ...slow is supposed to be better, or something??
NG is 3 stages.
Okay, I just want to point out that Blue Origin's orbital rocket is NOTIONAL. Got that? It doesn't exist. It's a paper rocket.
It seems to me that the arrival (operationalization) of New Glenn will be the landmark moment which alters the relative perceptions of the 2 companies. At that point, we'll be seeing this whole other new orbital rocket reusably launching and landing - something nobody else in the world can do, except SpaceX. At that point, the optics will undergo a sea-change, along with overall public perceptions. And given the size of New Glenn, it's going to make quite a splash, to make F9R seem small. New Glenn will then be seen as competing with Falcon Heavy, rather than with the smaller F9R.SpaceX will be testing ITS at around that time. So SpaceX. (Not that I'm worried about Blue Origin. Doesn't really matter that SpaceX will have a bunch of advantages, as Bezos is stupendously wealthy and so will be able to keep up just fine.)
At that juncture, who's going to dominate the headlines more, and be seen as the 'space leader'?
(Or will it just come down to who blows up less often?)
The real crazy thing is what it implies when you have TWO very competitive reusable and then fully reusable launch companies with very similar capabilities:
now F9 then FH then fully reusable FH then New Glenn the fully reusable New Glenn. Then at about the same time as New Glenn starts flying, ITS will also fly and then some time later, New Armstrong which will likely be about the same capability.
Nobody else in the entire world is anywhere near just that first level of partially reusable Falcon 9. By the time Europe and others will have /started/ comparable partial RLV programs, we'll be watching ITS and probably the beginnings of New Armstrong. America will have like crazy scifi space capabilities compared to everyone else (and kind of already does with the regular F9 landings). Poor ULA, Ariane, Roscosmos, CNSA, etc...
People are just barely starting to realize where this is headed. I can see why they'd have been skeptical before SpaceX had started sticking landings and before New Shepard (and the announcement of New Glenn, all backed by the insanely rich Bezos), but now it should be pretty obvious the direction things are going. Everything larger than a refrigerator and competitively bid (without being sold at a loss) will be launched on an (at least partial VTVL) RLV within 5-7 years, and almost certainly by either SpaceX or Blue Origin.
Right, and the numbers given for LEO and GTO payload are for the two-stage version (with first stage recovery). A three-stage version would boost a lot more to GTO.NG is 3 stages.
Not initially, the 2 stage version with a 5m fairing will fly first. But I have my doubts that the 3 stage version of NG will ever fly, I think they are working on a reusable 2nd stage instead.
It appears Musk is rethinking BTR,BFS and is looking at a smaller rocket on the way to the full blown ITS. This sounds like a NG killer, 8 -10 m core raptor powered rocket with in orbit refuelling and 2nd stage capable of landing on moon , earth, Mars. 2nd stage with cargo and human qualified versions. BO NG powered by BE4 DOA I would think.
It appears Musk is rethinking BTR,BFS and is looking at a smaller rocket on the way to the full blown ITS. This sounds like a NG killer, 8 -10 m core raptor powered rocket with in orbit refuelling and 2nd stage capable of landing on moon , earth, Mars. 2nd stage with cargo and human qualified versions. BO NG powered by BE4 DOA I would think.
8 -10 m core raptor powered rocket with in orbit refuelling and 2nd stage capable of landing on moon , earth, Mars. 2nd stage with cargo and human qualified versions.
Given the factory and launch infrastructure are actually being built for New Glenn and it has secured launch contracts, it is a little hyperbolic to claim it will be DOA because of mini-ITS. ITS doesn't even have a frozen design on paper yet. It's much more probable that ITS was descoped partially due to the threat of New Glenn making it DOA. New Glenn will almost certainly arrive sooner than mini-ITS for the above reasons.
Given the factory and launch infrastructure are actually being built for New Glenn and it has secured launch contracts, it is a little hyperbolic to claim it will be DOA because of mini-ITS. ITS doesn't even have a frozen design on paper yet. It's much more probable that ITS was descoped partially due to the threat of New Glenn making it DOA. New Glenn will almost certainly arrive sooner than mini-ITS for the above reasons.On the other hand, one of them has a viable engine that has undergone numerous firings on a test stand, the other does not. That's assuming the current sub-scale Raptor is suitable for the "mini-ITS", which seems likely. Will be very interesting to see what happens here, I've always thought that ITS was too big too soon, and SpaceX should have a NG-class rocket.
Given the factory and launch infrastructure are actually being built for New Glenn and it has secured launch contracts, it is a little hyperbolic to claim it will be DOA because of mini-ITS. ITS doesn't even have a frozen design on paper yet. It's much more probable that ITS was descoped partially due to the threat of New Glenn making it DOA. New Glenn will almost certainly arrive sooner than mini-ITS for the above reasons.
SpaceX does have a factory and several launch sites and lots of launch contracts (which are not necessarily fixed to specific vehicles, see Falcon 1), so it's not like they are behind in any of those areas. I also doubt the NG design is wholly frozen either - there will certainly be changes coming during testing, particularly BE-4 testing.
SpaceX is also including full reuse as baseline for the next-gen vehicle, while New Glenn does not (initially). That's a significant potential advantage, even if NG launches several years earlier.
Given the factory and launch infrastructure are actually being built for New Glenn and it has secured launch contracts, it is a little hyperbolic to claim it will be DOA because of mini-ITS. ITS doesn't even have a frozen design on paper yet. It's much more probable that ITS was descoped partially due to the threat of New Glenn making it DOA. New Glenn will almost certainly arrive sooner than mini-ITS for the above reasons.
SpaceX does have a factory and several launch sites and lots of launch contracts (which are not necessarily fixed to specific vehicles, see Falcon 1), so it's not like they are behind in any of those areas. I also doubt the NG design is wholly frozen either - there will certainly be changes coming during testing, particularly BE-4 testing.
SpaceX is also including full reuse as baseline for the next-gen vehicle, while New Glenn does not (initially). That's a significant potential advantage, even if NG launches several years earlier.
SpaceX have tested a subscale raptor, not the full up version that is roughly equivlant to BE4 in thrust. The full scale version will likely be qualified later than Blue's engine. As for any incarnation for the ITS, if will have to be assembled elsewhere than their current facilties in Hawthorne - either close to a water way or adjacent to the launch site itself. It is simply too big to be transported by road. If any SpaceX super rocket was going to be launching in the near future, there should be ground broken on a large assembly facility right now. That has not happened yet and to public knowledge there has been no competition to select a state to build such a facility in yet. A launch pad would also be selected by now or a plan to modify an existing pad to gigantic methalox rockets.
None of these things have happened yet therefore it's very probably to conclude any SpaceX gigantic rocket is years away and certainly behind New Glenn.
The Dead on Arrival comment applied to eiither company, is unsubstantiated hyperbole.
SpaceX have tested a subscale raptor, not the full up version that is roughly equivlant to BE4 in thrust. The full scale version will likely be qualified later than Blue's engine.This is straying off topic, but briefly; SpaceX is planning on using more engines than BO. A mini-ITS using the "subscale" Raptor seems plausible. Any thought from me that SpaceX is ahead of BO in engine development is predicated on the thought that they might decide to use "subscale" Raptor directly. Quite possible that isn't happening, in which case, I'd say it's pretty murky "who is ahead". Anyway, some good quality reasonable discussion going on here, so cheers for that :).
My impression is SpaceX's new vehicle (miniBRF/ITS) will compete with New Armstrong, not New Glenn. New Glenn will initially compete with F9 and FH for payloads.
ITSy (that's its name now)
SpaceX is also including full reuse as baseline for the next-gen vehicle, while New Glenn does not (initially). That's a significant potential advantage, even if NG launches several years earlier.
As for any incarnation for the ITS, if will have to be assembled elsewhere than their current facilties in Hawthorne - either close to a water way or adjacent to the launch site itself. It is simply too big to be transported by road.
No, I don't think so. I think the new ITS will be only slightly larger than NG. (Perhaps 9m diameter compared to 7m diameter, similar height) And all launchers compete with each other, when larger launchers can launch multiples payloads.
Any mini BFR is likely to be much more powerful than NG. It is also likely to be a 2 stage fully reusable design. It will also likely use the full size raptor engine, just fewer of them, there is plenty of time to scale up the raptor before either MBFR and/or NG are developed. People saying BO is further ahead is nuts they have no orbital rockets and no experience of reusability with rockets travelling at Mach 6/7.And all of those 6500 staff are surely gonna be working on MBFR because it's not like any of them are busy with commercial crew, satellite constellations, launch operations or any of that stuff.
SX also have far greater resources to put on the problem than BO. SX has something like 6,500 staff versus BO 1200. SX now has a successful business generating probable revenues in the $2-3 billion range in 2017, this will make it difficult even for Bezos to outspend Musk.
So full reusability versus partial, higher performance full scale raptor versus BE4, in orbit refuelling versus no such capability. All this points to a much more flexible and capable system, with likely much lower cost to orbit, moon and Mars capable. It will also be capable of human space flight which BO isn't even attempting as yet.Wasn't there something about BO doing second stage reuse later down the line? And what makes you so sure that BO isn't looking into in orbit refuelling as well? Also, how is New Sheppard not an attempt at human spaceflight?
Any mini BFR is likely to be much more powerful than NG. It is also likely to be a 2 stage fully reusable design. It will also likely use the full size raptor engine, just fewer of them, there is plenty of time to scale up the raptor before either MBFR and/or NG are developed. People saying BO is further ahead is nuts they have no orbital rockets and no experience of reusability with rockets travelling at Mach 6/7.
SX also have far greater resources to put on the problem than BO. SX has something like 6,500 staff versus BO 1200. SX now has a successful business generating probable revenues in the $2-3 billion range in 2017, this will make it difficult even for Bezos to outspend Musk.
So full reusability versus partial, higher performance full scale raptor versus BE4, in orbit refuelling versus no such capability. All this points to a much more flexible and capable system, with likely much lower cost to orbit, moon and Mars capable. It will also be capable of human space flight which BO isn't even attempting as yet.
Not sure which flys first but although SX system is more complex they have experience in many of the aspects and greater engineering resources to bring to problem.
If Musk can deliver such a system it would make life very difficult for BO. BO are playing catch up and the target isn't sitting still.
No, I don't think so. I think the new ITS will be only slightly larger than NG. (Perhaps 9m diameter compared to 7m diameter, similar height) And all launchers compete with each other, when larger launchers can launch multiples payloads.
That "slightly larger" 9 m diameter corresponds to a (9/7)³ = 2.13 times increase in volume! So effectively, double the payload mass.
<snip>
BO are playing catch up and the target isn't sitting still.
<snip>
BO are playing catch up and the target isn't sitting still.
This part is correct, but Blue has almost unlimited cash available. And more importantly, they have fewer competing obligations, so they are in a much better position to utilize their resources.
It wasn't as much as a statement of intent as it was something that he had already been doing for years:<snip>
BO are playing catch up and the target isn't sitting still.
This part is correct, but Blue has almost unlimited cash available. And more importantly, they have fewer competing obligations, so they are in a much better position to utilize their resources.
I don't know whether the "unlimited cash available" ultimately will be a blessing or a curse for Blue.
I read Bezos's "$1 billion a year" as an attempt to salt Musk's fields rather than a statement of intent.
BO is much more like old space than new space.Nod.
Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
Suggest SX is a provider and BO might become a provider.
Launching payloads routinely makes you different then adding to a manifest w/o a means to launch.
BO is acutely aware of this with NS and BE-4. When will these reliably "deliver" repeatably?
Now ... every time you add to the "pile" of stuff to launch, you risk going backwards (like AMOS 6).
While current providers ... already have the "pile" assembled and working. Adding to it as well, at a similar rate.
BO is much more like old space than new space.
Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
Having huge resources and no deadlines is not a formula for success. Look at the offspring of self-made wealthy families. A few succeed, but the majority are self-absorbed PITA(s). The space industry has notable parallels.
Money plus rocket factory does not equal success.
BO is much more like old space than new space.
Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
It seems like the DotCom Billionaire generation were the key catalyst needed to make Private Space take off, because they had the all-important deep pockets, and they had an open-minded can-do attitude towards complex technology.
Blue is better than SpaceX because it has more money behind it...
BO is much more like old space than new space.
Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
BO is much more like old space than new space.
Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
BO is not Old Space.
Old Space is "government space" or nominally private enterprises which nevertheless are primarily targeting government contracts. They "can't fail", and thus have no serious incentives to innovate.
BO is much more like old space than new space.
Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
bad reasoning. They aren't spending $1 bill a year. That is just what is available, not what spent. BO doesn't have the number of people to support such spending rates
You aren't going to be able to support your (in my view, iincorrect) claims that Spacex is better than BO
SpaceX has had a bunch of successes in the first half of this year, and Blue Origin has had a long lull in visible successes.SpaceX started trying to reach orbit in 2006 and finally succeeded in 2009. Orbital Sciences made it in 1990. Ariane reached orbit in 1979 (Ariane 1). ULA's predecessors first reached orbit in 1958.
However, that is a temporary state and we shouldn't expect it to last long. Blue Origin will have more successes in the future, and talk of Blue Origin not being able to compete with SpaceX despite having up to a billion per year in "free" funding will disappear.
Youre not wrong, just pointing out that these things ebb and flow. Blue could start flying people to space next year and lay down New Glenn test articles.SpaceX has had a bunch of successes in the first half of this year, and Blue Origin has had a long lull in visible successes.SpaceX started trying to reach orbit in 2006 and finally succeeded in 2009. Orbital Sciences made it in 1990. Ariane reached orbit in 1979 (Ariane 1). ULA's predecessors first reached orbit in 1958.
However, that is a temporary state and we shouldn't expect it to last long. Blue Origin will have more successes in the future, and talk of Blue Origin not being able to compete with SpaceX despite having up to a billion per year in "free" funding will disappear.
Blue Origin has yet to perform a single orbital launch. No matter how many billions Bezos spends, his company still has a long hard climb to get there. BE-4 full scale test was supposed to be in 2015, then 2016, etc..
- Ed Kyle
BO is much more like old space than new space.
Here's my reasoning, When NASA first decided to get quotes for commercial flights to the ISS it worked out what it would cost to develop is own solution using its usual cost plus contracting methods. It came up with a $4 bill + price tag. Musk got F9 up and running for about 1/10 th of that. Meanwhile BO has been on the go for 17 years or so. It's first rocket to orbit will probably not fly to 2020/21 and a cost of approx 6-7 billion(guesstimate of $1 bill a year in recent years and much less earlier) Old space development costs there. Orion type timescales with NASA time cost structures.
bad reasoning. They aren't spending $1 bill a year. That is just what is available, not what spent. BO doesn't have the number of people to support such spending rates
You aren't going to be able to support your (in my view, iincorrect) claims that Spacex is better than BO
This is a direct quote from Bezos. “My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin,” he told reporters here at the 33rd Space Symposium. “So the business model for Blue Origin is very robust.”
He has also said NG will cost about $2.5 bill to develop. Then u have the cost of new Shepard and BE3 and BE4, not hard to see my guesstimate probably not to far wrong.
Wether SX will prove to better in the long run who knows, but since both companies are of a similar age it is easy to see who has been most effective to date.
This is a direct quote from Bezos. “My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin,” he told reporters here at the 33rd Space Symposium. “So the business model for Blue Origin is very robust.”
...
I'm sorry - this is not a business model.
"My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin" - that's a financing model.
...
Of course he knows.This is a direct quote from Bezos. “My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin,” he told reporters here at the 33rd Space Symposium. “So the business model for Blue Origin is very robust.”
...
I'm sorry - this is not a business model.
"My business model right now for Blue Origin is, I sell about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock, and I use it to invest in Blue Origin" - that's a financing model.
...
Bezos knows perfectly well that its not a business model. His comments were slightly tongue in cheek, and his point was that he doesn't need a viable business model for Blue right now, since he is willing and able to fund it for quite some time without making any money.
But any vehicle with engine-out redundancy has to protect against a single engine failure taking out multiple other engines or the whole vehicle: it does not matter if there are 7 engines or 42, this protection is required.Single catastrophic engine failure is a lot higher with 42 engines than 7 which brings increased risk of bringing down the LV. So BO will have a leg up over SpaceX in this aspect of HLV design if BO dev. an engine powerful enough that they only need 7 of them for NA booster. SpaceX is much more funding limited than BO which is why they are going about the N-1 approach with the ITS. BO has more than ample funding to dev. a SC engine with greater thrust than the F-1 which SpaceX has not.
Single catastrophic engine failure is a lot higher with 42 engines than 7 which brings increased risk of bringing down the LV.
So BO will have a leg up over SpaceX in this aspect of HLV design if BO dev. an engine powerful enough that they only need 7 of them for NA booster.
SpaceX is much more funding limited than BO which is why they are going about the N-1 approach with the ITS. BO has more than ample funding to dev. a SC engine with greater thrust than the F-1 which SpaceX has not.
But any vehicle with engine-out redundancy has to protect against a single engine failure taking out multiple other engines or the whole vehicle: it does not matter if there are 7 engines or 42, this protection is required.Single catastrophic engine failure is a lot higher with 42 engines than 7 which brings increased risk of bringing down the LV. ...
Blue is better than SpaceX because it has more money behind it...
I don't know that to be true. SpaceX's book of business sustains quite a lot of development activities.
And its investors are even more deep-pocketed than Bezos.
What "book of business"?
Who are more deep-pocketed than Jeff Bezos?
"Book of business" is a term of art describing the grouping of relationships served by a company. Often used in relationship management and legal firms, as to degrees of certain kinds/classes of clients.
Who are more deep-pocketed than Jeff Bezos?
Alphabet, which has more cash on hand than Bezos has in total assets.
Alphabet, which has more cash on hand than Bezos has in total assets.... but zillion other projects to fund. They are only funding the internet satellite project of spacex.
and, Elon is allowing NOBODY to invest so much into spaceX that he loses his >50% stake of it, until there is a colony on Mars. He has made it quite clear.
The whole purpose of SpaceX is mars colonization, and giving up his majority stake would endanger that.
What "book of business"?
Last I heard, the SpaceX "book of business" includes about $10 billion in revenue. And given this is the rocket business, SpaceX gets progress payments.
...
This is not very much for developing new rockets and world's most advances rocket engines
...
The fact that Elon is having to raise several hundred million at this point makes me wonder if he's dealing with cashflow problems from having overspent progress payments on reusability R&D.
Multi-class stock structures with unevenly distributed voting rights (usually done so that one or more founders can retain > 50% of voting rights while holding < 50% of ownership) have come under fire recently:and, Elon is allowing NOBODY to invest so much into spaceX that he loses his >50% stake of it, until there is a colony on Mars. He has made it quite clear.Not a concern. He has 78% voting control.
The whole purpose of SpaceX is mars colonization, and giving up his majority stake would endanger that.
The fact that Elon is having to raise several hundred million at this point makes me wonder if he's dealing with cashflow problems from having overspent progress payments on reusability R&D.
Spending more money on R&D than your customers have financed is not indicative of "overspending" or "cashflow problems" in the venture-funded world in which SpaceX operates. It is taken as a given that a young, growing business does this.
Additionally, SpaceX has to do at least an annual "liquidity round" for employees and others to be able to sell SpaceX stock for personal purposes. Relatively small numbers like these (hundreds of millions in a company valued now over $20B) likely don't reflect SpaceX needing to raise capital.
Not to go too far off topic but is this annual liquidity round for employees a requirement or just a common practice? Does it have to be annual? And how is Blue doing this, do employees get options to enhance retention? or is Bezos the sole owner? I can't recall hearing about any liquidity rounds... That's an area where one or the other may have competitive advantage...
Not to go too far off topic but is this annual liquidity round for employees a requirement or just a common practice? Does it have to be annual? And how is Blue doing this, do employees get options to enhance retention? or is Bezos the sole owner? I can't recall hearing about any liquidity rounds... That's an area where one or the other may have competitive advantage...
It is common among large unicorns that have private for many years. E.g., Uber.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-15/uber-gives-restless-employees-a-way-to-cash-out
thanks. Question still stands, does anyone know what Blue is doing? Do employees get only salary? Is that an advantage or disadvantage? Does it attract different sorts of people (I would think so... )
Thinking more about this from the "SX competition" thread elsewhere.
It would appear that all providers (including potential new ones large and small), are becoming more "gradual". Even SX's rapid pace of development/flight test appears to have slowed from the frenetic pace of landing/engine performance/chilled props/other.
...
What happens to upset this, where "good enough" isn't "better"? ;)
Proposed development options
CNES began studies in 2010[35] on an alternative, reusable first stage for Ariane 6, using a mix of liquid oxygen and liquid methane rather than hydrogen in the current Ariane 6 first-stage design. The methane-powered core would use one or more engines, matching capabilities of Ariane 64 with only two boosters instead of four. Economic feasibility of reusing an entire stage however remains in question. Con-current with the Liquid fly-back booster research in the late 90s and early 00s CNES along with Russia concluded studies indicating that reusing the first stage was economically unviable as manufacturing ten rockets a year was cheaper and more feasible than recovery, refurbishment and loss of performance caused by reusability.[36]
Main article: Adeline (rocket stage)
In June 2015, Airbus Defence and Space announced that development of Adeline, a partially reusable first stage, would become operational between 2025 and 2030, and that it would be developed as a subsequent first stage for Ariane 6. Rather than developing a way to reuse an entire first stage (like SpaceX), Airbus proposed a system where only high-value parts would be safely returned using a winged module at the bottom of the rocket stack.[35]
In August 2016 Airbus Safran Launchers gave some more details about future development plans building on the Ariane 6 design. CEO Alain Charmeau revealed that Airbus Safran were now working along two main lines: first, continuing work (at the company's own expense) on the recoverable Adeline engine-and-avionics module; and second, beginning development of a next-generation engine to be called Prometheus. This engine would have about the same thrust as the Vulcain 2 currently powering Ariane 5, but would burn methane instead of liquid hydrogen. Charmeau was non-committal about whether Prometheus (still only in the first few months of development) could be used as an expendable replacement for the Vulcain 2 in Ariane 6, or whether it was tied to the re-usable Adeline design, saying only that "We are cautious, and we prefer to speak when are sure of what we announce. ... But certainly this engine could very well fit with the first stage of Ariane 6 one day".[3] In 2017 the Prometheus engine project was revealed to have the aim of reducing the engine unit cost from the €10m of the Vulcain2 to €1m and allowing the engine to be reused up to five times.[37]
The issue overall with what you suggest is that they need sufficient reason. AG, in the best position, has some but a full plate so will have to creatively rework multiple programs on the fly w/o letting anything drop. ULA's marching orders don't contain a possibility of it, and they don't need it for the launches they've signed up for.
...
Suggest a variation on 3. That Boeing/LM shift to spacecraft production that takes advantage of launch frequency/immediacy to ramp volume of payloads. Then, there would be a reason once again for in house launch capability to meet the demand, for a subset of customers not comfortable with SX.
If you're (Boeing/LM) so good, why not spin out (as is done in Silicon Valley - Cisco did this a lot) - a startup, co-financed with venture, conquer a part of the SC space, and acquire it again back into the main company. High capital reuse, keeps company culture end to end, secures inaccessible parts of the market, and you don't risk anything but your initial stake. When it works, you own all that market, and increase your market cap.
QuoteIf you're (Boeing/LM) so good, why not spin out (as is done in Silicon Valley - Cisco did this a lot) - a startup, co-financed with venture, conquer a part of the SC space, and acquire it again back into the main company. High capital reuse, keeps company culture end to end, secures inaccessible parts of the market, and you don't risk anything but your initial stake. When it works, you own all that market, and increase your market cap.
More likely is their buying one or more of the players in the game just as they gobbled up the space launch and spacecraft players. That only reduced competition, advancing the technology approximately zero. Once the satellite industry enters a Silicon Valley-like development cycle, lumbering old school companies are in trouble. IBM, GE, others tried to push into the personal computing revolution...
New players like Blue and some of the small launcher/small satellite start-ups will own chunks of the field if history is any indication. Figuring out who and how is the challenge. Silicon Valley in the 1970s/80s all over again.
I'll say this much, I've never known so many people act like they are falling over each other to join BO. Sadly, if understandably, it's because they are offering incredible salaries and benefits - easily the best in the business...."by a massive margin".
I'll say this much, I've never known so many people act like they are falling over each other to join BO. Sadly, if understandably, it's because they are offering incredible salaries and benefits - easily the best in the business...."by a massive margin".
IBM, GE, others tried to push into the personal computing revolution...
QuoteIf you're (Boeing/LM) so good, why not spin out (as is done in Silicon Valley - Cisco did this a lot) - a startup, co-financed with venture, conquer a part of the SC space, and acquire it again back into the main company. High capital reuse, keeps company culture end to end, secures inaccessible parts of the market, and you don't risk anything but your initial stake. When it works, you own all that market, and increase your market cap.
More likely is their buying one or more of the players in the game just as they gobbled up the space launch and spacecraft players. That only reduced competition, advancing the technology approximately zero. Once the satellite industry enters a Silicon Valley-like development cycle, lumbering old school companies are in trouble. IBM, GE, others tried to push into the personal computing revolution...
New players like Blue and some of the small launcher/small satellite start-ups will own chunks of the field if history is any indication. Figuring out who and how is the challenge. Silicon Valley in the 1970s/80s all over again.
IBM, GE, others tried to push into the personal computing revolution...
Just picking a nit, the IBM PC was revolutionary (despite having basically no new/revolutionary tech) since it legitimized personal computers, and the architecture it introduced is more or less still in use today. So your assertion isn't quite right. IBM shaped it.
The analogy is that if a big player gives a small player legitimacy here, things change. This is happening with SES and others, and their relationship with SpaceX.
PS: NOT an official IBM spokesperson, they'd be daft to make me one!
I believe it is the failure to concentrate on the business items that can cause the business case to fail. SpaceX, and I believe BO, are both putting the emphasis into the correct areas to be able to make the operational costs be much lower for their partial reusable vehicles than any other expendable vehicle can possibly achieve.IBM, GE, others tried to push into the personal computing revolution...
Just picking a nit, the IBM PC was revolutionary (despite having basically no new/revolutionary tech) since it legitimized personal computers, and the architecture it introduced is more or less still in use today. So your assertion isn't quite right. IBM shaped it.
The analogy is that if a big player gives a small player legitimacy here, things change. This is happening with SES and others, and their relationship with SpaceX.
PS: NOT an official IBM spokesperson, they'd be daft to make me one!
'Shaped' is quite different than leading or maintaining a substantial piece of the market. Not to dis IBM, but they weren't sufficiently agile to innovate and lead as the personal computer market took off... and playing catch-up is a tough game. I was with GE when they looked into this technology and decided it had no significant future. General Motors introduced electric vehicles before the market took off and junked their efforts as a non-starter.
The Bigs get it wrong, IMO, because they cannot see a world in which their tech isn't... big (A.K.A, de-legitify alternate approaches).
I believe it is the failure to concentrate on the business items that can cause the business case to fail. SpaceX, and I believe BO, are both putting the emphasis into the correct areas to be able to make the operational costs be much lower for their partial reusable vehicles than any other expendable vehicle can possibly achieve.
SpaceX did this by way of an evolutionary bootstrap. But BO since it has "excess" funds can go the direct route to the end item (well at least the first step the reusable booster stage) on the first launch. They would then "iron" out any faults during the short <10 flights test/initial operations phase. Then they would go on to the next step of a fully reusable larger vehicle. Much like SpaceX is trying to do right now. Both would be attempting a direct implementation of a fully resemble vehicle after gaining experience with the partial booster reusable vehicles.
As SpaceX is now, NO. They are the same actually. But as SpaceX was, YES. SpaceX was the true pioneer. Think of BO's NS as the same as SpaceX's grasshopper. They both learned the same things from the operation of these vehicles. But SpaceX is the only one who have been able to turn it into a reusable orbital class booster implementation as of yet. BO must still go through the final refinements of design that losing a few on landing teaches. But they first must have an orbital class vehicle. SpaceX first developed the orbital class vehicle and then adapted it for powered landing. BO will not be doing an adaption but the powered landing hardware and software will be part of the very first vehicle (whether it works or not). This makes BO and SpaceX as they are now the same in design business goals methodologies. But before this point they had different methods that have been converging into a similar set.I believe it is the failure to concentrate on the business items that can cause the business case to fail. SpaceX, and I believe BO, are both putting the emphasis into the correct areas to be able to make the operational costs be much lower for their partial reusable vehicles than any other expendable vehicle can possibly achieve.
SpaceX did this by way of an evolutionary bootstrap. But BO since it has "excess" funds can go the direct route to the end item (well at least the first step the reusable booster stage) on the first launch. They would then "iron" out any faults during the short <10 flights test/initial operations phase. Then they would go on to the next step of a fully reusable larger vehicle. Much like SpaceX is trying to do right now. Both would be attempting a direct implementation of a fully resemble vehicle after gaining experience with the partial booster reusable vehicles.
So you're saying that Blue Origin is less "gradatim" than SpaceX is? ;)
IBM, GE, others tried to push into the personal computing revolution...
Just picking a nit, the IBM PC was revolutionary (despite having basically no new/revolutionary tech) since it legitimized personal computers, and the architecture it introduced is more or less still in use today. So your assertion isn't quite right. IBM shaped it.
The analogy is that if a big player gives a small player legitimacy here, things change. This is happening with SES and others, and their relationship with SpaceX.
PS: NOT an official IBM spokesperson, they'd be daft to make me one!
'Shaped' is quite different than leading or maintaining a substantial piece of the market. Not to dis IBM, but they weren't sufficiently agile to innovate and lead as the personal computer market took off... and playing catch-up is a tough game. I was with GE when they looked into this technology and decided it had no significant future. General Motors introduced electric vehicles before the market took off and junked their efforts as a non-starter.
The Bigs get it wrong, IMO, because they cannot see a world in which their tech isn't... big (A.K.A, de-legitify alternate approaches).
What helped undermine IBM's position in the PC market though was that PC's were (are) collections of components made by lots of different parties, and integrated into a system using standardized interfaces and then is capable of running a vendor agnostic operating system. This drastically reduced the barriers to entry to the business and drove down profit margins.IBM, GE, others tried to push into the personal computing revolution...
Just picking a nit, the IBM PC was revolutionary (despite having basically no new/revolutionary tech) since it legitimized personal computers, and the architecture it introduced is more or less still in use today. So your assertion isn't quite right. IBM shaped it.
The analogy is that if a big player gives a small player legitimacy here, things change. This is happening with SES and others, and their relationship with SpaceX.
PS: NOT an official IBM spokesperson, they'd be daft to make me one!
'Shaped' is quite different than leading or maintaining a substantial piece of the market. Not to dis IBM, but they weren't sufficiently agile to innovate and lead as the personal computer market took off... and playing catch-up is a tough game. I was with GE when they looked into this technology and decided it had no significant future. General Motors introduced electric vehicles before the market took off and junked their efforts as a non-starter.
The Bigs get it wrong, IMO, because they cannot see a world in which their tech isn't... big (A.K.A, de-legitify alternate approaches).
There is a valuable lesson to learn from IBM and the PC. I was there and I admit my bias... but I think your analysis misses the mark.
IBM came in late. But when IBM came in, all of a sudden, a hobbyist thing that was growing slowly (and maybe had just gotten to the knee in the growth curve) got supercharged, and super legitimate. Big customers fell all over each other to put IBM PCs or XTs or ATs on everyone's desk. And IBM made MS-DOS, and later, Windows, happen. Microsoft became a success thanks to IBM. The market growth and sales growth in the first 5 years after the introduction of the IBM PC was phenomenal. IBM was probably caught off guard at first, as the PC came out of a skunkworks (a few rogue/renegade employees that got some leeway made it happen... ) This in part explains some of the compromises and even bad decisions around the bus, the processor, the memory architecture, how DOS worked, etc. IBM scrambled to catch up... with itself.
IBM was on top though. Clear market leader and standard setter. And IBMs legitimization made a lot of other companies very successful in the third party market. Apple, who arguably was the company that caused the nascent knee in place when IBM blew things wide open, was in dire straits. It took them a while to recover. The Mac was their savior product. (Lisa was too expensive)
But what happened? Why isn't IBM still in this business? IBM got complacent, and the business got commoditized. The PS/2 architecture was an attempt to recapture the mantle, but it was already too late for desktops and luggables. The clone PC companies had already blown past IBM. The Thinkpad was another attempt to recapture the mantle and it did very well ... IBM was again shaping the market but this time for laptops... however it did not last. IBM eventually exited the business almost completely, one segment at a time. (I type this on a Thinkpad. Made by Lenovo).
The lessons here
- Sometimes when the dog catches the bus, the dog will have no idea how to actually exploit that.
- Complacency is dangerous. Being on top this year is no guarantee of success year after next.
- Your competitors are not incompetent. Betting that they will fail is a losing strategy.
- No one is too big to fail in a market, unless they have government propping them up
- Markets morph and you have to change. Apple reinvented itself several times, after all.
I am sure that both Musk and Bezos have studied this and other business stories of the past, and have drawn the right conclusions.
So to dismiss the very profound effect IBM had on this market is to miss valuable lessons.
TL;DR I think SpaceX is in a similar position as IBM in that others can duplicate and improve on their successes. (I also think SpaceX knows this and won't make the same mistakes as far as there are parallels. But I'm sure they'll make plenty of new mistakes. That's how it goes...)... --- 8< lots of nested trimming for mme's ADHD addled brain 8< --- ...What helped undermine IBM's position in the PC market though was that PC's were (are) collections of components made by lots of different parties, and integrated into a system using standardized interfaces and then is capable of running a vendor agnostic operating system. This drastically reduced the barriers to entry to the business and drove down profit margins.
There is a valuable lesson to learn from IBM and the PC. I was there and I admit my bias... but I think your analysis misses the mark.
...
The lessons here
- Sometimes when the dog catches the bus, the dog will have no idea how to actually exploit that.
- Complacency is dangerous. Being on top this year is no guarantee of success year after next.
- Your competitors are not incompetent. Betting that they will fail is a losing strategy.
- No one is too big to fail in a market, unless they have government propping them up
- Markets morph and you have to change. Apple reinvented itself several times, after all.
...
Now, from what I see in the rocket business, is the complete opposite situation. The launch business is getting more vertically integrated, not less. Everyone getting started has to come up with their own propulsion, avionics, press system, airframe design, etc., and then have to build and maintain launch facilities or try to share those facilities with other providers.
TL, DR: PC's are LEGO's, rockets are not.
What helped undermine IBM's position in the PC market though was that PC's were (are) collections of components made by lots of different parties, and integrated into a system using standardized interfaces and then is capable of running a vendor agnostic operating system. This drastically reduced the barriers to entry to the business and drove down profit margins.
Now, from what I see in the rocket business, is the complete opposite situation. The launch business is getting more vertically integrated, not less. Everyone getting started has to come up with their own propulsion, avionics, press system, airframe design, etc., and then have to build and maintain launch facilities or try to share those facilities with other providers.
TL, DR: PC's are LEGO's, rockets are not.
We're not talking about OrbitalATK here but they are notorious (in a good way, they make money) for putting together systems from disparate components... If anyone is disproving the "rockets are not LEGO elements" mantra, it's them....
If the "vertical integration is the secret sauce" camp is right, they're in for a lot of pain... SIs may not survive.
SpaceX and Blue are both exceedingly vertically integrated (although we may be guessing a bit about Blue) so at the first order of analysis, this isn't a business strategy differentiator that gives one a leg up over the other. BUT, SpaceX may be more "good enough" and Blue may be more "get it right, not just good enough"... which is easier for the second guy, as long as they don't dawdle TOO much.
I wouldn't be surprised that within five years that Blue Origin and SpaceX would merge. The catalyst that would go beyond their egos and varied visions to joining up would be that both would be both struggling; SpaceX with BFR, and Blue with New Glenn and (New Armstrong?). Their combined resources, money and assets would be an interesting mix, with each assisting the other to come out with a comprehensive space strategy and fleet and a choke hold on the launching industry. Already, both are poised to make every other rocket and space agency obsolete, so one will be stronger than two.
To me, both are businessmen, and both, ultimately, may be a better mix than most would think.
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.
After the IAC speech, I'm feeling like Musk's answer to "Gradatim Ferociter" is "Qui Audet, Vincit" (Who Dares, Wins)
You're both right. This is a gutsy move by SpaceX because they don't get $1 billion for free every year no strings attached like Blue Origin does, but experience-wise and technically speaking, SpaceX is FAR better prepared for BFR than Blue Origin is for New Glenn. And FH/Dragon to BFR /is/ actually a much smaller step than from New Shepard to New Glenn.
I still have no doubt that Blue Origin will eventually get New Glenn to orbit. They've become quiet again, but they're working furiously.
After the IAC speech, I'm feeling like Musk's answer to "Gradatim Ferociter" is "Qui Audet, Vincit" (Who Dares, Wins)Well put.
He's also moved to infringe on Bezo's "industrialization of space" direction. ITS had a primary focus on Mars, secondary on rest of solar system. BFR recent still has Mars as the guiding light, but the moon, masses of humanity in/via space, and setting up communities that work/live off Earth.
Your right - he's daring more, and visualizing it unlike BO, who is more vague. Yet Bezos has to take on all and more SX has accomplished ... as his next step to orbit ... when he can't even get his next gen engine to burp test on a test stand.
Note also that Musk's repositioning BFR as SX's next big experiment - they don't reprise BFR like Falcon, instead its like a test project in public sight, that forms in its entirety, takes a more direct path as affordable to spaceflight.
While the NG "next act" has to be "all real", "all a once", doing full commercial from practically the first launch ... BFR seems to take the fast assemble, possibly "boom" "boom" of the early booster landings, in stride, leaving the F9/FH to do the commercial launch service business including NSS. NG has to be real, while BFR stays as a experimental program until its not, then relentlessly works its way to in slumming unmanned payloads to orbit, until human qualified, probably while coexisting with Falcon the entire time.
... Yet Bezos has to take on all and more SX has accomplished ... as his next step to orbit ... when he can't even get his next gen engine to burp test on a test stand.We don't know that for sure. But I don't think I got any updates from Blue recently (I am on their update mailing list).. like, not since March. So the radio silence is not a good sign.
Blue will likely break their silence shortly after they have successfully fired a complete BE-4 engine which I hope will be soon. No co. wants to provide any updates when things go wrong and will only provide updates when things are going well again.... Yet Bezos has to take on all and more SX has accomplished ... as his next step to orbit ... when he can't even get his next gen engine to burp test on a test stand.We don't know that for sure. But I don't think I got any updates from Blue recently (I am on their update mailing list).. like, not since March. So the radio silence is not a good sign.
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.Blue could leapfrog SpX by fully committing to NA to beat SpX at their own game and cancel NG in favour of NA.
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.
BO will definitely not pack up and go home as they are in for the long haul and have the financial backing of JB to keep them funded for many years to come even if they are not making revenue. BO will make revenue and will hopefully successfully compete with SpX. ULA is much more likely to pack up being unable to compete with BO and SpX.It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.
Counting chickens before they hatch.
This is the sort of nonsense that I hate. ULA and BO should just stop and pack up and go home.
BO will definitely not pack up and go home as they are in for the long haul and have the financial backing of JB to keep them funded for many years to come even if they are not making revenue.
BO will make revenue
Blue will likely break their silence shortly after they have successfully fired a complete BE-4 engine which I hope will be soon. No co. wants to provide any updates when things go wrong and will only provide updates when things are going well again.... Yet Bezos has to take on all and more SX has accomplished ... as his next step to orbit ... when he can't even get his next gen engine to burp test on a test stand.We don't know that for sure. But I don't think I got any updates from Blue recently (I am on their update mailing list).. like, not since March. So the radio silence is not a good sign.
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.Blue could leapfrog SpX by fully committing to NA to beat SpX at their own game and cancel NG in favour of NA.
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.Blue could leapfrog SpX by fully committing to NA to beat SpX at their own game and cancel NG in favour of NA.
The data point I am looking for on New Glenn is the purchase or construction of the landing ship. If we don't hear about this long lead time item soon, Blue's plans may have changed to look more like SpaceX's, i.e. return to landing site/reusable second stage/fairing combo.
Matthew
What you want, and which order (long lead items):
1. Engines - they take the longest, because hardest to prove them, and as you change them you mostly have to start over.
2. Vehicle facilities including assembly, integration, pad, tank farm, recovery, control room, etc
3. Fairing - including test
4. Vehicle fabrication - structural test articles
5. GSE, launchers, transporters - fit checks
6. Payload processing
7. Payload adapters
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.
Counting chickens before they hatch.
This is the sort of nonsense that I hate. ULA and BO should just stop and pack up and go home.
Spaceships (as opposed to rockets) will take longer.
Longer to develop, longer to build, longer to test.
There has never been a 100-person spaceship.
Or a 100-person Mars lander
Or a 100-person 150-day zero-g habitat.
So much to design, it boggles the mind.
I say it's designed to make NG DOA, nowhere do I say it will succeed. Musk has to execute, no mean feat. However if he does it appears if BFR/BFS meet Musks Specs then Bezos will be needing to sell many more shares in Amazon before he can be competitive than what he needed for NG development. I expect Bezos saw ITS as a huge strategic blunder by Musk. I think Musk new plan just closed the door he had opened for Bezos.
By the way Jim by using the term nonsense u can offend people, I don't agree is better terminology. It appears to me if there is a stick lying around u like to pick up the wrong end of it.
So from what I'm hearing here, there's a recognition that Bezos / Blue Origin have forced Musk to revise his BFR plans from what they were before. Musk has thus indirectly acknowledged that "industrializing the solar system" is a better vision than just the strict focus on colonizing Mars.The only change from last year's plan is the scale, to accelerate BFR's development.The idea that to fund your trips to Mars you have to exploit the heck out of the unprecedented capabilities you have to develop anyways to go there affordably is a no-brainer. Bezos has nothing to do with it. And do you really think that this wasn't clear to EM and SpaceX last year and before? That they would design something like the BFR and use it solely for Mars? They still haven't talked about orbital tourism, do you think they haven't even thought about it?
JB has enough money to fund full dev. of NA without BO having even made a single revenue paying launch. SpaceX have to pay their way to be able to fund BFR dev.Sure they could... That would be one hell of a leapfrog, passing over both NS and NG. I mean, both have had a long and storied lifetime. </sarcastic>It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.Blue could leapfrog SpX by fully committing to NA to beat SpX at their own game and cancel NG in favour of NA.
So from what I'm hearing here, there's a recognition that Bezos / Blue Origin have forced Musk to revise his BFR plans from what they were before. Musk has thus indirectly acknowledged that "industrializing the solar system" is a better vision than just the strict focus on colonizing Mars.The only change from last year's plan is the scale, to accelerate BFR's development.The idea that to fund your trips to Mars you have to exploit the heck out of the unprecedented capabilities you have to develop anyways to go there affordably is a no-brainer. Bezos has nothing to do with it. And do you really think that this wasn't clear to EM and SpaceX last year and before? That they would design something like the BFR and use it solely for Mars? They still haven't talked about orbital tourism, do you think they haven't even thought about it?
I mean there's a clear lack of perspective here, imo, where some are inflating the competitive position/influence of BO towards SX.
To Patchouli: You can say things like 'BO plan to have a reusable first stage, expendable 2nd at the beginning is better than SpX's plan' if you put SX and BO on the same level ignoring that SX already has a rocket 'with a reusable first stage, expendable second stage', and IT'S FUNCTIONAL NOW. What you call 'BO's plan' is what SpaceX ha already done with F9. Heck, even considering the added complexity of BFR's second stage/spaceship you could say that even BFR is better placed to become functional than New Glenn. Raptor has already been tested extensively, at a scale really close to flight, whereas BE-4 still hasn't. SX already has launch/landing facilities, already has a factory (and they clearly want to produce BFR in Hawthorne), has actual experience with orbital reusability and has recently developed not one, but three orbital systems, whereas BO none. I find it really hard to understand why many seem to assume that New Glenn is undoubtedly closer to become reality than BFR. And, maybe its a stretch, but I think the same might apply to Vulcan.
I don't think NG can be upgraded to compete with BFR as making the second stage reusable is going to knock the payload available to LEO way down.
So from what I'm hearing here, there's a recognition that Bezos / Blue Origin have forced Musk to revise his BFR plans from what they were before. Musk has thus indirectly acknowledged that "industrializing the solar system" is a better vision than just the strict focus on colonizing Mars....
SX already has launch/landing facilities, already has a factory (and they clearly want to produce BFR in Hawthorne), has actual experience with orbital reusability and has recently developed not one, but three orbital systems, whereas BO none. I find it really hard to understand why many seem to assume that New Glenn is undoubtedly closer to become reality than BFR. And, maybe its a stretch, but I think the same might apply to Vulcan.
So from what I'm hearing here, there's a recognition that Bezos / Blue Origin have forced Musk to revise his BFR plans from what they were before. Musk has thus indirectly acknowledged that "industrializing the solar system" is a better vision than just the strict focus on colonizing Mars....
SX already has launch/landing facilities, already has a factory (and they clearly want to produce BFR in Hawthorne), has actual experience with orbital reusability and has recently developed not one, but three orbital systems, whereas BO none. I find it really hard to understand why many seem to assume that New Glenn is undoubtedly closer to become reality than BFR. And, maybe its a stretch, but I think the same might apply to Vulcan.
Good point.
Since both NG and Vulcan depend (timeline-wise) on the same engine, and BFR's engine is firing on the stand regularly, you may be correct about both. But Blue has zero orbital launch experience... My bet would be that Vulcan flies before BFR which flies before NG.
By the way Jim by using the term nonsense u can offend people, I don't agree is better terminology. It appears to me if there is a stick lying around u like to pick up the wrong end of it.
So from what I'm hearing here, there's a recognition that Bezos / Blue Origin have forced Musk to revise his BFR plans from what they were before. Musk has thus indirectly acknowledged that "industrializing the solar system" is a better vision than just the strict focus on colonizing Mars.The only change from last year's plan is the scale, to accelerate BFR's development.The idea that to fund your trips to Mars you have to exploit the heck out of the unprecedented capabilities you have to develop anyways to go there affordably is a no-brainer. Bezos has nothing to do with it. And do you really think that this wasn't clear to EM and SpaceX last year and before? That they would design something like the BFR and use it solely for Mars? They still haven't talked about orbital tourism, do you think they haven't even thought about it?
I mean there's a clear lack of perspective here, imo, where some are inflating the competitive position/influence of BO towards SX.
So from what I'm hearing here, there's a recognition that Bezos / Blue Origin have forced Musk to revise his BFR plans from what they were before. Musk has thus indirectly acknowledged that "industrializing the solar system" is a better vision than just the strict focus on colonizing Mars.The only change from last year's plan is the scale, to accelerate BFR's development.The idea that to fund your trips to Mars you have to exploit the heck out of the unprecedented capabilities you have to develop anyways to go there affordably is a no-brainer. Bezos has nothing to do with it. And do you really think that this wasn't clear to EM and SpaceX last year and before? That they would design something like the BFR and use it solely for Mars? They still haven't talked about orbital tourism, do you think they haven't even thought about it?
I mean there's a clear lack of perspective here, imo, where some are inflating the competitive position/influence of BO towards SX.
Yeah, I hear you - but dude, Musk has for some time articulated his ambitions purely in terms of Mars - at least since the discovery of the water ice there. But the business case for Mars was always weak. He was going to build the great rocket - but by betting on some huge Martian homesteader movement that likely wouldn't materialize?
Now at least he's broadening his scope of his rhetoric and coming back towards more realistic business cases (although Point-2-Point travel on Earth ICBM-style likewise seems unrealistic).
The Moon is mere days away, while Mars is months away. Traveling to the Moon isn't seen as a 1-way trip. Technology is now catching up, and aspiration is scaling back, to have a happy meeting in the middle.
There's plenty of glory to be found in cis-lunar that it will capture the imagination of the public at large, while also not being too steep or impossible a challenge, both fiscally and technologically.
By the way Jim by using the term nonsense u can offend people, I don't agree is better terminology. It appears to me if there is a stick lying around u like to pick up the wrong end of it.
Ok, then a better word would be inane. There is nothing that comes close to supporting your claim. NG can exist despite what Spacex is doing. There are many other rockets and Falcon 9 is not making them go away.
So from what I'm hearing here, there's a recognition that Bezos / Blue Origin have forced Musk to revise his BFR plans from what they were before. Musk has thus indirectly acknowledged that "industrializing the solar system" is a better vision than just the strict focus on colonizing Mars.The only change from last year's plan is the scale, to accelerate BFR's development.The idea that to fund your trips to Mars you have to exploit the heck out of the unprecedented capabilities you have to develop anyways to go there affordably is a no-brainer. Bezos has nothing to do with it. And do you really think that this wasn't clear to EM and SpaceX last year and before? That they would design something like the BFR and use it solely for Mars? They still haven't talked about orbital tourism, do you think they haven't even thought about it?
I mean there's a clear lack of perspective here, imo, where some are inflating the competitive position/influence of BO towards SX.
Yeah, I hear you - but dude, Musk has for some time articulated his ambitions purely in terms of Mars - at least since the discovery of the water ice there. But the business case for Mars was always weak. He was going to build the great rocket - but by betting on some huge Martian homesteader movement that likely wouldn't materialize?
Now at least he's broadening his scope of his rhetoric and coming back towards more realistic business cases (although Point-2-Point travel on Earth ICBM-style likewise seems unrealistic).
The Moon is mere days away, while Mars is months away. Traveling to the Moon isn't seen as a 1-way trip. Technology is now catching up, and aspiration is scaling back, to have a happy meeting in the middle.
There's plenty of glory to be found in cis-lunar that it will capture the imagination of the public at large, while also not being too steep or impossible a challenge, both fiscally and technologically.
Musk simply realized that there's no point making enemies out of the Moon/Orbital brigade. Why argue with them?
He's building his rockets, and his plans are squarely on Mars.
He's going to let nature take its course regarding the moon. If someone wants to fund a base on the moon or orbital factories or what have you - and is willing to pay for them - BFR is at their service.
He also doesn't think any such party will show up, so it's really a combination of win-win and of moot... A win-moot.... Wintermute!
BO is very likely to buy ULA at some point, even though there's a lot of baggage that goes with it.
Don't forget that BO is operating under time dilation constants larger than SpaceX's, and while JB's funding means they'll never go bankrupt, it doesn't guarantee they'll ever get it done.
They're also trying to go from zero to world's largest rocket in one step. No F1 or F9 to gain experience on.
Buying ULA help with these issues, and ULA is certainly looking for a way to survive in the not too long term.
And realize there's not much different between NG and BFR. Both designed to be fully reusable (eventually for NG). They both use methane/oxygen.
BO is very likely to buy ULA at some point, even though there's a lot of baggage that goes with it.
Don't forget that BO is operating under time dilation constants larger than SpaceX's, and while JB's funding means they'll never go bankrupt, it doesn't guarantee they'll ever get it done.
They're also trying to go from zero to world's largest rocket in one step. No F1 or F9 to gain experience on.
Buying ULA help with these issues, and ULA is certainly looking for a way to survive in the not too long term.
BO is very likely to buy ULA at some point, even though there's a lot of baggage that goes with it.
Don't forget that BO is operating under time dilation constants larger than SpaceX's, and while JB's funding means they'll never go bankrupt, it doesn't guarantee they'll ever get it done.
They're also trying to go from zero to world's largest rocket in one step. No F1 or F9 to gain experience on.
Buying ULA help with these issues, and ULA is certainly looking for a way to survive in the not too long term.
....
I don't see it. Boeing/LM didn't sell ULA for $4B, I doubt Bezos would want to hand out $5B+ just to buy ULA, what's the point? If he needs experienced people, he'll just poach them.
I do wonder why Blue and ULA didn't partner to build a common first stage using the original smaller BE-4, with 5 engines they can have something in the Falcon 9 thrust range, with potential to do first stage landing.
Well the value is not going up, that's for sure... But at some point ULA is going to be worth more to BO that to anyone else...BO is very likely to buy ULA at some point, even though there's a lot of baggage that goes with it.
Don't forget that BO is operating under time dilation constants larger than SpaceX's, and while JB's funding means they'll never go bankrupt, it doesn't guarantee they'll ever get it done.
They're also trying to go from zero to world's largest rocket in one step. No F1 or F9 to gain experience on.
Buying ULA help with these issues, and ULA is certainly looking for a way to survive in the not too long term.
I don't see it. Boeing/LM didn't sell ULA for $4B, I doubt Bezos would want to hand out $5B+ just to buy ULA, what's the point? If he needs experienced people, he'll just poach them.
I do wonder why Blue and ULA didn't partner to build a common first stage using the original smaller BE-4, with 5 engines they can have something in the Falcon 9 thrust range, with potential to do first stage landing.
I don't see it. Boeing/LM didn't sell ULA for $4B, I doubt Bezos would want to hand out $5B+ just to buy ULA, what's the point?
If he needs experienced people, he'll just poach them.
I do wonder why Blue and ULA didn't partner to build a common first stage using the original smaller BE-4, with 5 engines they can have something in the Falcon 9 thrust range, with potential to do first stage landing.
The folks at ULA might be too "old Space". Thinking that you put as few engines in a stage as possible to lower the probability of mishaps from more machinery.I agree you should not put too many engines on a stage to reduce the no. of parts that potentially can go wrong causing LOM. Hopefully BO does not attempt to follow SpX's obsession with large nos. of engines and designs it's future vehicles after NG with fewer engines than SpX BFR on the 1st stage. BO may end up having the better approach to 1st stage engine no. than SpX but we won't know until they announce NA which will likely be their BFR competitor.
The Blue statements are along line "INITIAL 2nd stage will be expendable". I take from that follow on versions will be reusable, which is in line with their goal of reducing launch costs.And realize there's not much different between NG and BFR. Both designed to be fully reusable (eventually for NG). They both use methane/oxygen.
What do you mean "eventually"? Second stage reusability is not part of the initial New Glenn design at all.
SpaceX actually claimed to be working on F9 S2 reuse at various points but eventually decided it will remain expendable. Did BO even mention S2 reuse publicly?
BO is very likely to buy ULA at some point, even though there's a lot of baggage that goes with it.Vulcan is in someways the sub scale test for NG as for being the worlds largest rocket not by a long shot the Saturn V,N1,and Enegia were much larger.
Don't forget that BO is operating under time dilation constants larger than SpaceX's, and while JB's funding means they'll never go bankrupt, it doesn't guarantee they'll ever get it done.
They're also trying to go from zero to world's largest rocket in one step. No F1 or F9 to gain experience on.
Buying ULA help with these issues, and ULA is certainly looking for a way to survive in the not too long term.
Sorry - current largest rocket...BO is very likely to buy ULA at some point, even though there's a lot of baggage that goes with it.Vulcan is in someways the sub scale test for NG as for being the worlds largest rocket not by a long shot the Saturn V,N1,and Enegia were much larger.
Don't forget that BO is operating under time dilation constants larger than SpaceX's, and while JB's funding means they'll never go bankrupt, it doesn't guarantee they'll ever get it done.
They're also trying to go from zero to world's largest rocket in one step. No F1 or F9 to gain experience on.
Buying ULA help with these issues, and ULA is certainly looking for a way to survive in the not too long term.
Though I can see ULA and BO eventually having a merger or some sort of partnership.
You keep posting this "don't put too many engines on a stage" as if it's true. It's a truism, and truisms often are not actually true. SpaceX has demonstrated that their approach works well for F9.The folks at ULA might be too "old Space". Thinking that you put as few engines in a stage as possible to lower the probability of mishaps from more machinery.I agree you should not put too many engines on a stage to reduce the no. of parts that potentially can go wrong causing LOM. Hopefully BO does not attempt to follow SpX's obsession with large nos. of engines and designs it's future vehicles after NG with fewer engines than SpX BFR on the 1st stage. BO may end up having the better approach to 1st stage engine no. than SpX but we won't know until they announce NA which will likely be their BFR competitor.
How much Blue needs to be delayed, before RE-engined Atlas V with AR-1 becomes a thing? (Will the same upper management continue?) ...Or just more RD-180s.
I think one of the defining items between SpaceX and BO is the Manager of the engine R&D programs at the two companies. SpaceX won the lottery when they hired Mueller to design and manage SpaceX in-house engine development. BO has struggled (but not a lot just more than SpaceX) in their engine R&D taking them longer to accomplish engine development projects.
I read that similarly, but hgas AR demonstrated a successful full-scale test firing? Or do they just "get a pass" because they have more history? I agree that BO needs to outperform AR, I'm just surprised that it's a given that AR would get selected without evidence that they will deliver.How much Blue needs to be delayed, before RE-engined Atlas V with AR-1 becomes a thing? (Will the same upper management continue?) ...Or just more RD-180s.
Tory Bruno, CEO @ulalaunch: CDR for Vulcan rocket by end this yr; we'll determine engine choice - @AerojetRdyne v @blueorigin before then.
Posted: 5:40 PM - 12 Sep 2017
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/907629989377576962
Based on that tweet from 12 September, my guess is that if BE-4 conducts a successful full-scale test firing by the end of this year, BO will get the contract, but if not (and especially if they hit another major delay) AR will get the contract.
AR-1 is much further behind on development than BE-4. And there is no certainty of schedule with either engine.Based on that tweet from 12 September, my guess is that if BE-4 conducts a successful full-scale test firing by the end of this year, BO will get the contract, but if not (and especially if they hit another major delay) AR will get the contract.I read that similarly, but hgas AR demonstrated a successful full-scale test firing? Or do they just "get a pass" because they have more history?
I agree that BO needs to outperform AR, I'm just surprised that it's a given that AR would get selected without evidence that they will deliver.They have delivered in the past, and they currently deliver RL-10, RS-68, and will be delivering for SLS.
The biggest problem for ULA if they go with AR can be summed up with word - cost.
AR practically hand-builds all their engines. Of course they use 3d printing and modern tools, but it is not a production line in the modern mass production sense. Bezos and BO has a greater vision for the future of BE-4, and would likely (only likely since they are still in development mode) build theirs in a more streamlined and affordable way. Pick AR-1, and costs will *never* go down.
Of course neither AR or Blue can match SpaceX in mass engine production, and since we know that SpaceX plans BFR with lots of engines, a low production cost will continue to be a critical concern.
The biggest problem for ULA if they go with AR can be summed up with word - cost.
AR practically hand-builds all their engines. Of course they use 3d printing and modern tools, but it is not a production line in the modern mass production sense. Bezos and BO has a greater vision for the future of BE-4, and would likely (only likely since they are still in development mode) build theirs in a more streamlined and affordable way. Pick AR-1, and costs will *never* go down.
Of course neither AR or Blue can match SpaceX in mass engine production, and since we know that SpaceX plans BFR with lots of engines, a low production cost will continue to be a critical concern.
It's true SpaceX has yet to prove the viability of block5 as a low maintenance relaunch vehicle. I think shotwell said 10 launches between major refurbs. Then how u get from 10 on F9v5 to 1000 on BFR seems a bit of a stretch. But SpaceX does have a business and has produced working hardware and relaunched orbital class rockets, something BO has not got close to yet. BO seems a bit more secretive than SX so maybe that are making good progress inside that factory.Even if BFR flies just 10 times between major refurbs or at max total the amount of the cost of manufacture per flight would likely be <$50M. Then add to that the cost of processing and profit resulting in a possible price per flight of $85M, that results in a $/kg or $567/kg or $258/lb.
The biggest problem for ULA if they go with AR can be summed up with word - cost.
AR practically hand-builds all their engines. Of course they use 3d printing and modern tools, but it is not a production line in the modern mass production sense. Bezos and BO has a greater vision for the future of BE-4, and would likely (only likely since they are still in development mode) build theirs in a more streamlined and affordable way. Pick AR-1, and costs will *never* go down.
Of course neither AR or Blue can match SpaceX in mass engine production, and since we know that SpaceX plans BFR with lots of engines, a low production cost will continue to be a critical concern.
Another problem with AR costs is that the AR-1 may only be used by Vulcan, and only on a few flights per year until the mid-2020s. There is a backlog of RD-180s that needs to be flown out as transition from Atlas V continues.
SpaceX have stated several times in the media that they have to recoup most of the $1 Billion+ they invested in F9R before steep discounts on launches are possible. Schedule improvement rather than large discounts are the current incentive SpaceX is using to sell reused cores to their customers.
Blue Origin may have an advantage here in the extraodinary wealth of their founder. They could afford to offer steep discounts upfront with New Glenn, which is desgined for at least 100 launches. They would not even require to do anything unethical like sell below production cost, just sell sligthly above marginal cost per flight and defer the full recovery of dev costs. If the market grows rapidly in response to cheaper access to space, they can even recoup the costs quicker than expected. It would also put pressure on SpaceX and other competitors to follow suit and lower prices leading to a virtuous circle. Even if not, they can still use low costs to capture market share from SpaceX and others.
SpaceX have stated several times in the media that they have to recoup most of the $1 Billion+ they invested in F9R before steep discounts on launches are possible. Schedule improvement rather than large discounts are the current incentive SpaceX is using to sell reused cores to their customers.
Blue Origin may have an advantage here in the extraodinary wealth of their founder. They could afford to offer steep discounts upfront with New Glenn, which is desgined for at least 100 launches. They would not even require to do anything unethical like sell below production cost, just sell sligthly above marginal cost per flight and defer the full recovery of dev costs. If the market grows rapidly in response to cheaper access to space, they can even recoup the costs quicker than expected. It would also put pressure on SpaceX and other competitors to follow suit and lower prices leading to a virtuous circle. Even if not, they can still use low costs to capture market share from SpaceX and others.
Actually I think SpaceX will be able to earn a profit margin (return on the $1B invested) starting in 2018 by flying at a reuse rate of 75% (3 used flights for every 1 new flight) of about $17M/flight while also lowering the price by as much as $10M to about $52M. Such that at around 30 flights per year would recover the $1B in just 2 years by EOY 2019.SpaceX have stated several times in the media that they have to recoup most of the $1 Billion+ they invested in F9R before steep discounts on launches are possible. Schedule improvement rather than large discounts are the current incentive SpaceX is using to sell reused cores to their customers.
Blue Origin may have an advantage here in the extraodinary wealth of their founder. They could afford to offer steep discounts upfront with New Glenn, which is desgined for at least 100 launches. They would not even require to do anything unethical like sell below production cost, just sell sligthly above marginal cost per flight and defer the full recovery of dev costs. If the market grows rapidly in response to cheaper access to space, they can even recoup the costs quicker than expected. It would also put pressure on SpaceX and other competitors to follow suit and lower prices leading to a virtuous circle. Even if not, they can still use low costs to capture market share from SpaceX and others.
SpaceX will likely make up that $1B before New Glenn flies reliability. They will only need to average ~$10M savings per flight over the next 3 or 4 years, and are probably tripling that already.
But SpaceX had rocket engine heritage to work off from. Blue Origin didn't have this luxury.Much like SpaceX has done, Blue Origin could have gone to NASA and ask for their cooperation and their knowledge. But for some reason Bezos et al. didn't do that.
SpaceX had the fortune to buy facilities at bargain prices (at economical down term) Blue builds new facilities.So guess who had the better approach / business strategy? (which is the question in the subject of this thread). IMO the answer is SpaceX.
F1 and F9 were expendable, SpaceX had to invest a further >1billion to get F9v1.2 to be reusable one or two times. Block 5 development was necessary to increase reuse rate. The first launch of F9 block 5 still has to take place.You are comparing apples to oranges.
Blue achieved 4x reuse on there 2th New Shepard vehicle, while spending <500mln on development.
They are now doing the investments for there first orbital launcher, that will be capable to orbit all satellites currently planned, while being reusable.Emphasis mine.
The past 10 years SpaceX has definitely been more successful then Blue Origin, but I'm curious what will happen in the coming 10 years.
Yes once BO have an operational orbit class rocket there is a risk that Bezos will operate unprofitably for many years to gain market share just as he has done with AMZN. This is a clear danger to BFR/BFS development and Mars programme. If SX is pushed to sell at near cost or below because of Bezos approach I think SX mars programme will be at risk.
Semi serious question. Can an endeavour where someone puts in money as a hobby be described as a business model at all?
Refering to Space Ghost describing BO as Jeff Bezos' hobby which so far sounds about right.
Has someone made a prediction of the cost and profit BO will make from selling B-4 engines to ULA? A related question is how many engines is ULA going to buy? Probably no more than 15 a year right?
What examples do we have of any companies with this level of investment over this length of time that eventually became successful, self funding companies?What examples do we have of any space companies being funded by the world's richest man?
companies being funded by the world's richest man?
It doesn't have to be profitable. In fact, it could just run in the red until it all opponents give up.
companies being funded by the world's richest man?
It doesn't have to be profitable. In fact, it could just run in the red until it all opponents give up.
I'd argue that a company that needs the customer's money will always do a better job than a company that doesn't.
Doesn't need to do a better job if profitability is not a goal, especially if that "job" is also not profitable for others.companies being funded by the world's richest man?
It doesn't have to be profitable. In fact, it could just run in the red until it all opponents give up.
I'd argue that a company that needs the customer's money will always do a better job than a company that doesn't.
(Which also gets back to Bruno's tweet hint back to BO about doing a Delta II class ELV using a single BE4, before doing NG. Such a move would also increase/advance early flight history of BE4.)Bruno's tweet showed tank structures for the first Atlas V core for Boeing Starliner.
Doesn't need to do a better job if profitability is not a goal, especially if that "job" is also not profitable for others.
Bottom line: Bezos could finance a Mars program or an asteroid mining industry even if they are clearly non profitable. Musk can't.
Sure he can. He can liquidate his non-spacex positions and fund his Mars ambitions himself.Bezos can sell it all with a 10-20% discount on market price. So $70B should be more than enough.
But he won't do that. Neither will Bezos in regards to BO. They like their money. If possible, they would rather spend investor money. They are not stupid.When you are worth more than a few billion dollars, there isn't much on where to spend it (note: spend != invest). Bezos can maintain his lifestyle with 10x less money.
Elon can still do Mars by diluting his SpaceX or Tesla shares. Not as much as Bezos can, but it's dumb to say he can't do it at all.At the moment he could not raise more than $5-8B, which I think it is not enough.
"However, after several reuses, it is clear that costs have decreased no more than 10-20%."
EDIT: just checked and half his net worth is on SpaceX. So if he wants to maintain control of SpaceX to enable his project, then he can only sell the other half, which is mostly Tesla.
From Tesla he would not be able to sell (within 1 year) more than 20% without destroying the company, so at most he could raise $2B.
My point is that Musk's fortune forecast is really hard. Tesla is a big unknown, so in 2 years it could either be worth double or nothing. So partially cashing out now is what we can compare with Bezo's, who can get +$50B if he wants to.EDIT: just checked and half his net worth is on SpaceX. So if he wants to maintain control of SpaceX to enable his project, then he can only sell the other half, which is mostly Tesla.
From Tesla he would not be able to sell (within 1 year) more than 20% without destroying the company, so at most he could raise $2B.
He can't even spend $2billion in one year reasonably. Even when investing in infrastructure like launch pad or structural test stand and factory, he could barely spend more than $1billion, more likely only $500 million plus what they make at SpaceX.
This article seems related. I believe it is by our own vaporcobra....
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-vs-blue-origin-titans-new-space/ "SpaceX vs. Blue Origin: The bickering titans of new space"
I found it interesting (but not necessarily containing much those of us in this thread don't already know) and mostly pretty good. I did have a problem with this, thoughQuote"However, after several reuses, it is clear that costs have decreased no more than 10-20%."
That is confusing cost and price. Prices haven't declined but we do NOT have visibility to internal costs. THAT said I'd be stunned if internal costs (if we put the entire stage construction cost on the first use, it was paid for by the first use after all, and we don't amortize development costs...[1]) are any more than 20% of the first use internal cost for subsequent uses.
Ed and Jim no doubt will scoff. .that's OK
1 - note that if we actually are doing real cost analysis we need to amortize stage construction cost across all uses of the stage, and we need to amortize development costs across all uses of all stages
This article seems related. I believe it is by our own vaporcobra....Pretty good article. Typo in "extendability" where he meant "expendability".
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-vs-blue-origin-titans-new-space/ "SpaceX vs. Blue Origin: The bickering titans of new space"
I found it interesting (but not necessarily containing much those of us in this thread don't already know) and mostly pretty good. I did have a problem with this, thoughQuote"However, after several reuses, it is clear that costs have decreased no more than 10-20%."
That is confusing cost and price. Prices haven't declined but we do NOT have visibility to internal costs. THAT said I'd be stunned if internal costs (if we put the entire stage construction cost on the first use, it was paid for by the first use after all, and we don't amortize development costs...[1]) are any more than 20% of the first use internal cost for subsequent uses.
This article seems related. I believe it is by our own vaporcobra....Pretty good article. Typo in "extendability" where he meant "expendability".
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-vs-blue-origin-titans-new-space/ "SpaceX vs. Blue Origin: The bickering titans of new space"QuoteI found it interesting (but not necessarily containing much those of us in this thread don't already know) and mostly pretty good. I did have a problem with this, thoughQuote"However, after several reuses, it is clear that costs have decreased no more than 10-20%."
That is confusing cost and price. Prices haven't declined but we do NOT have visibility to internal costs. THAT said I'd be stunned if internal costs (if we put the entire stage construction cost on the first use, it was paid for by the first use after all, and we don't amortize development costs...[1]) are any more than 20% of the first use internal cost for subsequent uses.
It's an OK analysis. When you delve into more details to get to a total cost absorption view, more to take into account.
10 - 20% reduction on an already cheap kerolox architecture is nothing to but amazing, and hard to compete with.
Note that the same will be true for NG, which has an expendable US.
Suggest that the more significant issue is if BO threatens competition with NG before the next "Big Falcon using Raptor" LV appears on the scene.
E.g. BO competes "new" rocket to SX's "old" rocket. Then Falcon can't go away fast enough to compete head on, and the ROI expected becomes dead cost load.
This assumes much less "gradatim" from both.
As to US reuse ... interesting "rabbit out of the hat" proposition is possible. What if you accomplish the impossible ... reusing a near optimal F9US, mostly by just 1/3rd or less props ... on a GTO-2000? Where most of the are is in software GNC "magic". Perhaps snag an empty stage out of the air by some sensible means?
A long shot. If you could have limited reuse this way, even F9/FH would be formidable by a launch provider for decades, regardless Bezos fortune and BFR futures.
What is different is both scale and ROI - F9/FH are required to span NG, and can launch cost effectively smaller payloads more frequently. That ROI is *needed* by SX where no ROI is needed by BO as he just keep shoveling in billions.
Thoroughly agree. That is my only genuine concern, where an intensely subsidized New Glenn is simply impossible for reusable F9 to compete with. But I utterly and completely doubt that it matters. I don't expect New Glenn to be conducting launches anywhere near SpaceX's 2017 cadence, let alone their 2020+ cadence.
In that sense, it doesn't matter if Blue drops their price to fifty cents a launch unless they can perfect NG-scale reuse instantaneously and produce enough cores and upper stages to compete with SpaceX's manufacturing expertise and might.You have to add flight frequency to that too.
I would place the likelihood of that on the order of 1% by 2020, maybe 30% by 2022. Blue has zero experience with GTO-level reentry regimes, and most of their current customers are for larger GEO sats. I expect at least 1 core to be lost as they gain experience.BO's tolerance for LOM will be very low.
People keep talking as Ig Bezos is a bottomless of pit of cash. His net worth is approx $95 bill. So to finance BO he needs to sell a little over 1% a year, not an issue. However AMZN was worth about 25-30% of its current value 3 years ago, this big boost in his net worth has coincided with his increased investment in his hobby.
The stock market is trading at the highest level since 2000 in terms of price to earnings. It's a bubble which is due to burst and when it does A!ZN could suffer badly as it's grows revenues but seldom profits. If the market was to be cut in half AMZN could fall a lot further. Would Bezos be prepared to liquidate his holdings at 3-4% a year rather than 1%, maybe we will find out in the next few years.
The stock market is trading at the highest level since 2000 in terms of price to earnings. It's a bubble which is due to burst and when it does A!ZN could suffer badly as it's grows revenues but seldom profits. If the market was to be cut in half AMZN could fall a lot further. Would Bezos be prepared to liquidate his holdings at 3-4% a year rather than 1%, maybe we will find out in the next few years.
Question: given the limited figures we have for BE-4 and New Glenn, is it possible to rule out the quoted 45t as being New Glenn's expendable payload, as opposed to the payload including first stage downrange recovery?
This article seems related. I believe it is by our own vaporcobra....
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-vs-blue-origin-titans-new-space/ "SpaceX vs. Blue Origin: The bickering titans of new space"
The launcher glut deserves more attention than its given, over the last 10 years there has been on average 76 launches per year, of which 40 to 50 are commercial. Reusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense while India and China are bringing new lower cost systems to market. Clearly lowering the price to orbit will spur demand, but that takes time. Ariane and maybe ILS look to have the most to lose, Ariane against lower costs, while ILS face a more reliable competitor.
Plus the Raptor engines that SpaceX are planning on building seem a lot better than the Blue Orgin as they have close to 4 times the amount of thus that the BE-4 is going to have.Thrust is not the only determinant of how good an engine is. No single metric is. A good engine balances
The launcher glut deserves more attention than its given, over the last 10 years there has been on average 76 launches per year, of which 40 to 50 are commercial.
Reusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense...
...while India and China are bringing new lower cost systems to market.
Clearly lowering the price to orbit will spur demand, but that takes time.
Ariane and maybe ILS look to have the most to lose, Ariane against lower costs, while ILS face a more reliable competitor.
QuoteReusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense...
I'm with Lar on this, that math is not correct.
Sorry but every time this 'number of flights/year for reusability to make sense' is tossed around I fail to understand its foundations, especially since its treated like a magic number true in every occasion. Makes sense economically related to what, other expendable systems, the same system but in expendable configuration? And calculated on what? Development costs for reusability? Incremented costs per mission to make the rocket reusable? Projected operative costs? Projected profit margins on each mission? Costs of refurbishment? These parameters are far for being the same for different rockets, developed in different eras, by different companies and operated in far different markets. They also vary within the same vehicle with time and development. So how can this number be taken seriously without being further researched and tailored for the system we are talking about? Is there something I'm missing?Even before that. Von Braun's team studied Saturn 1 first stage recovery before it was even named "Saturn". The answer was similar. What has changed is that SpaceX uses vertical landing recovery rather than Saturn's parachute plus ocean landing rocket recovery. There is still a number, but it is likely a different number.QuoteReusable systems need to be flying at least once per month, really once per week to make sense...
I'm with Lar on this, that math is not correct.
~50 launches per year is pretty much the number everybody has come up with who has done the math. Starting with the guys who analyzed the economics of the Shuttle.
- Ed Kyle
~50 launches per year is pretty much the number everybody has come up with who has done the math. Starting with the guys who analyzed the economics of the Shuttle.
Personally I think that number is somewhat lower for SpaceX because Falcon can fly in expendable and reusable mode, serving different markets.
Without first stage recovery, SpaceX could do the same missions with a "Falcon 7". That's 40 fewer Merlin engines each year to build/test/integrate/clean/inspect/refurbish compared to Falcon 9 (20 flights per year example). Thus, SpaceX doesn't even start to break even until it recovers and re-flies at least five first stages (45 engines recovered and reflown), as I see things. That doesn't include the costs of recovery, recovery development, etc., but I suspect that it gives a clue about where the crossover point might start to appear. My guess is they have to fly used stages on at least half the flights in this 20-launch example to give the concept a chance to pay off.
- Ed Kyle
I don't believe the 1B development cost for recovery/reuse. I think Elon just threw that out there, and it represents not just that but a goodly fraction of the total F9 development cost.
Also I think the "wasted capacity, the rocket is bigger than it needs to be" is a canard. As discussed before. The cost difference for a 30% smaller but otherwise identical is not going to be 30%. Far less.... because you have the same engineering operations, the same assembly steps, and so forth. The only cost differences are in the margins, things like material (a very small fraction of the total) and slightly more expensive transport costs because your vehicle is a bit longer, and propellant (again, a very small fraction of the total)...
Ed is making the same mistake Dr. Sowers did.
Sorry but every time this 'number of flights/year for reusability to make sense' is tossed around I fail to understand its foundations, especially since its treated like a magic number true in every occasion. Makes sense economically related to what, other expendable systems, the same system but in expendable configuration? And calculated on what? Development costs for reusability? Incremented costs per mission to make the rocket reusable? Projected operative costs? Projected profit margins on each mission? Costs of refurbishment? These parameters are far for being the same for different rockets, developed in different eras, by different companies and operated in far different markets. They also vary within the same vehicle with time and development. So how can this number be taken seriously without being further researched and tailored for the system we are talking about?The number of flight/year for reusability to be profitable is definitely specific to each system. The relative amounts spent on upper/lower stages and tanks/engine is likely extremely different between SpaceX and ULA, though SpaceX and Blue Origin might be similar. SpaceX claims it's profitable and I'm not sure there is much point in second-guessing them without any of the relevant cost information.
My take is that one would compare an equally-capable expendable system against the partly recoverable system. An equally-capable expendable Falcon 9 wouldn't need to be as heavy or tall at launch, wouldn't need as many engines on the first stage, etc. It would be cheaper to build and cheaper to launch than the recoverable Falcon 9.The expendable Falcon 9 exists and has flown 3 missions this year, those missions could not have flown on a smaller launcher. I think the expendable variant is already very close to the maximum performance possible using their current engine and tank technology and you can't make it much lighter or cheaper while keeping equal capability. The ability to fly expendable with close to zero impact from reusability is a feature that most other RLV proposals don't have.
Recovery costs not just for its $1 billion development and for its drone ship and recovery navy crew and for refurbishment, but also for the lost capability given up each time a recovery profile is flown.Payloads come with fixed sizes which don't perfectly match vehicle performance so "lost capability" always happens. You can try to segment the market by offering various fairing sizes, upper stages, SRB counts and so on but such complexity comes at considerable cost. Reusability as implemented by SpaceX also behaves like market segmentation: when the performance of the full expendable rocket is not required then they recover and fly the booster again at reduced cost.
Without first stage recovery, SpaceX could do the same missions with a "Falcon 7". That's 40 fewer Merlin engines each year to build/test/integrate/clean/inspect/refurbish compared to Falcon 9 (20 flights per year example). Thus, SpaceX doesn't even start to break even until it recovers and re-flies at least five first stages (45 engines recovered and reflown), as I see things. That doesn't include the costs of recovery, recovery development, etc., but I suspect that it gives a clue about where the crossover point might start to appear. My guess is they have to fly used stages on at least half the flights in this 20-launch example to give the concept a chance to pay off.
- Ed Kyle
Without first stage recovery, SpaceX could do the same missions with a "Falcon 7". That's 40 fewer Merlin engines each year to build/test/integrate/clean/inspect/refurbish compared to Falcon 9 (20 flights per year example). Thus, SpaceX doesn't even start to break even until it recovers and re-flies at least five first stages (45 engines recovered and reflown), as I see things. That doesn't include the costs of recovery, recovery development, etc., but I suspect that it gives a clue about where the crossover point might start to appear. My guess is they have to fly used stages on at least half the flights in this 20-launch example to give the concept a chance to pay off.
- Ed Kyle
We're at a fork in the road. You can use technologies to make cheaper expendables, or use to make more expensive reusables. (SX kinda confuses this a bit in having a bit from both worlds.)
Ed's world is the former, AncientU/Lar's world is the latter.
Ed will be right if you don't find much in the way of significant new uses/applications for space.
AncientU/Lar will be right if they do find such.
Ed can't be proved wrong and AncientU/Lar right if it isn't tried, ergo he has the easy win if he says there's no point.
Thanks, now I get it a bit more. Let's set aside the one time development cost as we are discussing the operative annual costs of two hypothetical systems in the terms you described: one expendable, and one partially reusable, each one capable of the same Payload to LEO (so the reusable one is 'overbuilt'). The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system. Recovery costs (even more so for RTLS) are almost negligible while the 'wasted capability cost' is already accounted for when you factor in the costs of 'overbuilding' the reusable stage to achieve the same payload and make it reusable. Regarding the 'overbuilding tax', if you want to discuss annual costs to maintain the industrial infrastructure, I think difference between maintaining an overbuilt reusable system and the expendable counterpart would be almost nonexistent.Sorry but every time this 'number of flights/year for reusability to make sense' is tossed around I fail to understand its foundations, especially since its treated like a magic number true in every occasion. Makes sense economically related to what, other expendable systems, the same system but in expendable configuration? And calculated on what? Development costs for reusability? Incremented costs per mission to make the rocket reusable? Projected operative costs? Projected profit margins on each mission? Costs of refurbishment? These parameters are far for being the same for different rockets, developed in different eras, by different companies and operated in far different markets. They also vary within the same vehicle with time and development. So how can this number be taken seriously without being further researched and tailored for the system we are talking about? Is there something I'm missing?My take is that one would compare an equally-capable expendable system against the partly recoverable system. An equally-capable expendable Falcon 9 wouldn't need to be as heavy or tall at launch, wouldn't need as many engines on the first stage, etc. It would be cheaper to build and cheaper to launch than the recoverable Falcon 9. Recovery costs not just for its $1 billion development and for its drone ship and recovery navy crew and for refurbishment, but also for the lost capability given up each time a recovery profile is flown. Recovery has an annual cost. At some point the savings of re-flying stages makes up for that cost. My guess is that SpaceX hasn't crossed that threshold just yet.
- Ed Kyle
The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.
The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.
You can't just ignore economies of scale.
An extreme example: You have a rocket that can be reused 10x, but there's only demand for 1 launch per year.
Consequently you will manufacture a single rocket every 10 years. That rocket is going to be bloody expensive. Imagine what a car or a computer chip would cost if only one were produced every 10 years.
If the production cost of a rocket drops by x% with every doubling of the production rate, you can realize big savings from getting the production rate up from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 etc.
Bottom line: With 1 launch per year reusability will not pay off, of that I'm 100% certain. With 50 it might, because you still get to make 5-10 rockets a year, which gives you reasonable economies of scale (assuming 10-5 uses).
What Ed is advocating is that everyone should go back to the 'sensible' world where all rockets were thrown away after each use... sure, that makes perfect sense to me! ::)Certainly not! That is not my point of view, even if you wish it were. I am offering a surrogate for figuring out where the crossover point might be for reuse payback. I agree that such a crossover point exists, and I'm not suggesting that SpaceX or others might not be closing or even crossing that gap soon. I merely suggested that they haven't done it quite yet.
- Ed Kyle
Exactly. Ed needs to let go of the notion that rockets only exist to make money.What Ed is advocating is that everyone should go back to the 'sensible' world where all rockets were thrown away after each use... sure, that makes perfect sense to me! ::)Certainly not! That is not my point of view, even if you wish it were. I am offering a surrogate for figuring out where the crossover point might be for reuse payback. I agree that such a crossover point exists, and I'm not suggesting that SpaceX or others might not be closing or even crossing that gap soon. I merely suggested that they haven't done it quite yet.
- Ed Kyle
The difficulty is that using only the F9 statistics to determine an economics-only 'cross-over point' assumes other value factors equal zero (or one). I've pointed out that there is difficult-to-quantify, but still important value to reusability as demonstrated with F9 for both FH and BFR, also for flight rate, etc. Since the corporate goal is not 'closing the business case' -- but getting a viable transportation system to Mars going -- economic analysis is too simplistic. Life was simpler when a launch system was designed and built 'only' for launch, but that is not the case for F9. It, more than anything, is a proof of concept for a quite different developmental goal -- it needs to be evaluated against the goal for which it was built.
BL: It doesn't matter if/when economic 'cross-over' occurs. As a development program, it is essentially mission accomplished, 'business case' closed.
To tie this back to Blue Origin, it doesn't matter where/when the 'cross-over' point for New Glenn is reached. The financing is in place; the goal is 'millions of people living and working in space.'
Lowering the cost to orbit, 24-hour reusability, colony on Mars, millions of people living and working in space are visionary goals for a future that could be radically different than the one that is/was settling for the status quo in space -- rare, expensive, and 'hard' (so send us lots of money). Fully and rapidly reusable rockets are a key to that goal -- which could also fail to materialize, even with gas-n-go rockets -- but failure to try to build these rockets guarantees that the future envisioned is impossible. Expendable rockets, even those which have business 'cross-over' points already achieved (if any actually do*) could never begin to move us into that future.
Expendable rockets were built for a domestic business, basically covering for Shuttle's failure to provide low cost to orbit and the future that could be possible. Those expendable rockets wouldn't have existed if Shuttle succeeded, and they will be road kill if/when the (fully and rapidly) reusable rockets are fully realized.
* Are either Atlas V or Delta IV at their respective cross-over points? Boeing/LM spent several billions developing these vehicles... How about Ariane 5? Will Arine 6 ever 'cross-over'? Angara? How about Vulcan/ACES? SLS? Delta II, Soyuz, Proton probably have crossed over, but each is planned for retirement.
The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.
You can't just ignore economies of scale.
An extreme example: You have a rocket that can be reused 10x, but there's only demand for 1 launch per year.
Consequently you will manufacture a single rocket every 10 years. That rocket is going to be bloody expensive. Imagine what a car or a computer chip would cost if only one were produced every 10 years.
If the production cost of a rocket drops by x% with every doubling of the production rate, you can realize big savings from getting the production rate up from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 etc.
Bottom line: With 1 launch per year reusability will not pay off, of that I'm 100% certain. With 50 it might, because you still get to make 5-10 rockets a year, which gives you reasonable economies of scale (assuming 10-5 uses).
The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.
You can't just ignore economies of scale.
An extreme example: You have a rocket that can be reused 10x, but there's only demand for 1 launch per year.
Consequently you will manufacture a single rocket every 10 years. That rocket is going to be bloody expensive. Imagine what a car or a computer chip would cost if only one were produced every 10 years.
If the production cost of a rocket drops by x% with every doubling of the production rate, you can realize big savings from getting the production rate up from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 etc.
Bottom line: With 1 launch per year reusability will not pay off, of that I'm 100% certain. With 50 it might, because you still get to make 5-10 rockets a year, which gives you reasonable economies of scale (assuming 10-5 uses).
The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.
You can't just ignore economies of scale.
An extreme example: You have a rocket that can be reused 10x, but there's only demand for 1 launch per year.
Consequently you will manufacture a single rocket every 10 years. That rocket is going to be bloody expensive. Imagine what a car or a computer chip would cost if only one were produced every 10 years.
If the production cost of a rocket drops by x% with every doubling of the production rate, you can realize big savings from getting the production rate up from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 etc.
Bottom line: With 1 launch per year reusability will not pay off, of that I'm 100% certain. With 50 it might, because you still get to make 5-10 rockets a year, which gives you reasonable economies of scale (assuming 10-5 uses).
I have to apologize. The above describes an experience curve which is invariant to scale, so if both expendable and reusable rockets have the same curve, doubling the flight rate will reduce the cost of both by an equal percentage.
sThe flight rate is thus irrelevant to the cost ratio, i.e. to the question of whether reusable vehicles are less/more costly. One has to introduce fixed costs to make the cost ratio dependent on the flight rate.
And you people should read my posts better ;).
And you people should read my posts better ;).
The thing is that, imo, you only have to really consider two parameters: refurbishment costs and the higher manufacturing cost of the 'overbuilt' reusable system.
You can't just ignore economies of scale.
An extreme example: You have a rocket that can be reused 10x, but there's only demand for 1 launch per year.
Consequently you will manufacture a single rocket every 10 years. That rocket is going to be bloody expensive.
Imagine what a car or a computer chip would cost if only one were produced every 10 years.
Fixed costs are mostly per year of operating the factory and keeping employees on payroll, not per rocket built.
If you are paying for a factory that can build ten rockets per year, 10x reuse for a constant ten flights a year won't really change much. What that level of reusability does give you is the option to keep the same factory and potentially fly 100 times a year, which is a huge improvement.
Instead of linear growth proportional to the rocket production rate, you get quadratic growth proportional to the rocket production rate times the reuse rate. If you want to put a million people into space by launching 10 000 times per year, making 50 rockets per year and reusing them 200 times, is a lot more realistic than building factories to make 10 000 rockets per year. At small launch rates quadratic growth gives no advantage over linear growth, but at launch rates that are required to fully support an off-planet civilization, it's necessary.
What is ultimately needed to colonize space is a high flight rate. Reuse is extremely helpful for that. You don't pursue reuse to stick to the status quo, you do it to enable a hundredfold growth of operations. If you can't find customers for your higher flight rate, you become your own customer by making your own constellations. Or, if you have pockets as deep as Bezos, you keep guarenteeing that this capability will continue to exist as you wait for other entities to plan around it.
Fixed costs are mostly per year of operating the factory and keeping employees on payroll, not per rocket built.
If you are paying for a factory that can build ten rockets per year, 10x reuse for a constant ten flights a year won't really change much. What that level of reusability does give you is the option to keep the same factory and potentially fly 100 times a year, which is a huge improvement.
Instead of linear growth proportional to the rocket production rate, you get quadratic growth proportional to the rocket production rate times the reuse rate. If you want to put a million people into space by launching 10 000 times per year, making 50 rockets per year and reusing them 200 times, is a lot more realistic than building factories to make 10 000 rockets per year. At small launch rates quadratic growth gives no advantage over linear growth, but at launch rates that are required to fully support an off-planet civilization, it's necessary.
What is ultimately needed to colonize space is a high flight rate. Reuse is extremely helpful for that. You don't pursue reuse to stick to the status quo, you do it to enable a hundredfold growth of operations. If you can't find customers for your higher flight rate, you become your own customer by making your own constellations. Or, if you have pockets as deep as Bezos, you keep guarenteeing that this capability will continue to exist as you wait for other entities to plan around it.
The factory cost argument is only true in the extreme example where the factory is under-utilized, and in reality, if any of these players are doing that bad, they're not in the game any more.
In reality, even a factory for reusable rockets will be well-utilized. It's just the you'll need only one factory to support hundreds of flights, not several.
I am amazed that people still think that you can compete with a reusable rockets by making cheap expendable ones.
There is a third business strategy to consider that could ameliorate the issues of high vertical integration/low flight rates. Outsource as much of the production of your RLV as possible. Many of the parts of an RLV could be sourced externally or bought off the shelf, avoiding the expense of maintaining huge facilities or standing armies. This would be helpful in variable or low production rates. Basically, the Orbital Sciences strategy.That was very much the Kistler strategy for the K-1: buy the engines, outsource the tanks and integration, operate the result. Heavy initial cost, but in theory avoiding the expense of maintaining in-house manufacturing capability and specific LV manufacturing expertise, as opposed to LV operations/upkeep expertise. The money didn't reach the critical level of getting the initial builds, though--either in the 90s, or on either NASA contract they managed to swing (they were the original second COTS competitor, instead of Orbital).
Although no company has directly tried it for RLVs, new entrants to the launch market are mostly developing small mass produced RLVs. It's worth considering that SpaceX had its demo ITS LOX tank made by Janicki Industries and that DC-X used existing RL10s, avoiding the gargantuan expense of developing new engines.
I read a discussion here about the two companies recovery ships and which approach was better.
But this seems an area where cooperation and/or third parties could benefit all.
I doubt either wants to maintain a naval fleet of ships, barges and tugs. If we get to the point where stages are landing in ocean on a weekly basis, that's where I see a general recovery service operating.
Thoughts on that?
I read a discussion here about the two companies recovery ships and which approach was better.Sounds like asking for trouble to me. Who gets priority when there are resource conflicts? What if the other guy's rocket destroys the recovery ship you need tomorrow (and for the rest of the year)? What about IP?
But this seems an area where cooperation and/or third parties could benefit all.
I doubt either wants to maintain a naval fleet of ships, barges and tugs. If we get to the point where stages are landing in ocean on a weekly basis, that's where I see a general recovery service operating.
Thoughts on that?
There is a third business strategy to consider that could ameliorate the issues of high vertical integration/low flight rates. Outsource as much of the production of your RLV as possible. Many of the parts of an RLV could be sourced externally or bought off the shelf, avoiding the expense of maintaining huge facilities or standing armies. This would be helpful in variable or low production rates. Basically, the Orbital Sciences strategy.
Although no company has directly tried it for RLVs, new entrants to the launch market are mostly developing small mass produced RLVs. It's worth considering that SpaceX had its demo ITS LOX tank made by Janicki Industries and that DC-X used existing RL10s, avoiding the gargantuan expense of developing new engines.
There is a third business strategy to consider that could ameliorate the issues of high vertical integration/low flight rates. Outsource as much of the production of your RLV as possible. Many of the parts of an RLV could be sourced externally or bought off the shelf, avoiding the expense of maintaining huge facilities or standing armies. This would be helpful in variable or low production rates. Basically, the Orbital Sciences strategy.
Although no company has directly tried it for RLVs, new entrants to the launch market are mostly developing small mass produced RLVs.
It's worth considering that SpaceX had its demo ITS LOX tank made by Janicki Industries and that DC-X used existing RL10s, avoiding the gargantuan expense of developing new engines.
The Antares approach is along these lines, but getting much hardware from overseas where prices are more reasonable -- yet they are still not selling commercial launches.
The Antares approach is along these lines, but getting much hardware from overseas where prices are more reasonable -- yet they are still not selling commercial launches.
That's probably because their launch site is in the wrong location.
The Antares approach is along these lines, but getting much hardware from overseas where prices are more reasonable -- yet they are still not selling commercial launches.
That's probably because their launch site is in the wrong location.
Not sure I understand... they can launch to space station and any orbit with less inclination. Maybe don't have as much delta-v advantage because they are further north, but that can only account for a few hundred m/s at most.
What is their restriction (for commercial launches)?
I understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.
This forum frequently attracts people from inside the industry. In the real world once you know someone's preference, going against that preference appears intentionally disrespectful, dismissive and/or rude.I understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.
People can prefer certain nicknames be used, but that's not how things work in the real world, lol. If they didn't like BO, they should have just called the company Blue to start with, because BO is easier to type.
This forum frequently attracts people from inside the industry. In the real world once you know someone's preference, going against that preference appears intentionally disrespectful, dismissive and/or rude.I understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.
People can prefer certain nicknames be used, but that's not how things work in the real world, lol. If they didn't like BO, they should have just called the company Blue to start with, because BO is easier to type.
It's not our fault they didn't think through their brand name. It's branding 101 really. Disappointing they didn't.This forum frequently attracts people from inside the industry. In the real world once you know someone's preference, going against that preference appears intentionally disrespectful, dismissive and/or rude.I understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.
People can prefer certain nicknames be used, but that's not how things work in the real world, lol. If they didn't like BO, they should have just called the company Blue to start with, because BO is easier to type.
And there is nothing wrong with Body Odour. Glad I have a body and that it is not odourless.It's not our fault they didn't think through their brand name. It's branding 101 really. Disappointing they didn't.This forum frequently attracts people from inside the industry. In the real world once you know someone's preference, going against that preference appears intentionally disrespectful, dismissive and/or rude.I understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.
People can prefer certain nicknames be used, but that's not how things work in the real world, lol. If they didn't like BO, they should have just called the company Blue to start with, because BO is easier to type.
AFAIK Blue Origin is planning to convert a /several surplus panamax (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax) tankers into landing vessels. This is the maximum vessel size (800') that can utilize the spaceport berth, planned by port Canaveral. VLCC (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories) are far larger.
I read a discussion here about the two companies recovery ships and which approach was better.Sounds like asking for trouble to me. Who gets priority when there are resource conflicts? What if the other guy's rocket destroys the recovery ship you need tomorrow (and for the rest of the year)? What about IP?
But this seems an area where cooperation and/or third parties could benefit all.
I doubt either wants to maintain a naval fleet of ships, barges and tugs. If we get to the point where stages are landing in ocean on a weekly basis, that's where I see a general recovery service operating.
Thoughts on that?
AFAIK Blue Origin is planning to convert a /several surplus panamax (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax) tankers into landing vessels. This is the maximum vessel size (800') that can utilize the spaceport berth, planned by port Canaveral. VLCC (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories) are far larger.
Total guessworkAFAIK Blue Origin is planning to convert a /several surplus panamax (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax) tankers into landing vessels. This is the maximum vessel size (800') that can utilize the spaceport berth, planned by port Canaveral. VLCC (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories) are far larger.
Any idea why a tanker is preferable to - say - a container ship ?
I think it's easier to convert the oil tanks into ballast tanks. This way the ship becomes heavier, lies lower in the water and becomes more stable. During the voyage back to port, the ballast tanks could be empty to lower drag and thus fuel consumption.AFAIK Blue Origin is planning to convert a /several surplus panamax (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax) tankers into landing vessels. This is the maximum vessel size (800') that can utilize the spaceport berth, planned by port Canaveral. VLCC (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories) are far larger.
Any idea why a tanker is preferable to - say - a container ship ?
What opportunities are there for Blue Origin to draw lessons from SpaceX's successes and failures, to modify its strategies accordingly?Because SpaceX has, as a matter of policy, not filed patents on their work, Blue Origin is free to borrow what they see of SpaceX's techniques and use them in their own work without fear of legal reprisal. They can't steal the designs outright (and have shown little inclination to do so: they seem to be a proud bunch), but they can certainly borrow ideas, especially when they have been seen to work. This reduces their risk, should they care to do so.
In what ways is SpaceX most likely to influence what Blue does?
While SpaceX may have a "first mover" advantage in many ways, it also has to bear the risks of being a pathbreaker. Like the old saying goes, "the pioneers get the arrows, the settlers get the land".
Where can Blue benefit from being a "second mover" following behind SpaceX?
Looks like customers are choosing NG over FH for heavy comsat launches. Looks like BO have got it right by offering 7m dia. fairing on NG while SpaceX has made the mistake of not offering a fairing of larger than 5.2m dia. on FH.
Looks like BO have got it right by offering 7m dia. fairing on NG while SpaceX has made the mistake of not offering a fairing of larger than 5.2m dia. on FH.
Mistake in the sense that they physically cannot increase the diameter much more than 5 m due to physics, transonic buffeting considerations, etc? There's an upper limit on what fairing vs core diameter ratio you can achieve and so the fairing diameter was fixed by the 12 feet diameter road-transportable limit imposed on the core.
What opportunities are there for Blue Origin to draw lessons from SpaceX's successes and failures, to modify its strategies accordingly?Because SpaceX has, as a matter of policy, not filed patents on their work, Blue Origin is free to borrow what they see of SpaceX's techniques and use them in their own work without fear of legal reprisal. They can't steal the designs outright (and have shown little inclination to do so: they seem to be a proud bunch), but they can certainly borrow ideas, especially when they have been seen to work. This reduces their risk, should they care to do so.
In what ways is SpaceX most likely to influence what Blue does?
While SpaceX may have a "first mover" advantage in many ways, it also has to bear the risks of being a pathbreaker. Like the old saying goes, "the pioneers get the arrows, the settlers get the land".
Where can Blue benefit from being a "second mover" following behind SpaceX?
Of course, this same logic applies to other companies and nations. We have already seen a Chinese company talk about something rather like a mini Falcon (legs and all), and we have seen others begin to break the former taboo against using many smaller rocket engines rather than one or two very large ones per stage.
Let me add that BlueOrigin has announced they will, land on a moving vessel. They'll use stabalizer fins to stabilize the vessel. (this is used on cruiseships)Crazy idea and completely OT but....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BisAXWZKQws/UisK4hCaACI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/jZys23WD2TU/s1600/med_1_Arberia_Stabilizer_in_Perama_Drydock_11-06-09.JPG)
Mistake in the sense that they physically cannot increase the diameter much more than 5 m due to physics, transonic buffeting considerations, etc? There's an upper limit on what fairing vs core diameter ratio you can achieve and so the fairing diameter was fixed by the 12 feet diameter road-transportable limit imposed on the core.
SpaceX must have got some special exemption. General maximum width is 8.5 feet (2.59 m) with the maximum being 10 feet (3.05 m) for fire engines!
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/width.html
For railways its 10'8" (3.25 m).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge
For railways its 10'8" (3.25 m).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge
Let me add that BlueOrigin has announced they will, land on a moving vessel. They'll use stabalizer fins to stabilize the vessel. (this is used on cruiseships)Crazy idea and completely OT but....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BisAXWZKQws/UisK4hCaACI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/jZys23WD2TU/s1600/med_1_Arberia_Stabilizer_in_Perama_Drydock_11-06-09.JPG)
Those fins. They look like they could operate in 2 axes.
Has anyone considered making them grid fins as well?
So which is the better business strategy:
1. Come out in open competition to the existing market, fighting your way tooth and nail to access new markets?
OR
2. Begin building rockets and developing new engine technology, find customers for your engines. Then as you get closer to launch, enter the exact same market as your customers and compete toe to toe against them?
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, and Musk's recent behaviour has resulted in widespread criticism and speculation of a financial collapse. The BFR similarly could drag SpaceX into the ground as well. Furthermore, such a massive complex is designed for a single purpose-to fly humans to Mars. EM is trying to sell it as a satellite launcher, which makes as much sense as NASA trying to sell the Saturn V for that purpose. From a business perspective, mitigating risk and having a serious business case, I feel that a 6.5 meter diameter version of the BFR would have fewer challenges, lower per unit costs, and could still be a commercially viable fully reusable launch system that could generate revenue. A 6.5 meter diameter spaceship is still huge, still could fly tourists to LEO, the moon and Mars, and work out the bugs until the colossal BFR comes around. This is why I think BO's approach to have a LV that immediately generates revenue, and will evolve to a fully reusable system over time, is the better approach. I don't have the confidence in EM to pull this off without a serious bailout.There has been widespread criticism of TSLA and EM from day one. Same for SX. Maybe they'll fail but I would not pay any attention to the constant freak out of short sellers and click baiters.
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, and Musk's recent behaviour has resulted in widespread criticism and speculation of a financial collapse. The BFR similarly could drag SpaceX into the ground as well. Furthermore, such a massive complex is designed for a single purpose-to fly humans to Mars. EM is trying to sell it as a satellite launcher, which makes as much sense as NASA trying to sell the Saturn V for that purpose.BFR - if reusable and refuelable, because of its massive size has enormous systemic flexibility in launching satellites.
BFR is a huge gamble and SpaceX has F9 and FH as cash cows now to survive that huge gamble and not go out of business if it takes longer to build or for market adoption.
EM is trying to sell it [BFR] as a satellite launcher, which makes as much sense as NASA trying to sell the Saturn V for that purpose.
From a business perspective, mitigating risk and having a serious business case, I feel that a 6.5 meter diameter version of the BFR would have fewer challenges, lower per unit costs, and could still be a commercially viable fully reusable launch system that could generate revenue.
This is why I think BO's approach to have a LV that immediately generates revenue, and will evolve to a fully reusable system over time, is the better approach.
I don't have the confidence in EM to pull this off without a serious bailout.
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, and Musk's recent behaviour has resulted in widespread criticism and speculation of a financial collapse. The BFR similarly could drag SpaceX into the ground as well. Furthermore, such a massive complex is designed for a single purpose-to fly humans to Mars. EM is trying to sell it as a satellite launcher, which makes as much sense as NASA trying to sell the Saturn V for that purpose. From a business perspective, mitigating risk and having a serious business case, I feel that a 6.5 meter diameter version of the BFR would have fewer challenges, lower per unit costs, and could still be a commercially viable fully reusable launch system that could generate revenue. A 6.5 meter diameter spaceship is still huge, still could fly tourists to LEO, the moon and Mars, and work out the bugs until the colossal BFR comes around. This is why I think BO's approach to have a LV that immediately generates revenue, and will evolve to a fully reusable system over time, is the better approach. I don't have the confidence in EM to pull this off without a serious bailout.
I'd actually argue that having an LV that immediately generates revenue and is evolving towards full reusability is SpaceX's approach rather than BO's. After all, what's Falcon 9?Falcon 9 is a system that Elon Musk has announced he intends to retire.
EM is trying to sell it as a satellite launcher, which makes as much sense as NASA trying to sell the Saturn V for that purpose.
I'd actually argue that having an LV that immediately generates revenue and is evolving towards full reusability is SpaceX's approach rather than BO's. After all, what's Falcon 9?Falcon 9 is a system that Elon Musk has announced he intends to retire.
Sure, but after flying potentially 300-500 times. Falcon 9 won't be retired until there is no more demand for them - which Musk hopes will be soon after the BFR/BFS is operational, but may not be until further down the road...There would be a transition period for things like the NASA and DoD contracts, I suppose.
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, and Musk's recent behaviour has resulted in widespread criticism and speculation of a financial collapse. The BFR similarly could drag SpaceX into the ground as well. Furthermore, such a massive complex is designed for a single purpose-to fly humans to Mars. EM is trying to sell it as a satellite launcher, which makes as much sense as NASA trying to sell the Saturn V for that purpose. From a business perspective, mitigating risk and having a serious business case, I feel that a 6.5 meter diameter version of the BFR would have fewer challenges, lower per unit costs, and could still be a commercially viable fully reusable launch system that could generate revenue. A 6.5 meter diameter spaceship is still huge, still could fly tourists to LEO, the moon and Mars, and work out the bugs until the colossal BFR comes around. This is why I think BO's approach to have a LV that immediately generates revenue, and will evolve to a fully reusable system over time, is the better approach. I don't have the confidence in EM to pull this off without a serious bailout.
Sure, but after flying potentially 300-500 times. Falcon 9 won't be retired until there is no more demand for them - which Musk hopes will be soon after the BFR/BFS is operational, but may not be until further down the road...There would be a transition period for things like the NASA and DoD contracts, I suppose.
Since SpaceX makes its own prices, I doubt Falcon 9 would be used much once BFR comes online.
Assuming BFR is a successful development, SpaceX would have to price it lower than Falcon 9/Heavy - otherwise it would be a failed development.
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.
I don't know how closely those two goals align.
I didn't mean to imply that I think either SpaceX or Blue's success is inevitable. 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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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?
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?Money times overall efficiency.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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
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.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
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.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.
Is size really that much of a determining factor in cost? My admittedly complete ignorance would assume that once the development of all the systems and integration is done (something i would assume does scale with size), the actual production of something that is 5m vs 7m vs 9m diameter must be small, relative to the initial development. Almost like the difference in fuel costs for a bigger vs smaller rocket when compared to overall launch cost. Again, this is purely a hunch based on zero research by an ignorant lay person with respect to rockets, so be gentle.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.
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,
>
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is definitely Blue's plan. We'll see how it changes as they try to work it.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.
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. ;-)
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.
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.
Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit. BFR only has a tent.In 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.
I think the ability to deliver payloads to orbit would be a good indicator of which approach is better. Price and capabilities would then be secondary factors.
At this point F9/FH are already launching payloads to orbit and beyond, so there's less to discuss about the validity of the SpaceX approach for Kerolox, per the indicators above.
So at this point, given the information we have, which vehicle (BFS/BFR or NG) do you think:
1) is further along in development?
2) will be the first to launch to orbit?
I think the ability to deliver payloads to orbit would be a good indicator of which approach is better. Price and capabilities would then be secondary factors.
At this point F9/FH are already launching payloads to orbit and beyond, so there's less to discuss about the validity of the SpaceX approach for Kerolox, per the indicators above.
So at this point, given the information we have, which vehicle (BFS/BFR or NG) do you think:
1) is further along in development?
2) will be the first to launch to orbit?
New Glenn for both.
It's development started much earlier AND it's much more conservative craft, using less untested new technologies, encountering less surprises during the development.
And actual BE-4 has already been tested while it's only been confirmed that SpaceX has only been testing smaller prototype engine to validate the FFSC cycle.
And BO has the manufacturing building ready while spaceX only just bought(or leased?) the land where to build their factory.
BFS might lift off from ground before NG, but not reach orbit.
BFS however will land before NG second stage lands.
Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit. BFR only has a tent.In 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.
- Ed Kyle
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.
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.
Just because something has been done doesn't mean that it is easy to copy. That's really not how engineering works, especially in system design. I design systems much simpler than rockets and even if someone has full access to my design, if they change something and don't know have the lessons learned that got us there the whole thing will fall apart. With suborbital flight you can slowly increase your altitude until you are just barely touching space, but with orbital you either get there or you don't. Just because SpaceX and RL made it to orbit doesn't mean it is easy.
Who said it was the "hard part"?Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit. BFR only has a tent.In 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.
- Ed Kyle
So the hard part of getting to orbit is constructing a large building?
Huh.
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.
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.
Just because something has been done doesn't mean that it is easy to copy. That's really not how engineering works, especially in system design. I design systems much simpler than rockets and even if someone has full access to my design, if they change something and don't know have the lessons learned that got us there the whole thing will fall apart. With suborbital flight you can slowly increase your altitude until you are just barely touching space, but with orbital you either get there or you don't. Just because SpaceX and RL made it to orbit doesn't mean it is easy.
I didn't say it was easy, or that they Blue was trying to copy any details from SpaceX.
Once you know a concept is technically feasible, the rest is "just" engineering. Blue has lots of smart engineers who have enough time and money to solve the problems they are trying to solve.
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit. BFR only has a tent.In 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.
- Ed Kyle
So the hard part of getting to orbit is constructing a large building?
Huh.
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
That's interesting- I wondered how Blue would be able to work on reuse with an expensive 7m rocket without losing the first stage repeatedly during testing. That's potentially a good approach to develop the techniques and experience without burning through a year's funding worth of test rockets rapidly.
If block 5 F9/FH are not cash cows, SpaceX has blown it. BFR is the whole point of SpaceX's existence. Like I said, Blue has "slow and steady, we never need to break even much less make a profit" covered. Vive la différence.BFR is a huge gamble and SpaceX has F9 and FH as cash cows now to survive that huge gamble and not go out of business if it takes longer to build or for market adoption.
Starlink is a huge gamble as well and whether F9 and FH are cash cows by themselves is questionable. Moreover, NASA's commercial programs will move from LEO to the Moon and not Mars. BFR is an unnecessary risk at this point.
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
Are you sure about this? It does not sound right. First of all nobody know what NG's margins are right now, likely not even the engineers at Blue. BE-4 isn't even done, so how can margins be known? As far as the conops for NG go, I thought the idea was for a shallow high speed booster reentry that bleeds speed with the aero surfaces. That makes for a less stressful reentry, however it also puts the landing zone much further downrange.
I think it is more likely NG will fly as close a flight profile to what they envision for operational use, but save any extra margin for the maneuver to land on the ship in NS fashion.
BFS might lift off from ground before NG, but not reach orbit.
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
That's interesting- I wondered how Blue would be able to work on reuse with an expensive 7m rocket without losing the first stage repeatedly during testing. That's potentially a good approach to develop the techniques and experience without burning through a year's funding worth of test rockets rapidly.
They can also lose first stage but still deliver payload to orbit, just like spaceX did with first ~20 falcon 9's.
But SpaceX does want to lose any BFR boosters. They cannot afford to lose many.
BFS might lift off from ground before NG, but not reach orbit.
Aren't they both scheduled for 2020?
BFS might lift off from ground before NG, but not reach orbit.
Aren't they both scheduled for 2020?
Elon's "aspirational" timeline showed BFR orbital testing in 2020. Bezo's said NG has GTO satellite deliveries planned for 2020. They both have paper rockets with engines deep in development but no rocket bodies yet. SpaceX built a tank and has built some tooling, Blue has a factory but we don't know what is in it. Blue went clean slate on their S2 late last year. I'd say they are in similar stages of development, so Blue has the more aggressive timeline it would seem.
BFS might lift off from ground before NG, but not reach orbit.
Aren't they both scheduled for 2020?
Elon's "aspirational" timeline showed BFR orbital testing in 2020. Bezo's said NG has GTO satellite deliveries planned for 2020. They both have paper rockets with engines deep in development but no rocket bodies yet. SpaceX built a tank and has built some tooling, Blue has a factory but we don't know what is in it. Blue went clean slate on their S2 late last year. I'd say they are in similar stages of development, so Blue has the more aggressive timeline it would seem.
Isn't New Glenn first flight slated for 2021?
Isn't New Glenn first flight slated for 2021?
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
That's interesting- I wondered how Blue would be able to work on reuse with an expensive 7m rocket without losing the first stage repeatedly during testing. That's potentially a good approach to develop the techniques and experience without burning through a year's funding worth of test rockets rapidly.
They can also lose first stage but still deliver payload to orbit, just like spaceX did with first ~20 falcon 9's.
But SpaceX does want to lose any BFR boosters. They cannot afford to lose many.
No way NG is planning to build a dozen boosters a year if they aren't planning to fly expendable. They won't be operational until they figure out how to recover S1. I doubt they plan to build more than 2-4 boosters at a time to begin with and they will likely take ~18 months start to finish.
That is what I mean when I say they can't just throw money at problems. If they blow up the boosters they have then they can't launch more until they have more. They have to get everything right on the first try to get orbital in 2020.
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
That's interesting- I wondered how Blue would be able to work on reuse with an expensive 7m rocket without losing the first stage repeatedly during testing. That's potentially a good approach to develop the techniques and experience without burning through a year's funding worth of test rockets rapidly.
They can also lose first stage but still deliver payload to orbit, just like spaceX did with first ~20 falcon 9's.
But SpaceX does want to lose any BFR boosters. They cannot afford to lose many.
No way NG is planning to build a dozen boosters a year if they aren't planning to fly expendable. They won't be operational until they figure out how to recover S1. I doubt they plan to build more than 2-4 boosters at a time to begin with and they will likely take ~18 months start to finish.
That is what I mean when I say they can't just throw money at problems. If they blow up the boosters they have then they can't launch more until they have more. They have to get everything right on the first try to get orbital in 2020.
The 2020 timeline for NG is probably a fair amount more realistic and less "aspirational" than for BFR.
IMO Blue has an excellent shot at getting to orbit on the first attempt, perhaps 50% or even better.
Just for the record, BE-4 and Raptor are about as close to each other maturity-wise as is possible. Both have test stands. Raptor has been test fired a lot longer, but at very slightly below flight thrust. BE-4 I'm not sure has been tested at full thrust, but is close, too. I'd give SpaceX the edge due to engine expertise, but Blue origin also has a more secure funding source, so I consider it a wash.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.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
<trimmed>
Everyone can have their own opinion, but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your optimism. If it takes ~18 months to build a booster, then they have a year to get it to orbit if they are starting today, which they aren't because their engine doesn't work yet. It will take them 3.5 years from first flight to get operational with suborbital if they make it by end of year. Yes, they have keep humans alive for a few minutes, but orbit, staging, payload fairings, new fuel types, etc. are at least on par with that difficulty IMO.
I'm not saying SpaceX' timeline is easy, but to get a dumb cargo BFS flying from where they are now with the 56 successful orbital flights 12 re-flights and 20 something orbital vehicle landings, it seems like they aren't being MORE ambitious than Blue. SpaceX is already building tooling and a launch site. Blue went the more traditional route of not building tooling before the factory, but SpaceX does already have a factory and 3 other major facilities.
As others have mentioned, F1 to F9 to F9R to FH to BFR seems a hell of a lot more Gradatim Ferociter than NS to NG. The massive leap seems out of character and the short timeline seems laughable considering how long it took them do do the last one.
And New Glenn has such an insane amount of margin that they can deliver a small payload to orbit while having the booster fly a trajectory only moderately more stressful than New Shepard and landing a very short distance downrange. Perhaps 50 to 100 km. That's the envelope they can start in, and then push it faster and hotter with heavier payloads.
That's interesting- I wondered how Blue would be able to work on reuse with an expensive 7m rocket without losing the first stage repeatedly during testing. That's potentially a good approach to develop the techniques and experience without burning through a year's funding worth of test rockets rapidly.
They can also lose first stage but still deliver payload to orbit, just like spaceX did with first ~20 falcon 9's.
But SpaceX does want to lose any BFR boosters. They cannot afford to lose many.
No way NG is planning to build a dozen boosters a year if they aren't planning to fly expendable. They won't be operational until they figure out how to recover S1. I doubt they plan to build more than 2-4 boosters at a time to begin with and they will likely take ~18 months start to finish.
That is what I mean when I say they can't just throw money at problems. If they blow up the boosters they have then they can't launch more until they have more. They have to get everything right on the first try to get orbital in 2020.
The 2020 timeline for NG is probably a fair amount more realistic and less "aspirational" than for BFR.
IMO Blue has an excellent shot at getting to orbit on the first attempt, perhaps 50% or even better.
Everyone can have their own opinion, but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your optimism. If it takes ~18 months to build a booster, then they have a year to get it to orbit if they are starting today, which they aren't because their engine doesn't work yet. It will take them 3.5 years from first flight to get operational with suborbital if they make it by end of year. Yes, they have keep humans alive for a few minutes, but orbit, staging, payload fairings, new fuel types, etc. are at least on par with that difficulty IMO.
I'm not saying SpaceX' timeline is easy, but to get a dumb cargo BFS flying from where they are now with the 56 successful orbital flights 12 re-flights and 20 something orbital vehicle landings, it seems like they aren't being MORE ambitious than Blue. SpaceX is already building tooling and a launch site. Blue went the more traditional route of not building tooling before the factory, but SpaceX does already have a factory and 3 other major facilities.
As others have mentioned, F1 to F9 to F9R to FH to BFR seems a hell of a lot more Gradatim Ferociter than NS to NG. The massive leap seems out of character and the short timeline seems laughable considering how long it took them do do the last one.
Great Discussion, but seems to be a lot of back and forth speculation about things that Blue Origin have already confirmed/Stated. Hopefully this post helps someone more accurately approximate Blue's strategy.
1. Their factory is not cheap - It cost $200million+ & will/does contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement – advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine similar to what is used on SLS. Employees began to move in from January. Car park looked fairly packed, when shown in New Shepard's last flight.
14. In regards to Blue Origins Employees:
...
Point 14:
I won't post peoples names or links(do not want to be rude.). Very easy to confirm on LinkedIn. I found over 1000+ Blue Origin employees, Majority(Not including new grads.) come from SpaceX, Boeing, Aerojet, Firefly, Nasa, Intel & Amazon. Very experienced propulsion team.
SpaceX already has a test stand for Raptor.
Yes, a SECOND test stand that will also be used for fuller integration of other stage elements. The first stand can still test the full Raptor.SpaceX already has a test stand for Raptor.
They appear to be building out a second bay, probably for the flight version of the engine discussed by Tom Mueller.
Yes, a SECOND test stand that will also be used for fuller integration of other stage elements. The first stand can still test the full Raptor.SpaceX already has a test stand for Raptor.
They appear to be building out a second bay, probably for the flight version of the engine discussed by Tom Mueller.
Great Discussion, but seems to be a lot of back and forth speculation about things that Blue Origin have already confirmed/Stated. Hopefully this post helps someone more accurately approximate Blue's strategy.
1. Their factory is not cheap - It cost $200million+ & will/does contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement – advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine similar to what is used on SLS. Employees began to move in from January. Car park looked fairly packed, when shown in New Shepard's last flight.
As I have said before, SpaceX and Blue Origin are not in direct competition, so both are "winning" in my opinion.
That said, regarding New Glenn vs BFR/BFS, SpaceX does have the advantage of having more skilled workers already on staff, SpaceX has mature production systems (IT, document control, QA, purchasing, etc.), and everyone knows how the company works. SpaceX is already a "been there, done that" launch company with over 50 successful launches completed.
So while Blue Origin may be ahead in some technical areas, SpaceX has advantages in the ability to scale quicker.Quote14. In regards to Blue Origins Employees:
...
Point 14:
I won't post peoples names or links(do not want to be rude.). Very easy to confirm on LinkedIn. I found over 1000+ Blue Origin employees, Majority(Not including new grads.) come from SpaceX, Boeing, Aerojet, Firefly, Nasa, Intel & Amazon. Very experienced propulsion team.
Wow! Just in general I want to thank you for all the work you did. AMAZING!!
And well documented. You have set a high bar.
I hope you find value in NSF and decide to become a regular contributor.
The point is there is an existing Raptor test stand, and it probably can handle a full Raptor (full duration is something you brought up later). The second test stand is more capable, but that’s beside the point.Yes, a SECOND test stand that will also be used for fuller integration of other stage elements. The first stand can still test the full Raptor.SpaceX already has a test stand for Raptor.
They appear to be building out a second bay, probably for the flight version of the engine discussed by Tom Mueller.
Probably could test it up to a point, but Elon specifically said that the size of the test tanks are limited to 100s. When talking about engine development, Mueller specifically said that the Flight(full) version raptor is in the works and test stand for it is being built now.
Can you please provide a source from SpaceX, stating that Flight(full) version of raptor can be fully tested, at full necessary duration using the first Raptor test stand? And, that the first test stand will be used to qualify the engine for flight? Evidence from spaceX seems to point to the fact that the second stand(which is still being built.) will be used to do this amongst over things("fuller integration of other stage elements"). But i could be wrong.
6. BE-4 flight version engine has gone through extensive testing & the engine is demonstrating all of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They are at the end of the negotiations now, ironing out last details.
Point 6 & 7:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html)
6. BE-4 flight version engine has gone through extensive testing & the engine is demonstrating all of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They are at the end of the negotiations now, ironing out last details.
Point 6 & 7:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html)
I would read this exactly the opposite - Blue Origin has not demonstrated any of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They have never fired it full duration. They have never fired it full thrust. (Both these statements are confirmed by the quoted source - 114 seconds at 65% thrust. Now 70%, I believe). They have not demonstrated combustion stability at full power, since they've never run at full power. Likewise, ISP at full power has never been demonstrated, though the current tests may show it's sufficient.
Now Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith says the BE-4 has passed all of the technical tests required for ULA to sign onto a production contract.
“We’ve met the technical and performance requirements that they’re looking for,” Smith told GeekWire today during a one-on-one interview at the 34th Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. “And so we’re just working through how do we actually get to a production deal. We’re working through terms and conditions, termination liability, all of the things you’d want within a contractual structure.”
6. BE-4 flight version engine has gone through extensive testing & the engine is demonstrating all of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They are at the end of the negotiations now, ironing out last details.
Point 6 & 7:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html)
I would read this exactly the opposite - Blue Origin has not demonstrated any of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They have never fired it full duration. They have never fired it full thrust. (Both these statements are confirmed by the quoted source - 114 seconds at 65% thrust. Now 70%, I believe). They have not demonstrated combustion stability at full power, since they've never run at full power. Likewise, ISP at full power has never been demonstrated, though the current tests may show it's sufficient.
That's not what Blue is saying:QuoteNow Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith says the BE-4 has passed all of the technical tests required for ULA to sign onto a production contract.
“We’ve met the technical and performance requirements that they’re looking for,” Smith told GeekWire today during a one-on-one interview at the 34th Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. “And so we’re just working through how do we actually get to a production deal. We’re working through terms and conditions, termination liability, all of the things you’d want within a contractual structure.”
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-ceo-says-next-gen-4-rocket-engine-meets-technical-requirements/
You need to read Smith's wording very carefully. What he said is "passed the tests needed to sign the contract". This is very different from demonstrating the performance needed to fly the rocket. And of course we don't know what's in the contract, but unless ULA is completely insane, it says something like "before we actually buy any of these engines, they need to demonstrate full power, full duration, acceptable ISP and stability, over the following range of conditions".
I would read this exactly the opposite - Blue Origin has not demonstrated any of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They have never fired it full duration. They have never fired it full thrust. (Both these statements are confirmed by the quoted source - 114 seconds at 65% thrust. Now 70%, I believe). They have not demonstrated combustion stability at full power, since they've never run at full power. Likewise, ISP at full power has never been demonstrated, though the current tests may show it's sufficient.
That's not what Blue is saying:QuoteNow Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith says the BE-4 has passed all of the technical tests required for ULA to sign onto a production contract.
“We’ve met the technical and performance requirements that they’re looking for,” Smith told GeekWire today during a one-on-one interview at the 34th Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. “And so we’re just working through how do we actually get to a production deal. We’re working through terms and conditions, termination liability, all of the things you’d want within a contractual structure.”
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-ceo-says-next-gen-4-rocket-engine-meets-technical-requirements/
Thanks, i was actually confused as to how they read it as opposite.
The point is there is an existing Raptor test stand, and it probably can handle a full Raptor (full duration is something you brought up later). The second test stand is more capable, but that’s beside the point.Yes, a SECOND test stand that will also be used for fuller integration of other stage elements. The first stand can still test the full Raptor.SpaceX already has a test stand for Raptor.
They appear to be building out a second bay, probably for the flight version of the engine discussed by Tom Mueller.
Probably could test it up to a point, but Elon specifically said that the size of the test tanks are limited to 100s. When talking about engine development, Mueller specifically said that the Flight(full) version raptor is in the works and test stand for it is being built now.
Can you please provide a source from SpaceX, stating that Flight(full) version of raptor can be fully tested, at full necessary duration using the first Raptor test stand? And, that the first test stand will be used to qualify the engine for flight? Evidence from spaceX seems to point to the fact that the second stand(which is still being built.) will be used to do this amongst over things("fuller integration of other stage elements"). But i could be wrong.
In regards to strategy, do you think selling the BE-4 to ULA(if chosen), provides Blue with a strategic advantage over spaceX?
Great Discussion, but seems to be a lot of back and forth speculation about things that Blue Origin have already confirmed/Stated. Hopefully this post helps someone more accurately approximate Blue's strategy.
1. Their factory is not cheap - It cost $200million+ & will/does contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement – advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine similar to what is used on SLS. Employees began to move in from January. Car park looked fairly packed, when shown in New Shepard's last flight.
2. Blue Origin are already looking to fly a Customer's Payload on their first flight, Price offered with huge discount.
3. They aim to hold hold back extra margin on first flight to increase chance of successful landing.
4. Anyone who says New Glenn is not in production is wrong. Blue confirmed that the initial tank structures for New Glenn were being built a few months ago, in their building beside Florida factory.
5. The landing ship has been bought & is being retrofitted now.
6. BE-4 flight version engine has gone through extensive testing & the engine is demonstrating all of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They are at the end of the negotiations now, ironing out last details.
7. Blue are already offering New Glenn at a 25 to 50% price reduction.
8. Reason for switching to BE-3U was to meet nasa air force requirements, reduce development risk, so likelier chance of meeting 2020 deadline & increase 2 stage Perfomance. Good Decision. Remember SpaceX also pivoted, by Decreasing ITS Size & Raptor thrust to decrease dev costs and meet 2024 target. Also, Good decision.
9. BE-4 to be qualified end of this year, so should be ahead of raptor(Only 6 more months to go. It's already at 70% thrust on flight version).
10. Space X has not tested Flight version of Raptor(Being built now) & the test stand is still being built. BE-4 flight version has been tested, is being tested and does not need a new test stand to be qualified for flight.
11. Nasa rocket propulsion testing Chart Shows raptor testing ending 2019 Q1. So i would say a few months behind BE-4, i could be wrong.
12. Bezos deeply involved with blue operations, from that evidence i have seen it seems he has deeper knowledge of rocketry than most people think. Bezos talked to Alan Boyle about New Armstrong being the next rocket they build. Bob Meyerson hinted at a 30m Diameter rocket, also confirmed work on Blue moon & in space tugs. Aim to increase flight rate way beyond 12 flights a year.
13. Blue Origin is currently talking with NASA about constructing a new, large launch facility for their New Armstrong rocket north of 39B.
14. In regards to Blue Origins Employees:
Blue's Director Of Engineering comes from Boeing. Blue's Manager of the Aerophysics, Trajectory and Flight Performance team (who previous was Responsible Engineer (RE) for New Glenn Descent Aerodynamics), was senior engineer of flight sciences at Boeing.
Blue's Principle Technologist for Avionics, worked at Intel then Planetary resources. Blue's Material Lead comes from Firefly Space Systems, Their manager of Tooling & GSE(Engines Group) comes from SpaceX.
Blue's Director of Safety & Mission Assurance was Director of Safety for ULA.
Blue's Director of Manufacturing & Test previously worked as Aerojet's Executive Director of Operations. Blue's Vehicle Integration Manager previously worked at space X on Propulsion Integration.
Chief New Shepard Engineer previously worked as Engineering Director for Sea Ray boats.
Blue's production integration manager, previously worked as Manager, manufacturing engineer of Dragon spacecraft for SpaceX, lots of welding engineers from Space x. Many BE-4 Propulsion engineers from Space X & Aerojet.
Blue's Inner Loop Control Lead, New Glenn Program Previously worked for Nasa Ames Research Center.
Blue's Deputy Director of Program Integration, previously worked at Orbital Sciences as their Cygnus Cargo SpaceCraft Enhancements Senior Program Manager. This is all factual not speculation.
They also hired some folks that worked in SpaceX's merlin producibility group and the SpaceX Build Reliability Group.
Sources:
Point 1:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3455/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3455/1)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/)
Point 2,3 & 4:
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origin-looking-satellite-customer-1st-new-glenn-flight-nice-pricing/ (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origin-looking-satellite-customer-1st-new-glenn-flight-nice-pricing/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/76pxui/remarks_by_blue_director_ted_mcfarland_paywall/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/76pxui/remarks_by_blue_director_ted_mcfarland_paywall/)
Point 5 &12:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/jeff-bezos-isdc-space-vision/ (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/jeff-bezos-isdc-space-vision/)
Point 6 & 7:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html)
Point 8 & 9:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/ (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/)
Point 10:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-propulsion-guru-tom-mueller-looks-ahead-rocket-engines-mars/ (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-propulsion-guru-tom-mueller-looks-ahead-rocket-engines-mars/)
Point 11:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/978295808679464968 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/978295808679464968)
Point 12:
https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/beyond-the-cradle-2018-03-10-a/ (https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/beyond-the-cradle-2018-03-10-a/)
Point 13:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/kennedy-cape-brownsville-launch-pads-schedules/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/kennedy-cape-brownsville-launch-pads-schedules/)
Point 14:
I won't post peoples names or links(do not want to be rude.). Very easy to confirm on LinkedIn. I found over 1000+ Blue Origin employees, Majority(Not including new grads.) come from SpaceX, Boeing, Aerojet, Firefly, Nasa, Intel & Amazon. Very experienced propulsion team.
Might have been 13m, which would be more realistic.Great Discussion, but seems to be a lot of back and forth speculation about things that Blue Origin have already confirmed/Stated. Hopefully this post helps someone more accurately approximate Blue's strategy.
1. Their factory is not cheap - It cost $200million+ & will/does contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement – advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine similar to what is used on SLS. Employees began to move in from January. Car park looked fairly packed, when shown in New Shepard's last flight.
2. Blue Origin are already looking to fly a Customer's Payload on their first flight, Price offered with huge discount.
3. They aim to hold hold back extra margin on first flight to increase chance of successful landing.
4. Anyone who says New Glenn is not in production is wrong. Blue confirmed that the initial tank structures for New Glenn were being built a few months ago, in their building beside Florida factory.
5. The landing ship has been bought & is being retrofitted now.
6. BE-4 flight version engine has gone through extensive testing & the engine is demonstrating all of the technical characteristics that ULA need. They are at the end of the negotiations now, ironing out last details.
7. Blue are already offering New Glenn at a 25 to 50% price reduction.
8. Reason for switching to BE-3U was to meet nasa air force requirements, reduce development risk, so likelier chance of meeting 2020 deadline & increase 2 stage Perfomance. Good Decision. Remember SpaceX also pivoted, by Decreasing ITS Size & Raptor thrust to decrease dev costs and meet 2024 target. Also, Good decision.
9. BE-4 to be qualified end of this year, so should be ahead of raptor(Only 6 more months to go. It's already at 70% thrust on flight version).
10. Space X has not tested Flight version of Raptor(Being built now) & the test stand is still being built. BE-4 flight version has been tested, is being tested and does not need a new test stand to be qualified for flight.
11. Nasa rocket propulsion testing Chart Shows raptor testing ending 2019 Q1. So i would say a few months behind BE-4, i could be wrong.
12. Bezos deeply involved with blue operations, from that evidence i have seen it seems he has deeper knowledge of rocketry than most people think. Bezos talked to Alan Boyle about New Armstrong being the next rocket they build. Bob Meyerson hinted at a 30m Diameter rocket, also confirmed work on Blue moon & in space tugs. Aim to increase flight rate way beyond 12 flights a year.
13. Blue Origin is currently talking with NASA about constructing a new, large launch facility for their New Armstrong rocket north of 39B.
14. In regards to Blue Origins Employees:
Blue's Director Of Engineering comes from Boeing. Blue's Manager of the Aerophysics, Trajectory and Flight Performance team (who previous was Responsible Engineer (RE) for New Glenn Descent Aerodynamics), was senior engineer of flight sciences at Boeing.
Blue's Principle Technologist for Avionics, worked at Intel then Planetary resources. Blue's Material Lead comes from Firefly Space Systems, Their manager of Tooling & GSE(Engines Group) comes from SpaceX.
Blue's Director of Safety & Mission Assurance was Director of Safety for ULA.
Blue's Director of Manufacturing & Test previously worked as Aerojet's Executive Director of Operations. Blue's Vehicle Integration Manager previously worked at space X on Propulsion Integration.
Chief New Shepard Engineer previously worked as Engineering Director for Sea Ray boats.
Blue's production integration manager, previously worked as Manager, manufacturing engineer of Dragon spacecraft for SpaceX, lots of welding engineers from Space x. Many BE-4 Propulsion engineers from Space X & Aerojet.
Blue's Inner Loop Control Lead, New Glenn Program Previously worked for Nasa Ames Research Center.
Blue's Deputy Director of Program Integration, previously worked at Orbital Sciences as their Cygnus Cargo SpaceCraft Enhancements Senior Program Manager. This is all factual not speculation.
They also hired some folks that worked in SpaceX's merlin producibility group and the SpaceX Build Reliability Group.
Sources:
Point 1:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3455/1 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3455/1)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/)
Point 2,3 & 4:
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origin-looking-satellite-customer-1st-new-glenn-flight-nice-pricing/ (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/blue-origin-looking-satellite-customer-1st-new-glenn-flight-nice-pricing/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/76pxui/remarks_by_blue_director_ted_mcfarland_paywall/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/76pxui/remarks_by_blue_director_ted_mcfarland_paywall/)
Point 5 &12:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/jeff-bezos-isdc-space-vision/ (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/jeff-bezos-isdc-space-vision/)
Point 6 & 7:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/04/18/blue-origin-believes-it-can-get-tourists-into-space-by-the-end-of-the-year.html)
Point 8 & 9:
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/ (http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-expects-be-4-qualification-tests-to-be-done-by-years-end/)
Point 10:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-propulsion-guru-tom-mueller-looks-ahead-rocket-engines-mars/ (https://www.geekwire.com/2018/spacex-propulsion-guru-tom-mueller-looks-ahead-rocket-engines-mars/)
Point 11:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/978295808679464968 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/978295808679464968)
Point 12:
https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/beyond-the-cradle-2018-03-10-a/ (https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/beyond-the-cradle-2018-03-10-a/)
Point 13:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/kennedy-cape-brownsville-launch-pads-schedules/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/kennedy-cape-brownsville-launch-pads-schedules/)
Point 14:
I won't post peoples names or links(do not want to be rude.). Very easy to confirm on LinkedIn. I found over 1000+ Blue Origin employees, Majority(Not including new grads.) come from SpaceX, Boeing, Aerojet, Firefly, Nasa, Intel & Amazon. Very experienced propulsion team.
I can’t believe nobody has picked up and commented on New Armstrong, in point 12, being 30 meters in diameter. Simple scaling that diameter against BFR yields a thrust over 100 million lbm. Can that possibly be true, launching from the Florida coast?
Might have been 13m, which would be more realistic.
I can’t believe nobody has picked up and commented on New Armstrong, in point 12, being 30 meters in diameter. Simple scaling that diameter against BFR yields a thrust over 100 million lbm. Can that possibly be true, launching from the Florida coast?
This talk about which engine is farther along seems to be beside the point to me. What we really care about are whether the engines are going to cause delays and the evaluations for those should be completely different for the two different companies.
With SpaceX the question is whether the scaling up will delay the orbital hops. Right now my money is that the limiting factor on the orbital hops will be building the body. It seems unlikely to me that the engine will take longer then that because the engine design was chosen very recently, after IAC 2017. If there are delays, they are delays to a fairly short timeline, about 18 months.
With Blue we just dont have as much information. I wouldn't be surprised if the engine is done before December and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not done next year. I have no clue what the limiting factor is, it could be the engine, could be the body, could be the avionics. And because we dont know about subscale testing I have no clue how long any delays will be if there are any.
It's two very different kinds of uncertainty.
In regards to strategy, do you think selling the BE-4 to ULA(if chosen), provides Blue with a strategic advantage over spaceX?
No. In what way would it be "strategic"?
SpaceX is not in the business of selling rocket engines, and Blue Origin is allowing a competitor to use their unique technology.
While I'm personally happy that Jeff Bezos would sell his proprietary rocket engine to ULA, from a business standpoint I don't see how that is advantageous to Blue Origin.
Yep, thats where i got the 30m(rounded) diameter from.Might have been 13m, which would be more realistic.
I can’t believe nobody has picked up and commented on New Armstrong, in point 12, being 30 meters in diameter. Simple scaling that diameter against BFR yields a thrust over 100 million lbm. Can that possibly be true, launching from the Florida coast?
He also clearly mentioned the possibility of launching rockets 100 feet wide...
[...] vertical takeoff and vertical landing is a good architecture. It's the architecture we approach because we believe that it scales to a very very large size. So imagine that a rocket that is 100 feet in diameter coming in, landing on a relatively small pad. That is what VTVL brings you. [...]Rob Meyerson; Beyond the Cradle 2018: Track A (https://www.media.mit.edu/videos/beyond-the-cradle-2018-03-10-a/); @2 minutes
The speaker also mentioned that Blue has about 1400 employees, to SpaceX's what, 7000?
The speaker also mentioned that Blue has about 1400 employees, to SpaceX's what, 7000?
Oh wow. So 1400 in startup mode are supposed to keep pace with 7000 who have been doing this for years?
I can’t believe nobody has picked up and commented on New Armstrong, in point 12, being 30 meters in diameter. Simple scaling that diameter against BFR yields a thrust over 100 million lbf. Can that possibly be true, launching from the Florida coast?
I can’t believe nobody has picked up and commented on New Armstrong, in point 12, being 30 meters in diameter. Simple scaling that diameter against BFR yields a thrust over 100 million lbf. Can that possibly be true, launching from the Florida coast?
I watched the presentation for that reason. What I pick up there is that the 100 feet is just an arbitrary large number. Not any indication this is what New Armstrong will be.
I can’t believe nobody has picked up and commented on New Armstrong, in point 12, being 30 meters in diameter. Simple scaling that diameter against BFR yields a thrust over 100 million lbf. Can that possibly be true, launching from the Florida coast?
I watched the presentation for that reason. What I pick up there is that the 100 feet is just an arbitrary large number. Not any indication this is what New Armstrong will be.
Yes, thats correct. I did not suggest that New Armstrong would be 30m, only that Meyerson hinted/brought up a 30m diameter rocket. As Jeff recently said, they aim to build bigger and bigger rockets. New Armstrong only being bigger than New glenn. Additional rockets will follow.
Just to update everyone - Blue have 1500 employees now. Confirmed yesterday by Erika Wagner.
The speaker also mentioned that Blue has about 1400 employees, to SpaceX's what, 7000?
Oh wow. So 1400 in startup mode are supposed to keep pace with 7000 who have been doing this for years?
BO is building a manufacturing organization, but it takes time to build an experiemced launch operations organization (and no, NS doesn't count)The speaker also mentioned that Blue has about 1400 employees, to SpaceX's what, 7000?
Oh wow. So 1400 in startup mode are supposed to keep pace with 7000 who have been doing this for years?
Call it a data point, not a comparison.
Yes, Blue Origin has a lot of scaling to do, but they are getting to a point where scaling becomes easier, just as it did for SpaceX.
I understand it's natural to want to boil everything down to a competition, but we have to remember that the goal is to lower the cost to access space, not to limit the number of options we have to access space. So we should be cheering on ALL entities that are working on reusable rockets.
So my hope would be that when we're point out differences between Blue Origin and SpaceX it is not for the purpose of denigration of either, but to help understand the trajectory of both. We NEED both if we are going to expand humanity out into space.
My $0.02
BO's statement of purpose is indeed vague, which is all part of their obsession for secrecy. I doubt if they are just building New Glenn and hope to get customers. They have the moon in their cross-hairs, and unlike (presently) SpaceX, have a tourist industry in waiting. They had at one point been developing the biconic spacecraft, and one can only speculate if that or an evolved version designed specifically for New Glenn isn't in their plans. We'll have to see. It's kinda like the Soviet Union back in the 1960's and 70's, wondering what they're up to.The guy from Relativity Aerospace said he'd help design a capsule thruster when at Blue, which suggests they are still making a crew capsule of some type. NG should be good for about 30t fully reuseable, that would allow for a large LEO crew vehicle. I'd guess 20-30 seats, which is what they'd need for space tourism.
So my hope would be that when we're point out differences between Blue Origin and SpaceX it is not for the purpose of denigration of either, but to help understand the trajectory of both.
Nobody is saying it's "easy" but you really seem to be overselling the complexity, underselling the ability of existing aerospace engineers when perpetually funded and the comparisons to Skylon, OrbitalATK and Sealaunch make no sense. When did Skylon get the sort of funding that Blue has had since day one? Skylon is way more bleeding edge than BE-4. What is so unknown about BE-4? LNG? Is that what make this a "new type of engine?" It's not a huge engine, it's not running at insane chamber pressures, it's not like staged combustion is new. If Rocketdyne could develop the SSME in the 70s is it so hard to imagine that Blue can manage 2/3 the chamber pressure in 2018?So my hope would be that when we're point out differences between Blue Origin and SpaceX it is not for the purpose of denigration of either, but to help understand the trajectory of both.
I feel like the people who feel Blue is being judged unfairly are missing the point of these comparisons. Claiming that a company is going to radically lower the cost to space is predicting an extrordinary performance not a normal one. If you want to predict an extrodinary performance, the standard you judge by needs to be, well, extrodinary. If you want to claim that an athlete is going to put up 50 points next game in the playoffs, you need to explain why they compare to what Lebron just did. If you want to claim that a company is going to bring down the cost to build the most powerful rocket in the world on a whole new engine type then land it with a new procedure and achieve a high launch rate, you need to explain why they compare to what SpaceX just did.
There are other comparisons we could make to Blue Origin besides SpaceX. Blue Origin is developing an advanced new engine. Kuznetsov developed an advanced engine and it was flight ready (and is still in use). The N1 rocket still never launched successfully. Blue Origin has billions of dollars of private financing. Skylon has had even more financing and they have never built a vehicle. Blue Origin has outside the box ideas. So did Sealaunch and Virgin.
If we just judged Blue like a conventional company, the same way we would judge Skylon or Stratolaunch or OrbitalATK, we wouldn't be considering it particularly likely they are going to drastically lower the cost to orbit. Their engine has a clear market so should succeed if it's finished in a timely fashion. Their rocket is going to be entering a launch market that has suddenly gotten very, very competative. They have ideas but those ideas aren't proven so it's going to be an uphill struggle for them even to survive, let alone completely revolutionize the market. Just getting New Glenn to the same level of development as Falcon 9 would be really, really hard! But that really, really hard thing wouldn't necessarily outpace the non-SpaceX parts of the market.
Even with SpaceX there are a lot of unknowns. With Blue Origin there are even more. Comparing them to SpaceX isn't hating on them, it's being optimistic.
... What SX did is awesome and I'm a huge fan but comparing a minimalistic, experimental, development approach bolted onto an expendable rocket program that had to produce income ASAP ....
What I miss in two pages of debate about which factory is further along, is how that would put Blue ahead of SpaceX. Isn't NG their answer to FH? Which is already flying... So even if their factory is/would be farther along than BFR, that still means they've been overtaken. What am I missing?
What everyone seems to be missing is this is a marathon not a sprint.
What I miss in two pages of debate about which factory is further along, is how that would put Blue ahead of SpaceX. Isn't NG their answer to FH? Which is already flying... So even if their factory is/would be farther along than BFR, that still means they've been overtaken. What am I missing?
History is fairly full of examples of companies taking the gradual approach, on the assumption they have time, and then finding out they don't.What everyone seems to be missing is this is a marathon not a sprint.
What I miss in two pages of debate about which factory is further along, is how that would put Blue ahead of SpaceX. Isn't NG their answer to FH? Which is already flying... So even if their factory is/would be farther along than BFR, that still means they've been overtaken. What am I missing?
History is fairly full of examples of companies taking the gradual approach, on the assumption they have time, and then finding out they don't.Well, when you think about it, when Blue Origin was incorporated, there was no particular reason to think their approach would not be sufficient. SpaceX didn't exist yet, and in any case wouldn't taken seriously for a number of years. The souring of relations between the USA and Russia was years off too. The space industry in the USA had been running along, doing the same-old same-old for decades. What Blue Origin had in mind would indeed have been revolutionary, or at least upsetting to the status quo. Now they look like fast followers... or not so fast.
For example, Nokia vs Apple/android.
Or Windows mobile vs ...
Even if you have a technically working product in the market place, its market share can be small enough not to matter, in the face of competition.
Falcon will definitely be competitive with New Glenn. I doubt Blue will field a reusable upper stage before 2025, and Falcon could probably even compete with that.What I miss in two pages of debate about which factory is further along, is how that would put Blue ahead of SpaceX. Isn't NG their answer to FH? Which is already flying... So even if their factory is/would be farther along than BFR, that still means they've been overtaken. What am I missing?
Most of the Blue fans around here consider S2 reusability inevitable and that the 50-75% cost reduction number is compared to SpaceX prices. So with those assumptions, only BFR could compete with NG. I agree though that NG is roughly a parody to FH, with some advantages and disadvantages. NG comes online 2+ years after FH if they meet their extraordinarily ambitious schedule. It is hard to predict failure though when the company doesn't need revenue.
And even more so, of course the same could be said of SpaceX...History is fairly full of examples of companies taking the gradual approach, on the assumption they have time, and then finding out they don't.Well, when you think about it, when Blue Origin was incorporated, there was no particular reason to think their approach would not be sufficient. SpaceX didn't exist yet, and in any case wouldn't taken seriously for a number of years. The souring of relations between the USA and Russia was years off too. The space industry in the USA had been running along, doing the same-old same-old for decades. What Blue Origin had in mind would indeed have been revolutionary, or at least upsetting to the status quo. Now they look like fast followers... or not so fast.
For example, Nokia vs Apple/android.
Or Windows mobile vs ...
Even if you have a technically working product in the market place, its market share can be small enough not to matter, in the face of competition.
History is fairly full of examples of companies taking the gradual approach, on the assumption they have time, and then finding out they don't.What everyone seems to be missing is this is a marathon not a sprint.
What I miss in two pages of debate about which factory is further along, is how that would put Blue ahead of SpaceX. Isn't NG their answer to FH? Which is already flying... So even if their factory is/would be farther along than BFR, that still means they've been overtaken. What am I missing?
For example, Nokia vs Apple/android.
Or Windows mobile vs ...
Even if you have a technically working product in the market place, its market share can be small enough not to matter, in the face of competition.
Right now, it doesn't look like anyone besides Blue and SpaceX will field a partially reusable vehicle before 2030.
The guy from Relativity Aerospace said he'd help design a capsule thruster when at Blue, which suggests they are still making a crew capsule of some type. NG should be good for about 30t fully reuseable, that would allow for a large LEO crew vehicle. I'd guess 20-30 seats, which is what they'd need for space tourism.
Most likely a Biconic capsule as normal capsules eg orion, starliner, appollo, don't scale well.
That is the important part and why the constant "There is only oneGodSpaceX" vibe gets so old so quick.
For reuse, "Millions living and working in space", Elons retirement on Mars,Moonbase AlphaESA Moon Village and everything else to work there have to be more than just one player. There also has to be more than just one nation, just US companies is not enough.
None of these examples are relevant. There is no "network effect" in spaceflight. There is no vendor/walled garden/ecosystem lock in. There is no fashion/coolness factor. No "rounded corner"/"one click"/"look and feel" patents (though Blue tried). This is a market that is vigorously opposed to a monopoly and will be until spaceflight gets to something like automotive's safety record. (So an "incident" does not cause a multi-month or multi-year stand down.) See my signature.History is fairly full of examples of companies taking the gradual approach, on the assumption they have time, and then finding out they don't.What everyone seems to be missing is this is a marathon not a sprint.
What I miss in two pages of debate about which factory is further along, is how that would put Blue ahead of SpaceX. Isn't NG their answer to FH? Which is already flying... So even if their factory is/would be farther along than BFR, that still means they've been overtaken. What am I missing?
For example, Nokia vs Apple/android.
Or Windows mobile vs ...
Even if you have a technically working product in the market place, its market share can be small enough not to matter, in the face of competition.
The obvious shortcut there is to drain ULA,
Well if they want the people most recently experienced with setting up a high launch rate operation, yes, definitely.
The obvious shortcut there is to drain ULA,
You mean Spacex, which is happening.
My big concern with Blue is that I think they're running up against the issue of the job expanding to fill the time available and they don't have a deadline.
My big concern with Blue is that I think they're running up against the issue of the job expanding to fill the time available and they don't have a deadline.
I too think this is a serious problem. If you are going to compete with the best at anything (sports, science, academia, etc.) you need to both get the best people and get them to work really hard. This in turn means minimizing or postponing interactions with friends, family, etc. You can argue that this is not right, that you should be able to compete at the highest level while preserving a life-work balance, but the fact is you will always get out-competed by someone who is equally smart and works harder.
To get smart people to work really hard, you need a pressing reason. It can be an active competition, a public deadline, a war, religious zealotry, or so on. But you need something, and a publicly acknowledged deadline would help IMO.
My big concern with Blue is that I think they're running up against the issue of the job expanding to fill the time available and they don't have a deadline.
I too think this is a serious problem. If you are going to compete with the best at anything (sports, science, academia, etc.) you need to both get the best people and get them to work really hard. This in turn means minimizing or postponing interactions with friends, family, etc. You can argue that this is not right, that you should be able to compete at the highest level while preserving a life-work balance, but the fact is you will always get out-competed by someone who is equally smart and works harder.
To get smart people to work really hard, you need a pressing reason. It can be an active competition, a public deadline, a war, religious zealotry, or so on. But you need something, and a publicly acknowledged deadline would help IMO.
Bezos' other enterprise, Amazon, is known for being a demanding work environment in which employees are expected to either produce or find other employment.
3. Blue Origin is a hobby company and he's simply not involved in the day-to-day. (also known as a "fact")
From reading the above posts, specifically people willing to work 50-60 hours a week represents the typical North American work environment (though more American than Canadian). People willing to work 20 hours free labour a week amounts to over four months of unpaid work a year. That's garbage. Any employer expecting people to give that amount of unpaid work deserves prison. I worked 70 hours a week until one day, while in my late 30's, staring at the ceiling of a hospital suffering from burnout and stress. That was a life changing moment, and I refuse to work for free anymore. Work-Life balance is becoming the new norm, but obviously not for some fiscal-centric companies that work people to death and then discard them. Sorry for the rant, but working and not getting paid is what? Yup. No other word for it.
From reading the above posts, specifically people willing to work 50-60 hours a week represents the typical North American work environment (though more American than Canadian). People willing to work 20 hours free labour a week amounts to over four months of unpaid work a year. That's garbage. Any employer expecting people to give that amount of unpaid work deserves prison. I worked 70 hours a week until one day, while in my late 30's, staring at the ceiling of a hospital suffering from burnout and stress. That was a life changing moment, and I refuse to work for free anymore. Work-Life balance is becoming the new norm, but obviously not for some fiscal-centric companies that work people to death and then discard them. Sorry for the rant, but working and not getting paid is what? Yup. No other word for it.Can you elaborate further on how you were able to quantify all this for salaried jobs with benefits & PTO within a free market economy?
Right now, it doesn't look like anyone besides Blue and SpaceX will field a partially reusable vehicle before 2030.
That is the important part and why the constant "There is only oneGodSpaceX" vibe gets so old so quick.
For reuse, "Millions living and working in space", Elons retirement on Mars,Moonbase AlphaESA Moon Village and everything else to work there have to be more than just one player. There also has to be more than just one nation, just US companies is not enough.
3. Blue Origin is a hobby company and he's simply not involved in the day-to-day. (also known as a "fact")
Bezos' other enterprise, Amazon, is known for being a demanding work environment in which employees are expected to either produce or find other employment.
This is an interesting point. Bezos clearly knows how to be a demanding boss, but I have not heard any complaints about working at BO unlike the stories of working for Amazon. I can see two conjectures about this:
(a) It's a purposeful recruiting tool against SpaceX. You get to work on equally cool stuff with less stress. Of course, in a year or so when the deadlines kick in, Bezos may well switch into slave driver mode.
(b) In the AWS space, Bezos sees his competitors - Google, Microsoft, IBM - as frightful, well-funded, and competent teams. Falling behind would be fatal, and he needs to drive his team hard to compete. But perhaps he does not see SpaceX in the same scary light, and does not want to risk burning out, or driving away, his team for a less urgent situation.
Well Elon Musk is not involved in the day-to-day of SpaceX either, he has Gwynne Shotwell to do that
Six figures and not working 70 hours a week. Freight logistics. Work my ass off 40 hours a week. If you plan to work 70 hours a week, you will. If you plan about a 40 hour week, that's what you'll work. Plus I'm Canadian. Huge difference between Canadian work culture and American.Ok, well it sounds like an employer values you at whatever "six figures and not working 70 hours" means and that for some reason you were working longer hours, of your own free will, prior to that. I guess I don't see the point of your original complaint if no one is forcing you against your will to work more than 40 hours. Change jobs, like you eventually did, but don't blame someone else for the hours.
Right now, it doesn't look like anyone besides Blue and SpaceX will field a partially reusable vehicle before 2030.
That is the important part and why the constant "There is only oneGodSpaceX" vibe gets so old so quick.
For reuse, "Millions living and working in space", Elons retirement on Mars,Moonbase AlphaESA Moon Village and everything else to work there have to be more than just one player. There also has to be more than just one nation, just US companies is not enough.
Musk pulled a sneaky trick with SpaceX that newspace fans need to realize. He talked constantly about payloads to LEO and by doing so he tricked everyone else into talking about payloads to LEO as well. It's not that payloads to LEO aren't an important metric; it's just that they are the metric that paints reusable rockets in the most favorable light. ULA and Ariane seem to view GTO as much more important then LEO. That's why Musk says that the cost for flyback with a Falcon Heavy launch is minimal while Jean-Marc Astorg says the cost for flyback with an Ariene 6 is prohibitive, they're talking about two different missions.
The NewSpace fans tend to say that "OldSpace" is standing still in the face of reuse but the path to that conclusion is by looking at LEO. In LEO Falcon 9 has gone from being able to launch a block 3 between 1 and 3 times to having something that should be able to work 10 times without refurbishment. Given the fairing limits, the maximum payload doesn't change much between reusable and expendables. That's a big shift! In GTO, SpaceX has gone from offering expendable block 3 launches which give 6 tons for 61 million to offering reusable falcon heavy launches which give 8 tons and cost 90 million. That isn't going to upend the GTO market. It's not a useless capability but it's not hard to understand why they kept delaying Heavy in favor of other things. And it's not like the competition is standing still. Vulcan and Ariene 6 both represent significant cost savings when it comes to GTO launches and both of them are going to keep being developed in ways that will continue to drive prices down in GTO.
Reuse isn't something that happens overnight. Until it does, New Glenn is a heavy launcher designed for a GTO market that is already going to have two brand new low cost launchers at the 5 ton and 10-20 ton market slots. This isn't incidental competition. And both these vehicles are going to continue to develop.
Let's compare (costs in millions):
Single medium sats:
Ariane 64 lower berth: $45? for 4.5? t to GTO-1500
F9 B5: $62 for 5.5 t to GTO-1800 (though Musk indicated they are selling for closer to $50)
[snip]
Let's compare (costs in millions):How much of an advantage is GTO-1500 vs GTO-1800 for sat operators?
Single medium sats:
Ariane 64 lower berth: $45? for 4.5? t to GTO-1500
F9 B5: $62 for 5.5 t to GTO-1800 (though Musk indicated they are selling for closer to $50)
[snip]
How much of an advantage is there to greater schedule certainty by avoiding the complexities of dual-manifest payloads?
Let's compare (costs in millions):
Single medium sats:
Ariane 64 lower berth: $45? for 4.5? t to GTO-1500
F9 B5: $62 for 5.5 t to GTO-1800 (though Musk indicated they are selling for closer to $50)
[snip]
How much of an advantage is GTO-1500 vs GTO-1800 for sat operators?
How much of an advantage is there to greater schedule certainty by avoiding the complexities of dual-manifest payloads?
Musk pulled a sneaky trick with SpaceX that newspace fans need to realize. He talked constantly about payloads to LEO and by doing so he tricked everyone else into talking about payloads to LEO as well. It's not that payloads to LEO aren't an important metric; it's just that they are the metric that paints reusable rockets in the most favorable light....It's also the metric most often used to compare crewed Mars mission architectures (among other things). IMLEO = "initial mass in LEO"
Falcon 9's heaviest payload to LEO has only been 8.6+ tonnes or so on a rocket the company claims can lift 22.8 tonnes to LEO. I think it is fair to bring up the point about the validity of the metric.Musk pulled a sneaky trick with SpaceX that newspace fans need to realize. He talked constantly about payloads to LEO and by doing so he tricked everyone else into talking about payloads to LEO as well. It's not that payloads to LEO aren't an important metric; it's just that they are the metric that paints reusable rockets in the most favorable light....It's also the metric most often used to compare crewed Mars mission architectures (among other things). IMLEO = "initial mass in LEO"
You have to pick one number to talk about more than others, and given SpaceX's primary mission (Mars) and the historical use of LEO for just that, it is by far the best number for them to use.
Also, remember SpaceX does a LOT of missions to LEO, probably most of them. Starlink will make that even more true.
To call this a "sneaky trick" is just BS.
The heaviest things F9 has put in LEO are fuel and satellites intended for GTO.
Falcon 9's heaviest payload to LEO has only been 8.6+ tonnes or so on a rocket the company claims can lift 22.8 tonnes to LEO.
The main reason we have not seen this is not technical limits, but that there are no 20t LEO payloads looking for a ride.
LEO is a reasonable rough guess for a start but as soon as you start to look closer, it gets more complicated. Such is life.
It's also the metric most often used to compare crewed Mars mission architectures (among other things). IMLEO = "initial mass in LEO"
Propellant in LEO for a GTO mission is not payload, it is just propellant needed to perform the mission.The heaviest things F9 has put in LEO are fuel and satellites intended for GTO.
Falcon 9's heaviest payload to LEO has only been 8.6+ tonnes or so on a rocket the company claims can lift 22.8 tonnes to LEO.
The recent SES-12 was 5.4t. Assuming the second stage was 4.6t, that's at least 10t. It gave it 2750 m/s at an ISP of 348. That means the initial mass was at least 22.3t, and probably quite a bit more since it also accelerated the unused residuals.
So basically it put a 5.4t payload + at least 12t of fuel into LEO, so it could clearly do at least a 17t payload. Add in that residuals are less costly in LEO, and that this was a Block 4 first stage, and the claimed performance seems plausible. The main reason we have not seen this is not technical limits, but that there are no 20t LEO payloads looking for a ride.
Falcon 9's heaviest payload to LEO has only been 8.6+ tonnes or so on a rocket the company claims can lift 22.8 tonnes to LEO. I think it is fair to bring up the point about the validity of the metric.Musk pulled a sneaky trick with SpaceX that newspace fans need to realize. He talked constantly about payloads to LEO and by doing so he tricked everyone else into talking about payloads to LEO as well. It's not that payloads to LEO aren't an important metric; it's just that they are the metric that paints reusable rockets in the most favorable light....It's also the metric most often used to compare crewed Mars mission architectures (among other things). IMLEO = "initial mass in LEO"
You have to pick one number to talk about more than others, and given SpaceX's primary mission (Mars) and the historical use of LEO for just that, it is by far the best number for them to use.
Also, remember SpaceX does a LOT of missions to LEO, probably most of them. Starlink will make that even more true.
To call this a "sneaky trick" is just BS.
- Ed Kyle
Propellant in LEO for a GTO mission is not payload, it is just propellant needed to perform the mission.Falcon 9's heaviest payload to LEO has only been 8.6+ tonnes or so on a rocket the company claims can lift 22.8 tonnes to LEO.The heaviest things F9 has put in LEO are fuel and satellites intended for GTO.
The recent SES-12 was 5.4t. Assuming the second stage was 4.6t, that's at least 10t. It gave it 2750 m/s at an ISP of 348. That means the initial mass was at least 22.3t, and probably quite a bit more since it also accelerated the unused residuals.
So basically it put a 5.4t payload + at least 12t of fuel into LEO, so it could clearly do at least a 17t payload. Add in that residuals are less costly in LEO, and that this was a Block 4 first stage, and the claimed performance seems plausible. The main reason we have not seen this is not technical limits, but that there are no 20t LEO payloads looking for a ride.
Meanwhile, Falcon 9 has only demonstrated maybe 38% of its advertised LEO capability.
... I think it is fair to bring up the point about the validity of the metric.
Only metric that ultimately counts is the market, of which F9 appears to be doing quite well. The rest is interesting, but ultimately pointless, navel gazing and mental masturbation.
Actually, Falcon 9’s heaviest GTO mission using drone ship recovery was the 5.282-ton SES-10 satellite, which was deployed to a 218 by 35,410 kilometer orbit, inclined 26.2 degrees.I have SES 10 likely going to a 217 x 33,395 x 26.3 deg slightly subsynchronous transfer orbit, because that was the tracked second stage orbit. 218 x 35,410 km x 26.2 deg was the planned SES 10 insertion orbit, but if I'm remembering correctly we didn't get tracking data on SES 10 because it was delayed a day or two and the satellite maneuvered in the interim.
Given that SpaceX launches to LEO so much, and that it presents their product/service in the best possible light, I don't think it is at all surprising or unusual that they've chosen to highlight LEO performance. Same for Ariane and GTO where most of their launches are going and where they can capitalize on the advantages of both low latitude launch and hydrogen upper stage, etc. Regardless, is this germane to a discussion of approach/business strategy between BO and SpaceX?Yes, because, for one thing, it goes to the validity of their claims. Consider the following.
LEO Payload in Metric Tons (Tonnes)
Vehicle Claimed Demonstrated
===================================================
Ariane 5 ES 20 t [1] 19.926 t (ATV 5)[1]
Atlas 5-401 8.9 t [1] 7.495 t (OA-6)[1]
CZ-7 13.5 t [7] 12.910 t (Tianzhou 1)[7]
Delta 4M+5,2 9.6 t [3] ~6,000 t (NROL 47)[5]
Delta 4 Heavy 24.4 t [3] ~17.000 t (NROL 65)[4]
Falcon 9 v1.2 22.8 t [2] 8.626 t (CRS 8)[1]
Falcon Heavy 63.8 t [2] ~1.250 t Demo [6]
Proton 20.6 t [1] 20.294 t (Zvezda)[1]
===================================================
[1] LEOx51.6 deg
[2] LEOx28.5 deg
[3] LEOx90 deg
[4] LEOx97.9 deg
[5] LEOx106 deg
[6] HCO
[4] LEOx42 deg
Given that SpaceX launches to LEO so much, and that it presents their product/service in the best possible light, I don't think it is at all surprising or unusual that they've chosen to highlight LEO performance. Same for Ariane and GTO where most of their launches are going and where they can capitalize on the advantages of both low latitude launch and hydrogen upper stage, etc. Regardless, is this germane to a discussion of approach/business strategy between BO and SpaceX?Yes, because, for one thing, it goes to the validity of their claims. Consider the following.
LEO Payload in Metric Tons (Tonnes)
Vehicle Claimed Demonstrated
===================================================
Ariane 5 ES 20 t [1] 19.926 t (ATV 5)[1]
Atlas 5-401 8.9 t [1] 7.495 t (OA-6)[1]
CZ-7 13.5 t [7] 12.910 t (Tianzhou 1)[7]
Delta 4M+5,2 9.6 t [3] ~6,000 t (NROL 47)[5]
Delta 4 Heavy 24.4 t [3] ~17.000 t (NROL 65)[4]
Falcon 9 v1.2 22.8 t [2] 8.626 t (CRS 8)[1]
Falcon Heavy 63.8 t [2] ~1.250 t Demo [6]
Proton 20.6 t [1] 20.294 t (Zvezda)[1]
===================================================
[1] LEOx51.6 deg
[2] LEOx28.5 deg
[3] LEOx90 deg
[4] LEOx97.9 deg
[5] LEOx106 deg
[6] HCO
[4] LEOx42 deg
Why among these is SpaceX the only one who's LEO claims diverge so far from its
actual LEO performance? Based on these results, the company's claimed performance
is an invalid point of comparison with the others, because it alone is only numbers on
paper rather than real payloads actually delivered.
- Ed Kyle
So, just because none of SpaceX's customers have provided a payload that uses the full capacity of F9, you think something is wrong with SpaceX's numbers? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.SpaceX is its own customer here, in a way, because it designed Dragon. If Falcon could lift so much more to ISS on each mission, why didn't SpaceX take advantage of this capability for its own payload?
So, just because none of SpaceX's customers have provided a payload that uses the full capacity of F9, you think something is wrong with SpaceX's numbers? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.SpaceX is its own customer here, in a way, because it designed Dragon. If Falcon could lift so much more to ISS on each mission, why didn't SpaceX take advantage of this capability for its own payload?
We've been hearing stories of both companies starting to fight for human capital - qualified staff.
How active are both firms in promoting STEM education? Maybe sponsoring scholarships is something they would/are consider?
So, just because none of SpaceX's customers have provided a payload that uses the full capacity of F9, you think something is wrong with SpaceX's numbers? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.SpaceX is its own customer here, in a way, because it designed Dragon. If Falcon could lift so much more to ISS on each mission, why didn't SpaceX take advantage of this capability for its own payload?
Dragon 2 will be somewhat heavier, I'm told. I hope so. It will be good to have another data point.
- Ed Kyle
The reason I brought this up wasn't naval gazing. The reason I bring this up is because everyone is using these metrics to say the writing is on the wall for Ariane, Vulcan, Soyuz, etc. as soon as BFR/New Glenn comes along.
We've got these figures about BFR and New Glenn, 150 tons, 45 tons. They're important figures but not to the GTO market.
They are exciting figures because they suggest that radical new ideas will be possible with LEO launches. Yet everyone is taking for granted that these vehicles are going to dominate the satellite launch markets. But even the existing Falcon 9 capability isn't being used fully by satellite markets as edkyle explained so well. If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
Propellant in LEO for a GTO mission is not payload, it is just propellant needed to perform the mission.
Based on these results, the company's claimed performance is an invalid point of comparison with the others, because it alone is only numbers on paper rather than real payloads actually delivered.
It could launch about 118,000 kilograms (130 tons) into Earth orbit.Wikipedia states:
the Saturn V remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful (highest total impulse) rocket ever brought to operational status, and holds records for the heaviest payload launched and largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of 140,000 kg (310,000 lb), which included the third stage and unburned propellant needed to send the Apollo Command/Service Module and Lunar Module to the Moon.Or would you claim that Saturn V only demonstrated 70,000 kg with Skylab?? Those fakers - that's only half of their claimed capacity!
On a pedantic note, you could claim their payload adapter has never demonstrated the ability to support a 20t payload, or that they've never demonstrated capacity to operate with a forward center of mass implied by a 20t payload. But these points apply to all other rockets as well (such as the Saturn V) that have set their records with payloads intended for elsewhere. But you can't claim a 20t payload to LEO has not been demonstrated.
Why among these is SpaceX the only one who's LEO claims diverge so far from its actual LEO performance? Because for all the other examples, either the payload was built specifically to take maximum advantage of the LV's capability or the LV was designed and built (or chosen from available launchers) to be able to launch a payload of that given size. For Dragon and F9v1.2 neither are the case. Dragon was designed and built to make maximum use of the planned F9v1.0 capabilities and the F9v1.0 was designed and built to be able to launch a loaded Dragon to ISS. A mission for which it turned out a bit undersized and as a result SpaceX had to redesign for added capability--hence F9v1.1. They've since gone on to significantly upgrade performance at least two more times.Given that SpaceX launches to LEO so much, and that it presents their product/service in the best possible light, I don't think it is at all surprising or unusual that they've chosen to highlight LEO performance. Same for Ariane and GTO where most of their launches are going and where they can capitalize on the advantages of both low latitude launch and hydrogen upper stage, etc. Regardless, is this germane to a discussion of approach/business strategy between BO and SpaceX?Yes, because, for one thing, it goes to the validity of their claims. Consider the following.
LEO Payload in Metric Tons (Tonnes)
Vehicle Claimed Demonstrated
===================================================
Ariane 5 ES 20 t [1] 19.926 t (ATV 5)[1]
Atlas 5-401 8.9 t [1] 7.495 t (OA-6)[1]
CZ-7 13.5 t [7] 12.910 t (Tianzhou 1)[7]
Delta 4M+5,2 9.6 t [3] ~6,000 t (NROL 47)[5]
Delta 4 Heavy 24.4 t [3] ~17.000 t (NROL 65)[4]
Falcon 9 v1.2 22.8 t [2] 8.626 t (CRS 8)[1]
Falcon Heavy 63.8 t [2] ~1.250 t Demo [6]
Proton 20.6 t [1] 20.294 t (Zvezda)[1]
===================================================
[1] LEOx51.6 deg
[2] LEOx28.5 deg
[3] LEOx90 deg
[4] LEOx97.9 deg
[5] LEOx106 deg
[6] HCO
[4] LEOx42 deg
Why among these is SpaceX the only one who's LEO claims diverge so far from its
actual LEO performance? Based on these results, the company's claimed performance
is an invalid point of comparison with the others, because it alone is only numbers on
paper rather than real payloads actually delivered.
- Ed Kyle
As many have stated, your basic argument is that claimed vs. demonstrated capability is what SpaceX is failing at. It doesn't make SpaceX's claim false that they can launch X t to LEO when they've only ever actually launched X/3 t. A better argument might be something along the lines of the fact that they would most likely be volume-limited in trying to get a max payload to LEO on either F9 and certainly on F9H. So the advertised capability cannot be used effectively without a larger fairing.I'm not claiming that SpaceX's capability claim is false. I'm pointing out that what it has actually achieved is far less than that claim, something we don't see with other launch vehicles. Yes, I wonder why.
If propellant is defined as payload, as in something carried by a tanker, then it would be payload. Otherwise the definition of payload performance is given in User's Guides. These typically define it as mass attached to the payload adapter or some-such. Atlas 5 "Payload Systems Weight", for example, "is defined as the combined equivalent mass to orbit of the separated SC, the SC-to-LV adapter, and other mission-unique hardware required on the LV to support the SC".Propellant in LEO for a GTO mission is not payload, it is just propellant needed to perform the mission.
Right, so a tanker BFS would have zero payload, since it's all fuel for Moon/Mars after all, that makes total sense /s
And what about SLS Block 1's 90t to LEO, there's no payload on the horizon that comes even close to 90t, does this mean you will classify SLS Block 1's LEO number as fake too?
I'm not claiming that SpaceX's capability claim is false. I'm pointing out that what it has actually achieved is far less than that claim, something we don't see with other launch vehicles. Yes, I wonder why.
- Ed Kyle
Yes, because, for one thing, it goes to the validity of their claims. Consider the following.
Why among these is SpaceX the only one who's LEO claims diverge so far from its actual LEO performance?
LEO Payload in Metric Tons (Tonnes)
Vehicle Claimed Demonstrated
===================================================
Ariane 5 ES 20 t [1] 19.926 t (ATV 5)[1]
Atlas 5-401 8.9 t [1] 7.495 t (OA-6)[1]
Atlas 5-421 14.1t 0
Atlas 5-431 15.7t 0
Atlas 5-511 11.0t 0
Atlas 5-521 13.5t 0
Atlas 5-531 15.6t 0
Atlas 5-541 17.4t 0
Atlas 5-551 18.8t 0
Atlas 5-552 20.5t 0
CZ-7 13.5 t [7] 12.910 t (Tianzhou 1)[7]
Delta 4M+5,2 9.6 t [3] ~6,000 t (NROL 47)[5]
Delta 4 Heavy 24.4 t [3] ~17.000 t (NROL 65)[4]
Falcon 9 v1.2 22.8 t [2] 8.626 t (CRS 8)[1]
Falcon Heavy 63.8 t [2] ~1.250 t Demo [6]
Proton 20.6 t [1] 20.294 t (Zvezda)[1]
===================================================
Based on these results, the company's claimed performance is an invalid point of comparison with the others, because it alone is only numbers on paper rather than real payloads actually delivered.Based on these results, ULA's claimed performance is an invalid point of comparison with the others, because it is only numbers on paper rather than real payloads actually delivered.
Note that NONE of the heavier Atlas versions has ever delivered anything to LEO. All payloads larger than NRO L-34 to LEO have NEVER been demonstrated by any version of the rocket.And yet these SRM boosted variants have flown a total of 34 times. Here is yet another example showing why listed LEO capability is often not a useful means of comparison.
SpaceX, of course, talks about Mars, not LEO, for BFR.
Note that NONE of the heavier Atlas versions has ever delivered anything to LEO. All payloads larger than NRO L-34 to LEO have NEVER been demonstrated by any version of the rocket.And yet these SRM boosted variants have flown a total of 34 times. Here is yet another example showing why listed LEO capability is often not a useful means of comparison.
So, why is Blue building New Glenn? Will it actually fly LEO missions? The company seems to talk about the Moon a lot, and its initial customers are all GTO missions, are they not?
SpaceX, of course, talks about Mars, not LEO, for BFR.
- Ed Kyle
As many have stated, your basic argument is that claimed vs. demonstrated capability is what SpaceX is failing at. It doesn't make SpaceX's claim false that they can launch X t to LEO when they've only ever actually launched X/3 t. A better argument might be something along the lines of the fact that they would most likely be volume-limited in trying to get a max payload to LEO on either F9 and certainly on F9H. So the advertised capability cannot be used effectively without a larger fairing.I'm not claiming that SpaceX's capability claim is false. I'm pointing out that what it has actually achieved is far less than that claim, something we don't see with other launch vehicles. Yes, I wonder why.
- Ed Kyle
On the other hand, I wonder why this is raised in yet another thread. Ed, can you please keep this to one thread and one thread only? Then just reference your points instead of repeating the same assertions to a (partly) new audience and then we have the same arguments all over again.As many have stated, your basic argument is that claimed vs. demonstrated capability is what SpaceX is failing at. It doesn't make SpaceX's claim false that they can launch X t to LEO when they've only ever actually launched X/3 t. A better argument might be something along the lines of the fact that they would most likely be volume-limited in trying to get a max payload to LEO on either F9 and certainly on F9H. So the advertised capability cannot be used effectively without a larger fairing.I'm not claiming that SpaceX's capability claim is false. I'm pointing out that what it has actually achieved is far less than that claim, something we don't see with other launch vehicles. Yes, I wonder why.
You were shown that the rocket demonstrated its performance by carrying propellant for GTO missions, but you refuse to acknoledge that.So, just because none of SpaceX's customers have provided a payload that uses the full capacity of F9, you think something is wrong with SpaceX's numbers? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.SpaceX is its own customer here, in a way, because it designed Dragon. If Falcon could lift so much more to ISS on each mission, why didn't SpaceX take advantage of this capability for its own payload?
Dragon 2 will be somewhat heavier, I'm told. I hope so. It will be good to have another data point.
- Ed Kyle
You were shown that the rocket demonstrated its performance by carrying propellant for GTO missions, but you refuse to acknoledge that.I pointed out the definition of "payload" that is clearly defined in User's Guides does not include this type of mission propellant. Are you suggesting that SpaceX has come up with its own industry-unique definition of payload?
So, why is Blue building New Glenn? Will it actually fly LEO missions?
SpaceX, of course, talks about Mars, not LEO, for BFR.
I know you seem to care, or at least you care because you are using LEO as a cudgel of some sort. Otherwise I'm sure Blue Origin won't really care as long as lots of customers are using New Glenn to move mass to space.
As many have stated, your basic argument is that claimed vs. demonstrated capability is what SpaceX is failing at. It doesn't make SpaceX's claim false that they can launch X t to LEO when they've only ever actually launched X/3 t. A better argument might be something along the lines of the fact that they would most likely be volume-limited in trying to get a max payload to LEO on either F9 and certainly on F9H. So the advertised capability cannot be used effectively without a larger fairing.I'm not claiming that SpaceX's capability claim is false. I'm pointing out that what it has actually achieved is far less than that claim, something we don't see with other launch vehicles. Yes, I wonder why.
I am suggesting that when it comes to hinting that SpaceX is misrepresenting the rocket's performance you're way off base, since a kilo is a kilo, and it doesn't matter whether it is a kilo of satellite or a kilo of propellant.You were shown that the rocket demonstrated its performance by carrying propellant for GTO missions, but you refuse to acknoledge that.I pointed out the definition of "payload" that is clearly defined in User's Guides does not include this type of mission propellant. Are you suggesting that SpaceX has come up with its own industry-unique definition of payload?
- Ed Kyle
....
If Falcon could lift so much more to ISS on each mission, why didn't SpaceX take advantage of this capability for its own payload?
...
- Ed Kyle
Customers don't care about impressive performance, so long as it's sufficient for the payloads they want to launch. Customers only care about price (including insurance) and services.I know you seem to care, or at least you care because you are using LEO as a cudgel of some sort. Otherwise I'm sure Blue Origin won't really care as long as lots of customers are using New Glenn to move mass to space.
Okay but what reason do we have to think a lot of customers will pick New Glenn? AFAIK the primary reason offered is the theoretical performance under reusable conditions. Maybe I'm massively misunderstanding everything that people have been writing in this thread but it seems to me that the logic is:
1) It's a really impressive vehicle by this metric
2) A impressive vehicle by this metric will succeed
3) Therefore it will succeed
So if we have reason to question 2, it's kinda relevant to this discussion.
Yup. 20 ton LEO payloads are extremely rare. Space stations or huge spy satellites. You're talking well over a billion dollars and a decade lead time.
I'm not claiming that SpaceX's capability claim is false. I'm pointing out that what it has actually achieved is far less than that claim, something we don't see with other launch vehicles. Yes, I wonder why.
- Ed Kyle
Because no one as asked them to put a 20 Tonne payload into LEO?
If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
That's right. SpaceX is living the dream right now - the best case scenario of their business plan, which is that the competition would sit on their asses and essentially not respond.Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
Betting on next generation expendables is essentially betting on Blue Origin to fail, just as the last generation expendables bet on SpaceX to fail. That worked out poorly for ELVs last time. I don't think it will work out any better next time.
Because if Blue doesn't fail, they will be competing with SpaceX on a level that ELVs won't be able to touch.
Well, what is it then? Say what you think instead of beating around the bush like you are. Are they lying? Let your inner "performance truther" out...I am saying what I think. When it comes to this out-of-the ordinary divergence between actual and claimed performance, I wonder why. I don't have any good theories.
Well, what is it then? Say what you think instead of beating around the bush like you are. Are they lying? Let your inner "performance truther" out...I am saying what I think. When it comes to this out-of-the ordinary divergence between actual and claimed performance, I wonder why. I don't have any good theories.
If LEO performance is to be accepted as the useful comparison metric, I am left wondering why SpaceX built such an unnecessarily large rocket - nearly three times more capable (and some amount bigger) than needed. I am left wondering why BFR and New Glenn are needed at all. Etc.
- Ed Kyle
Well, what is it then? Say what you think instead of beating around the bush like you are. Are they lying? Let your inner "performance truther" out...I am saying what I think. When it comes to this out-of-the ordinary divergence between actual and claimed performance, I wonder why. I don't have any good theories.
If LEO performance is to be accepted as the useful comparison metric, I am left wondering why SpaceX built such an unnecessarily large rocket - nearly three times more capable (and some amount bigger) than needed. I am left wondering why BFR and New Glenn are needed at all. Etc.
- Ed Kyle
You missed the main reason: cost. Falcon 9 is sized to minimize cost for the 5-6 tonnes to GTO that customers want. The minimum cost architecture is two-stage kerolox, which is necessarily oversized to LEO because of the heavy upper stage.Well, what is it then? Say what you think instead of beating around the bush like you are. Are they lying? Let your inner "performance truther" out...I am saying what I think. When it comes to this out-of-the ordinary divergence between actual and claimed performance, I wonder why. I don't have any good theories.
If LEO performance is to be accepted as the useful comparison metric, I am left wondering why SpaceX built such an unnecessarily large rocket - nearly three times more capable (and some amount bigger) than needed. I am left wondering why BFR and New Glenn are needed at all. Etc.
- Ed Kyle
Three reasons, which you seem unwilling to accept:
1. Reuse. The figures you cite are for expendable missions. Extra margin is not a bad thing, and required for reuse. But the old space mindset seems to be completely blown when a launcher launches a payload that is less then half of its capacity.
2. "Build it and they will come." Except they haven't come - yet. Do you see a lot of 20-50t payloads looking for a launch vehicle? The minute a customer walks in the door with such a payload, SpaceX & Blue Origin will be happy (and capable) of serving them.
3. Their own needs. SpaceX and Blue Origin both have larger plans, plans that seem to depend on having a lot of lift capacity in the next decade.
If LEO performance is to be accepted as the useful comparison metric, I am left wondering why SpaceX built such an unnecessarily large rocket - nearly three times more capable (and some amount bigger) than needed. I am left wondering why BFR and New Glenn are needed at all. Etc.
Well, SpaceX wanted to put a 6t payload into GTO. To do that, they need to put the payload, plus the second stage, plus 13t of fuel, into LEO. If the rocket was smaller they could not do this.
Well, what is it then? Say what you think instead of beating around the bush like you are. Are they lying? Let your inner "performance truther" out...I am saying what I think. When it comes to this out-of-the ordinary divergence between actual and claimed performance, I wonder why. I don't have any good theories.
If LEO performance is to be accepted as the useful comparison metric, I am left wondering why SpaceX built such an unnecessarily large rocket - nearly three times more capable (and some amount bigger) than needed. I am left wondering why BFR and New Glenn are needed at all. Etc.
- Ed Kyle
Well, SpaceX wanted to put a 6t payload into GTO. To do that, they need to put the payload, plus the second stage, plus 13t of fuel, into LEO. If the rocket was smaller they could not do this.
Strictly speaking, this is probably not the way it went down. Instead, Musk wanted a rocket that was as big as could readily be done without too much incremental investment and operational costs. For sure, if he could have readily done 7t to GTO, he would done it and found some use for the margin.
This is a bizarre conversation with Ed. Margin is always welcome, if not overly expensive.
That's right. SpaceX is living the dream right now - the best case scenario of their business plan, which is that the competition would sit on their asses and essentially not respond.Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
Betting on next generation expendables is essentially betting on Blue Origin to fail, just as the last generation expendables bet on SpaceX to fail. That worked out poorly for ELVs last time. I don't think it will work out any better next time.
Because if Blue doesn't fail, they will be competing with SpaceX on a level that ELVs won't be able to touch.
This allows them to keep external pricing high while laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to fund more development.
The first potential change to this situation is when NG shows up, and maybe forces pricing down..
I can't think of another example where a company pulled out ahead of its competitors, in such a fundamentall manner and for such a long time, and the competitors just doubled down on their existing practices.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
People used to mediocrity in aerospace due to half a century of living under the shadow of Apollo and never expecting it to be exceeded.That's right. SpaceX is living the dream right now - the best case scenario of their business plan, which is that the competition would sit on their asses and essentially not respond.Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
Betting on next generation expendables is essentially betting on Blue Origin to fail, just as the last generation expendables bet on SpaceX to fail. That worked out poorly for ELVs last time. I don't think it will work out any better next time.
Because if Blue doesn't fail, they will be competing with SpaceX on a level that ELVs won't be able to touch.
This allows them to keep external pricing high while laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to fund more development.
The first potential change to this situation is when NG shows up, and maybe forces pricing down..
I can't think of another example where a company pulled out ahead of its competitors, in such a fundamentall manner and for such a long time, and the competitors just doubled down on their existing practices.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
I completely understand what you want, I want it too. But, I don't trust any scenario with a monopoly. I think SpaceX probably has the most "altruistic" character of any company sitting in such a position but that's not going to persuade me, a monopoly could flip on a dime and be the most damaging scenario to progress. We need cut throat competition, even if it is a small setback for one company's ambitions, it's the only way to move forward faster than the glacial pace we've become accustomed to (I'd even argue we're accustomed to steady retreat/regression since Challenger).That's right. SpaceX is living the dream right now - the best case scenario of their business plan, which is that the competition would sit on their asses and essentially not respond.Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
Betting on next generation expendables is essentially betting on Blue Origin to fail, just as the last generation expendables bet on SpaceX to fail. That worked out poorly for ELVs last time. I don't think it will work out any better next time.
Because if Blue doesn't fail, they will be competing with SpaceX on a level that ELVs won't be able to touch.
This allows them to keep external pricing high while laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to fund more development.
The first potential change to this situation is when NG shows up, and maybe forces pricing down..
I can't think of another example where a company pulled out ahead of its competitors, in such a fundamentall manner and for such a long time, and the competitors just doubled down on their existing practices.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
This post captures why I don’t share the common view that BO’s competition will be good for the advancement of Space Exploration right now. Normally, competition spurs innovation, because it forces complacent market leaders to spend profits on innovation rather than earning maximum returns for shareholders.
However, in the case of SpaceX we already have a market leader who does not use its dominant product as a cash cow, but who instead uses the revenue from its market dominance to accelerate their pace of innovation even more.
In fact, they NEED that dominance - a near monopoly would be even better - to fund BFR and other breakthrough concepts.
Competition from BO won’t speed up the pace of their innovation, instead, if it splits the market and reduces SpaceX revenue it will more likely slow down SpaceX’s already ambitious R&D plans.
So now you will end up with multiple rockets that can do LEO more affordably - (such as FH and NG) but no truly revolutionary BFR type rockets in the foreseeable future, that can match space elevator type prices to orbit, or take large numbers of humans to Mars for example.
In this case, I would argue competition diverts funds from these truly lofty goals, and slows down the big leap forward to a near scifi future, which seems so close at the moment. As much as I am a free market proponent, I would think this is a unique, perhaps counter intuitive case, where the best way to achieve maximum progress in the shortest time would be to give the whole pie to SpaceX, rather than welcoming competition into the game.
Because SpaceX doesn’t care about earning returns for shareholders. They are driven by a vision to realize a sci fi future in our lifetimes.
If LEO performance is to be accepted as the useful comparison metric, I am left wondering why SpaceX built such an unnecessarily large rocket - nearly three times more capable (and some amount bigger) than needed. I am left wondering why BFR and New Glenn are needed at all. Etc.
- Ed Kyle
I can't think of another example where a company pulled out ahead of its competitors, in such a fundamentall manner and for such a long time, and the competitors just doubled down on their existing practices.
Why is SpaceX goal of colonizing Mars any better for mankind than Blue's of colonizing cis lunar space. I'd argue Blue is better vehicle for doing this as its funding source far more reliable and its owner is laser focused on mission, he doesn't get side tracked into selling toy framethrowers or criticising journalists.That's right. SpaceX is living the dream right now - the best case scenario of their business plan, which is that the competition would sit on their asses and essentially not respond.Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
Betting on next generation expendables is essentially betting on Blue Origin to fail, just as the last generation expendables bet on SpaceX to fail. That worked out poorly for ELVs last time. I don't think it will work out any better next time.
Because if Blue doesn't fail, they will be competing with SpaceX on a level that ELVs won't be able to touch.
This allows them to keep external pricing high while laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to fund more development.
The first potential change to this situation is when NG shows up, and maybe forces pricing down..
I can't think of another example where a company pulled out ahead of its competitors, in such a fundamentall manner and for such a long time, and the competitors just doubled down on their existing practices.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
This post captures why I don’t share the common view that BO’s competition will be good for the advancement of Space Exploration right now. Normally, competition spurs innovation, because it forces complacent market leaders to spend profits on innovation rather than earning maximum returns for shareholders.
However, in the case of SpaceX we already have a market leader who does not use its dominant product as a cash cow, but who instead uses the revenue from its market dominance to accelerate their pace of innovation even more.
In fact, they NEED that dominance - a near monopoly would be even better - to fund BFR and other breakthrough concepts.
Competition from BO won’t speed up the pace of their innovation, instead, if it splits the market and reduces SpaceX revenue it will more likely slow down SpaceX’s already ambitious R&D plans.
So now you will end up with multiple rockets that can do LEO more affordably - (such as FH and NG) but no truly revolutionary BFR type rockets in the foreseeable future, that can match space elevator type prices to orbit, or take large numbers of humans to Mars for example.
In this case, I would argue competition diverts funds from these truly lofty goals, and slows down the big leap forward to a near scifi future, which seems so close at the moment. As much as I am a free market proponent, I would think this is a unique, perhaps counter intuitive case, where the best way to achieve maximum progress in the shortest time would be to give the whole pie to SpaceX, rather than welcoming competition into the game.
Because SpaceX doesn’t care about earning returns for shareholders. They are driven by a vision to realize a sci fi future in our lifetimes.
he doesn't get side tracked into selling toy framethrowers or criticising journalists.
Why is SpaceX goal of colonizing Mars any better for mankind than Blue's of colonizing cis lunar space. I'd argue Blue is better vehicle for doing this as its funding source far more reliable and its owner is laser focused on mission, he doesn't get side tracked into selling toy framethrowers or criticising journalists.
I don't know if "laser focused" is quite a good description.Why is SpaceX goal of colonizing Mars any better for mankind than Blue's of colonizing cis lunar space. I'd argue Blue is better vehicle for doing this as its funding source far more reliable and its owner is laser focused on mission, he doesn't get side tracked into selling toy framethrowers or criticising journalists.That's right. SpaceX is living the dream right now - the best case scenario of their business plan, which is that the competition would sit on their asses and essentially not respond.Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
Betting on next generation expendables is essentially betting on Blue Origin to fail, just as the last generation expendables bet on SpaceX to fail. That worked out poorly for ELVs last time. I don't think it will work out any better next time.
Because if Blue doesn't fail, they will be competing with SpaceX on a level that ELVs won't be able to touch.
This allows them to keep external pricing high while laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to fund more development.
The first potential change to this situation is when NG shows up, and maybe forces pricing down..
I can't think of another example where a company pulled out ahead of its competitors, in such a fundamentall manner and for such a long time, and the competitors just doubled down on their existing practices.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
This post captures why I don’t share the common view that BO’s competition will be good for the advancement of Space Exploration right now. Normally, competition spurs innovation, because it forces complacent market leaders to spend profits on innovation rather than earning maximum returns for shareholders.
However, in the case of SpaceX we already have a market leader who does not use its dominant product as a cash cow, but who instead uses the revenue from its market dominance to accelerate their pace of innovation even more.
In fact, they NEED that dominance - a near monopoly would be even better - to fund BFR and other breakthrough concepts.
Competition from BO won’t speed up the pace of their innovation, instead, if it splits the market and reduces SpaceX revenue it will more likely slow down SpaceX’s already ambitious R&D plans.
So now you will end up with multiple rockets that can do LEO more affordably - (such as FH and NG) but no truly revolutionary BFR type rockets in the foreseeable future, that can match space elevator type prices to orbit, or take large numbers of humans to Mars for example.
In this case, I would argue competition diverts funds from these truly lofty goals, and slows down the big leap forward to a near scifi future, which seems so close at the moment. As much as I am a free market proponent, I would think this is a unique, perhaps counter intuitive case, where the best way to achieve maximum progress in the shortest time would be to give the whole pie to SpaceX, rather than welcoming competition into the game.
Because SpaceX doesn’t care about earning returns for shareholders. They are driven by a vision to realize a sci fi future in our lifetimes.
It’s hard to predict the future. Maybe in 100 years this obsession with a Mars colony will be seen as on odd sidetrack in history, and 1000s of people will be living in O’Neill space colonies in cislunar space. Or maybe not. It’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths. And the more billionaires that want to invest their money into spaceflight the better.I believe we will eventually have large in-space structures such as O'Neill cylinders, but the scale of engineering required for those is far in excess of what's required for a planetary colony on Mars.
You won't be saying that when NG is launching and taking customers away from FH. Then NA will come a few years later and will be at least competitive with BFR.he doesn't get side tracked into selling toy framethrowers or criticising journalists.Blue Origin itself is a sidetrack from Amazon, and silly clocks and undersea archeology, etc. Give it a rest.
It’s hard to predict the future. Maybe in 100 years this obsession with a Mars colony will be seen as on odd sidetrack in history, and 1000s of people will be living in O’Neill space colonies in cislunar space. Or maybe not. It’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths. And the more billionaires that want to invest their money into spaceflight the better.I believe we will eventually have large in-space structures such as O'Neill cylinders, but the scale of engineering required for those is far in excess of what's required for a planetary colony on Mars.
Which is what ties it back to "business plan".
If it's a goal that's 100 years in the future, it's hardly a business plan.
SpaceX has a near term business plan, has a 100 year goal, and has a path towards that goal that starts in the near term.
That's a very important differentiator.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Well we can only comment on what we know, or else we can post in the fantasy section...It’s hard to predict the future. Maybe in 100 years this obsession with a Mars colony will be seen as on odd sidetrack in history, and 1000s of people will be living in O’Neill space colonies in cislunar space. Or maybe not. It’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths. And the more billionaires that want to invest their money into spaceflight the better.I believe we will eventually have large in-space structures such as O'Neill cylinders, but the scale of engineering required for those is far in excess of what's required for a planetary colony on Mars.
Which is what ties it back to "business plan".
If it's a goal that's 100 years in the future, it's hardly a business plan.
SpaceX has a near term business plan, has a 100 year goal, and has a path towards that goal that starts in the near term.
That's a very important differentiator.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
What makes you think that Blue Origin does not have a long term vision as well as a short term business plan? Just because they haven’t shared it publicly? Jeff Bezos doesn’t strike me as the type of person who would spend billions of dollars with no plan.
We don’t really know much about SpaceX’s plan other than “make a bunch of money with Starlink and P2P”. A lot of things could go wrong with that along the way. Maybe they can’t find a lucrative business model with Starlink and only turn a modest profit, P2P has plenty of technical challenges and opportunities for things to go wrong, etc. I’m sure they will pivot as necessary and find a way to make things work, but there are no guarantees. And there is always a possibility that Mars will turn out to be a side show instead of a necessary step in the colonization of space.
Obviously SpaceX is bit farther on their path than Blue Origin is right now, no argument there. But it’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths.
I don't see this as a competition between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, since they don't really have overlapping goals.
I don't see this as a competition between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, since they don't really have overlapping goals.
However, their markets and egos might overlap.
That's right. SpaceX is living the dream right now - the best case scenario of their business plan, which is that the competition would sit on their asses and essentially not respond.Next-generation expendables can maybe (with dual-berthing, if they get the speculative prices) compete in the current market with the last-generation reusable. Singular, one, the lone reusable.If we look at the launch market that actually exists we can't just dismiss next generation expendables as an afterthought. They are substantial competition.
The mistake is viewing the "launch market that actually exists" as indicative of the future. Sure those next generation expendables might in their creator's mind or today's market be worth consideration. Looking to the future they are worthless afterthoughts and pose zero threat of competition.
Betting on next generation expendables is essentially betting on Blue Origin to fail, just as the last generation expendables bet on SpaceX to fail. That worked out poorly for ELVs last time. I don't think it will work out any better next time.
Because if Blue doesn't fail, they will be competing with SpaceX on a level that ELVs won't be able to touch.
This allows them to keep external pricing high while laughing all the way to the bank, allowing them to fund more development.
The first potential change to this situation is when NG shows up, and maybe forces pricing down..
I can't think of another example where a company pulled out ahead of its competitors, in such a fundamentall manner and for such a long time, and the competitors just doubled down on their existing practices.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
This post captures why I don’t share the common view that BO’s competition will be good for the advancement of Space Exploration right now. Normally, competition spurs innovation, because it forces complacent market leaders to spend profits on innovation rather than earning maximum returns for shareholders.
However, in the case of SpaceX we already have a market leader who does not use its dominant product as a cash cow, but who instead uses the revenue from its market dominance to accelerate their pace of innovation even more.
In fact, they NEED that dominance - a near monopoly would be even better - to fund BFR and other breakthrough concepts.
Competition from BO won’t speed up the pace of their innovation, instead, if it splits the market and reduces SpaceX revenue it will more likely slow down SpaceX’s already ambitious R&D plans.
So now you will end up with multiple rockets that can do LEO more affordably - (such as FH and NG) but no truly revolutionary BFR type rockets in the foreseeable future, that can match space elevator type prices to orbit, or take large numbers of humans to Mars for example.
In this case, I would argue competition diverts funds from these truly lofty goals, and slows down the big leap forward to a near scifi future, which seems so close at the moment. As much as I am a free market proponent, I would think this is a unique, perhaps counter intuitive case, where the best way to achieve maximum progress in the shortest time would be to give the whole pie to SpaceX, rather than welcoming competition into the game.
Because SpaceX doesn’t care about earning returns for shareholders. They are driven by a vision to realize a sci fi future in our lifetimes.
It’s hard to predict the future. Maybe in 100 years this obsession with a Mars colony will be seen as on odd sidetrack in history, and 1000s of people will be living in O’Neill space colonies in cislunar space. Or maybe not. It’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths. And the more billionaires that want to invest their money into spaceflight the better.I believe we will eventually have large in-space structures such as O'Neill cylinders, but the scale of engineering required for those is far in excess of what's required for a planetary colony on Mars.
Which is what ties it back to "business plan".
If it's a goal that's 100 years in the future, it's hardly a business plan.
SpaceX has a near term business plan, has a 100 year goal, and has a path towards that goal that starts in the near term.
In other words, while BO is talking about it, SpaceX will have a spaceship that can travel around Earth and moon without breaking a sweat.It’s hard to predict the future. Maybe in 100 years this obsession with a Mars colony will be seen as on odd sidetrack in history, and 1000s of people will be living in O’Neill space colonies in cislunar space. Or maybe not. It’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths. And the more billionaires that want to invest their money into spaceflight the better.I believe we will eventually have large in-space structures such as O'Neill cylinders, but the scale of engineering required for those is far in excess of what's required for a planetary colony on Mars.
Which is what ties it back to "business plan".
If it's a goal that's 100 years in the future, it's hardly a business plan.
SpaceX has a near term business plan, has a 100 year goal, and has a path towards that goal that starts in the near term.
Interesting. I feel strongly that just exactly the reverse is true; 1G structures in LEO are relatively inexpensive to build, don't require any gravitational adaptation or much in the way of radiation protection if they're placed correctly, and due to proximity can be serviced and made successful far more easily than something on Mars. Scale is straightforward, in that we can start with a hubbed bolo and a few small habs, all based on off-the-shelf parts, and move up to cylinders as the infrastructure fills in.
For that reason, I think Bezos' plan is more firmly rooted in reality, and more importantly, Musk's approach is already being constrained by Bezos' approach.
SpaceX may want to spend R&D budget on colonizing Mars, but they'll be continually forced to allocate it to cislunar space instead or watch Bezos quietly take their markets. I believe the current design of the BFR already reflects the commercial reality of Blue Origin.
It looks to me right now like Blue will compete very well with SpaceX, with ferocity, and SpaceX will be forced to put their money where I want them to put it, in cislunar space.
SpaceX may want to spend R&D budget on colonizing Mars, but they'll be continually forced to allocate it to cislunar space instead or watch Bezos quietly take their markets.
I believe the current design of the BFR already reflects the commercial reality of Blue Origin.
It looks to me right now like Blue will compete very well with SpaceX, with ferocity, and SpaceX will be forced to put their money where I want them to put it, in cislunar space.
However, other than round-the-moon flights, I don't think they're planning any lunar or LEO bases.
However, other than round-the-moon flights, I don't think they're planning any lunar or LEO bases.
This slide from IAC2017 indicates otherwise. That's a SpaceX "X" underneath BFS!
http://spaceflight101.com/spx/iac-2017-spacex-slides/
Elon figured already that fighting with the lunar crowd was counter productive... With one slide he defuzed a whole situation.However, other than round-the-moon flights, I don't think they're planning any lunar or LEO bases.
This slide from IAC2017 indicates otherwise. That's a SpaceX "X" underneath BFS!
http://spaceflight101.com/spx/iac-2017-spacex-slides/
SpaceX may want to spend R&D budget on colonizing Mars, but they'll be continually forced to allocate it to cislunar space instead or watch Bezos quietly take their markets.
What markets?
I believe the current design of the BFR already reflects the commercial reality of Blue Origin.
And I believe BFR/BFS reflects a generic approach that can be applied to both airless and atmospheric bodies, as well as in-space destinations, and that SpaceX is by-and-large just ignoring Blue. There's no point doing otherwise when the best thing SpaceX can do is just execute their plan to the best of their ability.
It looks to me right now like Blue will compete very well with SpaceX, with ferocity, and SpaceX will be forced to put their money where I want them to put it, in cislunar space.
So you propose SpaceX should use their money to buy or build what exactly in cislunar space? And what return can they expect?
However, other than round-the-moon flights, I don't think they're planning any lunar or LEO bases.
This slide from IAC2017 indicates otherwise. That's a SpaceX "X" underneath BFS!
http://spaceflight101.com/spx/iac-2017-spacex-slides/
SpaceX is basically a shipping company. If an organization is willing to pay the price to ship cargo to the Moon, Spacex will be more than happy to do it.
Even their Mars plan assumes others will be building the settlement after SpaceX provides the transportation infrastructure.
This seems to me to be similar to Blue's concept, except Blue is interested in cislunar space, not Mars.
The irony is that the Mars vehicle, because it is so generic, can compete very well in cis-lunar space - if only there was something to do there.
Falcon, of course, but that's implicit when you're talking about a round-the-moon trip, and that's already ready to go once the BFS flies.The irony is that the Mars vehicle, because it is so generic, can compete very well in cis-lunar space - if only there was something to do there.
Oh, if only there was something to do between the Earth and the Moon. Sigh. :)
It's not like SpaceX will shun paying customers in cislunar space. If there is money to be had in cislunar space and if the fully reusable BFR becomes a thing, it will happily complete there....
This seems to me to be similar to Blue's concept, except Blue is interested in cislunar space, not Mars.
The money is going to be near where the humans are.
Jeff Bezos' hobby is likely far more profitable than Elon Musk's hobby.
"cislunar."It’s hard to predict the future. Maybe in 100 years this obsession with a Mars colony will be seen as on odd sidetrack in history, and 1000s of people will be living in O’Neill space colonies in cislunar space. Or maybe not. It’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths. And the more billionaires that want to invest their money into spaceflight the better.I believe we will eventually have large in-space structures such as O'Neill cylinders, but the scale of engineering required for those is far in excess of what's required for a planetary colony on Mars.
Which is what ties it back to "business plan".
If it's a goal that's 100 years in the future, it's hardly a business plan.
SpaceX has a near term business plan, has a 100 year goal, and has a path towards that goal that starts in the near term.
Interesting. I feel strongly that just exactly the reverse is true; 1G structures in LEO are relatively inexpensive to build, don't require any gravitational adaptation or much in the way of radiation protection if they're placed correctly, and due to proximity can be serviced and made successful far more easily than something on Mars. Scale is straightforward, in that we can start with a hubbed bolo and a few small habs, all based on off-the-shelf parts, and move up to cylinders as the infrastructure fills in.
For that reason, I think Bezos' plan is more firmly rooted in reality, and more importantly, Musk's approach is already being constrained by Bezos' approach.
SpaceX may want to spend R&D budget on colonizing Mars, but they'll be continually forced to allocate it to cislunar space instead or watch Bezos quietly take their markets. I believe the current design of the BFR already reflects the commercial reality of Blue Origin.
It looks to me right now like Blue will compete very well with SpaceX, with ferocity, and SpaceX will be forced to put their money where I want them to put it, in cislunar space.
There's no actual money there, unless you mean to include Earth orbit.
- They've already got commercial contracts that obviously won't be launching on Falcon/BFR if they're launching on NG.
- Bezos has talked specifically about building O'Neill colonies. He's basically made it HIS life's goal to populate cislunar space with humans.
Executing SpaceX's plans to the best of their abilities is a very different prospect without the presence of a well-funded competitor whose founder has a track record of playing a brilliant middle game.
All of SpaceX's previous competitors have been easy pickings, but Blue is likely not going to be that way. Just because they're not talking about something doesn't mean they're not working on it; Musk likes sharing his thoughts with his considerable fanbase, whereas Bezos seems to see a strategic advantage in only releasing information when he thinks it may be of benefit to Blue. You've probably noticed that SpaceX has become more careful about what they release?
If there is money to be had in cislunar space and if the fully reusable BFR becomes a thing, it will happily complete (sic) there....
This seems to me to be similar to Blue's concept, except Blue is interested in cislunar space, not Mars.
The money is going to be near where the humans are.
Jeff Bezos' hobby is likely far more profitable than Elon Musk's hobby.
"cislunar."It’s hard to predict the future. Maybe in 100 years this obsession with a Mars colony will be seen as on odd sidetrack in history, and 1000s of people will be living in O’Neill space colonies in cislunar space. Or maybe not. It’s nice to have multiple groups working on different paths. And the more billionaires that want to invest their money into spaceflight the better.I believe we will eventually have large in-space structures such as O'Neill cylinders, but the scale of engineering required for those is far in excess of what's required for a planetary colony on Mars.
Which is what ties it back to "business plan".
If it's a goal that's 100 years in the future, it's hardly a business plan.
SpaceX has a near term business plan, has a 100 year goal, and has a path towards that goal that starts in the near term.
Interesting. I feel strongly that just exactly the reverse is true; 1G structures in LEO are relatively inexpensive to build, don't require any gravitational adaptation or much in the way of radiation protection if they're placed correctly, and due to proximity can be serviced and made successful far more easily than something on Mars. Scale is straightforward, in that we can start with a hubbed bolo and a few small habs, all based on off-the-shelf parts, and move up to cylinders as the infrastructure fills in.
For that reason, I think Bezos' plan is more firmly rooted in reality, and more importantly, Musk's approach is already being constrained by Bezos' approach.
SpaceX may want to spend R&D budget on colonizing Mars, but they'll be continually forced to allocate it to cislunar space instead or watch Bezos quietly take their markets. I believe the current design of the BFR already reflects the commercial reality of Blue Origin.
It looks to me right now like Blue will compete very well with SpaceX, with ferocity, and SpaceX will be forced to put their money where I want them to put it, in cislunar space.
There's no actual money there, unless you mean to include Earth orbit.
Also, Blue Origin hasn't really done anything with ferocity except spend money. I hope that changes, but not holding my breath.
I recall it happened the other way round. Blue Origin was gradatim-ing it nice and easy without a single competitor getting anywhere nearer to a functional (sub)orbital vehicle, until SpaceX started outpacing them.
The gap is so large now that SpaceX will have a revenue generating satellite constellation by the time BO will launch their first orbital rocket - even if everything holds.
SpaceX basically got over the "hump" - they can run with an insane profit margin until after they have a new revenue source.
I'm reasonably sure Besos will copycat a constellation - it's how he does...
The fact that BO is not talking about NGs future projects (but certainly talking a lot about NG itself) is telling.
The gap is so large now that SpaceX will have a revenue generating satellite constellation by the time BO will launch their first orbital rocket - even if everything holds.
I agree that it's entirely possible that Starlink will produce enough revenue to allow SpaceX to invest in Mars while still developing any other markets they choose. But it's also possible that Starlink will suck revenue away for a decade or two, or that it will never be profitable at all. We won't know for a few years.QuoteSpaceX basically got over the "hump" - they can run with an insane profit margin until after they have a new revenue source.
I'm sure most of the NSF folks hope so.QuoteI'm reasonably sure Besos will copycat a constellation - it's how he does...
?????QuoteThe fact that BO is not talking about NGs future projects (but certainly talking a lot about NG itself) is telling.
Telling what?
...
NG meanwhile has a very tentative manifest. A handful of customers, the inevitable oneWeb contract...
When looking at SpaceX, some posters kept asking "where will the market come from". SpaceX answered with StarLink, which allows them to fully capitalize on the low costs of reusable launch, and so "keep the margin". NG needs something similar, and oneWeb is just too small (and not owned by BO, so does not allow them to keep the margin)
That makes perfect sense....
NG meanwhile has a very tentative manifest. A handful of customers, the inevitable oneWeb contract...
When looking at SpaceX, some posters kept asking "where will the market come from". SpaceX answered with StarLink, which allows them to fully capitalize on the low costs of reusable launch, and so "keep the margin". NG needs something similar, and oneWeb is just too small (and not owned by BO, so does not allow them to keep the margin)
OneWeb has a steep financial and technical hill to climb -- their constellation is technically somewhere between Iridium (essentially on orbit and paying the bills) and Starlink (at least neck and neck with OneWeb on testing and deployment timeline and vastly superior in planned capability). OneWeb may need a major injection of cash around early 2020s when the talking stops and competition starts. Bezos might get his constellation for a song...
Question about the Bezos constellation:They do, don't they..
What spectrum will it use?
When will they buy this spectrum?
What orbits will it use?
Will these orbits interfere with other satellites?
Will the satellites only communicate with earth or will they communicate with each other?
High or low latency?
Is the goal to provide trunk or diffuse communication?
How big will the satellites be?
Will data be cached earthside or spaceside?
How long with the lifespan be?
Right now none of these questions have an answer BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH PROJECT. People are comparing an actual tangible project with billions of dollars of investment with just an idea that seems vaguely plausible. And in that comparison they are glossing over the existence of multiple constellation operators that exist in the real world.
This is driving me crazy. It's bad enough that people are acting like we can assess Blue when they haven't even made orbit. If you are discussing non-existent projects because of non-existent strategies, you aren't discussing Blue Origin anymore, you are discussing some abstract notion of a space company.
Buy the first constellation that makes it to bankruptcy?
The fact that Musk acknowledges there's no real money to be made going to Mars is a huge point in his favor as it means he's in touch with reality. "Cislunar 1000" is, kind of ironically, less realistic than the SpaceX Mars plan.There's no actual money there, unless you mean to include Earth orbit.
And for that matter, there's no actual money on Mars either, which is why the BFR presentation emphasized use cases nearer to Earth, including transport to the Moon.
Buy the first constellation that makes it to bankruptcy?
There’s something strange going on amid the satellite Internet rushhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/theres-something-strange-going-on-amid-the-satellite-internet-rush/
Greg Wyler, the founder of OneWeb, starts a second company to compete with himself.
So true.The fact that Musk acknowledges there's no real money to be made going to Mars is a huge point in his favor as it means he's in touch with reality. "Cislunar 1000" is, kind of ironically, less realistic than the SpaceX Mars plan.There's no actual money there, unless you mean to include Earth orbit.
And for that matter, there's no actual money on Mars either, which is why the BFR presentation emphasized use cases nearer to Earth, including transport to the Moon.
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
-Make rocket fuel on the moon
-Make structural elements on the moon
-Produce solar panels or mine materials in space
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
I think the whole point of Bezos wanting factories in LEO is to avoid pollution on Earth by moving industry to space. Not an economic goal, but a social goal. Similar to Musk wanting a Mars colony as a backup to Earth. Neither one of these lofty goals has an economic plan. It's going to take more than cheap shipping costs to orbit for either one of these ideas to work. Once an off Earth economy with a demand for ISRU is working, it should expand through profit, but how does it get started in the first place? A large nonprofit foundation funded by billionaires might do the trick.
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
I think the whole point of Bezos wanting factories in LEO is to avoid pollution on Earth by moving industry to space. Not an economic goal, but a social goal. Similar to Musk wanting a Mars colony as a backup to Earth. Neither one of these lofty goals has an economic plan. It's going to take more than cheap shipping costs to orbit for either one of these ideas to work. Once an off Earth economy with a demand for ISRU is working, it should expand through profit, but how does it get started in the first place? A large nonprofit foundation funded by billionaires might do the trick.
Avoid pollution? That makes no sense at all. Any by products still have to go somewhere and if you are in orbit then they still end up in earth's atmosphere. If dumping pollution into space were a cure for anything it would be cheaper to ship the pollution up there then the factory and all its workers.
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
I think the whole point of Bezos wanting factories in LEO is to avoid pollution on Earth by moving industry to space. Not an economic goal, but a social goal. Similar to Musk wanting a Mars colony as a backup to Earth. Neither one of these lofty goals has an economic plan. It's going to take more than cheap shipping costs to orbit for either one of these ideas to work. Once an off Earth economy with a demand for ISRU is working, it should expand through profit, but how does it get started in the first place? A large nonprofit foundation funded by billionaires might do the trick.
Avoid pollution? That makes no sense at all. Any by products still have to go somewhere and if you are in orbit then they still end up in earth's atmosphere. If dumping pollution into space were a cure for anything it would be cheaper to ship the pollution up there then the factory and all its workers.
If you want to avoid pollution, but don't have a strategy where the newly created industrial base is somehow cheaper (by a lot, since it has to be built first) then it will take 1000 bezos fortunes to try to make it happen.Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
I think the whole point of Bezos wanting factories in LEO is to avoid pollution on Earth by moving industry to space. Not an economic goal, but a social goal. Similar to Musk wanting a Mars colony as a backup to Earth. Neither one of these lofty goals has an economic plan. It's going to take more than cheap shipping costs to orbit for either one of these ideas to work. Once an off Earth economy with a demand for ISRU is working, it should expand through profit, but how does it get started in the first place? A large nonprofit foundation funded by billionaires might do the trick.
Avoid pollution? That makes no sense at all. Any by products still have to go somewhere and if you are in orbit then they still end up in earth's atmosphere. If dumping pollution into space were a cure for anything it would be cheaper to ship the pollution up there then the factory and all its workers.
Only if you're in LEO. In MEO or higher they will stay there for millions of years.
I mean - concrete factories? Foundries? Petrochemical plants? What exactly are we putting in orbit?
Plus the consumables (air, water) they need? And heat sinking?
This is so far-fetched... There isn't even enough terrestrial transport capability to support something like that.
What we may need from space is more raw minerals like aluminum, iron, titanium, cobalt, copper, zinc, lead, etc.
Many of these minerals may have to be mined on the moon, Mars, or the asteroids to keep up with depletion of earths mineral resources.
Once mined, they may be smelted and processed into finished goods in O'Neil cylinders or on the moon or Mars.
What we may need from space is more raw minerals like aluminum, iron, titanium, cobalt, copper, zinc, lead, etc.
We are not in short supply of any of those on Earth. Aluminum is 8% of the Earth's crust, iron is the most abundant, titanium is the 9th most abundant...
There is likely no market on Earth for raw material from space. Not unless the price was close to zero, which means no one is making money in space mining raw material.QuoteMany of these minerals may have to be mined on the moon, Mars, or the asteroids to keep up with depletion of earths mineral resources.
Again, we're not on a path to mineral depletion here on Earth. Even "rare-earth elements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element)" are not rare, just hard to extract.
No, the predominant market for raw material mined in space will be for consumption IN space, and it will be used for building the equipment and dwellings we'll need to expand humanity out into space, since it's too expensive to ship all that mass up from the surface of Earth.QuoteOnce mined, they may be smelted and processed into finished goods in O'Neil cylinders or on the moon or Mars.
From what I've read about the processing of raw material here on Earth, you won't want to do it in a human-habitable structure due to all the poisonous chemicals that are used when processing ore here on Earth.
However space has some advantages that could be used to develop new ways to process ore in space, such as zero gravity and a constant source of heat (and cold). First we need a source of raw material though...
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
-Make rocket fuel on the moon
-Make structural elements on the moon
-Produce solar panels or mine materials in space
Right. So two things:
Technically, to reduce this to practice, what's the path? You need ISRU, right? Non-existent in orbit, and cryogenic, maybe, sparsely, in craters on the lunar pole.
Mine material in space? What material?
Financially, who'll buy the product? I mean if the goal is to make money, and the people as you say are on Earth, who wants structural elements that are made on the moon?
Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?
-Make rocket fuel on the moon
-Make structural elements on the moon
-Produce solar panels or mine materials in space
Right. So two things:
Technically, to reduce this to practice, what's the path? You need ISRU, right? Non-existent in orbit, and cryogenic, maybe, sparsely, in craters on the lunar pole.
Mine material in space? What material?
Financially, who'll buy the product? I mean if the goal is to make money, and the people as you say are on Earth, who wants structural elements that are made on the moon?
It's sequential. First you use lunar fuel to take satellites from LEO to GEO, saving mass. Then you start to replace the mass of satellites with extraterrestrial materials. Then they get more advanced until you can do things like space solar power. ULA seems to think there is promise in microwave power transmission.
My personal opinion is that orbital datacenters are a much more promising then transmitting power to earth. Datacenters are already consuming hundreds of terrawatts of electricity a year and that's expected to grow drastically. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/tsunami-of-data-could-consume-fifth-global-electricity-by-2025) If orbital datacenters were buying 3 PWh of electricity at 1 cent/kWh that would be a 30 billion dollar electricity market in orbit. That is the kind of market that could get a moon colony going.
It's sequential. First you use lunar fuel to take satellites from LEO to GEO, saving mass. Then you start to replace the mass of satellites with extraterrestrial materials. Then they get more advanced until you can do things like space solar power. ULA seems to think there is promise in microwave power transmission.You're going to need to break down your assumptions.
For kicks, if you had a prefect radiator, and were rejecting heat at 100C, you'd need 1000 m2 for a single lonely MWatt.
Not so fast... When your array is that big, its easy (relatively) to conduct electricity inwards... But much harder to pump heat outwards.For kicks, if you had a prefect radiator, and were rejecting heat at 100C, you'd need 1000 m2 for a single lonely MWatt.
In order to generation that MW of heat you would need 1 MW of electrical generation. With a solar panel efficiency of 25% and a solar flux of 1.3 kW per m^2 that requires 3000 square meters of solar array. The arrays only receive light on one side so it would make sense to pick a material with a high emissivity for the other side. IIRC emissivity is equivalent to light absorption so it would make sense to make the solar panels have emissivity as close to the absorption efficiency as possible. So let's say 95% on the radiation side, 30% on the solar panel side. So that is 1.2 MW of heat to ditch (200 kW is the radiation heat on the panels) emitted through 6000 square meters with an average emissivity of 67%. Based on those assumptions, the equilibrium temperature would be 270 Kelvin, just shy of freezing. This is ignoring the effects of earth shadow which would require a larger array and thus lower the equilibrium temperature. This is also ignoring the heat distribution problem, which would likely be the much more difficult challenge.
You're going to need to break down your assumptions.
One ton of fuel in LEO may cost $10K (if you believe P2P), $300K if you assume $50M per BFR launch.
Not so fast... When your array is that big, its easy (relatively) to conduct electricity inwards... But much harder to pump heat outwards.
Not so fast... When your array is that big, its easy (relatively) to conduct electricity inwards... But much harder to pump heat outwards.
It feels like you are playing "gotcha!" here after I just finished saying that I thought that was the more significant problem. To repeat myself, I think the heat distribution is the more significant concern. The reason I talked about the heat exchange was because that was what you were talking about.
In regards to the distribution, I am even less fluent in thermal conduction then in radiation so it's more difficult for me to say. However I will note again that I think datacenters would be in LEO, where they would need considerably larger arrays for the necessary power due to the shadow. This means that the equilibrium temperature for the radiation would be even lower. This would allow for an even larger gradient of temperature between a computer chip kept at temperatures above 0 Celsius and the radiator panels. It seems to me that if there is a temperature gradient of around 30 degrees or so, it should be possible to design the system to achieve the task with passive thermal conduction. It may even be possible to take advantage of the heat gradient for a small amount of energy reclamation. If you are apt with thermal conduction calculations and would like to explain things better I would welcome the insight. But if it's just a gut thing, 100 meters of distance with a 30 degree difference or so seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe the centers would be hotter then earth, maybe colder, but it feels like it would be in the ballpark of earth.
My bad.... Reading too fast on the phone. Leaving orig intact as a lesson to my future self. :)
Not so fast... When your array is that big, its easy (relatively) to conduct electricity inwards... But much harder to pump heat outwards.
It feels like you are playing "gotcha!" here after I just finished saying that I thought that was the more significant problem. To repeat myself, I think the heat distribution is the more significant concern. The reason I talked about the heat exchange was because that was what you were talking about.
In regards to the distribution, I am even less fluent in thermal conduction then in radiation so it's more difficult for me to say. However I will note again that I think datacenters would be in LEO, where they would need considerably larger arrays for the necessary power due to the shadow. This means that the equilibrium temperature for the radiation would be even lower. This would allow for an even larger gradient of temperature between a computer chip kept at temperatures above 0 Celsius and the radiator panels. It seems to me that if there is a temperature gradient of around 30 degrees or so, it should be possible to design the system to achieve the task with passive thermal conduction. It may even be possible to take advantage of the heat gradient for a small amount of energy reclamation. If you are apt with thermal conduction calculations and would like to explain things better I would welcome the insight. But if it's just a gut thing, 100 meters of distance with a 30 degree difference or so seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe the centers would be hotter then earth, maybe colder, but it feels like it would be in the ballpark of earth.
Not so fast... When your array is that big, its easy (relatively) to conduct electricity inwards... But much harder to pump heat outwards.
It feels like you are playing "gotcha!" here after I just finished saying that I thought that was the more significant problem. To repeat myself, I think the heat distribution is the more significant concern. The reason I talked about the heat exchange was because that was what you were talking about.
In regards to the distribution, I am even less fluent in thermal conduction then in radiation so it's more difficult for me to say. However I will note again that I think datacenters would be in LEO, where they would need considerably larger arrays for the necessary power due to the shadow. This means that the equilibrium temperature for the radiation would be even lower. This would allow for an even larger gradient of temperature between a computer chip kept at temperatures above 0 Celsius and the radiator panels. It seems to me that if there is a temperature gradient of around 30 degrees or so, it should be possible to design the system to achieve the task with passive thermal conduction. It may even be possible to take advantage of the heat gradient for a small amount of energy reclamation. If you are apt with thermal conduction calculations and would like to explain things better I would welcome the insight. But if it's just a gut thing, 100 meters of distance with a 30 degree difference or so seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe the centers would be hotter then earth, maybe colder, but it feels like it would be in the ballpark of earth.
A copper conductor to move 1 MW of power 100 meters under 30 dT will need 0.833 m^2 area and mass 749,700 kg.
Even flowing water is 100x less area and 1000x less mass than copper conductors, so a pumped water system would be more like 1000 kg, plus the mass of the pump.
And in microgravity it's possible to build phase change heat transfer systems that are far better than passive conduction or water flow, both per area and per mass. I'm not sure exactly how much better, but IIRC it's in the 1,000s to 10,000s of times, which would put a 1 MW system in the 100s of kg. Both phase change and water flow mean messing with fluids though, which could be a pain.
The ISS has one. Lightweight, it is not. Here's why.
You calculate above the theoretical weight of a linear system, or rather estimate it by using "1000x lighter" type multipliers.
Even if that calculation was true, you have to distribute heat over an area. The lateral conductivity of thin films is very low. So you need to drag your heat distribution tubing all over the place to cover almost literally every square inch (or, use a thicker and conductive material for the radiator).
Either way, a problem. If you have thin tubing, pumping requires higher pressurres. MMOD becomes an issue.
-----
This is getting too technical and OT.
The root cause is that you need to build terrestrial-scale infrastructure, and there isn't a way to make that happen gradually and organically - not even with a Trillion dollars.
Industry needs to grow while being profitable. That's what differentiates a business plan from a lofty goal.
I would love for Bezos to show his plan. There is no reason to keep it a secret, as SpaceX has shown. I suspect however that there isn't one.
He'll go for tourism if that proves profitable, and maybe the aforementioned oneWeb play once New Glen flies.
Fair enough.The ISS has one. Lightweight, it is not. Here's why.
You calculate above the theoretical weight of a linear system, or rather estimate it by using "1000x lighter" type multipliers.
Even if that calculation was true, you have to distribute heat over an area. The lateral conductivity of thin films is very low. So you need to drag your heat distribution tubing all over the place to cover almost literally every square inch (or, use a thicker and conductive material for the radiator).
Either way, a problem. If you have thin tubing, pumping requires higher pressurres. MMOD becomes an issue.
The ISS radiator systems have a deployed full system areal density of 8.8 kg/m^2, so a 1000 m^2 MW class array would be 8800 kg, which is not entirely impractical.Quote
-----
This is getting too technical and OT.
The root cause is that you need to build terrestrial-scale infrastructure, and there isn't a way to make that happen gradually and organically - not even with a Trillion dollars.
Industry needs to grow while being profitable. That's what differentiates a business plan from a lofty goal.
I would love for Bezos to show his plan. There is no reason to keep it a secret, as SpaceX has shown. I suspect however that there isn't one.
He'll go for tourism if that proves profitable, and maybe the aforementioned oneWeb play once New Glen flies.
Agreed. I don't see a killer app for industry in LEO or cislunar space, yet.
But I think tourism and comms can lay the infrastructure foundations, and then perhaps industry will follow.
This is getting too technical and OT.
The root cause is that you need to build terrestrial-scale infrastructure, and there isn't a way to make that happen gradually and organically - not even with a Trillion dollars.
Neither party has even mentioned these, but they seem like a potential booming industry in LEO. And one that likely will be cheaper to service and upgrade than to replace. I'm looking forward to watching that shake out.
Neither party has even mentioned these, but they seem like a potential booming industry in LEO. And one that likely will be cheaper to service and upgrade than to replace. I'm looking forward to watching that shake out.
Incidentally, is there a term like "cislunar" for "between LEO and cislunar, inclusive"? I can't think of one. Cisterra?
Having clarified terms, I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction that nobody will remember.You seem to have a lot of faith in a company that still hasn't reached orbit or seen positive cash flow and very little in a company that has done both. I think Blue will succeed but I'll take Elon time over Bezos time when it comes to spaceflight. Maybe you're counting on the current administration's focus on back to the moon? They're commercial friendly but I doubt you'll see the bucks required to fund bock rogers...
Beyond a few missions at the most, very little manned exploration of Mars will take place until tellurian orbital infrastructure is extensively developed. Multiple depots and stations and lunar ISRU fuel and oxidizer production will be in place before much in the way of Martian exploration is done.
And by the time that happens, we'll have enough people living on 1G habs in orbit that nobody will take the idea of Martian colonization seriously. "Enough people" may only be one or more, because once anyone is living on a 1G hab in LEO, the idea that we need a planet to live on will suddenly become one of those things we used to feel was important.
And that will make SpaceX a lot more competitive with Blue and whatever up-and-comers exist by then.
But to commit to colonization when we have no clue how our species will look like, or ever have healthy offspring, is nuts. So a 1G space city may actually turn out to be our only means of space colonization if biology rejects 1/3 or 1/6th reproduction.
Having clarified terms, I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction that nobody will remember.
Beyond a few missions at the most, very little manned exploration of Mars will take place until tellurian orbital infrastructure is extensively developed. Multiple depots and stations and lunar ISRU fuel and oxidizer production will be in place before much in the way of Martian exploration is done.
And by the time that happens, we'll have enough people living on 1G habs in orbit that nobody will take the idea of Martian colonization seriously. "Enough people" may only be one or more, because once anyone is living on a 1G hab in LEO, the idea that we need a planet to live on will suddenly become one of those things we used to feel was important.
And that will make SpaceX a lot more competitive with Blue and whatever up-and-comers exist by then.
So a 1G space city may actually turn out to be our only means of space colonization if biology rejects 1/3 or 1/6th reproduction.
So a 1G space city may actually turn out to be our only means of space colonization if biology rejects 1/3 or 1/6th reproduction.
In the long run it should be possible to modify humans to reproduce in 1/3 g, 1/6 g, or no gravity at all. Water-living mammals such as dolphins and whales basically do this already, so we have systems we can study. But we are talking long time scales - maybe 20 years to understand the mechanisms which work in dolphins, twenty more years to figure out how to implement these changes in humans, then maybe 30-40 years more to try it, then watch the kids grow up and see if they turn out OK, and can reproduce themselves. So maybe 80-100 years, if we get started soon. Short on a geological time scale, but a long time to wait for the Mars/moon settlement optimists.
The advantage of Mars or the moon is an abundance of resources which will go a long way to make then self-sustainable.
You seem to have a lot of faith in a company that still hasn't reached orbit...
You say "Martian exploration", but for SpaceX (i.e. Elon Musk) it's really Martian colonization. To me that means two different approaches to what is sent, who is sent, and what (if anything) comes back.
The mass requirements for a general purpose 1G rotating space station - one that is a place of living for families - will be significant. And many of them will be required if we want any significant amount of humanity out into space.
I would posit that the mass requirements (payload, not transportation fuel) for the equivalent amount of humans on Mars would likely be far less since Mars colonists will be able to utilize local materials for their infrastructure and supplies - something space stations won't be able to take advantage of.
I am guessing [a big train] will be a lot cheaper to build on the Moon or Mars than a free floating rotating station.
The launch costs will be much lower on Mars so this should reduce the cost of space stations significantly. On earth the BFS needs a huge booster to carry cargo to orbit but on Mars, it would be a single stage to orbit even with double the payload.
Tellurian has already been taken. :-)
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tellurian
I am gobsmacked every time I see smart people make suggestions like these that implicitly handwave a minimum of several decades of miraculous and amazing effort.
I don't want to go too far off-topic here.This is a thread about which business model is better so I assumed "Tellurian space" was Blue Origin and "Mars colony" was SpaceX since that aligns with the stated goals of the companies.
...Quote from: mmeYou seem to have a lot of faith in a company that still hasn't reached orbit...
I didn't mention Blue in the post you quoted. :)
My faith is in physics and economics. Once even one person is living on a bolo in LEO in 1G gravity, the way that everyone will think about space colonization will change. Including SpaceX employees.
All it takes is a little bit of video of someone walking in 1G some place other than on the Earth's surface. That video will go viral.
Absolutely, SpaceX will be in the thick of anywhere there's money to be made.
...
I don't see that goal changing.
I am gobsmacked every time I see smart people make suggestions like these that implicitly handwave a minimum of several decades of miraculous and amazing effort.
Sorry, which part confused you? Was it the "make fuel" part or the "smelt metal" part? Or was it that part that is like your idea but much less complicated hardware requirements?
The launch costs will be much lower on Mars so this should reduce the cost of space stations significantly.
Exactly how far off in the future do you see that to be? And how do you define "significantly"?
I don't want to go too far off-topic here.
...Quote from: mmeYou seem to have a lot of faith in a company that still hasn't reached orbit...
I didn't mention Blue in the post you quoted. :)
My faith is in physics and economics. Once even one person is living on a bolo in LEO in 1G gravity, the way that everyone will think about space colonization will change. Including SpaceX employees.
All it takes is a little bit of video of someone walking in 1G some place other than on the Earth's surface. That video will go viral.
Absolutely, SpaceX will be in the thick of anywhere there's money to be made.
...
But the goal of SpaceX is to provide cheap enough transportation to make establishing a self-sustaining colony on Mars possible. I don't see that goal changing. There are over 7 billion humans on Earth, there can be more than one goal in space.
I see Musk's and Bezos' goals as complimentary and hopefully Bezos can resist his monopolistic tendencies try not to kill healthy competition.
Exactly how far off in the future do you see that to be? And how do you define "significantly"?
I dont know exactly. However I said I expect retirement homes to be built first and I still think that's a good metric.
I define significantly as removing most of the costs of getting to orbit as we know them.
1. Launches imply payloads.
I've been reading Gerard Oneill's book Human Colonies In Space. These are Oneil Cylinders at L5 built initially from lunar materials and long term asteriods.
I think Bezos is trying make this happen by lowering cost of access to space and lunar surface. While Musk interest is Mars colonies, still has to lower launch costs to achieve this.
While large Oneil Cylinders seem far fetch, they are acheiveable with today's engineering. Still need to be made from ISRU, launching huge amount of building materials from earth is not realistic.The economics is another factor, need a business case that justifies having a few 1000 people living in space. Building huge Solar Power Satellites to beam power back to earth is favoured one, but yet to be flight proven.
If price is right then there is market for many Terawatts of stations. The same ISRU infrastructure that is needed for build these power satellites would also be able to build Oneill Cylinders.
I've been reading Gerard Oneill's book Human Colonies In Space. These are Oneil Cylinders at L5 built initially from lunar materials and long term asteriods.
I think Bezos is trying make this happen by lowering cost of access to space and lunar surface. While Musk interest is Mars colonies, still has to lower launch costs to achieve this.
While large Oneil Cylinders seem far fetch, they are acheiveable with today's engineering. Still need to be made from ISRU, launching huge amount of building materials from earth is not realistic.The economics is another factor, need a business case that justifies having a few 1000 people living in space. Building huge Solar Power Satellites to beam power back to earth is favoured one, but yet to be flight proven.
If price is right then there is market for many Terawatts of stations. The same ISRU infrastructure that is needed for build these power satellites would also be able to build Oneill Cylinders.
A lot has changed since "The High Frontier" was written (1976). Some examples:
- Carbon fiber is an engineering material, and so, for that matter, are many other fibers that didn't exist in 1976.
- Roll-to-roll graphene has been demonstrated by several companies.
- Al Globus has shown that colonies built in equatorial LEO don't need shielding.
- Many more NEOs have been discovered.
- Techniques for asteroid retrieval exist and are being actively explored by serious people.
- Billionaires fund space launch companies as a hobby.
The High Frontier proposes building habs from steel and glass brought up on Saturn V rockets or the equivalent. It may be that Bezos will choose something a lot more progressive for what he's got in mind, although certainly habs in other locations would probably benefit from the availability of lunar materials. The first orbital 1G habs may well closely resemble or utilize inflatables.
I've been reading Gerard Oneill's book Human Colonies In Space. These are Oneil Cylinders at L5 built initially from lunar materials and long term asteriods.
I think Bezos is trying make this happen by lowering cost of access to space and lunar surface. While Musk interest is Mars colonies, still has to lower launch costs to achieve this.
While large Oneil Cylinders seem far fetch, they are acheiveable with today's engineering. Still need to be made from ISRU, launching huge amount of building materials from earth is not realistic.The economics is another factor, need a business case that justifies having a few 1000 people living in space. Building huge Solar Power Satellites to beam power back to earth is favoured one, but yet to be flight proven.
If price is right then there is market for many Terawatts of stations. The same ISRU infrastructure that is needed for build these power satellites would also be able to build Oneill Cylinders.
A lot has changed since "The High Frontier" was written (1976). Some examples:
- Carbon fiber is an engineering material, and so, for that matter, are many other fibers that didn't exist in 1976.
- Roll-to-roll graphene has been demonstrated by several companies.
- Al Globus has shown that colonies built in equatorial LEO don't need shielding.
- Many more NEOs have been discovered.
- Techniques for asteroid retrieval exist and are being actively explored by serious people.
- Billionaires fund space launch companies as a hobby.
The High Frontier proposes building habs from steel and glass brought up on Saturn V rockets or the equivalent. It may be that Bezos will choose something a lot more progressive for what he's got in mind, although certainly habs in other locations would probably benefit from the availability of lunar materials. The first orbital 1G habs may well closely resemble or utilize inflatables.
The High Frontier paradigm requires use of lunar or asteroidal resources, and that was clearly stated by O'Neill pretty much from day one in the early 1970s as well as in his book. There was never any thought given to launching everything from Earth. To connect it up with Blue and Bezos, I'm confident from his public comments that he fully recognizes and accepts this premise.
That's where we disagree. To my mind, once it becomes evident that we can build 1G colonies without a need for radiation shielding in LEO, or larger 1G colonies with added radiation shielding just about anywhere else, the concept of building colonies on Mars becomes fairly superfluous. And SpaceX's Mars aspirations will fade, replaced by a mission to promote colonies in cislunar space. In other words, SpaceX and Blue will eventually have very similar business strategies that don't involve Mars.
The biggest technological change since the 1970s was in the computer industry. We are not going to need large populations of workers living in O'Neill cylinders to build things in orbit. That can be done from Earth using remote controlled robotic systems.
If I could afford a home in a city in LEO I would definitely move there. You could have millions of people living in one place without any noise pollution and with the commutes never being more then 5-10 minutes. Probably much safer then earth too, once you get a decent size going.In LEO a 1/6G station would be fine for tourism, with 0G manufacturing done at ends. It could act as waystation for BLEO trips. For tourists it would be lot cheaper than moon, plus there will be lot more free space and option to move at will between 0g and 1/6G.
Shielding can be lot lower especially if living and working quarters have some radiation shielding.
20 mSv/yr is considerably above the average background radiation in the U.S., 3.1 mSv/year (not
including Xrays, etc.) [Linnea 2010, NRC 2010]. However, this is an average and much higher
levels exist locally. There are several large regions of Europe, particularly in Spain and Finland,
with levels over 10 mSv [World Nuclear Association 2014] and there are inhabited parts of the
world with much higher levels with no known major negative effects. For example, the highest
recorded background radiation on Earth is in Ramsar, Iran where monitored individuals have
received an annual dose up to 132 mGy/year, far above our 20 mSv/yr threshold [Ghiassinej
2002] . Other high natural radiation areas include Yangjiang, China, Kerala, India, and
Guarapari, Brazil with no apparent major negative effects. Thus, it seems that 20 mSv/yr is a
reasonable level to use for the present study, being aware that additional research is needed and
this threshold may need to be changed as better data and theory become available.
The launch costs will be much lower on Mars so this should reduce the cost of space stations significantly. On earth the BFS needs a huge booster to carry cargo to orbit but on Mars, it would be a single stage to orbit even with double the payload. And because of the thin atmosphere and lower speed, the threshold for aerodynamics is much lower. So you could build a habitat on the ground, strap engines on it and blast it straight to orbit as it's own vehicles. Then just put the engines on the next shuttle to the surface and use them to launch the next habitat.
So a 1G space city may actually turn out to be our only means of space colonization if biology rejects 1/3 or 1/6th reproduction.
In the long run it should be possible to modify humans to reproduce in 1/3 g, 1/6 g, or no gravity at all. Water-living mammals such as dolphins and whales basically do this already, so we have systems we can study. But we are talking long time scales - maybe 20 years to understand the mechanisms which work in dolphins, twenty more years to figure out how to implement these changes in humans, then maybe 30-40 years more to try it, then watch the kids grow up and see if they turn out OK, and can reproduce themselves. So maybe 80-100 years, if we get started soon. Short on a geological time scale, but a long time to wait for the Mars/moon settlement optimists.
Or you can build a big train that runs around a few hundred meters diameter ring at about 150 km/hr and get nice 1 G for however long you need it. I am guessing that will be a lot cheaper to build on the Moon or Mars than a free floating rotating station. You get Meteor and cosmic ray protection for free and failure mode aside from catastrphe would just be to have surface gravity until repaired.
Compared to creating a stable, tough, contained environmental system to support many people this is nothing.
If I could afford a home in a city in LEO I would definitely move there. You could have millions of people living in one place without any noise pollution and with the commutes never being more then 5-10 minutes. Probably much safer then earth too, once you get a decent size going.
The biggest technological change since the 1970s was in the computer industry. We are not going to need large populations of workers living in O'Neill cylinders to build things in orbit. That can be done from Earth using remote controlled robotic systems.
Blue will need another reason to get people off planet.
In other words, SpaceX and Blue will eventually have very similar business strategies that don't involve Mars.
Isn't the extra cost of supporting the supply chains to support the supply chains (etc) to build the habitats on Mars massively larger than the fuel-production supply chain cost?
I'm just sad man. The coolest thing about space is there is so much room for truly outside the box thinking. The idea that a structure could go to orbit without the need for a spaceship is the kind of discussion I think is fun. Maybe it's stupid and somebody needs to tell me why but that would be something interesting to learn. Not getting that and getting these questions instead... it's just disappointing. Like what's the point?
That's where we disagree. To my mind, once it becomes evident that we can build 1G colonies without a need for radiation shielding in LEO, or larger 1G colonies with added radiation shielding just about anywhere else, the concept of building colonies on Mars becomes fairly superfluous. And SpaceX's Mars aspirations will fade, replaced by a mission to promote colonies in cislunar space. In other words, SpaceX and Blue will eventually have very similar business strategies that don't involve Mars.
No they won't. Elon Musk stated two reasons for colonizing Mars: 1. As a backup to Human civilization; 2. It's inspirational and cool.
For #1, putting your colonies in cislunar space will ensure they'll always be entangled in Earthly politics and makes them easy targets for future space war.
For #2, this is obviously subjective, but I think walking on another planet is way more cool and inspirational than staying on an artificial habitat near Earth. There's a reason NASA's horizontal goal is putting humans on Mars, not putting humans on 1G space habitat, just try to say the words aloud.
There're also more practical things to consider, for example short term support from government. Moon and Mars are on government's exploration agenda, if the government can get out of their funk there're good synergies between government and private efforts. This synergy doesn't exist for space habitat which means it pretty much has to be all private funded, and that's a tall order even for Bezos.
If I could afford a home in a city in LEO I would definitely move there. You could have millions of people living in one place without any noise pollution and with the commutes never being more then 5-10 minutes. Probably much safer then earth too, once you get a decent size going.In LEO a 1/6G station would be fine for tourism, with 0G manufacturing done at ends. It could act as waystation for BLEO trips. For tourists it would be lot cheaper than moon, plus there will be lot more free space and option to move at will between 0g and 1/6G.
Shielding can be lot lower especially if living and working quarters have some radiation shielding.
May just be viable to build a small LEO cylinder from earth materials, especially if launch costs get down to $100-200 per kg.
The best macroscopic graphene and nanotube materials are still significantly inferior to the best carbon fiber... and orders of magnitude more expensive.
...Irrelevant.The best macroscopic graphene and nanotube materials are still significantly inferior to the best carbon fiber... and orders of magnitude more expensive.
All of the world's display manufacturers have demonstrated roll-to-roll graphene production and graphene displays of various sizes, with some now in mass production.
The most interesting materials, to me, are something like:
10.1073/pnas.1719111115
10.1021/acsami.8b00846 <- (sorry, no, this isn't the paper I thought it was, but I'll leave the DOI here rather than delete it)
...
Tellurian has already been taken. :-)
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tellurian
and point out that once Blue or SpaceX or other up-and-comers can fabricate and deploy large structures in orbit, we probably won't bother building them on the ground any more.
It's a shame JB and EM can't get past their egos and collaborate. First, the BE4 and Raptor are a complete duplication of effort. Imagine the funds that could have been saved if they both funded, say, the BE4, and even the BE3 Vacuum. Imagine a Falcon Heavy with a BE3 powered Upper stage? Or shared resources on RTLS and drone ship landings? Or a BFR fitted with and New Armstrong second stage? Both could continue on with their own agenda (EM Mars and JB Moon) without wasteful duplication.I disagree. Having two independent space transportation companies developing reusable launch vehicles is better by every measure. First, a failure of one will not cause the other to stand down. Second, they can explore a wider range of designs and approaches. Third, competition will ultimately drive down prices faster. And they can push forward on different goals "humans in space" vs "colony on Mars."
It's a shame JB and EM can't get past their egos and collaborate. First, the BE4 and Raptor are a complete duplication of effort. Imagine the funds that could have been saved if they both funded, say, the BE4, and even the BE3 Vacuum. Imagine a Falcon Heavy with a BE3 powered Upper stage? Or shared resources on RTLS and drone ship landings? Or a BFR fitted with and New Armstrong second stage? Both could continue on with their own agenda (EM Mars and JB Moon) without wasteful duplication.
The investments made on any of the technologies you mentioned, are most likely less than a couple of billion dollars. Working together with a company with a completely different approach to development risk management is not going to decrease the investment, but increase it spectacularly, while stifling creativity and making rapid prototyping pretty useless.
I Doubt if there will ever be large 1G Oneil habitats in earth orbit. Every one of these things would be a potential continent destroyer if pushed into earths gravity well. They could be flown in trailing the earth in orbit round the Sun potentially because then earth would have time to respond to any change in orbit.The huge amount of materials needed to build them means having to using ISRU materials. Higher orbit, lower DV needed to access ISRU materials which is more of deciding factor. Other plus is lower station keeping DV required, a 4 million ton station is going need lot of fuel to move 10m/s.
Every one of these things would be a potential continent destroyer if pushed into earths gravity well.
And besides, the dV required to hit Earth can be vanishingly small if your starting point is a non earth orbit. And the impact speed higher.Every one of these things would be a potential continent destroyer if pushed into earths gravity well.
That is a very large if. Deorbiting those things would not be a small effort.
I Doubt if there will ever be large 1G Oneil habitats in earth orbit. Every one of these things would be a potential continent destroyer if pushed into earths gravity well. They could be flown in trailing the earth in orbit round the Sun potentially because then earth would have time to respond to any change in orbit.
The pointOne advantage to putting 1G stations in LEO is to obviate the need for radiation shielding...
That said, methinks this is not at all the stated topic of this thread.
The pointOne advantage to putting 1G stations in LEO is to obviate the need for radiation shielding...
The point of putting a space station anywhere in space should be to service the needs of humans in space, not because it's convenient to Earth.
So if we want to do zero-G manufacturing in the closest location to the intended market, and the intended market is Earth, then putting a space station in LEO makes sense.
But if the intended destination of the product from zero-G manufacturing is not Earth, but someplace far away from Earth, then LEO may not make much sense regardless of how much mass you save in radiation shielding.
Between Musk and Bezos it seems as though Bezos would be the only one interested in space stations, as Musk is focused on planetary colonization (i.e. Earth replacements).
The pointOne advantage to putting 1G stations in LEO is to obviate the need for radiation shielding...
The point of putting a space station anywhere in space should be to service the needs of humans in space, not because it's convenient to Earth.
So if we want to do zero-G manufacturing in the closest location to the intended market, and the intended market is Earth, then putting a space station in LEO makes sense.
But if the intended destination of the product from zero-G manufacturing is not Earth, but someplace far away from Earth, then LEO may not make much sense regardless of how much mass you save in radiation shielding.
Even if colonizing Mars doesn't work, the industrial capacity built there trying to colonize can be used to build orbital colonies in Mars orbit. So, we end up with Blue selling condos in Earth orbit and SpaceX selling condos in Mars orbit.
Then the big question is which view do you prefer?
Of necessity, SpaceX will need to compete, which will mean that SpaceX resources will be as taxed as they are today, even without spending them on Mars colonies.
...
My contention:
SpaceX's approach and business strategy are based a few flawed premises, one of which is the idea that humans need to live on a planet. A second flawed premise is the idea that humans will reach self-sufficiency on Mars any time in the foreseeable future. A third is that Mars colonies are easier than orbital colonies; in each trade, cislunar colonies are always easier than Mars colonies in no small part due to the fact that colonies on Mars are down at the bottom of another gravity well, a gravity well of insufficient size that's difficult to reach.
...
The pointOne advantage to putting 1G stations in LEO is to obviate the need for radiation shielding...
The point of putting a space station anywhere in space should be to service the needs of humans in space, not because it's convenient to Earth.
So if we want to do zero-G manufacturing in the closest location to the intended market, and the intended market is Earth, then putting a space station in LEO makes sense.
And that's kind of the point of this discussion, isn't it? We're several pages in. Let's define terms.
Blue's approach/business strategy is to build infrastructure in cislunar space, at least somewhat near Earth, which happens to be where the humans live and markets exist. By building up infrastructure, Blue hopes to grow those markets and bring more humans up from the Earth's surface to achieve a critical mass where the population and infrastructure are large enough to be self-sufficient.
SpaceX's approach/business strategy is to build a business on Earth that will support an effort to colonize Mars. Building infrastructure in cislunar space is necessary only insofar as it provides income for the Mars effort. By colonizing Mars, SpaceX hopes to create a completely different planetary surface where the population and infrastructure are large enough to be self-sufficient.
My contention:
SpaceX's approach and business strategy are based a few flawed premises, one of which is the idea that humans need to live on a planet. A second flawed premise is the idea that humans will reach self-sufficiency on Mars any time in the foreseeable future. A third is that Mars colonies are easier than orbital colonies; in each trade, cislunar colonies are always easier than Mars colonies in no small part due to the fact that colonies on Mars are down at the bottom of another gravity well, a gravity well of insufficient size that's difficult to reach.
.....
Well...I think you mean "attempts to replace Planet Earth" as opposed to "Earth replacements", which are a virtually impossible and unnecessary task.
in a nutshell I agree with what you wrote...the difference in my thinking is that I dont think that SpaceX "Mars" thing is actually a business plan...its more well excitment
in a nutshell I agree with what you wrote...the difference in my thinking is that I dont think that SpaceX "Mars" thing is actually a business plan...its more well excitment
The business plan for Mars is pretty straightforward. Sell launches to NASA. If the price is low enough it would be politically difficult for Congress to not pony up the funds. It's $400 hammer dollar politics. Everybody likes to be the one crusading against $400 dollar hammers so when you have an actual $400 hammer and you can find a $7 hammer to compare it with, it's the lowest hanging fruit of politics.
Not sure there is a shred of evidence that SpaceX's Mars plans depend on NASA.
Not sure there is a shred of evidence that SpaceX's Mars plans depend on NASA.
They have said they will offer the service and are hoping for government interest. That alone is more evidence then 90% of the statements about future services in this thread. I'm serious.
It could take quite a while for NASA to finally bite on Mars or Moon transportation services if they were being offered at a low price. But once they do, it's billions of dollars of business.
The US has been pretty consistent about spending a couple billion a year on vehicles for getting boots to Mars and the Moon even when we haven't been going anywhere. If we are actually doing it, that money isn't going to dry up. It might even increase.
Please be careful when saying "NASA wants this, or NASA wants that".
Not sure there is a shred of evidence that SpaceX's Mars plans depend on NASA.
They have said they will offer the service and are hoping for government interest. That alone is more evidence then 90% of the statements about future services in this thread. I'm serious.
It's still not evidence. Elon Musk and SpaceX are not consulting with NASA on what would be required for NASA to participate in a Mars effort, which is what many people point to as evidence that SpaceX is not relying on the U.S. Government.
...
Expect SLS and Orion to be around for the long haul.
Please be careful when saying "NASA wants this, or NASA wants that".
Come on, dude. You can search my post and you will not see ANY mention of this.
It could take quite a while for NASA to finally bite on Mars or Moon transportation services if they were being offered at a low price.
With the SLS they had to develop completely new technologies (many of which are now going into other rockets as well.) Every other rocket is a recent invention based on technologies that were much more near term.
Thus I dont expect huge delays. I expect the typical aerospace delays.
I didn't say I liked SLS! If I had my way, NASA would sit down with BO and SpaceX and put their heads together and build a beyond LEO architecture along their designs and totally scrap Apollo Mark 2. That was my opinion only based on political realities.
With the SLS they had to develop completely new technologies (many of which are now going into other rockets as well.) Every other rocket is a recent invention based on technologies that were much more near term.
I'm not aware of any technologies being used to build the SLS that are, as you say, "...going into other rockets as well." Please list them.
A third is that Mars colonies are easier than orbital colonies; in each trade, cislunar colonies are always easier than Mars colonies in no small part due to the fact that colonies on Mars are down at the bottom of another gravity well, a gravity well of insufficient size that's difficult to reach.
With the SLS they had to develop completely new technologies (many of which are now going into other rockets as well.) Every other rocket is a recent invention based on technologies that were much more near term.
I'm not aware of any technologies being used to build the SLS that are, as you say, "...going into other rockets as well." Please list them.
Well I imagine the folks in the SLS part of the forum can give you a better list but some that spring to mind for me
Welding: NASA started working on the problems with welding massive rockets back in 2012 when New Glenn was nothing but an aspiration and BFR was still called Falcon XX. SpaceX and Blue Origin wouldn't be making such large rockets so quickly were it not for that tech and those people.
Heat Shields: Well this is a Orion thing not an SLS thing but the guy who made PICA-X was previously working on PICA for Orion. At the time he proposed PICA-X he was on a NASA information sharing mission.
Engines: The RL-10C was started for SLS and will soon be flying on the Centaur.
Engines again: This one I only remember more fuzzily but there was some 3d printing technique for the interior of the RS-25 that was useful.
Right now, BFR, BFS and EM's grandiose schemes to fly hundreds of souls is a pipe dream. BO is still an unknown factor in its long term agenda. Meanwhile, NASA is moving steadfastly forward with it's own architecture. There will undoubtedly be a tipping point should BFR and it's low cost flights become reality, or anything that BO pulls off. Only if SpaceX and BO start to out do NASA, will NASA abandon its SLS and Orion. I for one, am highly skeptical that SpaceX will pull off BFR as advertised without bankrupting themselves. Expect SLS and Orion to be around for the long haul.
in a nutshell I agree with what you wrote...the difference in my thinking is that I dont think that SpaceX "Mars" thing is actually a business plan...its more well excitment
The business plan for Mars is pretty straightforward. Sell launches to NASA. If the price is low enough it would be politically difficult for Congress to not pony up the funds. It's $400 hammer dollar politics. Everybody likes to be the one crusading against $400 dollar hammers so when you have an actual $400 hammer and you can find a $7 hammer to compare it with, it's the lowest hanging fruit of politics.
that is why I expect that the first BFR is really not all that much more "lift" than the FalconH...but that is my own personal view based on technological history ...we will see ...edit off
that is why I expect that the first BFR is really not all that much more "lift" than the FalconH...but that is my own personal view based on technological history ...we will see ...edit off
In terms of delta-v it's not but the limitations of payload volume and crew are what holds the Falcon Heavy back more then the theoretical lift. There are very few payloads that are small enough to fit the SpaceX fairing but too heavy for the Falcon 9 to take to LEO. The Falcon Heavy is just there to take them to more then LEO. I would say there's 50-50 odds that it never carries a payload heavier then 10 tons.
And I think this ties into a broader point that SpaceX and Blue Origin are both seeking satellite payloads but they have different payloads in mind. Satellite constellations are a low margin strategy designed to drum up business. Going after GTO launches is going after where the money is right now. That's a pretty substantial difference in strategy.
Both want to provide low cost human spaceflight. BFR can definitely do this but I have reservations on lack of LAS. NG is likely to use some form LAS resulting in more expensive seat price but should be under $5M to LEO, hopefully closer to $1M.that is why I expect that the first BFR is really not all that much more "lift" than the FalconH...but that is my own personal view based on technological history ...we will see ...edit off
In terms of delta-v it's not but the limitations of payload volume and crew are what holds the Falcon Heavy back more then the theoretical lift. There are very few payloads that are small enough to fit the SpaceX fairing but too heavy for the Falcon 9 to take to LEO. The Falcon Heavy is just there to take them to more then LEO. I would say there's 50-50 odds that it never carries a payload heavier then 10 tons.
And I think this ties into a broader point that SpaceX and Blue Origin are both seeking satellite payloads but they have different payloads in mind. Satellite constellations are a low margin strategy designed to drum up business. Going after GTO launches is going after where the money is right now. That's a pretty substantial difference in strategy.
what market do you think SpaceX is going after and what market do you think BO is going after?
I think that they are the same market actually but curious what you think
The Falcon Heavy is just there to take them to more then LEO. I would say there's 50-50 odds that it never carries a payload heavier then 10 tons.New Glenn and Falcon Heavy are, as I understand things, both aiming for the Heavy end of the EELV-2 business. That includes "Polar 2" (833 km x 98.2 deg) at 17,010 kg and "GEO 2" (35,786 km circular x 0 deg) at 6,577 kg). Delta 4 Heavy has launched payloads like these, or nearly so (it can boost more than 13 tonnes to GTO and 6 tonnes or more to GEO). I'm seeing New Glenn now as a Delta 4 Heavy with a flyback first stage. Falcon Heavy won't be able to do these heaviest, but rare, missions without expending itself (for beyond LEO at least, though it might be recoverable for the LEO missions).
I think that they are the same market actually but curious what you think
The capabilities of block 5 align with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2
There is an interesting pattern to this list. Read the rockets top to bottom and they are in order of how closely they resemble what is already launching payloads. New Glenn is the only clean sheet design and block 5 is the already flying. However with the payloads the direction is reversed, New Glenn is tailored to what customers are paying for right now. The block 5 on the other hand exists right now but it tailored for customers that dont exist yet.
And I think that this is a pretty big difference between the companies.
So as I read this, you are saying Block 5 doesn't align to the wiki list for Delta/Thor missions even though SpaceX went to the effort to now be qualified for NRO missions? ( i.e NROL-76)
So as I read this, you are saying Block 5 doesn't align to the wiki list for Delta/Thor missions even though SpaceX went to the effort to now be qualified for NRO missions? ( i.e NROL-76)
I was commenting on what they are tailored to. The Falcon 9 has been able to do these since the block 3. However they have continued to develop the rocket. In this process they have tailored it towards "bulkier" cargo that requires that larger launch rate and the economies of scale allowed by reuse.
And they have developed the Falcon Heavy so that they dont need to throw away rockets on higher mass customers.
Falcon 9 Block 5, which is reusable, is designed for any payload that can fit within the standard fairing, and can be moved to a target orbit while recovering the 1st stage.
Prices per flight comparisons are pretty much immaterial since only New Glenn is close in price, but it won't be available for a couple of years.
Both want to provide low cost human spaceflight. BFR can definitely do this but I have reservations on lack of LAS. NG is likely to use some form LAS resulting in more expensive seat price but should be under $5M to LEO, hopefully closer to $1M.One option for BFR Launch Abort System would be to launch with the ship's propellant tanks nearly empty, then fill them in flight by transferring propellant from the booster. This would allow the landing engines to provide launch escape, although the available acceleration would be only modest at first, and get worse as you go.
For flights to LEO of few hours and no LAS, BFR could carry 200-300 people in airliner type cabin. A ticket price of $100-200k is quite realistic.
I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
Flight-qualifying each full vehicle and having full redundancy will mostly obviate the need for a LAS.
I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
Flight-qualifying each full vehicle and having full redundancy will mostly obviate the need for a LAS.
"flight qualifying"...what do you suggest that term means?
Airplanes do not have "launch escape systems"...but before an airplane gets a type certificate the "test planes" get far far more testing by the manufacturer than any crewed space vehicle has flown probably in aggregate.
we are in my view a long long way toward the equivalent type of "certification" in space vehicles...maybe decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Flight_test_program
The 787-8 had 6800 hours of flight time. I think the Soyuz and Shuttle had more hours then that of time in orbit. In terms of take off and landings that's like 1000 flights which the shuttle certainly didn't match although depending on how broadly you lump the R-7 together, it's done more then that.
I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
Flight-qualifying each full vehicle and having full redundancy will mostly obviate the need for a LAS.
"flight qualifying"...what do you suggest that term means?
Airplanes do not have "launch escape systems"...but before an airplane gets a type certificate the "test planes" get far far more testing by the manufacturer than any crewed space vehicle has flown probably in aggregate.
we are in my view a long long way toward the equivalent type of "certification" in space vehicles...maybe decades
The goal wouldn't be to make the spaceship safer than an airplane, but to make it safer than another spaceship, launched on an expendable rocket's maiden voyage with a launch abort system. That isn't decades away. Maybe one decade at most.
So for the Dragon 2 capsule, do you want a system to get the crew away from an exploding Dragon 2 engine? At some point, it's not worth the extra complexity. The safety of crewed rockets doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough (and the customers will ultimately decide).I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
Actually, only Amos 6 was a case of "escape exploding second stage".I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
<snip of airplane-ish-like safety>
I hope you are correct...but I doubt it. at Best SpaceX/Boeing will need a decade to get to a new place (at current flight rates)
Planes don't carry tons of oxidiser and they don't explode mid flight unless hit with missile.I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
Flight-qualifying each full vehicle and having full redundancy will mostly obviate the need for a LAS.
"flight qualifying"...what do you suggest that term means?
Airplanes do not have "launch escape systems"...but before an airplane gets a type certificate the "test planes" get far far more testing by the manufacturer than any crewed space vehicle has flown probably in aggregate.
we are in my view a long long way toward the equivalent type of "certification" in space vehicles...maybe decades
The BFR 2nd stage is no safe than booster, same fuel, same engines. Just because there are no COPV doesn't mean its totally safe.
Planes don't carry tons of oxidiser and they don't explode mid flight unless hit with missile.
The BFR 2nd stage is no safe than booster, same fuel, same engines. Just because there are no COPV doesn't mean its totally safe.
in a nutshell I agree with what you wrote...the difference in my thinking is that I dont think that SpaceX "Mars" thing is actually a business plan...its more well excitment
The business plan for Mars is pretty straightforward. Sell launches to NASA. If the price is low enough it would be politically difficult for Congress to not pony up the funds. It's $400 hammer dollar politics. Everybody likes to be the one crusading against $400 dollar hammers so when you have an actual $400 hammer and you can find a $7 hammer to compare it with, it's the lowest hanging fruit of politics.
The BFR 2nd stage is no safe than booster, same fuel, same engines. Just because there are no COPV doesn't mean its totally safe.
I'm old enough to remember when passenger airliners crashing was not unusual, so I don't think we should apply modern safety analogies to spaceflight.
There will be accidents, and there will be deaths in spaceflight. Yet frequent airliner accidents and deaths just 40-50 years ago did not stop the flying public from using commercial air transport.
Oh, and no commercial airliner ever had escape systems for the passenger to use while in flight. So let's keep perspective here...
How the safety of BFR jumps 5 orders of magnitude over the proven safety of all real launch vehicles is at best a mystery to me.
How the safety of BFR jumps 5 orders of magnitude over the proven safety of all real launch vehicles is at best a mystery to me.
Reuse. If they can fly it again and again and again they can get vastly more flight experience and make it safer. How many times does this need to be repeated?
SpaceX happens to be promoting BFR as a competitor to international air travel, therefore modern safety analogies are probably worth discussing. The chance of dying on any particular airplane flight are about 1 in 11 million. The chances of most launch vehicles failing is roughly 1 in 50. Boeing and SpaceX are struggling to meet a 1 in 270 Loss of Crew goal for commercial crew vehicles (this is WITH launch escape systems)
At best, that's wishful thinking.
Certainly the re-usability of Falcon 9 S1 is not improving their LOC numbers beyond 1 in 270, which they are struggling to meet. Reuse didn't do so for the shuttle either.
No reusable part of either the Shuttle or F9 had ever caused LOM, going on 190 flights now.
LAS only gets you MAYBE a factor of 10 improvement in survivability from launch vehicle failures. GOOD launch vehicles have a 99% reliability. So even with a LAS, your survivability is at best 99.9%.I didn't understand every point you made there, but I do appreciate you pointing out that abort for BFS could achieve a better T/W if they lowered the propellant load for crew launches.
This abort system doesn't work if is exploding 2nd stage you trying to escape.
Which has been case with last 2 SpaceX failures.
Flight-qualifying each full vehicle and having full redundancy will mostly obviate the need for a LAS.
"flight qualifying"...what do you suggest that term means?
Airplanes do not have "launch escape systems"...but before an airplane gets a type certificate the "test planes" get far far more testing by the manufacturer than any crewed space vehicle has flown probably in aggregate.
we are in my view a long long way toward the equivalent type of "certification" in space vehicles...maybe decades
cProximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.No reusable part of either the Shuttle or F9 had ever caused LOM, going on 190 flights now.
The loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.
Planes don't carry tons of oxidiser and they don't explode mid flight unless hit with missile.
Aloha 243 doesn't really count as airframe failure due to lack of maintenance much like a lot of other aircraft crashes.Planes don't carry tons of oxidiser and they don't explode mid flight unless hit with missile.
TWA 800 fuel/air explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800
Aloha 243 explosive decompression.
https://www.aerotime.aero/yulius.yoma/18542-history-hour-aloha-airlines-flight-243-incident
I'm old enough to remember when passenger airliners crashing was not unusual, so I don't think we should apply modern safety analogies to spaceflight.With average insurance payouts of $4.5M (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43920.msg1770675#msg1770675) for current airliner accidents, you need to get your 'total loss' rate down below one flight in 30000 or so, in order for it not to affect revenue too much. (10%).
There will be accidents, and there will be deaths in spaceflight. Yet frequent airliner accidents and deaths just 40-50 years ago did not stop the flying public from using commercial air transport.
The loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
And if the external tank was fully reusable, it wouldn’t have had chunks of foam fall off of it regularly. In fact, the functions of the tank would’ve been integrated into the orbiter and/or a similar first stage vehicle and wouldn’t be this big separate piece.QuoteThe loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.
Oh, and no commercial airliner ever had escape systems for the passenger to use while in flight. So let's keep perspective here...FWIW, IMO wings, parachutes and multiple engines, all count as an escape system or at least as an emergency backup for the most common problem which is engine failure.
cNo reusable part of either the Shuttle or F9 had ever caused LOM, going on 190 flights now.
The loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.
The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.
The orbiter was on the side because they wanted to reuse the SSME.
How are you tying lessons learned from the Shuttle into the business strategy of SpaceX or Blue Origin?
No reusable part of either the Shuttle or F9 had ever caused LOM, going on 190 flights now.
How are you tying lessons learned from the Shuttle into the business strategy of SpaceX or Blue Origin?
Here you go:No reusable part of either the Shuttle or F9 had ever caused LOM, going on 190 flights now.
And how that applies to the approach or business strategy of SpaceX and/or Blue Origin?
And how that applies to the approach or business strategy of SpaceX and/or Blue Origin?
Are you asking me to summarize the last two pages?
I think because SpaceX is aiming at much higher flights rates, full reusability, and also applications such as p2p that require higher reliability.And how that applies to the approach or business strategy of SpaceX and/or Blue Origin?
Are you asking me to summarize the last two pages?
If you wouldn't mind. I have gone back to look at the conversations but I'm not seeing how loss of vehicle is a determinant in the topic at hand. Maybe I'm missing something...
If you wouldn't mind. I have gone back to look at the conversations but I'm not seeing how loss of vehicle is a determinant in the topic at hand. Maybe I'm missing something...
As an item, both SpaceX and BO are after high reliability, rapid reuse, and eventual fully reusable LVs. It is the approaches managerial that the differences occur but not in the end goals.I think because SpaceX is aiming at much higher flights rates, full reusability, and also applications such as p2p that require higher reliability.And how that applies to the approach or business strategy of SpaceX and/or Blue Origin?
Are you asking me to summarize the last two pages?
If you wouldn't mind. I have gone back to look at the conversations but I'm not seeing how loss of vehicle is a determinant in the topic at hand. Maybe I'm missing something...
The question was whether the first two items can help with the third.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Yeah, and it was an expendable part that caused the failure. Both Blue and SpaceX are pursuing vertical staging and fully reusable parts, so neither Shuttle failure is relevant.How are you tying lessons learned from the Shuttle into the business strategy of SpaceX or Blue Origin?
Here you go:No reusable part of either the Shuttle or F9 had ever caused LOM, going on 190 flights now.
We need to settle this issue of whether or not NS reuse equates to NG reuse. I suggest pistols at dawn.
cNo reusable part of either the Shuttle or F9 had ever caused LOM, going on 190 flights now.
The loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.
No, not true. Any heatshield would have had trouble dealing with the impact. Reusable or one time only.
And if the external tank was fully reusable, it wouldn’t have had chunks of foam fall off of it regularly. In fact, the functions of the tank would’ve been integrated into the orbiter and/or a similar first stage vehicle and wouldn’t be this big separate piece.QuoteThe loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.
And if the external tank was fully reusable, it wouldn’t have had chunks of foam fall off of it regularly. In fact, the functions of the tank would’ve been integrated into the orbiter and/or a similar first stage vehicle and wouldn’t be this big separate piece.QuoteThe loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.
I am not sure why the shuttle is in play here (and no I have not read back all that far...)
The ET eing expendable had nothing to do with the foam coming off the vehicle. The foam was there to stop ice from forming on the ET and coming off the ET and hitting the shuttle. NOW if it was not expendable would theyhave had something else to stop ice from coming off the tank? Maybe...but who knows
Second the root cause of the accident(s) had nothing to do with the hardware. It was all management related.
Flying with a known problem that got worse under certian conditions and had the potential under conditions that were likely to destroy the vehicle
That was the root cause.
And if the external tank was fully reusable, it wouldn’t have had chunks of foam fall off of it regularly. In fact, the functions of the tank would’ve been integrated into the orbiter and/or a similar first stage vehicle and wouldn’t be this big separate piece.QuoteThe loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.
I am not sure why the shuttle is in play here (and no I have not read back all that far...)
The ET eing expendable had nothing to do with the foam coming off the vehicle. The foam was there to stop ice from forming on the ET and coming off the ET and hitting the shuttle. NOW if it was not expendable would theyhave had something else to stop ice from coming off the tank? Maybe...but who knows
Second the root cause of the accident(s) had nothing to do with the hardware. It was all management related.
Flying with a known problem that got worse under certian conditions and had the potential under conditions that were likely to destroy the vehicle
That was the root cause.
The discussion started with me noting that reusable LV hardware has never caused a LOM or LOCV.
SOFI shedding wan't an issue. It was the larger chunks from the bipod ramps that damaged the TPS. Those ramps are a feature of a separable vehicle. An integrated vehicle wouldn't need bipods to attach to anything, so by definition wouldn't have had that failure mode, even if it had the exact same SOFI to prevent ice formation (which it wouldn't because SOFI wouldn't survive reentry, but that's besides the point).
It is not the historical POFs that have been avoided it's the new ones yet discovered or that have been assessed at lower risks assessed values than reality.And if the external tank was fully reusable, it wouldn’t have had chunks of foam fall off of it regularly. In fact, the functions of the tank would’ve been integrated into the orbiter and/or a similar first stage vehicle and wouldn’t be this big separate piece.QuoteThe loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.
I am not sure why the shuttle is in play here (and no I have not read back all that far...)
The ET eing expendable had nothing to do with the foam coming off the vehicle. The foam was there to stop ice from forming on the ET and coming off the ET and hitting the shuttle. NOW if it was not expendable would theyhave had something else to stop ice from coming off the tank? Maybe...but who knows
Second the root cause of the accident(s) had nothing to do with the hardware. It was all management related.
Flying with a known problem that got worse under certian conditions and had the potential under conditions that were likely to destroy the vehicle
That was the root cause.
The discussion started with me noting that reusable LV hardware has never caused a LOM or LOCV.
SOFI shedding wan't an issue. It was the larger chunks from the bipod ramps that damaged the TPS. Those ramps are a feature of a separable vehicle. An integrated vehicle wouldn't need bipods to attach to anything, so by definition wouldn't have had that failure mode, even if it had the exact same SOFI to prevent ice formation (which it wouldn't because SOFI wouldn't survive reentry, but that's besides the point).
OK that is how it started...thanks. I"ll let it go at that then. I am not sure I agree that all reusable vehicles have to be "integrated" ...but its not important to your point...
Which I am not sure I agree with. :) and maybe the entire debate is not that important
How do you square the O rings with your point?
How do you square the O rings with your point?
How do you square the O rings with your point?
Every STS flight had a full set of brand-new, never flown O-rings. The o-rings were recovered as part of the SRB assemblies, and were inspected before Challenger, but never reflown... if they had to be reflown, they surely would have at least tried to fix the blowby and erosion issues, or would have so over-designed it they would not have been a problem in the first place.
How do you square the O rings with your point?
Every STS flight had a full set of brand-new, never flown O-rings. The o-rings were recovered as part of the SRB assemblies, and were inspected before Challenger, but never reflown... if they had to be reflown, they surely would have at least tried to fix the blowby and erosion issues, or would have so over-designed it they would not have been a problem in the first place.
How do you square the O rings with your point?
Every STS flight had a full set of brand-new, never flown O-rings. The o-rings were recovered as part of the SRB assemblies, and were inspected before Challenger, but never reflown... if they had to be reflown, they surely would have at least tried to fix the blowby and erosion issues, or would have so over-designed it they would not have been a problem in the first place.
OK you and I have vastly different concepts of reusability and even "parts". Thas OK but I would classify the failure of the joints as a failure of a reusable part
In my world if say a cylinder failed on a piston engine and caused a engine failure...that would be a failure of a "reusable" part due to the failure of the engine
Anyway I dont see the point as worth arguing or even having merit of discussion. But our views are very different.
:)
How do you square the O rings with your point?
Every STS flight had a full set of brand-new, never flown O-rings. The o-rings were recovered as part of the SRB assemblies, and were inspected before Challenger, but never reflown... if they had to be reflown, they surely would have at least tried to fix the blowby and erosion issues, or would have so over-designed it they would not have been a problem in the first place.
OK you and I have vastly different concepts of reusability and even "parts". Thas OK but I would classify the failure of the joints as a failure of a reusable part
In my world if say a cylinder failed on a piston engine and caused a engine failure...that would be a failure of a "reusable" part due to the failure of the engine
Anyway I dont see the point as worth arguing or even having merit of discussion. But our views are very different.
:)
Huh? The seals on a piston engine go through 10s of millions of pressure cycles. You can fire them up, test them, fly them again and again, make sure they work.
The seals in STS SRB joints got exactly one pressure cycle in their operational life, ever. Then they were torn down and thrown away. There was no way to test the joints and then use them, since the first use destroys them. They are by definition expendable.
You can call the SRBs "reusable" if you want. They weren't any such thing, but that has no bearing on my point.
They are as reusable as the Flacon 9 first stage is right now.False. F9s don't get torn down to individual segments, shipped to Utah by train and have new propellant cast into them. You really don't have much idea what you're talking about here.
But as I said its not worth discussing in the context of whatever point is trying to be made.So drop it and don't reply to this post.
The SpaceX Starship hopper being quickly manufactured in full public view, outdoors in Texas, seems to be the antithesis of Gradatim Ferociter. If Elon Musk's time-line is to be believed, the BFH now standing on its own feet, will fire up three methane FFSC raptors this spring, requiring only five months of construction. If SpaceX is able to fly the full Starship/Super Heavy stack before Blue's New Glenn and be fully reusable, the case for Bezos' company gets fuzzy.BO's progress is way too slow. They need to pick up the pace now otherwise they will be left in the dust by SpaceX. Their strategy of taking it slow and to get it right may backfire if they don't keep up with the competition. Perhaps BO should skip NG and start NA dev. now to have any chance of keeping up with SpaceX.
Otoh, it appears that as far as the US government is concerned, Blue's approach is better, at least to the tune of a half billion dollars. One wonders if that erector set in Boca Chica is a response to that funding announcement. That, the sudden safety culture probe and Bridenstine's casting shade on the Dragon 2 all happened just before the foundation for the BC sprung struture was poured.
Coincidence?
Otoh, it appears that as far as the US government is concerned, Blue's approach is better, at least to the tune of a half billion dollars. One wonders if that erector set in Boca Chica is a response to that funding announcement. That, the sudden safety culture probe and Bridenstine's casting shade on the Dragon 2 all happened just before the foundation for the BC sprung struture was poured.
BO's progress is way too slow. They need to pick up the pace now otherwise they will be left in the dust by SpaceX. Their strategy of taking it slow and to get it right may backfire if they don't keep up with the competition. Perhaps BO should skip NG and start NA dev. now to have any chance of keeping up with SpaceX.
Why rush to build NA, its not like there are dozens of +100t payloads looking for ride to space.The SpaceX Starship hopper being quickly manufactured in full public view, outdoors in Texas, seems to be the antithesis of Gradatim Ferociter. If Elon Musk's time-line is to be believed, the BFH now standing on its own feet, will fire up three methane FFSC raptors this spring, requiring only five months of construction. If SpaceX is able to fly the full Starship/Super Heavy stack before Blue's New Glenn and be fully reusable, the case for Bezos' company gets fuzzy.BO's progress is way too slow. They need to pick up the pace now otherwise they will be left in the dust by SpaceX. Their strategy of taking it slow and to get it right may backfire if they don't keep up with the competition. Perhaps BO should skip NG and start NA dev. now to have any chance of keeping up with SpaceX.
Otoh, it appears that as far as the US government is concerned, Blue's approach is better, at least to the tune of a half billion dollars. One wonders if that erector set in Boca Chica is a response to that funding announcement. That, the sudden safety culture probe and Bridenstine's casting shade on the Dragon 2 all happened just before the foundation for the BC sprung struture was poured.
Coincidence?
The SpaceX Starship hopper being quickly manufactured in full public view, outdoors in Texas, seems to be the antithesis of Gradatim Ferociter. If Elon Musk's time-line is to be believed, the BFH now standing on its own feet, will fire up three methane FFSC raptors this spring, requiring only five months of construction. If SpaceX is able to fly the full Starship/Super Heavy stack before Blue's New Glenn and be fully reusable, the case for Bezos' company gets fuzzy.I don't think so. SpaceX is repeating the "Grasshopper" approach with "Starship", a program that has been in the works for awhile. Grasshopper first "hopped" about one year before the first Falcon 9 v1.1 launch. The Starship hopper cannot presage a full-blown BFR launch in the same way, however, since Starship will only be the upper stage of a much larger rocket - and then only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage. By these measures, although this hopper is a solid sign of progress, SpaceX is still a long way from flying BFR itself.
Otoh, it appears that as far as the US government is concerned, Blue's approach is better, at least to the tune of a half billion dollars. One wonders if that erector set in Boca Chica is a response to that funding announcement. That, the sudden safety culture probe and Bridenstine's casting shade on the Dragon 2 all happened just before the foundation for the BC sprung struture was poured.
Coincidence?
The real unknowns are about the engines, which are the key elements to both the Blue and the SpaceX efforts. We hear almost nothing about BE-4 development progress, and almost nothing about the SpaceX methane engine. Both are high pressure staged combustion engines using an unproven propellant combination. Are they meeting their performance and cost goals? Who knows? The Air Force hopefully had good insight into their development progress when it made its funding decisions.
- Ed Kyle
SpaceX is repeating the "Grasshopper" approach with "Starship", a program that has been in the works for awhile. Grasshopper first "hopped" about one year before the first Falcon 9 v1.1 launch. The Starship hopper cannot presage a full-blown BFR launch in the same way, however, since Starship will only be the upper stage of a much larger rocket - and then only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage. By these measures, although this hopper is a solid sign of progress, SpaceX is still a long way from flying BFR itself.
The real unknowns are about the engines, which are the key elements to both the Blue and the SpaceX efforts. We hear almost nothing about BE-4 development progress, and almost nothing about the SpaceX methane engine. Both are high pressure staged combustion engines using an unproven propellant combination. Are they meeting their performance and cost goals? Who knows? The Air Force hopefully had good insight into their development progress when it made its funding decisions.
... only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage.
... only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage.
BillionS ... seriously, Ed? [[citation needed]]. You're possibly a whole order of magnitude off on the booster, I think, if you think more than 3 or 4... I think they can do it for 500M. Not that we'll ever know. Far more cost in the spaceship.
... only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage.
BillionS ... seriously, Ed? [[citation needed]]. You're possibly a whole order of magnitude off on the booster, I think, if you think more than 3 or 4... I think they can do it for 500M. Not that we'll ever know. Far more cost in the spaceship.
And the engines are shared. Not as in the being in the same family, no - literally the same engines are on the booster. It will clearly be a significant project, but it is basically the F9 first stage scaled up but constructed with Starship technology. I agree with Lar - The Starship is the hard part. The booster is easy in comparison.
Elon Musk said $5 billion, didn't he, for BFR development? His original estimate was $10 billion, but that was before the design was scaled down. The first stage will almost certainly cost more than Starship. It is projected, after all, to stand half as tall as Saturn V all by itself. 13.9 million pounds of thrust, or some-such. 31 Raptors, 67.5 Merlin equivalents or so, just on that first stage. There's a factory yet to build, and launch sites, and test sites, and landing sites, etc. Yes. Billions.... only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage.
BillionS ... seriously, Ed? [[citation needed]]. You're possibly a whole order of magnitude off on the booster, I think, if you think more than 3 or 4... I think they can do it for 500M. Not that we'll ever know. Far more cost in the spaceship.
Elon Musk said $5 billion, didn't he, for BFR development? His original estimate was $10 billion, but that was before the design was scaled down. The first stage will almost certainly cost more than Starship. It is projected, after all, to stand half as tall as Saturn V all by itself. 13.9 million pounds of thrust, or some-such. There's a factory yet to build, and launch sites, and test sites, and landing sites, etc. Yes. Billions.... only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage.
BillionS ... seriously, Ed? [[citation needed]]. You're possibly a whole order of magnitude off on the booster, I think, if you think more than 3 or 4... I think they can do it for 500M. Not that we'll ever know. Far more cost in the spaceship.
- Ed Kyle
Starship is the hard part. It will cost far more. So, no, SuperHeavy won't be the major part of the development effort.Elon Musk said $5 billion, didn't he, for BFR development? His original estimate was $10 billion, but that was before the design was scaled down. The first stage will almost certainly cost more than Starship. It is projected, after all, to stand half as tall as Saturn V all by itself. 13.9 million pounds of thrust, or some-such. 31 Raptors, 67.5 Merlin equivalents or so, just on that first stage. There's a factory yet to build, and launch sites, and test sites, and landing sites, etc. Yes. Billions.... only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage.
BillionS ... seriously, Ed? [[citation needed]]. You're possibly a whole order of magnitude off on the booster, I think, if you think more than 3 or 4... I think they can do it for 500M. Not that we'll ever know. Far more cost in the spaceship.
Elon Musk said $5 billion, didn't he, for BFR development? His original estimate was $10 billion, but that was before the design was scaled down.
I don't think so. SpaceX is repeating the "Grasshopper" approach with "Starship", a program that has been in the works for awhile. Grasshopper first "hopped" about one year before the first Falcon 9 v1.1 launch. The Starship hopper cannot presage a full-blown BFR launch in the same way, however, since Starship will only be the upper stage of a much larger rocket - and then only if SpaceX can raise the billions of dollars needed to develop the giant first stage. By these measures, although this hopper is a solid sign of progress, SpaceX is still a long way from flying BFR itself.
I very much doubt that it's possible for Super Heavy to cost more than Starship.
Yes, it's physically bigger and uses more Raptors but I don't see x many more tons of stainless steel and 15-25 additional Raptor engines outweighing the costs of systems Starship requires that Super Heavy doesn't. Things like TPS/Cooling implementations designed for direct entry from interplanetary velocities along with long-duration ELCSS will likely drive Starship's cost much higher than that of Super Heavy, especially development costs which are what we're discussing here.
In regards to the original topic question, have to respond with another:
In the end, if SpaceX and Blue Origin achieve their respective visions, does it matter?
Project to the end, and in this future there is a successful Mars Colony, and heavy Earth industry has moved to space. Seems like there is room for both SpaceX and Blue's business models, and room for even more companies. Right now, SpaceX vs Blue is relevant as there is a limited amount of space generated revenue, but if both companies continue to get funds and continue developing to their ultimate goals, that battle becomes meaningless as the size of the market increases.
Right now both are approaching their business eyeing how to get to their envisioned future, so if they have different paths is it meaningful to compare their approaches?
Skimming, I find the usual factual errors, lame. Article could have been this short:
It is a subtle difference, to date, Musk with a late start has made a fortune pursuing an ambitious space launch program, while Bezos, with a head start, has lost a fortune pursuing an ambitious space launch program.
This may change soon enough, but it hasn't been much of a race so far.
Matthew
As his thread is about comparisons... take a look at the "rocket factories".Well, Space X and Blue need money, so yeah, without large amount of money, nothing really happens.
BO put up a large factory in Florida - from the outside in. The outer walls are there, but we haven't seen a single picture of the factory floor.
SpaceX is working in an old re-purposed factory complex for F9, and in bonefide tents in TX and CA for BFR.
Schedule wise, BO's schedule is moving to the right, whereas SpaceX's is moving to the left.
There may be a lesson there about how large amounts of money are not necessarily a good thing.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
As his thread is about comparisons... take a look at the "rocket factories".
BO put up a large factory in Florida - from the outside in. The outer walls are there, but we haven't seen a single picture of the factory floor.
SpaceX is working in an old re-purposed factory complex for F9, and in bonefide tents in TX and CA for BFR.
Schedule wise, BO's schedule is moving to the right, whereas SpaceX's is moving to the left.
There may be a lesson there about how large amounts of money are not necessarily a good thing.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
As his thread is about comparisons... take a look at the "rocket factories".I agree with the schedule bit.... but SX is working out of tents partly because its rocket factory is in the wrong place to build big rockets! BO's money has got them a factory close to their launchpad. Down the line this will be a great advantage.... they might squander it, but theoretically its money well spent.
BO put up a large factory in Florida - from the outside in. The outer walls are there, but we haven't seen a single picture of the factory floor.
SpaceX is working in an old re-purposed factory complex for F9, and in bonefide tents in TX and CA for BFR.
Schedule wise, BO's schedule is moving to the right, whereas SpaceX's is moving to the left.
There may be a lesson there about how large amounts of money are not necessarily a good thing.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
...
There may be a lesson there about how large amounts of money are not necessarily a good thing.
"Being cash strapped is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success." Something like that?...
There may be a lesson there about how large amounts of money are not necessarily a good thing.
As any number of startup failures will attest to. I won't belabor that comparison as Blue is definitely not a typical startup--or at least does act like one. SpaceX OTOH seems to be in permanent startup mode for their non-mainstream revenue efforts (e.g., CRS, CCtCap). Good trick keeping both cultures alive in the same organization.
What I find fascinating is the difference in openness between the two. Blue is so tight lipped about everything that I think they would have kept the factory a secret if they could, while SpaceX is so open that they are building a flight article in public where people can even catch glimpses of the interior.
Two completely different approaches.
"Being cash strapped is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success." Something like that?
Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
I agree with the schedule bit.... but SX is working out of tents partly because its rocket factory is in the wrong place to build big rockets!
BO's money has got them a factory close to their launchpad. Down the line this will be a great advantage.... they might squander it, but theoretically its money well spent.
As I stated above it's not an advantage for reusable rockets. It's more important to site a rocket factory where there is easy access to the types of personnel you need to run the factory, and I'm not sure if the Florida KSC area is the best for that.Yes I agree, you are quite right. The the pool of experienced tec/aerospace workers is the most important. And you are right about re-usable rockets getting several launches, but only one trip from the factory.
snip ......
Maybe there is an adequate pool of the talent they will need there, but where SpaceX is in Los Angeles is the manufacturing capital of the U.S., and probably the biggest center for aerospace design and manufacturing. No problems finding talented people there for the design and manufacture of rockets and spaceships.
My point tho was that a high-profile fancy building is just sitting there and the rocket is not due till 2021 at least.Quote from: Coastal RonAs I stated above it's not an advantage for reusable rockets. It's more important to site a rocket factory where there is easy access to the types of personnel you need to run the factory, and I'm not sure if the Florida KSC area is the best for that.Yes I agree, you are quite right. The the pool of experienced tec/aerospace workers is the most important. And you are right about re-usable rockets getting several launches, but only one trip from the factory.
snip ......
Maybe there is an adequate pool of the talent they will need there, but where SpaceX is in Los Angeles is the manufacturing capital of the U.S., and probably the biggest center for aerospace design and manufacturing. No problems finding talented people there for the design and manufacture of rockets and spaceships.
However I expect the increase in private space business on the Florida space coast including BO will make that an increasingly large pool of expertise too. BO's factory location may mean refurbishment can also be done there. And employees will not have to cross the US to be involved in (east coast) launch operations. So there are multiple benefits.
My point tho was that a high-profile fancy building is just sitting there and the rocket is not due till 2021 at least.Quote from: Coastal RonAs I stated above it's not an advantage for reusable rockets. It's more important to site a rocket factory where there is easy access to the types of personnel you need to run the factory, and I'm not sure if the Florida KSC area is the best for that.Yes I agree, you are quite right. The the pool of experienced tec/aerospace workers is the most important. And you are right about re-usable rockets getting several launches, but only one trip from the factory.
snip ......
Maybe there is an adequate pool of the talent they will need there, but where SpaceX is in Los Angeles is the manufacturing capital of the U.S., and probably the biggest center for aerospace design and manufacturing. No problems finding talented people there for the design and manufacture of rockets and spaceships.
However I expect the increase in private space business on the Florida space coast including BO will make that an increasingly large pool of expertise too. BO's factory location may mean refurbishment can also be done there. And employees will not have to cross the US to be involved in (east coast) launch operations. So there are multiple benefits.
There's a can't-ignore disparity there.
And yes, the aforementioned point about where to build is very valid. BO may be thinking (as you've phrased it) about "several flights". SpaceX is thinking about "daily flights". That's a serious difference.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
My point tho was that a high-profile fancy building is just sitting there and the rocket is not due till 2021 at least.Quote from: Coastal RonAs I stated above it's not an advantage for reusable rockets. It's more important to site a rocket factory where there is easy access to the types of personnel you need to run the factory, and I'm not sure if the Florida KSC area is the best for that.Yes I agree, you are quite right. The the pool of experienced tec/aerospace workers is the most important. And you are right about re-usable rockets getting several launches, but only one trip from the factory.
snip ......
Maybe there is an adequate pool of the talent they will need there, but where SpaceX is in Los Angeles is the manufacturing capital of the U.S., and probably the biggest center for aerospace design and manufacturing. No problems finding talented people there for the design and manufacture of rockets and spaceships.
However I expect the increase in private space business on the Florida space coast including BO will make that an increasingly large pool of expertise too. BO's factory location may mean refurbishment can also be done there. And employees will not have to cross the US to be involved in (east coast) launch operations. So there are multiple benefits.
There's a can't-ignore disparity there.
And yes, the aforementioned point about where to build is very valid. BO may be thinking (as you've phrased it) about "several flights". SpaceX is thinking about "daily flights". That's a serious difference.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
To put it another way, Raptor is scheduled for its first flight this quarter; BE-4 at some unknown future date that may easily be 2021 or later.
My point tho was that a high-profile fancy building is just sitting there and the rocket is not due till 2021 at least.Quote from: Coastal RonAs I stated above it's not an advantage for reusable rockets. It's more important to site a rocket factory where there is easy access to the types of personnel you need to run the factory, and I'm not sure if the Florida KSC area is the best for that.Yes I agree, you are quite right. The the pool of experienced tec/aerospace workers is the most important. And you are right about re-usable rockets getting several launches, but only one trip from the factory.
snip ......
Maybe there is an adequate pool of the talent they will need there, but where SpaceX is in Los Angeles is the manufacturing capital of the U.S., and probably the biggest center for aerospace design and manufacturing. No problems finding talented people there for the design and manufacture of rockets and spaceships.
However I expect the increase in private space business on the Florida space coast including BO will make that an increasingly large pool of expertise too. BO's factory location may mean refurbishment can also be done there. And employees will not have to cross the US to be involved in (east coast) launch operations. So there are multiple benefits.
There's a can't-ignore disparity there.
And yes, the aforementioned point about where to build is very valid. BO may be thinking (as you've phrased it) about "several flights". SpaceX is thinking about "daily flights". That's a serious difference.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
To put it another way, Raptor is scheduled for its first flight this quarter; BE-4 at some unknown future date that may easily be 2021 or later.
That will be an amazing accomplishment if it happens.
I recall someone taunting one Blue employee about Raptor and he scoffed at the idea that SpaceX could take their sub-scale dev version of Raptor and spin it into a full-scale production version before Blue would be able to finish testing and qualification on the purportedly already full-scale BE-4.
My point tho was that a high-profile fancy building is just sitting there and the rocket is not due till 2021 at least.Quote from: Coastal RonAs I stated above it's not an advantage for reusable rockets. It's more important to site a rocket factory where there is easy access to the types of personnel you need to run the factory, and I'm not sure if the Florida KSC area is the best for that.Yes I agree, you are quite right. The the pool of experienced tec/aerospace workers is the most important. And you are right about re-usable rockets getting several launches, but only one trip from the factory.
snip ......
Maybe there is an adequate pool of the talent they will need there, but where SpaceX is in Los Angeles is the manufacturing capital of the U.S., and probably the biggest center for aerospace design and manufacturing. No problems finding talented people there for the design and manufacture of rockets and spaceships.
However I expect the increase in private space business on the Florida space coast including BO will make that an increasingly large pool of expertise too. BO's factory location may mean refurbishment can also be done there. And employees will not have to cross the US to be involved in (east coast) launch operations. So there are multiple benefits.
There's a can't-ignore disparity there.
And yes, the aforementioned point about where to build is very valid. BO may be thinking (as you've phrased it) about "several flights". SpaceX is thinking about "daily flights". That's a serious difference.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
To put it another way, Raptor is scheduled for its first flight this quarter; BE-4 at some unknown future date that may easily be 2021 or later.
That will be an amazing accomplishment if it happens.
I recall someone taunting one Blue employee about Raptor and he scoffed at the idea that SpaceX could take their sub-scale dev version of Raptor and spin it into a full-scale production version before Blue would be able to finish testing and qualification on the purportedly already full-scale BE-4.
Ummm, I hope they are serving crow at the Blue Origin cafeteria...
My point tho was that a high-profile fancy building is just sitting there and the rocket is not due till 2021 at least.Quote from: Coastal RonAs I stated above it's not an advantage for reusable rockets. It's more important to site a rocket factory where there is easy access to the types of personnel you need to run the factory, and I'm not sure if the Florida KSC area is the best for that.Yes I agree, you are quite right. The the pool of experienced tec/aerospace workers is the most important. And you are right about re-usable rockets getting several launches, but only one trip from the factory.
snip ......
Maybe there is an adequate pool of the talent they will need there, but where SpaceX is in Los Angeles is the manufacturing capital of the U.S., and probably the biggest center for aerospace design and manufacturing. No problems finding talented people there for the design and manufacture of rockets and spaceships.
However I expect the increase in private space business on the Florida space coast including BO will make that an increasingly large pool of expertise too. BO's factory location may mean refurbishment can also be done there. And employees will not have to cross the US to be involved in (east coast) launch operations. So there are multiple benefits.
There's a can't-ignore disparity there.
And yes, the aforementioned point about where to build is very valid. BO may be thinking (as you've phrased it) about "several flights". SpaceX is thinking about "daily flights". That's a serious difference.
-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
To put it another way, Raptor is scheduled for its first flight this quarter; BE-4 at some unknown future date that may easily be 2021 or later.
That will be an amazing accomplishment if it happens.
I recall someone taunting one Blue employee about Raptor and he scoffed at the idea that SpaceX could take their sub-scale dev version of Raptor and spin it into a full-scale production version before Blue would be able to finish testing and qualification on the purportedly already full-scale BE-4.
Ummm, I hope they are serving crow at the Blue Origin cafeteria...
No kidding. But I don't think it was completely unreasonable at the time, SpaceX iterating so quickly isn't something that has been commonplace in rocket engine development, I think even for Merlin.
Definitely-- even a year or so ago it seemed that at worst BE-4 was in a dead heat with Raptor if not somewhat ahead.
Now it seems that SpaceX has only accelerated and Blue is maintaining the same pace at best.
The irony is that there was never a lack of data... Musk has consistently said publicly exactly what he's planning to do, well in advance of doing it.Definitely-- even a year or so ago it seemed that at worst BE-4 was in a dead heat with Raptor if not somewhat ahead.
When there is a lack of data, assumptions can vary widely - and there can also be a lemming effect too. :o
Which is why everyone should always be evaluating the assumptions and data their guesses are based on.QuoteNow it seems that SpaceX has only accelerated and Blue is maintaining the same pace at best.
Or both are on the exact schedules they laid out internally years ago, but never shared with the public... ;)
Definitely-- even a year or so ago it seemed that at worst BE-4 was in a dead heat with Raptor if not somewhat ahead.
When there is a lack of data, assumptions can vary widely - and there can also be a lemming effect too. :o
Which is why everyone should always be evaluating the assumptions and data their guesses are based on.QuoteNow it seems that SpaceX has only accelerated and Blue is maintaining the same pace at best.
Or both are on the exact schedules they laid out internally years ago, but never shared with the public... ;)
Definitely-- even a year or so ago it seemed that at worst BE-4 was in a dead heat with Raptor if not somewhat ahead.
When there is a lack of data, assumptions can vary widely - and there can also be a lemming effect too. :o
Which is why everyone should always be evaluating the assumptions and data their guesses are based on.QuoteNow it seems that SpaceX has only accelerated and Blue is maintaining the same pace at best.
Or both are on the exact schedules they laid out internally years ago, but never shared with the public... ;)
While it’s possible both are maintaining internal schedules, we can only go on public statements and they don’t seem to reflect that.
Elon Musk has specifically stated that SS/SH development has been accelerated recently, while both BE-4 powered launchers have recently slipped to the right with first launches now being scheduled for 2021 instead of 2020.
Definitely-- even a year or so ago it seemed that at worst BE-4 was in a dead heat with Raptor if not somewhat ahead.
When there is a lack of data, assumptions can vary widely - and there can also be a lemming effect too. :o
Which is why everyone should always be evaluating the assumptions and data their guesses are based on.QuoteNow it seems that SpaceX has only accelerated and Blue is maintaining the same pace at best.
Or both are on the exact schedules they laid out internally years ago, but never shared with the public... ;)
While it’s possible both are maintaining internal schedules, we can only go on public statements and they don’t seem to reflect that.
Elon Musk has specifically stated that SS/SH development has been accelerated recently, while both BE-4 powered launchers have recently slipped to the right with first launches now being scheduled for 2021 instead of 2020.
I don't remember a prediction of early 2020 for orbit. I remember just "in 2020", which to me means "beat 2021".Definitely-- even a year or so ago it seemed that at worst BE-4 was in a dead heat with Raptor if not somewhat ahead.
When there is a lack of data, assumptions can vary widely - and there can also be a lemming effect too. :o
Which is why everyone should always be evaluating the assumptions and data their guesses are based on.QuoteNow it seems that SpaceX has only accelerated and Blue is maintaining the same pace at best.
Or both are on the exact schedules they laid out internally years ago, but never shared with the public... ;)
While it’s possible both are maintaining internal schedules, we can only go on public statements and they don’t seem to reflect that.
Elon Musk has specifically stated that SS/SH development has been accelerated recently, while both BE-4 powered launchers have recently slipped to the right with first launches now being scheduled for 2021 instead of 2020.
SS/SH has slipped as well. I inserted their original timeline published going on 2 and a half years ago. It is hard to see how they go from where they are to orbital testing in the beginning of 2020 (just 358 days away).They will be doing < 5 km hops around March/April with whatever that is in Texas if EM near term time lines hold. That gives a few months to go from that to orbital. Things that have passed on that timeline haven't been done on time, so we can probably extrapolate that forward as likely as well. For instance, Falcon Heavy wasn't beginning of 2017, it was about a year late. Crew Dragon development didn't end at the start of 2018, it hasn't flown yet and it is 2019. They aren't a year into Red Dragon operations. Did they wrap up propulsion/structures development? They aren't 5 months into ship testing. That is supposed to start in the coming months. But even then, people didn't envision that to mean a crudely constructed hopper back in the day.
Irrespective of that, from BOs perspective, they've been focusing on FH and treating BFR as something that's in the indefinite future.
If Starship goes to orbit in 2020 (as SSTO?) and if SH is not far behind, or even is part of the 2020 prediction, then NG will not have a grace period.
It's not that NG is too small, it's that it's not fully reusable.
No kidding. But I don't think it was completely unreasonable at the time, SpaceX iterating so quickly isn't something that has been commonplace in rocket engine development, I think even for Merlin.
Irrespective of that, from BOs perspective, they've been focusing on FH and treating BFR as something that's in the indefinite future.
If Starship goes to orbit in 2020 (as SSTO?) and if SH is not far behind, or even is part of the 2020 prediction, then NG will not have a grace period.
It's not that NG is too small, it's that it's not fully reusable.
I don't think Blue is focused on FH per se, instead, NG is simply the best they can do right now given their experience and resources. It's not realistic to expect them to come up with a fully reusable superheavy when they're 1/5th the size of SpaceX and haven't launched/landed anything orbital.
For better or worse, I don't think Blue worries about what SX is doing. NG was sized to cover the entire existing market plus a fair bit. FH didn't expand payload size in reusable mode, it's just lowered cost. Also, an F9 sized NG would have a lot of trouble evolving into a fully reusable rocket and Blue knew that from day 1.Irrespective of that, from BOs perspective, they've been focusing on FH and treating BFR as something that's in the indefinite future.
If Starship goes to orbit in 2020 (as SSTO?) and if SH is not far behind, or even is part of the 2020 prediction, then NG will not have a grace period.
It's not that NG is too small, it's that it's not fully reusable.
I don't think Blue is focused on FH per se, instead, NG is simply the best they can do right now given their experience and resources. It's not realistic to expect them to come up with a fully reusable superheavy when they're 1/5th the size of SpaceX and haven't launched/landed anything orbital.
If FH wasn't the up and coming thing back when Blue Origin anounced NG, NG would probably be a more F9 sized vehicle, IMO. Much more gradatim.
With production Raptor rolling out this month they are only just over on the propulsion development. You could argue that knocking Vac Raptor development out further is cheating though. :)
For better or worse, I don't think Blue worries about what SX is doing. NG was sized to cover the entire existing market plus a fair bit. FH didn't expand payload size in reusable mode, it's just lowered cost. Also, an F9 sized NG would have a lot of trouble evolving into a fully reusable rocket and Blue knew that from day 1.Irrespective of that, from BOs perspective, they've been focusing on FH and treating BFR as something that's in the indefinite future.
If Starship goes to orbit in 2020 (as SSTO?) and if SH is not far behind, or even is part of the 2020 prediction, then NG will not have a grace period.
It's not that NG is too small, it's that it's not fully reusable.
I don't think Blue is focused on FH per se, instead, NG is simply the best they can do right now given their experience and resources. It's not realistic to expect them to come up with a fully reusable superheavy when they're 1/5th the size of SpaceX and haven't launched/landed anything orbital.
If FH wasn't the up and coming thing back when Blue Origin anounced NG, NG would probably be a more F9 sized vehicle, IMO. Much more gradatim.
Blue doesn't need to react to BFR yet. It just needs to be a reliable launch service that is in the top 2 price wise for some range of payloads.
By the time BO gets NA ready, SpaceX may well have the 2nd gen. larger SH/SS system ready by then. So BO will always likely be playing catch up with SpaceX and never catch them up. The only way I can see BO having any chance of catching up with SpaceX is do ditch NG and start full on dev. on NA now.For better or worse, I don't think Blue worries about what SX is doing. NG was sized to cover the entire existing market plus a fair bit. FH didn't expand payload size in reusable mode, it's just lowered cost. Also, an F9 sized NG would have a lot of trouble evolving into a fully reusable rocket and Blue knew that from day 1.Irrespective of that, from BOs perspective, they've been focusing on FH and treating BFR as something that's in the indefinite future.
If Starship goes to orbit in 2020 (as SSTO?) and if SH is not far behind, or even is part of the 2020 prediction, then NG will not have a grace period.
It's not that NG is too small, it's that it's not fully reusable.
I don't think Blue is focused on FH per se, instead, NG is simply the best they can do right now given their experience and resources. It's not realistic to expect them to come up with a fully reusable superheavy when they're 1/5th the size of SpaceX and haven't launched/landed anything orbital.
If FH wasn't the up and coming thing back when Blue Origin anounced NG, NG would probably be a more F9 sized vehicle, IMO. Much more gradatim.
Blue doesn't need to react to BFR yet. It just needs to be a reliable launch service that is in the top 2 price wise for some range of payloads.
I would agree that on one level Blue doesn't really care about any "competitors," whether those competitors are SpaceX or any other company.
At the same time, I'm not sure that ignoring SS/SH is in Blue's best strategic interest. Right now, Elon Musk is saying there's a 60% chance that the full stack will go orbital next year, while Blue isn't currently planning to fly New Glenn before 2021. New Glenn is looking like a great contender when put up against F9/FH and the current field but I'm not sure that it will have the same impact if SpaceX is actively phasing out the Falcon family in favor of something more capable than New Glenn.
Regardless of what Blue actually does, I think the company is paying a very close eye to everything SpaceX does because Jeff Bezos is a very smart businessman and isn't going to jump into things without knowing exactly what the other players are up to.
New Glenn may not be a good competitor for SS/SH, but I think that once Blue figures out its next step New Armstrong is going to be a different story. In fact, I'd argue that New Armstrong may be able to outcompete SS/SH or its successors in Blue's target niche; whatever that may be at the time.
By the time BO gets NA ready, SpaceX may well have the 2nd gen. larger SH/SS system ready by then. So BO will always likely be playing catch up with SpaceX and never catch them up. The only way I can see BO having any chance of catching up with SpaceX is do ditch NG and start full on dev. on NA now.
By the time BO gets NA ready, SpaceX may well have the 2nd gen. larger SH/SS system ready by then. So BO will always likely be playing catch up with SpaceX and never catch them up. The only way I can see BO having any chance of catching up with SpaceX is do ditch NG and start full on dev. on NA now.
If there is a race, who paying for payloads and missions that these big LVs will fly ?
Even NG is too large for current launch market.
By the time BO gets NA ready, SpaceX may well have the 2nd gen. larger SH/SS system ready by then. So BO will always likely be playing catch up with SpaceX and never catch them up. The only way I can see BO having any chance of catching up with SpaceX is do ditch NG and start full on dev. on NA now.For better or worse, I don't think Blue worries about what SX is doing. NG was sized to cover the entire existing market plus a fair bit. FH didn't expand payload size in reusable mode, it's just lowered cost. Also, an F9 sized NG would have a lot of trouble evolving into a fully reusable rocket and Blue knew that from day 1.Irrespective of that, from BOs perspective, they've been focusing on FH and treating BFR as something that's in the indefinite future.
If Starship goes to orbit in 2020 (as SSTO?) and if SH is not far behind, or even is part of the 2020 prediction, then NG will not have a grace period.
It's not that NG is too small, it's that it's not fully reusable.
I don't think Blue is focused on FH per se, instead, NG is simply the best they can do right now given their experience and resources. It's not realistic to expect them to come up with a fully reusable superheavy when they're 1/5th the size of SpaceX and haven't launched/landed anything orbital.
If FH wasn't the up and coming thing back when Blue Origin anounced NG, NG would probably be a more F9 sized vehicle, IMO. Much more gradatim.
Blue doesn't need to react to BFR yet. It just needs to be a reliable launch service that is in the top 2 price wise for some range of payloads.
I would agree that on one level Blue doesn't really care about any "competitors," whether those competitors are SpaceX or any other company.
At the same time, I'm not sure that ignoring SS/SH is in Blue's best strategic interest. Right now, Elon Musk is saying there's a 60% chance that the full stack will go orbital next year, while Blue isn't currently planning to fly New Glenn before 2021. New Glenn is looking like a great contender when put up against F9/FH and the current field but I'm not sure that it will have the same impact if SpaceX is actively phasing out the Falcon family in favor of something more capable than New Glenn.
Regardless of what Blue actually does, I think the company is paying a very close eye to everything SpaceX does because Jeff Bezos is a very smart businessman and isn't going to jump into things without knowing exactly what the other players are up to.
New Glenn may not be a good competitor for SS/SH, but I think that once Blue figures out its next step New Armstrong is going to be a different story. In fact, I'd argue that New Armstrong may be able to outcompete SS/SH or its successors in Blue's target niche; whatever that may be at the time.
If there is a race, who paying for payloads and missions that these big LVs will fly ?
Even NG is too large for current launch market.
SpaceX still need to make return on $Bs invested in design and building of BFR and its infrastructure. In Blue's case Jeff doesn't need are return on his investment.
If there is a race, who paying for payloads and missions that these big LVs will fly ?
Even NG is too large for current launch market.
If full reusability works as SpaceX wants it to, the BFR will be able to outcompete Electron on price when launching cubesats.
Not launching a hold full of them on one go, just launching a single cubesat in the cavernous cargo hold of a single 118-meter 4000-ton+ stack.
For a truly reusable stack, the absolute size of the rocket is not a disadvantage. Fuel (especially methane) is really cheap. A properly reusable rocket cannot really be too big once you get one built.
Surely this divorce is a bit off topic for this thread?
By the time BO gets NA ready, SpaceX may well have the 2nd gen. larger SH/SS system ready by then. So BO will always likely be playing catch up with SpaceX and never catch them up. The only way I can see BO having any chance of catching up with SpaceX is do ditch NG and start full on dev. on NA now.For better or worse, I don't think Blue worries about what SX is doing. NG was sized to cover the entire existing market plus a fair bit. FH didn't expand payload size in reusable mode, it's just lowered cost. Also, an F9 sized NG would have a lot of trouble evolving into a fully reusable rocket and Blue knew that from day 1.Irrespective of that, from BOs perspective, they've been focusing on FH and treating BFR as something that's in the indefinite future.
If Starship goes to orbit in 2020 (as SSTO?) and if SH is not far behind, or even is part of the 2020 prediction, then NG will not have a grace period.
It's not that NG is too small, it's that it's not fully reusable.
I don't think Blue is focused on FH per se, instead, NG is simply the best they can do right now given their experience and resources. It's not realistic to expect them to come up with a fully reusable superheavy when they're 1/5th the size of SpaceX and haven't launched/landed anything orbital.
If FH wasn't the up and coming thing back when Blue Origin anounced NG, NG would probably be a more F9 sized vehicle, IMO. Much more gradatim.
Blue doesn't need to react to BFR yet. It just needs to be a reliable launch service that is in the top 2 price wise for some range of payloads.
I would agree that on one level Blue doesn't really care about any "competitors," whether those competitors are SpaceX or any other company.
At the same time, I'm not sure that ignoring SS/SH is in Blue's best strategic interest. Right now, Elon Musk is saying there's a 60% chance that the full stack will go orbital next year, while Blue isn't currently planning to fly New Glenn before 2021. New Glenn is looking like a great contender when put up against F9/FH and the current field but I'm not sure that it will have the same impact if SpaceX is actively phasing out the Falcon family in favor of something more capable than New Glenn.
Regardless of what Blue actually does, I think the company is paying a very close eye to everything SpaceX does because Jeff Bezos is a very smart businessman and isn't going to jump into things without knowing exactly what the other players are up to.
New Glenn may not be a good competitor for SS/SH, but I think that once Blue figures out its next step New Armstrong is going to be a different story. In fact, I'd argue that New Armstrong may be able to outcompete SS/SH or its successors in Blue's target niche; whatever that may be at the time.
I don't see Blue ditching New Glenn and throwing all its resources into New Armstrong as either necessary or even desirable, let alone likely.
I personally think that one of the biggest things holding back New Armstrong is that Blue hasn't figured out exactly what it's for yet. For SpaceX, it was an easy decision-- SS/SH is a Mars rocket; for Blue Origin things aren't so clear. I don't know if Blue has decided yet on whether to optimize New Armstrong for supporting orbital infrastructure or for Lunar operations and there's only so far the company can go until it makes that decision.
Here's the thing, as long as SpaceX is focused on SS/SH as a Mars rocket all its designs are going to be constrained by the requirements of interplanetary transit. Blue doesn't have those constraints. Jeff Bezos has no particular interest in Mars and Blue's plans and designs are going to reflect that. Just as one example, hydrolox seems to be far better suited for Lunar ISRU than methalox. SpaceX is locked into methalox for all SS uses because that's what's best suited for its Mars plans, but Blue can use hydrolox upper stages where appropriate because they don't have to build around the necessity of refueling on Mars.
Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to suggest that sometime around 2030-2035 Blue may come out with a New Armstrong design that is a much better Moon rocket than anything SpaceX is flying at the time.
It's not a direct competition; Blue is driven by its own internal goals. I don't expect Blue to beat SpaceX on Mars rockets, but that doesn't mean that in a decade or two they can't design a rocket that's better at its primary function than SS/SH is at its secondary function.
It's not even that the market will declare a winner, but that I can easily see SpaceX and Blue Origin serving different markets with each producing a system that better serves its own market while competing for other markets.
It's not even that the market will declare a winner, but that I can easily see SpaceX and Blue Origin serving different markets with each producing a system that better serves its own market while competing for other markets.
I can't see an expendable system successfully competing with a rapidly reusable RTLS system. Even if the RTLS system is "too large".
The analogy to A380 vs. 787 is irrelevant, since both systems are equally reusable. If A380 was reusable and B787 was say 25% expendable per flight, then B787 would be a non-starter, even if it was "sized just right".
The only way for NG to succeed right now is if SH/SS fails to deliver, or has a series of accidents that delays it by several years.
It's not even that the market will declare a winner, but that I can easily see SpaceX and Blue Origin serving different markets with each producing a system that better serves its own market while competing for other markets.
I can't see an expendable system successfully competing with a rapidly reusable RTLS system. Even if the RTLS system is "too large".
The analogy to A380 vs. 787 is irrelevant, since both systems are equally reusable. If A380 was reusable and B787 was say 25% expendable per flight, then B787 would be a non-starter, even if it was "sized just right".
The only way for NG to succeed right now is if SH/SS fails to deliver, or has a series of accidents that delays it by several years.
I’m not suggesting that NG is going to effectively outcompete SS/SH but rather looking to New Armstrong and the future.
SS/SH has the potential to revolutionize space flight, but it’s not particularly well suited for Lunar operations. I don’t think it’s far-fetched to believe that a fully reusable methalox/hydrolox architecture could prove to be a better fit for supporting a Moon base and if Blue follows that path for New Armstrong they could reasonably be expected to become the preferred provider for Lunar operations.
(As an aside, if P2P fails to work, I don't think we'll ever have a significant human presence beyond 35000ft. If you can't reliably do global hops, you can't sustain a population in LEO/Moon/Mars)This certainly isn't the right thread to debate SpaceX P2P plans but I'm not sure it's a given that P2P MUST work for launch costs to be lowered by orders of magnitude. (the operating regimes are different)
The problem with your logic is that NG is planned to be mostly reusable from the start and fully reusable later. It should be able to compete.It's not even that the market will declare a winner, but that I can easily see SpaceX and Blue Origin serving different markets with each producing a system that better serves its own market while competing for other markets.
I can't see an expendable system successfully competing with a rapidly reusable RTLS system. Even if the RTLS system is "too large".
The analogy to A380 vs. 787 is irrelevant, since both systems are equally reusable. If A380 was reusable and B787 was say 25% expendable per flight, then B787 would be a non-starter, even if it was "sized just right".
The only way for NG to succeed right now is if SH/SS fails to deliver, or has a series of accidents that delays it by several years.
The problem with your logic is that NG is planned to be mostly reusable from the start and fully reusable later. It should be able to compete.It's not even that the market will declare a winner, but that I can easily see SpaceX and Blue Origin serving different markets with each producing a system that better serves its own market while competing for other markets.
I can't see an expendable system successfully competing with a rapidly reusable RTLS system. Even if the RTLS system is "too large".
The analogy to A380 vs. 787 is irrelevant, since both systems are equally reusable. If A380 was reusable and B787 was say 25% expendable per flight, then B787 would be a non-starter, even if it was "sized just right".
The only way for NG to succeed right now is if SH/SS fails to deliver, or has a series of accidents that delays it by several years.
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.
It's FULL reuse that will take time.
I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.
Even if reuseable US is long term plan having a expendable US for BLEO or heavy payloads is useful option.NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.
It's FULL reuse that will take time.
I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.
That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps like NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.
It's FULL reuse that will take time.
I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.
The problem with your logic is that NG is planned to be mostly reusable from the start and fully reusable later. It should be able to compete.It's not even that the market will declare a winner, but that I can easily see SpaceX and Blue Origin serving different markets with each producing a system that better serves its own market while competing for other markets.
I can't see an expendable system successfully competing with a rapidly reusable RTLS system. Even if the RTLS system is "too large".
The analogy to A380 vs. 787 is irrelevant, since both systems are equally reusable. If A380 was reusable and B787 was say 25% expendable per flight, then B787 would be a non-starter, even if it was "sized just right".
The only way for NG to succeed right now is if SH/SS fails to deliver, or has a series of accidents that delays it by several years.
It will be able to compete because the market total revenue isn't growing fast enough for SpaceX to just slash prices to the point where they are running thin margins. Also because there are no other low cost fully reusable systems set to enter the market any time soon, which means that BFR is only competing with partially reusable systems like NG.
Once another low cost fully reusable system is flying, the partially expendable systems will be in the same position what the fully expendable systems will be in when NG starts partial reuse (which is still some 3 years away). All of this takes time.
Soyuz will launch 10 OneWeb seats at a time. NG will launch 80 at a time.
Looking up Soyuz Fergat to high inclination and a high LEO orbit the sats per launch is likely to be < 20. Max to the 280 km circular is 7800kg. Enough for 36 plus deployer. But higher inclinations SSO is only 4500kg. Now going to a higher orbit such as a transfer orbit with apogee at 1000km the payload capability is likely less than 4000 kg. So the 36 number is not accurate for the orbit.Soyuz will launch 10 OneWeb seats at a time. NG will launch 80 at a time.
The plan was for 36 satellites per Soyuz. I don't know if the number has been reduced now that the constellation will consist only of 600 sats, but the 10 sats was always only for the initial launch. (Which has now been reduced to 6 sats).
NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.
It's FULL reuse that will take time.
I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.
That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
Wrong, they have. It has been shown in New Glenn literature. Their plan is not NA full reuse but NG.NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.
It's FULL reuse that will take time.
I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.
That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
Wrong, they have. It has been shown in New Glenn literature. Their plan is not NA full reuse but NG.NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.
It's FULL reuse that will take time.
I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.
That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
It does imply that full reuse is eventually coming.Wrong, they have. It has been shown in New Glenn literature. Their plan is not NA full reuse but NG.NG will use partial reuse basically right from the start, like they did with NA.
It's FULL reuse that will take time.
I repeat: NG is planned for *full* reuse.
That is possibly true (maybe even probable), but we don't KNOW that. Blue has not released anything about a reusable upper stage. Perhaps NA is the one that is planned to be fully reusable. We don't know.
Are you referring to the "initially expendable" upper stage slide? That's not exactly the same as showing full reuse.
It does imply that full reuse is eventually coming.
New Glenn can afford a pretty big payload hit for full reusability. It could cut its max payload in half and match F9 performance to LEO. I think that makes development of full reusability easier for New Glenn than the F9.It does imply that full reuse is eventually coming.
True, but it tells us nothing about how distant those plans are, or if they will ever come to fruition. :) Just like SMART reuse on Vulcan. Or full reuse of F9. (remember the video?)
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.That's why NG is such a tragic story... Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
Sorry if this has been covered before, but what is the estimated cost of New Glenn’s second stage, which will presumably be expended in the initial years of operation?Reuseable US will most likely have payload bay like BFS so no fairing. The expendable US will still be needed for high performance missions and ones requiring volume of 7m fairing.
I think the Falcon 9 second stage is estimated to cost around $10-12m with the fairing another $6m or so. Given that New Glenn has a significantly larger and more capable upper stage, it will presumably cost a lot more than that.
Even if you add just 50% to the cost of the F9’s upper stage and fairing, that means that would bring the cost of New Glenn’s expendable parts to the $30m range.
So, until it achieves upper stage and fairing recovery, around $30m and probably closer to $40m would be a lower limit for New Glenn’s cost per launch. And given BO’s glacial pace of progress, does anyone think they will achieve either of these next steps (2nd stage or fairing recovery) before 2025 at the earliest, assuming an initial 2021 New Glenn launch date?
Even by conservative estimates, by 2025 Starship should be flying in fully reusable format to LEO and the Moon, even if Mars is still a bit further in the future.
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.That's why NG is such a tragic story... Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.
Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...
New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s.
Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.
What makes you think a 2nd stage can be built to effectively do what SpaceX thinks a whole spaceship is needed to do?Margin. NG is bigger than F9 and has more margin to expend on reuse for similar payloads. SpaceX doesn't necessarily think "a whole spaceship is needed" to accomplish similar; SpaceX's goals go well beyond second stage reuse.
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.That's why NG is such a tragic story... Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.
Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...
New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s. Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.
NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.That's why NG is such a tragic story... Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.
Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...
New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s. Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.
So NG comes to the market as an FH killer, but finds itself basing BFR, which is an entire league above.
So you conjecture, BO can make a whole set of changes, and make NG into a BFR-class (yet much smaller) vehicle. A SFR. (Remember NG lifts off on 7 engines. BFR lifts off on 31 engines of comparable thrust).
But how long will these changes take? another 5-10 years?
What will SpaceX do meanwhile? they'll go to 12 m, or 15, or god knows where.
It takes a lot less conjecture to imagine the latter than it does to imagine the BO-SFR.
There aren't really a lot of attractive roads ahead.
Either keep investing in NG even though the playing field is vastly different, or gamble the store on NA now.
None of these has a high probability of success.
SpaceX' and Blue Origin's approaches continue to converge.
Starlink, Oneweb, Telesat, ... how big is the pie for LEO satellite networks? At what point is the market congested to a point where even a successfully operating Starlink network doesn't bring in a lot of money towards Mars? What would happen to SpaceX then? Or alternatively, if a competitor with an operational network files for bankrupty, writes off its sunk costs overnight and starts charging at running costs?
Is it just my impression, or are both SpaceX and telesat basically tying their future survival to the rocket that launches their constellation becoming operational before their competitor's rocket?
I'll repeat... BFR is fully and rapidly reusable.NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.That's why NG is such a tragic story... Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.
Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...
New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s. Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.
So NG comes to the market as an FH killer, but finds itself basing BFR, which is an entire league above.
So you conjecture, BO can make a whole set of changes, and make NG into a BFR-class (yet much smaller) vehicle. A SFR. (Remember NG lifts off on 7 engines. BFR lifts off on 31 engines of comparable thrust).
But how long will these changes take? another 5-10 years?
What will SpaceX do meanwhile? they'll go to 12 m, or 15, or god knows where.
It takes a lot less conjecture to imagine the latter than it does to imagine the BO-SFR.
There aren't really a lot of attractive roads ahead.
Either keep investing in NG even though the playing field is vastly different, or gamble the store on NA now.
None of these has a high probability of success.
There is no current demand for size payloads BFR can launch. NG is better suited for current launch market, even then it has more capability than most customers need.
To me one factor that is inhibiting the advance of spaceflight is the artificial constraints keeping a revolutionary service provider from gobbling up the entire launch market. And by this I mean the government interests that keep China using Chinese rockets, Europe using Ariane, and the US keeping ULA alive and gifting Blue Origin unnecessary contracts to develop New Glenn.
In a perfectly competitive market, SpaceX would already have gobbled up pretty much ALL of the government launch contracts in the world, instantly gifting them the type of revenues to accelerate their Starship R&D program.
But, because the US government wants redundancy in the launch provider market, they are artificially keeping more players alive, when pretty much the whole pie is required for SpaceX to properly fund the giant leap forward that is the BFR/Starship program.
As a result, SpaceX is forced to look into Moon tourism, Starlink and other fanciful revenue sources, when they have already done enough with F9 and Falcon Heavy to capture pretty much 90% of the current world market.
So as I have said before, BO and others are not advancing our expansion into space. They are hindering it, by diluting SpaceX's revenue sources, and therefore the speed of SpaceX's development program.
Once we get to Starship, the entire paradigm changes with full, rapid reusability. But it is the intermediate funding gap that keeps progress slower than it could be.
If Starship can launch anything that New Glenn can launch for 10% cheaper, and at virtually any launch cadence required, does that not kill New Glenn? And I use 10% because while Starship can likely launch for something like 80% cheaper, why should SpaceX cut their profit any more than they have to while still undercutting the competition?
To me one factor that is inhibiting the advance of spaceflight is the artificial constraints keeping a revolutionary service provider from gobbling up the entire launch market. And by this I mean the government interests that keep China using Chinese rockets, Europe using Ariane, and the US keeping ULA alive and gifting Blue Origin unnecessary contracts to develop New Glenn.
In a perfectly competitive market, SpaceX would already have gobbled up pretty much ALL of the government launch contracts in the world, instantly gifting them the type of revenues to accelerate their Starship R&D program.
But, because the US government wants redundancy in the launch provider market, they are artificially keeping more players alive, when pretty much the whole pie is required for SpaceX to properly fund the giant leap forward that is the BFR/Starship program.
As a result, SpaceX is forced to look into Moon tourism, Starlink and other fanciful revenue sources, when they have already done enough with F9 and Falcon Heavy to capture pretty much 90% of the current world market.
So as I have said before, BO and others are not advancing our expansion into space. They are hindering it, by diluting SpaceX's revenue sources, and therefore the speed of SpaceX's development program.
Once we get to Starship, the entire paradigm changes with full, rapid reusability. But it is the intermediate funding gap that keeps progress slower than it could be.
To me one factor that is inhibiting the advance of spaceflight is the artificial constraints keeping a revolutionary service provider from gobbling up the entire launch market. And by this I mean the government interests that keep China using Chinese rockets, Europe using Ariane, and the US keeping ULA alive and gifting Blue Origin unnecessary contracts to develop New Glenn.
In a perfectly competitive market, SpaceX would already have gobbled up pretty much ALL of the government launch contracts in the world, instantly gifting them the type of revenues to accelerate their Starship R&D program.
But, because the US government wants redundancy in the launch provider market, they are artificially keeping more players alive, when pretty much the whole pie is required for SpaceX to properly fund the giant leap forward that is the BFR/Starship program.
As a result, SpaceX is forced to look into Moon tourism, Starlink and other fanciful revenue sources, when they have already done enough with F9 and Falcon Heavy to capture pretty much 90% of the current world market.
So as I have said before, BO and others are not advancing our expansion into space. They are hindering it, by diluting SpaceX's revenue sources, and therefore the speed of SpaceX's development program.
Once we get to Starship, the entire paradigm changes with full, rapid reusability. But it is the intermediate funding gap that keeps progress slower than it could be.
Extreme views like this are scary, dangerous and just wishful thinking.
I personally think Blue Origin will have a larger long term impact on advancing our expansion in space than Space x will. I think most would prefer Blue's aim of millions of people living and working in space (orbital space settlements, Heavy industry in space, Lunar colony and preservation of earth ) over a self sustaining but isolated, far away, and possibly underground mars settlement.
Thats my opinion on the point of expansion into space.
But, because the US government wants redundancy in the launch provider market, they are artificially keeping more players alive, when pretty much the whole pie is required for SpaceX to properly fund the giant leap forward that is the BFR/Starship program.
As a result, SpaceX is forced to look into Moon tourism, Starlink and other fanciful revenue sources, when they have already done enough with F9 and Falcon Heavy to capture pretty much 90% of the current world market.
So as I have said before, BO and others are not advancing our expansion into space. They are hindering it, by diluting SpaceX's revenue sources, and therefore the speed of SpaceX's development program.
Once we get to Starship, the entire paradigm changes with full, rapid reusability. But it is the intermediate funding gap that keeps progress slower than it could be.
Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.I'll repeat... BFR is fully and rapidly reusable.NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.That's why NG is such a tragic story... Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.
Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...
New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s. Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.
So NG comes to the market as an FH killer, but finds itself basing BFR, which is an entire league above.
So you conjecture, BO can make a whole set of changes, and make NG into a BFR-class (yet much smaller) vehicle. A SFR. (Remember NG lifts off on 7 engines. BFR lifts off on 31 engines of comparable thrust).
But how long will these changes take? another 5-10 years?
What will SpaceX do meanwhile? they'll go to 12 m, or 15, or god knows where.
It takes a lot less conjecture to imagine the latter than it does to imagine the BO-SFR.
There aren't really a lot of attractive roads ahead.
Either keep investing in NG even though the playing field is vastly different, or gamble the store on NA now.
None of these has a high probability of success.
There is no current demand for size payloads BFR can launch. NG is better suited for current launch market, even then it has more capability than most customers need.
NG isn't.
If BO wants to develop NG to be an SFR, it'll be too small a launcher, and 5-10 years to late.
Yes, NG is good enough for *current* demand, and can compete with "current* launchers... But that's just not good enough.
This topic is really going downhill. I can't speak for everybody, but stating that a certain company is hindering space progress by simply existing is an argument that is, I'm afraid, pretty dubious. That's because, if you read the title of the page you are on, you will see that it is not the subject of the conversation.
Fair point. I guess my concern is that the two approaches should not end up fighting for scraps of a rather small launch market, resulting in neither company achieving their respective lofty goals, but instead forcing both to settle for lower, less ambitious goals due to budget constraints brought about by the competition of the other.Blue does not have a budget constraint thanks to Bezos' pocket. It is SpaceX who have budget constraints. If 1st Starship blows up then that could well be the end of SpaceX. if the 1st NG or NA blows up then Blue will still likely have enough funding to recover. Blue are in a much better position to ride out the storm than SpaceX.
Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.I'll repeat... BFR is fully and rapidly reusable.NG is smashing FH out of the park on launch contracts. Looks like Blue have hit a home run with the 7m fairing. Telesat explicitly said they chose NG because of it's 7m fairing. Looks like Blue's approach is a winner by offering more payload volume capability than anyone else can currently offer.That's why NG is such a tragic story... Arriving to market only to realize it came equipped to do battle with the wrong rocket.
If SH/SS fails then Blue will do the mopping up.
NG will launch only leftovers, which will limit its flight rate.
Vulcan and A6 - yes, they are not even tragic... They are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...
New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s. Particularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.
So NG comes to the market as an FH killer, but finds itself basing BFR, which is an entire league above.
So you conjecture, BO can make a whole set of changes, and make NG into a BFR-class (yet much smaller) vehicle. A SFR. (Remember NG lifts off on 7 engines. BFR lifts off on 31 engines of comparable thrust).
But how long will these changes take? another 5-10 years?
What will SpaceX do meanwhile? they'll go to 12 m, or 15, or god knows where.
It takes a lot less conjecture to imagine the latter than it does to imagine the BO-SFR.
There aren't really a lot of attractive roads ahead.
Either keep investing in NG even though the playing field is vastly different, or gamble the store on NA now.
None of these has a high probability of success.
There is no current demand for size payloads BFR can launch. NG is better suited for current launch market, even then it has more capability than most customers need.
NG isn't.
If BO wants to develop NG to be an SFR, it'll be too small a launcher, and 5-10 years to late.
Yes, NG is good enough for *current* demand, and can compete with "current* launchers... But that's just not good enough.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
Fair point. I guess my concern is that the two approaches should not end up fighting for scraps of a rather small launch market, resulting in neither company achieving their respective lofty goals, but instead forcing both to settle for lower, less ambitious goals due to budget constraints brought about by the competition of the other.
Fair point. I guess my concern is that the two approaches should not end up fighting for scraps of a rather small launch market, resulting in neither company achieving their respective lofty goals, but instead forcing both to settle for lower, less ambitious goals due to budget constraints brought about by the competition of the other.
Your previous comment seemed fanatical, but this comment is more reasonable. I think we all share the same sentiment that hopefully there is a large enough revenue pool for both companies to be successful, and usher in a new space society. I am confident Space X and Blue Origin will succeed and i wish both of them success. Both companies will help us become a space faring civilisation.
If, maybe, perhaps, whenever... Can you please keep this rubbish amazing people stuff off this forum. It really, really drags it down and does a disservice to the great quality on this site.Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
If you have an argument to make based on facts or sound reasoning then by all means say it, but keep this noise away from here.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
If, maybe, perhaps, whenever... Can you please keep this rubbish amazing people stuff off this forum. It really, really drags it down and does a disservice to the great quality on this site.Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
If you have an argument to make based on facts or sound reasoning then by all means say it, but keep this noise away from here.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
If, maybe, perhaps, whenever... Can you please keep this rubbish amazing people stuff off this forum. It really, really drags it down and does a disservice to the great quality on this site.Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
If you have an argument to make based on facts or sound reasoning then by all means say it, but keep this noise away from here.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
The above is not really based on the merits of Blue's approach, but rather on their access to the generosity of a rich donor. Something that would presumably exist no matter what approach they took.
Fair point. I guess my concern is that the two approaches should not end up fighting for scraps of a rather small launch market, resulting in neither company achieving their respective lofty goals, but instead forcing both to settle for lower, less ambitious goals due to budget constraints brought about by the competition of the other.
Your previous comment seemed fanatical, but this comment is more reasonable. I think we all share the same sentiment that hopefully there is a large enough revenue pool for both companies to be successful, and usher in a new space society. I am confident Space X and Blue Origin will succeed and i wish both of them success. Both companies will help us become a space faring civilisation.
My comments are consistent with one another, and fanatical about only one thing: Getting to a fully reusable rocket in the shortest amount of time. So to me the question is simple: How can that goal be achieved in the shortest span of time?
And the answer is that if it must be funded from launch revenues, then the limited size of the launch market means that more competition in the short term leaves less money for each competitor and therefore a smaller R&D budget. Meaning a longer wait for the advent of fully reusable rockets.
Not complicated at all. Just logical.
That's a good point. If SpaceX had the funding of Blue, or Blue had the tech and design of BFR, which would we think would be better?
No doubt Blue is in the great position of having a deep bank account, whereas the management in SpaceX have to scramble and get creative in terms of funding BFR until Starlink comes online and starts generating income.If, maybe, perhaps, whenever... Can you please keep this rubbish amazing people stuff off this forum. It really, really drags it down and does a disservice to the great quality on this site.Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
If you have an argument to make based on facts or sound reasoning then by all means say it, but keep this noise away from here.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
The above is not really based on the merits of Blue's approach, but rather on their access to the generosity of a rich donor. Something that would presumably exist no matter what approach they took.
Fair point. I guess my concern is that the two approaches should not end up fighting for scraps of a rather small launch market, resulting in neither company achieving their respective lofty goals, but instead forcing both to settle for lower, less ambitious goals due to budget constraints brought about by the competition of the other.
Your previous comment seemed fanatical, but this comment is more reasonable. I think we all share the same sentiment that hopefully there is a large enough revenue pool for both companies to be successful, and usher in a new space society. I am confident Space X and Blue Origin will succeed and i wish both of them success. Both companies will help us become a space faring civilisation.
My comments are consistent with one another, and fanatical about only one thing: Getting to a fully reusable rocket in the shortest amount of time. So to me the question is simple: How can that goal be achieved in the shortest span of time?
And the answer is that if it must be funded from launch revenues, then the limited size of the launch market means that more competition in the short term leaves less money for each competitor and therefore a smaller R&D budget. Meaning a longer wait for the advent of fully reusable rockets.
Not complicated at all. Just logical.
Your comments are becoming bad for this discussion now. Im going to just focus on the discussion title topic after this. You have admitted you are fanatical, so there is no point in me debating your views any further than this.
In one comment you say "So as I have said before, BO and others are not advancing our expansion into space. They are hindering it, by diluting SpaceX's revenue sources".
In another you say "I guess my concern is that the two approaches should not end up fighting for scraps of a rather small launch market, resulting in neither company achieving their respective lofty goals"
You first started being only concerned about Space x, Blue Origin in your eyes is not advancing space expansion. Space x has a monopoly on advancing our expansion into space "Claiming space x will ". Then you change your views and say you are concerned about both companies.
1) Above shows that your comments are clearly not consistent.
2) You state "But, because the US government wants redundancy in the launch provider market, they are artificially keeping more players alive, when pretty much the whole pie is required for SpaceX to properly fund the giant leap forward that is the BFR/Starship program." - The US government is not keeping Blue Origin alive, there is no evidence that the whole pie is required for space to properly fund BFR and literally no one at Space x has ever stated that the whole pie is needed to fund BFR. Even Hans at Space x stated "You need to [try to not] get money from the government" in regards to funding BFR, but i guess you know more than Elon and Hans.
3) You state "In a perfectly competitive market, SpaceX would already have gobbled up pretty much ALL of the government launch contracts in the world" please prove how you know this? and how Space x will make profit in this hypothetical perfect competitive market.
Your comments were not entirely consistent or logical. To top it all off, you literally have zero facts that prove your bold claim - "Starship will make (orbital space settlements, Heavy industry in space, Lunar colony and preservation of earth) possible even sooner than BO’s gradatim approach would allow - even while striving for Mars at the same time."
Anyway lets get back to their respecting business strategies. Apologies to everyone else in the thread. I should not have entertained this.
Thankyou M.E.T for your contribution. I think your discussion with Johnlandish aired some important questions, like how much of the launch market revenue is needed etc, and make a useful contribution to the topic. Many of us are passionate about SX etc. Thinking outside the box is one of EM's main strategies (IMO). I however am excited about BO and the others as well, and hope that in a few years the multiplicity of providers will encourage a wider range of space customers, than a single highly funded push to Mars.
The above is not really based on the merits of Blue's approach, but rather on their access to the generosity of a rich donor. Something that would presumably exist no matter what approach they took.
That's a good point. If SpaceX had the funding of Blue, or Blue had the tech and design of BFR, which would we think would be better?
No doubt Blue is in the great position of having a deep bank account, whereas the management in SpaceX have to scramble and get creative in terms of funding BFR until Starlink comes online and starts generating income.
Yes, that's kind of at the heart of the point I was trying to make. Which is that SpaceX's approach is constrained only by funding limits. If they had $5bn lying around to dedicate to BFR development for the last 3 years or so, Starship would probably be flying to the moon by the time New Glenn becomes operational.
And that would be a great thing for everyone who wanted cheap access to space. And would pretty much immediately make New Glenn obsolete, just based on comparative cost/kg to orbit.
In any case, in the absence of that pot of money, the path forward becomes much more tenuous and risky. But it is clearly the right path, because BFR really does shift the paradigm completely. But to get there, there is probably a missing $5bn gap to be filled in various creative ways.
Meanwhile I have no doubt BO will finish New Glenn. It would just be a pity if in doing so they make it more difficult for SpaceX to fill that $5bn hole. Because without BFR/Starship, I think we are looking at a much, much slower transition to fully and rapidly reusable rockets.
Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS.
SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS...
...which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel.
SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues.
Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX.
If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust.
In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
QuoteIf Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust.
WHAT????
OK, this is crazy talk. SpaceX gets $0 in revenue from Starlink, so if the program shuts down they don't lose any revenue, they actually GAIN money back from not having to spend money on Starlink anymore. The commercial launch market STILL will be launching on SpaceX just as much as they have, especially since New Glenn won't be launching for many more years to come.
If Starship works, Blue can copy it. They already have the long lead items they need, like co-located manufacturing and launch facility and restartable, reusable, deep-throttling propulsion.New Glenn is pretty well positioned to be converted to full reuse and compete with BFR, should that become necessary in the mid-to-late 2020s.
What evidence do we have for that, or is that speculation on your part?
If you are speculating, please describe what led you to believe that.QuoteParticularly if Blue can squeeze a little more thrust out of BE-4, stretch both stages, and add a 3rd BE-3 to the upper stage for landings.
So far we know that SpaceX has given up on recovering the Falcon 9 upper stage, and instead is focused on creating a full-sized spaceship that can carry cargo to space and then land cargo on a wide variety of planets.
What makes you think a 2nd stage can be built to effectively do what SpaceX thinks a whole spaceship is needed to do?
Fair point. I guess my concern is that the two approaches should not end up fighting for scraps of a rather small launch market, resulting in neither company achieving their respective lofty goals, but instead forcing both to settle for lower, less ambitious goals due to budget constraints brought about by the competition of the other.
Your previous comment seemed fanatical, but this comment is more reasonable. I think we all share the same sentiment that hopefully there is a large enough revenue pool for both companies to be successful, and usher in a new space society. I am confident Space X and Blue Origin will succeed and i wish both of them success. Both companies will help us become a space faring civilisation.
If, maybe, perhaps, whenever... Can you please keep this rubbish amazing people stuff off this forum. It really, really drags it down and does a disservice to the great quality on this site.Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
If you have an argument to make based on facts or sound reasoning then by all means say it, but keep this noise away from here.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
The above is not really based on the merits of Blue's approach, but rather on their access to the generosity of a rich donor. Something that would presumably exist no matter what approach they took.
...
Who think like this, really underestimate the value of this market in the present and especially in the future...
If I remember correctly, Musk said he needed $5 billion to complete development of BFR/BFS. This was before he changed to stainless steel and renamed it Starship and Superheavy. He said stainless would be cheaper and faster to develop. So he may have SS/SH ready in a couple of years. If he needs money he can always sell off some of his Tesla stock and put it in SpaceX. He is also starting Starlink which will make billions when completed. He will need Starship cargo version to get the 4,400 satellites up and running.
Then with Bezos upcoming divorce, we still don't know how that is going to work out. Bezos net worth is not all cash. He was putting $1 billion a year into Blue, but can he continue to do that with half his net worth? It may only be $500 million. At some point Blue is going to have to make a profit. SpaceX does make a profit.
There is no current demand for size payloads BFR can launch. NG is better suited for current launch market, even then it has more capability than most customers need.
Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
...
Without of 100 Million of dollars of Elon Musk, put in SpaceX in the beginning, this company never exist...The ideas without money, are nothing...
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
If Starship works, Blue can copy it. They already have the long lead items they need, like co-located manufacturing and launch facility and restartable, reusable, deep-throttling propulsion.
New Glenn is not that much smaller than BFR, and downrange landing and LH2 upper stage partially makes up for the difference in liftoff mass. It's big enough to copy the Starship/SuperHeavy architecture and still get a large commsat to GTO or a big chunk of a constellation to LEO in one launch with full reuse.
New Glenn is a huge rocket.
WHAT????
OK, this is crazy talk. SpaceX gets $0 in revenue from Starlink, so if the program shuts down they don't lose any revenue, they actually GAIN money back from not having to spend money on Starlink anymore. The commercial launch market STILL will be launching on SpaceX just as much as they have, especially since New Glenn won't be launching for many more years to come.
There is no substantial downside for a rapidly reusable rocket being larger than necessary. The entire argument "X is too big to launch that" is asinine. If they can get rapid reuse working, BFR is the best way to launch anything. Including launching just a single cubesat at a time in the massive rocket. The only thing being larger means is higher fuel costs, and the fuel costs of BFR have been projected to be ~$150k.
Even assuming that NA will be a substantially better rocket, that's assuming SpaceX will stop development after BFR first launches. Just as a hint, Ariane 6 was developed to compete against non-reusable F9 (and turned out to be basically uncompetitive against reusable F9), and NG was designed to compete against reusable F9 (and will probably turn out basically uncompetitive against BFR). Betting SpaceX to be sitting on their laurels and doing nothing new is IMHO a bad bet.
...
Without of 100 Million of dollars of Elon Musk, put in SpaceX in the beginning, this company never exist...The ideas without money, are nothing...
Right... and companies without continuing funding (from sales-revenue or investment) eventually fade to nothing. SpaceX has theirs, some from ongoing investment and some from ongoing revenues. Blue has theirs, mostly from the founder's ongoing investment at this time, presumably more from revenues in the future. Blue's path is a bit unusual only in that the primary investor is a single individual--but not that unusual; plenty examples of other startups which have taken a similar path.
My point was ...I think we all understand how SpaceX and Blue got started and where their funding is coming from (at least at present). What does that have to do with their respective business model-strategy and why one might be preferable to the other?
New Glenn is huge, but its first stage has only 25% more thrust than the initial versions of Starship, and less than 25% of the design thrust of the full-up 31-engine Super Heavy. It's a lot smaller.
As currently designed I think it may be able to provide some performance competition to Starship/Super Heavy due to the much lighter upper stage, but I think going to a mini-Starship style upper stage would really limit its capabilities in comparison to what SpaceX would have on the table.
And Blue, being Blue, will take forever to develop NA. By the time NA flies SuperHeavy/StarShip will have a decade of flight history and refinements. I think Blue's infinite money is a real threat to SpaceX eventually but I don't assume that threat will materialize anytime soon. If SpaceX gets to full reuse before Blue then SpaceX will be in a pretty good position.If, maybe, perhaps, whenever... Can you please keep this rubbish amazing people stuff off this forum. It really, really drags it down and does a disservice to the great quality on this site.Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
If you have an argument to make based on facts or sound reasoning then by all means say it, but keep this noise away from here.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
Maybe 0$ revenue they lost, but two things:
1-All the money they lost, because they spend in the development of Starlink... if this constellation don't work.
2-Remember a lot of credits, they have SpaceX are coming in the valuation they have NOW, and that valuation coming in part in the "promise" of a successful Starlink...
IF Starlink fail, the valuation and the credits for SpaceX will face a real challenge...
... IF Starlink fail, the valuation and the credits for SpaceX will face a real challenge...If you are referring to tax credits, you should do more research because in that context what you have stated makes no sense.
Their valuation has nothing to do with how profitable they are. Valuation, or perceived value of the company, only affects how equity is determined in future investments. Again, this has no effect on revenue.
... IF Starlink fail, the valuation and the credits for SpaceX will face a real challenge...If you are referring to tax credits, you should do more research because in that context what you have stated makes no sense.
Maybe 0$ revenue they lost, but two things:
1-All the money they lost, because they spend in the development of Starlink... if this constellation don't work.
R&D that they get a tax write-off for. Stopping development on something that doesn't provide revenue does not stop the revenue from your existing customers though, so this is false logic.
R&D that they get a tax write-off for. Stopping development on something that doesn't provide revenue does not stop the revenue from your existing customers though, so this is false logic.
I was talking about her factory for make the new satellites of Starlink, the new employees they hired for this, and maybe the launches between 500 and 2000 Starlink satellites (example)....if they don't complete the constellation and don't make profit with this, all this division are loss...
If, maybe, perhaps, whenever... Can you please keep this rubbish amazing people stuff off this forum. It really, really drags it down and does a disservice to the great quality on this site.Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS. SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel. SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues. Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX. If Starlink fails to get off the ground within the next few years then SpaceX may go bust. In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.
If you have an argument to make based on facts or sound reasoning then by all means say it, but keep this noise away from here.
...Blue will have NA which will be fully and rapidly reusable out sometime in the 2nd half of the 2020's and will smash SH/SS out of the park. Then Blue could be dominant by the end of the 2020's with SpaceX possibly going under.
BO’s funding is at the whim of one individual. That is not as secure as you claim. Because it’s one individual - who’s human, who has messy divorces (read: divorces), who can experience changes in priorities over time.
What if Bezos, let’s say, sees all of a sudden a 60 billion dollar personal loss? Perhaps the thing he’s into today becomes less meaningful in a new light?
Amazon is a business - BO is a hobby/current passion. One that costs a gigantic amount of $$$. They’ve not even seen orbit.
BO’s funding is at the whim of one individual. That is not as secure as you claim. Because it’s one individual - who’s human, who has messy divorces (read: divorces), who can experience changes in priorities over time.
What if Bezos, let’s say, sees all of a sudden a 60 billion dollar personal loss? Perhaps the thing he’s into today becomes less meaningful in a new light?
Amazon is a business - BO is a hobby/current passion. One that costs a gigantic amount of $$$. They’ve not even seen orbit.
I'm not one to say that Bezos's billions make Blue's dominance (or even success) inevitable, but it seems really unlikely that he'll lose interest, even in light of his divorce. He talked about O'Neillian space colonization in his high school valedictorian speech, for goodness' sake.
Using the entire launch market revenue towards going to Mars is repeating the same mistake as going to the moon on 5% of GDP.
Amount was never the problem. Politics was and remains the problem anywhere tax dollars are involved in something. And it will become even more of a problem, not less of a problem, in the coming years. Depending on certain things with regard to the fed and over-all monetary policy, it may become a very very big problem, the type of problem that kills all discretionary spending AND non-critical defense spending. Counting on tax dollars to motivate future programs is a non-starter. Morally and ethically speaking should the government be leading the way to deep space and a Mars colony effort? Absolutely. Realistically will they? Not likely.Using the entire launch market revenue towards going to Mars is repeating the same mistake as going to the moon on 5% of GDP.
Myth. Apollo's maximum budget was $2.97B in 1966. GDP was $813.4B. That gives a percentage of 0.37%. The US was hardly touching the throttle. That amount today is $22.47B in 2017 for a GDP of $19,485.4B, or only 0.12%. The US only needs to blip the throttle and it can be back to the Moon anytime it wants. Mars is just a couple a blips further away.
https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1966
Spacex and BFR is funded by investors not Elon's private wealth. They will be looking for return on $Bs that costs to build BFR. Forget $5m launch even at $50m a launch its going to take a long time to recover R&D and make significant return on investment.BO’s funding is at the whim of one individual. That is not as secure as you claim. Because it’s one individual - who’s human, who has messy divorces (read: divorces), who can experience changes in priorities over time.
What if Bezos, let’s say, sees all of a sudden a 60 billion dollar personal loss? Perhaps the thing he’s into today becomes less meaningful in a new light?
Amazon is a business - BO is a hobby/current passion. One that costs a gigantic amount of $$$. They’ve not even seen orbit.
I'm not one to say that Bezos's billions make Blue's dominance (or even success) inevitable, but it seems really unlikely that he'll lose interest, even in light of his divorce. He talked about O'Neillian space colonization in his high school valedictorian speech, for goodness' sake.
What if JB sees that NG will arrive to market after SH/SS, and that SpaceX cadence of operations will just continue to widen the gap since they'll be able to develop faster based on increased revenue, and more importantly, on increased experience?
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.
Airspace restrictions will limit BFR to about dozen flights a year, assuming it can find that many paying customers. Starlink doesn't count as it internal to SpaceX.
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.This is dependent on Starlink being successful which is far from a given. If Starlink fails and/or SpaceX runs out of money before they can complete Starlink then they may not even get SS v1 off the ground by the time NA arrives. SpaceX's future is far from certain because their future dev. is dependent on Starlink providing them with the required revenue. Currently Starlink is a huge money sink not a source. OTOH, Blue does not even need to raise revenue to be able to afford NA dev. even if it needs a new 1st stage engine even if Bezos were to lose half his net worth. $50 billion is plenty to dev. NA and it's launch pad with. Blue are already getting outside funding in the form of US Air Force contracts and customers for NG.
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.This is dependent on Starlink being successful which is far from a given. If Starlink fails and/or SpaceX runs out of money before they can complete Starlink then they may not even get SS v1 off the ground by the time NA arrives. SpaceX's future is far from certain because their future dev. is dependent on Starlink providing them with the required revenue. Currently Starlink is a huge money sink not a source. OTOH, Blue does not even need to raise revenue to be able to afford NA dev. even if it needs a new 1st stage engine even if Bezos were to lose half his net worth. $50 billion is plenty to dev. NA and it's launch pad with. Blue are already getting outside funding in the form of US Air Force contracts and customers for NG.
SpaceX's approach to the future is far riskier than Blue's due to funding.
Because Blue decided to take a slow laid back approach to dev. while SpaceX needed to get to orbit ASAP in order to make revenue. Stratolaunch is on the brink because Paul Allen passed away. Blue will now have to pick up the pace in order for them to fulfill their launch contracts. Blue have been hiring rapidly recently and they may be doing much more now than we are all lead to believe due to their secretive nature.Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.This is dependent on Starlink being successful which is far from a given. If Starlink fails and/or SpaceX runs out of money before they can complete Starlink then they may not even get SS v1 off the ground by the time NA arrives. SpaceX's future is far from certain because their future dev. is dependent on Starlink providing them with the required revenue. Currently Starlink is a huge money sink not a source. OTOH, Blue does not even need to raise revenue to be able to afford NA dev. even if it needs a new 1st stage engine even if Bezos were to lose half his net worth. $50 billion is plenty to dev. NA and it's launch pad with. Blue are already getting outside funding in the form of US Air Force contracts and customers for NG.
SpaceX's approach to the future is far riskier than Blue's due to funding.
Stratolaunch had practically unlimited funding. So does Bigellow.
So do almost all major government-based launchers
All we get out of them is long development times and stasis. And true, they usually never die either. But in a competitive world, that's not considered "success".
What about all the other examples?Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?Because Blue decided to take a slow laid back approach to dev. while SpaceX needed to get to orbit ASAP in order to make revenue. Stratolaunch is on the brink because Paul Allen passed away. Blue will now have to pick up the pace in order for them to fulfill their launch contracts. Blue have been hiring rapidly recently and they may be doing much more now than we are all lead to believe due to their secretive nature.
Stratolaunch had practically unlimited funding. So does Bigellow.
So do almost all major government-based launchers
All we get out of them is long development times and stasis. And true, they usually never die either. But in a competitive world, that's not considered "success".
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?
Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos has invested at least half a billion dollars of his own money into Blue Origin, his spaceflight venture, a company official said July 17.https://spacenews.com/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million/
Airspace restrictions will limit BFR to about dozen flights a year, assuming it can find that many paying customers.
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?
COTS/CRS. The total amount that Blue Origin had access to between 2000 and 2014 was $500 million (an average funding rate of $35 million per year), essentially the same amount as COTS' NASA contribution (development, not even counting operational flights). The funding rate on an annual basis was a quarter of a CRS flight. Remember, Jeff Bezos wasn't exactly super wealthy in 2000/2001 after the dot com bubble burst. AMZN was trading around $10 a share as opposed to $1600 today. He was wealthier than Musk at that time, but not by a huge amount, and he kept his money in Amazon as opposed to selling everything and putting the money into a rocket company.QuoteAmazon.com founder Jeff Bezos has invested at least half a billion dollars of his own money into Blue Origin, his spaceflight venture, a company official said July 17.https://spacenews.com/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million/
I'll try to get back to "approach".
BO says: Start with unlimited funds, ignore profitability, just develop.
SpX says: Make a revenue generating project and an operational and profitable business, and build on that.
(the reasons why are obvious)
A naive observer would think that the first approach, 20 years later, would show more progress. So far, it has not.
At some point, revenue from approach B might surpass that of approach A. Until such time, only the previous observation is true.
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?
COTS/CRS. The total amount that Blue Origin had access to between 2000 and 2014 was $500 million (an average funding rate of $35 million per year), essentially the same amount as COTS' NASA contribution (development, not even counting operational flights). The funding rate on an annual basis was a quarter of a CRS flight. Remember, Jeff Bezos wasn't exactly super wealthy in 2000/2001 after the dot com bubble burst. AMZN was trading around $10 a share as opposed to $1600 today. He was wealthier than Musk at that time, but not by a huge amount, and he kept his money in Amazon as opposed to selling everything and putting the money into a rocket company.QuoteAmazon.com founder Jeff Bezos has invested at least half a billion dollars of his own money into Blue Origin, his spaceflight venture, a company official said July 17.https://spacenews.com/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million/
So if they had access to the same amount of money, how come their set of accomplishments is so different?
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.This is dependent on Starlink being successful which is far from a given. If Starlink fails and/or SpaceX runs out of money before they can complete Starlink then they may not even get SS v1 off the ground by the time NA arrives. SpaceX's future is far from certain because their future dev. is dependent on Starlink providing them with the required revenue. Currently Starlink is a huge money sink not a source. OTOH, Blue does not even need to raise revenue to be able to afford NA dev. even if it needs a new 1st stage engine even if Bezos were to lose half his net worth. $50 billion is plenty to dev. NA and it's launch pad with. Blue are already getting outside funding in the form of US Air Force contracts and customers for NG.
SpaceX's approach to the future is far riskier than Blue's due to funding.
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.This is dependent on Starlink being successful which is far from a given. If Starlink fails and/or SpaceX runs out of money before they can complete Starlink then they may not even get SS v1 off the ground by the time NA arrives. SpaceX's future is far from certain because their future dev. is dependent on Starlink providing them with the required revenue. Currently Starlink is a huge money sink not a source. OTOH, Blue does not even need to raise revenue to be able to afford NA dev. even if it needs a new 1st stage engine even if Bezos were to lose half his net worth. $50 billion is plenty to dev. NA and it's launch pad with. Blue are already getting outside funding in the form of US Air Force contracts and customers for NG.
SpaceX's approach to the future is far riskier than Blue's due to funding.
Spacex's approach to the future is only riskier if you believe Jeff Bezos is immortal.
That's a possibility. But we don't know. What we do know is that spacex has proven that there is enough demand for their products to keep the company afloat. Blue hasn't done that yet. So right now, Blue's future is far more tenuous than Spacex's. I do hope both succeed.By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.This is dependent on Starlink being successful which is far from a given. If Starlink fails and/or SpaceX runs out of money before they can complete Starlink then they may not even get SS v1 off the ground by the time NA arrives. SpaceX's future is far from certain because their future dev. is dependent on Starlink providing them with the required revenue. Currently Starlink is a huge money sink not a source. OTOH, Blue does not even need to raise revenue to be able to afford NA dev. even if it needs a new 1st stage engine even if Bezos were to lose half his net worth. $50 billion is plenty to dev. NA and it's launch pad with. Blue are already getting outside funding in the form of US Air Force contracts and customers for NG.
SpaceX's approach to the future is far riskier than Blue's due to funding.
Spacex's approach to the future is only riskier if you believe Jeff Bezos is immortal.
I don't know how such things work in the US, but elsewhere you can leave some of your assets to a trust on death. Given Bezos is serious about Blue's mission, I'd expect that he's made suitable arrangements.
I don't know how such things work in the US, but elsewhere you can leave some of your assets to a trust on death. Given Bezos is serious about Blue's mission, I'd expect that he's made suitable arrangements.
What about all the other examples?Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?Because Blue decided to take a slow laid back approach to dev. while SpaceX needed to get to orbit ASAP in order to make revenue. Stratolaunch is on the brink because Paul Allen passed away. Blue will now have to pick up the pace in order for them to fulfill their launch contracts. Blue have been hiring rapidly recently and they may be doing much more now than we are all lead to believe due to their secretive nature.
Stratolaunch had practically unlimited funding. So does Bigellow.
So do almost all major government-based launchers
All we get out of them is long development times and stasis. And true, they usually never die either. But in a competitive world, that's not considered "success".
20 years into it, there's a whole generation of engineers at BO that have never seen anything launch to orbit
Oh, and secretive nature? Why? To keep SpaceX in their state of slow progress?
When BO had something to show, they did. Where is NG?
20 years into it, there's a whole generation of engineers at BO that have never seen anything launch to orbit
I don't know how such things work in the US, but elsewhere you can leave some of your assets to a trust on death. Given Bezos is serious about Blue's mission, I'd expect that he's made suitable arrangements.
In 2021, no 2031, no in a future...NO in only two years...I feel like I have to periodically come here just to remind this, because it seems to me that there's a reality distortion field that periodically comes back in this FH vs. NG vs. Starship discussion:
At in that time, maybe BO is the first company to open a new market with the tourism suborbital...that is something...and is new revenue...
Where is the F9 full reusable, with second stage included?
Where is the Red Dragon?
Where is the Moon travel with the Dragon and Falcon?
All that was promised of SpaceX than never came true...
The FH, was promise for 2013...and in 2018 was her first launch, and don't launched yet a commercial satellite...
The people are talking like SH/SS are sure they go to be in 2021 o something like that...the true is we don't know...
It's quite possible the NG compete vs F9/FH for a few years, until we see the SH/SS...and we don't know, if with all the new factories and new employees of BO, if they start at least investing, in investigation for the NA...
Someone mentioned New Glenn delivering 25% more payload than Falcon Heavy with full reuse. I though it was about the same payload (40 tons), but New Glenn's fairing has 25% larger internal volume. Does anybody know for sure? Then which would be cheaper to launch for the same payload? SpaceX could build a larger fairing.
Speculation, would New Armstrong be a single stick rocket? or a 3 core heavy version of New Glenn? Seems like SpaceX had problems developing Falcon Heavy because the center core had to be reinforced.
When these questions are answered, then we may can see which business strategy is better. SpaceX is going to depend on launches for cash, while Blue so far, has depended on deep pockets.
Well my work day is starting... I think you can answer this one yourself.What about all the other examples?Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?Because Blue decided to take a slow laid back approach to dev. while SpaceX needed to get to orbit ASAP in order to make revenue. Stratolaunch is on the brink because Paul Allen passed away. Blue will now have to pick up the pace in order for them to fulfill their launch contracts. Blue have been hiring rapidly recently and they may be doing much more now than we are all lead to believe due to their secretive nature.
Stratolaunch had practically unlimited funding. So does Bigellow.
So do almost all major government-based launchers
All we get out of them is long development times and stasis. And true, they usually never die either. But in a competitive world, that's not considered "success".
20 years into it, there's a whole generation of engineers at BO that have never seen anything launch to orbit
Oh, and secretive nature? Why? To keep SpaceX in their state of slow progress?
When BO had something to show, they did. Where is NG?
In 2021, no 2031, no in a future...NO in only two years...
At in that time, maybe BO is the first company to open a new market with the tourism suborbital...that is something...and is new revenue...
Where is the F9 full reusable, with second stage included?
Where is the Red Dragon?
Where is the Moon travel with the Dragon and Falcon?
All that was promised of SpaceX than never came true...
The FH, was promise for 2013...and in 2018 was her first launch, and don't launched yet a commercial satellite...
The people are talking like SH/SS are sure they go to be in 2021 o something like that...the true is we don't know...
It's quite possible the NG compete vs F9/FH for a few years, until we see the SH/SS...and we don't know, if with all the new factories and new employees of BO, if they start at least investing, in investigation for the NA...
Well my work day is starting... I think you can answer this one yourself.What about all the other examples?Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?Because Blue decided to take a slow laid back approach to dev. while SpaceX needed to get to orbit ASAP in order to make revenue. Stratolaunch is on the brink because Paul Allen passed away. Blue will now have to pick up the pace in order for them to fulfill their launch contracts. Blue have been hiring rapidly recently and they may be doing much more now than we are all lead to believe due to their secretive nature.
Stratolaunch had practically unlimited funding. So does Bigellow.
So do almost all major government-based launchers
All we get out of them is long development times and stasis. And true, they usually never die either. But in a competitive world, that's not considered "success".
20 years into it, there's a whole generation of engineers at BO that have never seen anything launch to orbit
Oh, and secretive nature? Why? To keep SpaceX in their state of slow progress?
When BO had something to show, they did. Where is NG?
In 2021, no 2031, no in a future...NO in only two years...
At in that time, maybe BO is the first company to open a new market with the tourism suborbital...that is something...and is new revenue...
Where is the F9 full reusable, with second stage included?
Where is the Red Dragon?
Where is the Moon travel with the Dragon and Falcon?
All that was promised of SpaceX than never came true...
The FH, was promise for 2013...and in 2018 was her first launch, and don't launched yet a commercial satellite...
The people are talking like SH/SS are sure they go to be in 2021 o something like that...the true is we don't know...
It's quite possible the NG compete vs F9/FH for a few years, until we see the SH/SS...and we don't know, if with all the new factories and new employees of BO, if they start at least investing, in investigation for the NA...
Nope. If I were I probably wouldn't be on these forums venting my frustrations... I'd be designing rockets instead..Well my work day is starting... I think you can answer this one yourself.What about all the other examples?Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?Because Blue decided to take a slow laid back approach to dev. while SpaceX needed to get to orbit ASAP in order to make revenue. Stratolaunch is on the brink because Paul Allen passed away. Blue will now have to pick up the pace in order for them to fulfill their launch contracts. Blue have been hiring rapidly recently and they may be doing much more now than we are all lead to believe due to their secretive nature.
Stratolaunch had practically unlimited funding. So does Bigellow.
So do almost all major government-based launchers
All we get out of them is long development times and stasis. And true, they usually never die either. But in a competitive world, that's not considered "success".
20 years into it, there's a whole generation of engineers at BO that have never seen anything launch to orbit
Oh, and secretive nature? Why? To keep SpaceX in their state of slow progress?
When BO had something to show, they did. Where is NG?
In 2021, no 2031, no in a future...NO in only two years...
At in that time, maybe BO is the first company to open a new market with the tourism suborbital...that is something...and is new revenue...
Where is the F9 full reusable, with second stage included?
Where is the Red Dragon?
Where is the Moon travel with the Dragon and Falcon?
All that was promised of SpaceX than never came true...
The FH, was promise for 2013...and in 2018 was her first launch, and don't launched yet a commercial satellite...
The people are talking like SH/SS are sure they go to be in 2021 o something like that...the true is we don't know...
It's quite possible the NG compete vs F9/FH for a few years, until we see the SH/SS...and we don't know, if with all the new factories and new employees of BO, if they start at least investing, in investigation for the NA...
You work for SpaceX?
It's yes nice...believe me , I am fan the space exploration... I want to see in my live, space advanced...
What if JB sees that NG will arrive to market after SH/SS, and that SpaceX cadence of operations will just continue to widen the gap since they'll be able to develop faster based on increased revenue, and more importantly, on increased experience?
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.
Spacex and BFR is funded by investors not Elon's private wealth. They will be looking for return on $Bs that costs to build BFR. Forget $5m launch even at $50m a launch its going to take a long time to recover R&D and make significant return on investment.
SpaceX is funded by people and institutions that believe in its long term mission not people looking for a quick buck. It's a private company and the investors go in eyes wide open that this is a long term endeavor. The investment is for radically lower access to space and as far as I can tell is mostly by "friends" of Musk - Founders Fund is Peter Thiel, Draper Fisher Jurvetson is Peter Jurvetson and Larry Page of Google. The Google and Fidelity investments are probably related to Starlink and BFR is a totally valid investment for Starlink. I have trouble imagining anyone investing in SpaceX that thought the F9/FH were the end game....Spacex and BFR is funded by investors not Elon's private wealth. They will be looking for return on $Bs that costs to build BFR. Forget $5m launch even at $50m a launch its going to take a long time to recover R&D and make significant return on investment.
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.
...
SpaceX is funded by people and institutions that believe in its long term mission not people looking for a quick buck. It's a private company and the investors go in eyes wide open that this is a long term endeavor. The investment is for radically lower access to space and as far as I can tell is mostly by "friends" of Musk - Founders Fund is Peter Thiel...Spacex and BFR is funded by investors not Elon's private wealth. They will be looking for return on $Bs that costs to build BFR. Forget $5m launch even at $50m a launch its going to take a long time to recover R&D and make significant return on investment.
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.
...
I maybe wrong on dozen number but dozens of launches is going cause no end of trouble with ATC and shipping. Unless restrictions are lowered so aircraft and shipping live with higher risk of being hit by debris from exploding LV.Airspace restrictions will limit BFR to about dozen flights a year, assuming it can find that many paying customers.
...
Could you unpack this for us? What precise sequence of thought made you say that? I am honestly quite interested.
The way the legislation works in the US, currently rockets at the major launch sites have unlimited right of way over aircraft. This is why the ATC people gripe about it every now and then. When a rocket wants to launch, they just lose the airspace. And you are saying that BFR will be able to launch less than current launchers because, for some reason, laws are going to be changed to reduce their ability to launch?
I maybe wrong on dozen number but dozens of launches is going cause no end of trouble with ATC and shipping. Unless restrictions are lowered so aircraft and shipping live with higher risk of being hit by debris from exploding LV.
As far as I know, no such "rockets first" restriction is in effect east of Boca Chica though, right? This will affect SpaceX operations.I maybe wrong on dozen number but dozens of launches is going cause no end of trouble with ATC and shipping. Unless restrictions are lowered so aircraft and shipping live with higher risk of being hit by debris from exploding LV.
No, you are right that it will cause problems. What you are wrong about is this being an issue for launching rockets, as opposed to this being an issue for the air traffic and shipping. The airspace east of the cape belongs to rocketry, as set by law. Everyone else is just borrowing it, whenever the rockets don't need it. In order for this to change, the congress would have to pass new laws. And if that ever happens, I think reduced safety areas for vehicles that have sufficiently proven safety records are more likely than the congress choosing to start restricting launches.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.A more apropos comparision might be how many New Armstrong contracts have been let vs SS/SH.
New Glenn:
Eutelsat
MuSpace
Sky Perfect JSAT
OneWeb (5 Launches)
Telesat (Multiple Launches)
Starship/Superheavy:
#DearMoon
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.
New Glenn:
Eutelsat
MuSpace
Sky Perfect JSAT
OneWeb (5 Launches)
Telesat (Multiple Launches)
Starship/Superheavy:
#DearMoon
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.
New Glenn:
Eutelsat
MuSpace
Sky Perfect JSAT
OneWeb (5 Launches)
Telesat (Multiple Launches)
Starship/Superheavy:
#DearMoon
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.
...
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
Falcon Heavy currently has 5 launch contracts: Arabsat, Inmarsat, and Viasat, and STP-2 and AFSPC-52.
The SS/SH will be in a class of its own, and early on likely won't compete directly with either Falcon 9/H or New Glenn - though if successful it will eventually replace both. Which leads me to believe that whatever plans Jeff Bezos had for New Armstrong are being updated to learn from what SpaceX is doing with SS/SH.
While BFR $kg is likely to be lot less than NG, for it to compete against NG it will need to match if for launch cost not $kg. At present there is not demand for payloads that max out either these LVs. Both LVs will be flying light especially for LEO-GTO missions.It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.
...
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
I think it's FAR too early to tell whose business strategy is better, since we're not seeing the operational version of Blue Origin yet, only the pre-business jockeying for customers. And that is influenced by a couple of important factors:
1. Blue Origin might be offering significant discounts for these early customers.
2. The commercial launch market WANTS competition that lowers the overall cost of launching their satellites to space, so of course they are going to push business to Blue Origin - many in the commercial marketplace placed orders with SpaceX before they started launching for the exact same reason.
As to New Glenn, it currently only competes with Falcon Heavy - both are only partially reusable, since they expend their upper stages.
The SS/SH will be in a class of its own, and early on likely won't compete directly with either Falcon 9/H or New Glenn - though if successful it will eventually replace both. Which leads me to believe that whatever plans Jeff Bezos had for New Armstrong are being updated to learn from what SpaceX is doing with SS/SH.
Falcon Heavy currently has 5 launch contracts: Arabsat, Inmarsat, and Viasat, and STP-2 and AFSPC-52.
Add this two more customer, Intelsat and Ovzon for FH...
While BFR $kg is likely to be lot less than NG, for it to compete against NG it will need to match if for launch cost not $kg. At present there is not demand for payloads that max out either these LVs. Both LVs will be flying light especially for LEO-GTO missions.It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.
...
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
I think it's FAR too early to tell whose business strategy is better, since we're not seeing the operational version of Blue Origin yet, only the pre-business jockeying for customers. And that is influenced by a couple of important factors:
1. Blue Origin might be offering significant discounts for these early customers.
2. The commercial launch market WANTS competition that lowers the overall cost of launching their satellites to space, so of course they are going to push business to Blue Origin - many in the commercial marketplace placed orders with SpaceX before they started launching for the exact same reason.
As to New Glenn, it currently only competes with Falcon Heavy - both are only partially reusable, since they expend their upper stages.
The SS/SH will be in a class of its own, and early on likely won't compete directly with either Falcon 9/H or New Glenn - though if successful it will eventually replace both. Which leads me to believe that whatever plans Jeff Bezos had for New Armstrong are being updated to learn from what SpaceX is doing with SS/SH.
Spacex and BFR is funded by investors not Elon's private wealth. They will be looking for return on $Bs that costs to build BFR. Forget $5m launch even at $50m a launch its going to take a long time to recover R&D and make significant return on investment.BO’s funding is at the whim of one individual. That is not as secure as you claim. Because it’s one individual - who’s human, who has messy divorces (read: divorces), who can experience changes in priorities over time.
What if Bezos, let’s say, sees all of a sudden a 60 billion dollar personal loss? Perhaps the thing he’s into today becomes less meaningful in a new light?
Amazon is a business - BO is a hobby/current passion. One that costs a gigantic amount of $$$. They’ve not even seen orbit.
I'm not one to say that Bezos's billions make Blue's dominance (or even success) inevitable, but it seems really unlikely that he'll lose interest, even in light of his divorce. He talked about O'Neillian space colonization in his high school valedictorian speech, for goodness' sake.
What if JB sees that NG will arrive to market after SH/SS, and that SpaceX cadence of operations will just continue to widen the gap since they'll be able to develop faster based on increased revenue, and more importantly, on increased experience?
By the time NA arrives, SpaceX will be on SS v3.... There's only so much that money can buy, as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years of development.
Airspace restrictions will limit BFR to about dozen flights a year, assuming it can find that many paying customers. Starlink doesn't count as it internal to SpaceX.
Airspace restrictions will limit BFR to about dozen flights a year, assuming it can find that many paying customers. Starlink doesn't count as it internal to SpaceX.
... No need to "launch light" except for the development and test flights or specific mission profiles.
SpaceX is already doing ride sharing and multi-manifesting. However, with regard to DOD payloads yes, there may be a need to light launch for those. Hence I said "except for test flights OR specific mission profiles (such as NSS)."... No need to "launch light" except for the development and test flights or specific mission profiles.
Actually, there is need. Dual manifesting adds complexity, both in scheduling and in actually integrating and releasing the payloads. Also, launching a classified payload alongside a commercial one adds security headaches.
That said, Blue is going for dual manifesting as well, so Starship will not really be at a disadvantage in this respect. And as long as Blue is throwing away the upper stage, their per-launch costs are going to be high enough that this won't be an issue.
SpaceX is already doing ride sharing and multi-manifesting. However, with regard to DOD payloads yes, there may be a need to light launch for those. Hence I said "except for test flights OR specific mission profiles (such as NSS)."... No need to "launch light" except for the development and test flights or specific mission profiles.
Actually, there is need. Dual manifesting adds complexity, both in scheduling and in actually integrating and releasing the payloads. Also, launching a classified payload alongside a commercial one adds security headaches.
That said, Blue is going for dual manifesting as well, so Starship will not really be at a disadvantage in this respect. And as long as Blue is throwing away the upper stage, their per-launch costs are going to be high enough that this won't be an issue.
With that said however, SpaceX has also already flown some small government payloads with commercial payloads. Some of this year's flights will do this again. All depends on what the agency/customer wants and the classification level. And the flip side of this coin is if they want a vehicle all to themselves, brand new, they have to pay more. This is how it's been for F9 the same model will apply.
LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.
New Glenn:
Eutelsat
MuSpace
Sky Perfect JSAT
OneWeb (5 Launches)
Telesat (Multiple Launches)
Starship/Superheavy:
#DearMoon
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
SpaceX has only coordinated a few secondaries like the Orbcomm on CRS-1, and the GRACE-FO/Iridium rideshare.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.
New Glenn:
Eutelsat
MuSpace
Sky Perfect JSAT
OneWeb (5 Launches)
Telesat (Multiple Launches)
Starship/Superheavy:
#DearMoon
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
Also, I notice you didn't put Starlink down there. That *much* larger than Telestar and OneWeb and the rest of that combined.
The SS/SH will be in a class of its own, and early on likely won't compete directly with either Falcon 9/H or New Glenn - though if successful it will eventually replace both. Which leads me to believe that whatever plans Jeff Bezos had for New Armstrong are being updated to learn from what SpaceX is doing with SS/SH.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.
New Glenn:
Eutelsat
MuSpace
Sky Perfect JSAT
OneWeb (5 Launches)
Telesat (Multiple Launches)
Starship/Superheavy:
#DearMoon
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
Also, I notice you didn't put Starlink down there. That *much* larger than Telestar and OneWeb and the rest of that combined.
LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack.
How do you figure? By my research, LH2 is about 6 times more expensive by mass, but about 6x less dense. The only way this is the case then is if the upper stage NG H2 tank is as big as the upper and lower stage SS/SH fuel tanks. Eyeballing the LH2 tank suggests about 20 meter high by 7 meter diameter or ~770 cubic meters. The 2017 BFS upper stage methane tank is 240,000 kg of methane or 570 cubic meters. His 2017 powerpoint didn't show the fuel load for the booster, but probably 800,000 kg+ all in or 1900 cubic meters+.
I didn't count internal missions of either company as business because that actually consumes revenue rather than directly producing it. It's essentially like paying yourself! I did not count Blue Moon either for this reason. Blue Origin makes money regardless of whether OneWeb or Telesat are sound businesses by launching sats for them. Having dozens of Starlink launches doesn't actually help SpaceX unless Starlink produces a lot of revenue itself. The business case for internet constellations is far from settled.Whether it is legitimate to count Starlink as not internal depends on how Starlink is funded. There are several schemes (spun out as a separate company, bonds issued that are backed by Starlink revenues, or a number of other schemes) where it's essentially independent.
As for the business case not being clear? I think it's pretty compelling if they can get the tech to work. I look forward to kissing my cable company goodbye.
It remains to be seen whose business strategy is better but as far as launch manifests go, New Glenn is ahead of Starship-Superheavy by a fair bit.Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.
New Glenn:
Eutelsat
MuSpace
Sky Perfect JSAT
OneWeb (5 Launches)
Telesat (Multiple Launches)
Starship/Superheavy:
#DearMoon
In fact correct me if I'm wrong but New Glenn looks to have more contracts than the recently flown Falcon Heavy. The prices being offered for it must be quite attractive.
Also, I notice you didn't put Starlink down there. That *much* larger than Telestar and OneWeb and the rest of that combined.
I didn't count internal missions of either company as business because that actually consumes revenue rather than directly producing it. It's essentially like paying yourself! I did not count Blue Moon either for this reason. Blue Origin makes money regardless of whether OneWeb or Telesat are sound businesses by launching sats for them. Having dozens of Starlink launches doesn't actually help SpaceX unless Starlink produces a lot of revenue itself. The business case for internet constellations is far from settled.
LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack.
How do you figure? By my research, LH2 is about 6 times more expensive by mass, but about 6x less dense. The only way this is the case then is if the upper stage NG H2 tank is as big as the upper and lower stage SS/SH fuel tanks. Eyeballing the LH2 tank suggests about 20 meter high by 7 meter diameter or ~770 cubic meters. The 2017 BFS upper stage methane tank is 240,000 kg of methane or 570 cubic meters. His 2017 powerpoint didn't show the fuel load for the booster, but probably 800,000 kg+ all in or 1900 cubic meters+.
LH2 is ~30x more expensive, based on NASA paying $3.66/kg for LH2 in the early 2000s, while the current spot price for LNG in Texas is about $.13 per kg.
However, I applied that price to the entire 175 t wet mass of the NG upper stage when only ~33 t of that is actually LH2, and so overestimated the cost the upper stage fuel by a factor of 5.
The 2017 BFR had 4,000 tonnes of methalox at ~$150/tonne or $600,000 total.
NG will have ~1100 tonnes of methalox at ~$150/tonne, plus ~33 t of LH2 at $3660/tonne, totaling $286,000.
The 2017 BFR had 4,000 tonnes of methalox at ~$150/tonne or $600,000 total.
NG will have ~1100 tonnes of methalox at ~$150/tonne, plus ~33 t of LH2 at $3660/tonne, totaling $286,000.
LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack.
How do you figure? By my research, LH2 is about 6 times more expensive by mass, but about 6x less dense. The only way this is the case then is if the upper stage NG H2 tank is as big as the upper and lower stage SS/SH fuel tanks. Eyeballing the LH2 tank suggests about 20 meter high by 7 meter diameter or ~770 cubic meters. The 2017 BFS upper stage methane tank is 240,000 kg of methane or 570 cubic meters. His 2017 powerpoint didn't show the fuel load for the booster, but probably 800,000 kg+ all in or 1900 cubic meters+.
LH2 is ~30x more expensive, based on NASA paying $3.66/kg for LH2 in the early 2000s, while the current spot price for LNG in Texas is about $.13 per kg.
12 Florida $8.46
LH2 is closer to $6-7/kg nowadays when I looked last IIRC... Early 2000s was almost two decades ago now.
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA has selected Air Products and Chemicals Inc. of Allentown, Pa., for the follow-on contract for the agencywide acquisition of liquid hydrogen.https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2010/release-20101115.html
The fixed price, requirements follow-on contract begins Dec. 1, 2010. It has a one-year base performance period with a one-year option period. The maximum potential value of the contract is approximately $18 million, which is comprised of a $7 million base value and $11 million for the one-year option.
Air Products and Chemicals will supply approximately 10,860,000 pounds of liquid hydrogen to NASA's Stennis Space Center, Miss.; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; and Kennedy Space Center, Fla., in support of the agency's Space Operations Mission Directorate and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. Liquid hydrogen, when combined with liquid oxygen, acts as fuel in cryogenic rocket engines.
......LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack....
Honestly, it's just as relevant as whenever (which is often) anyone claims a reusable rocket is "too big" for some payload.........LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack....
Fuel costs for rocket launches are completely irrelevant for the cost of launches, independently of rocket design, company and country of origin. Who ever brings that up is killing a straw man and arguing goes exactly no where. I am looking forwards for the time when that changes. But until then, can we please stop that nonsense?
Fuel costs for rocket launches are completely irrelevant for the cost of launches, independently of rocket design, company and country of origin. Who ever brings that up is killing a straw man and arguing goes exactly no where. I am looking forwards for the time when that changes. But until then, can we please stop that nonsense?Honestly, it's just as relevant as whenever (which is often) anyone claims a reusable rocket is "too big" for some payload...
......LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack....
Fuel costs for rocket launches are completely irrelevant for the cost of launches, independently of rocket design, company and country of origin. Who ever brings that up is killing a straw man and arguing goes exactly no where. I am looking forwards for the time when that changes. But until then, can we please stop that nonsense?
Someone asked for the fairing capacity / usable payload volume. It is:
* 150 m³ for the Falcons
* 450 m³ for the New Glenn (October 2018 payload user's guide)
* ~ 1100 m³ for the Starhip (September 2016 presentation)
* ?? for the New Armstrong ::)
Fuel and sea transportation are cheap. Land transportation costs are more relevant. (The New Glenn may not need land transportation - produced and tested on the east cost, can be shipped to the west coast.)
But of course the biggest cost factor is reusability + launch frequency. If they really launch 12,000 Starlink sats and most of them by Starship / Super Heavy, how should Blue Origin ever reach the SpaceX cost efficiency?
But of course the biggest cost factor is reusability + launch frequency. If they really launch 12,000 Starlink sats and most of them by Starship / Super Heavy, how should Blue Origin ever reach the SpaceX cost efficiency?
* ~ 1100 m³ for the Starhip (September 2016 presentation)
The ITS-Starship presentation was a lot bigger capacity in LEO, in 2016 presentation...I am not sure, if the fairing capacity is the same now...
So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.
So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage. If fairings are expended too then we might well be looking at around $40m cost for just the expendable parts of the rocket, and exluding any other costs associated with the launch (amortization/depreciation of the reusable core stage, launch facility costs, recovery costs, fuel, etc). So without upper stage recovery NG launch costs might well approach $60m or more. For about 40 tons or so into LEO was it? So about $1500/kg to orbit.
Starship by contrast, even at $50m per launch (which is 5 or 6 times Elon’s cost estimate, just to play it safe) comes in at about $500/kg.
So far, the reuse record is held by New Shepard with 4 reuses, vs. Falcon 9 with 2. Of course, very different flight profiles, and anyone of them may have replaced engines between flights.
So far, the reuse record is held by New Shepard with 4 reuses, vs. Falcon 9 with 2. Of course, very different flight profiles, and anyone of them may have replaced engines between flights.
New Shepard has no reuse records.
It has zero reuses on actual missions. All have been test flights.
And if we include test flights, then Grasshopper easily beats New Shepard with 8 total flights ( 7 reuses?)
So far, the reuse record is held by New Shepard with 4 reuses, vs. Falcon 9 with 2. Of course, very different flight profiles, and anyone of them may have replaced engines between flights.
New Shepard has no reuse records.
It has zero reuses on actual missions. All have been test flights.
And if we include test flights, then Grasshopper easily beats New Shepard with 8 total flights ( 7 reuses?)
The New Shepard reuse tests had same flight envelope that the actual missions will have, going to ~ 100 km height. Grasshopper obviously not, went only ~1 km up.
But as I already pointed out, as long as we don't know if engines were exchanged, it is hard to compare reusability. Maybe we will never know which rocked has the overall lower costs per flight, Falcon 9 / Heavy or New Glenn.
Starship/SH may as well follow the usual Musk time, with first operational launch not in 2021 but 2025+. Remember Falcon Heavy, which is six years behind original schedule.
Mowry: reusing the second stage of New Glenn is not on our roadmap right now; really hard problem technically. #CST2019
According to SpaceX and Elon's statements, FH was delayed
- because they greatly underestimated the complexity of that project,
- because of the two F9 failures.
(Source (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/04/04/musk-previews-busy-year-ahead-for-spacex/))
It's those unexpected issues that are missing in Elon time.
SpaceX says the Falcon Heavy is a secondary priority behind maintaining the launch tempo for the smaller Falcon 9.
Yeah. On the other hand, Starship/SH is be tied to Starlink - financially. Revenues from commercial launches probably will collapse after 2020, and Starship may have to be postponed if Starlink does not generate cash by then.
Yeah. On the other hand, Starship/SH is be tied to Starlink - financially.
Revenues from commercial launches probably will collapse after 2020, and Starship may have to be postponed if Starlink does not generate cash by then.
NS does not, however, have the same flight profile as New Glenn, which will reach about mach 10 vs. NS at mach 3.75.
NS does not, however, have the same flight profile as New Glenn, which will reach about mach 10 vs. NS at mach 3.75.
Really? The fastest recovery attempt that SpaceX did was ~Mach 7.7 on the Falcon Heavy center core.
NS does not, however, have the same flight profile as New Glenn, which will reach about mach 10 vs. NS at mach 3.75.
Really? The fastest recovery attempt that SpaceX did was ~Mach 7.7 on the Falcon Heavy center core.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1095436342186647554Quote from: Jeff FoustMowry: reusing the second stage of New Glenn is not on our roadmap right now; really hard problem technically. #CST2019
Another reminder that we should not take our assumptions as facts.
And that many here take for granted that Blue has the same aggressiveness and ambitions and that they will at least match if not overcome SpaceX with their execution.
It seems to me that they're playing a different game.
I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will be arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
Recent developments only reinforce my opinion - it might actually turn out that BFR will fly before NG, incredible as this might have sounded a few years ago.
However, I can spin this latest bit of information from BO in a more positive way:
JB realized all of the above, and has given BO a chance of a future after all:
"Get NG flying with first space reuse by some date, and I'll fund an immediate transition to NA as a competitor to SS/SH".
In such a scenario, working on NG upper stage reuse makes as much (or as little, rather) sense as for SpaceX to work on F9 US reuse.
Maybe.
If that's not the case, then BO will not succeed.
I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will be arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
Recent developments only reinforce my opinion - it might actually turn out that BFR will fly before NG, incredible as this might have sounded a few years ago.
However, I can spin this latest bit of information from BO in a more positive way:
JB realized all of the above, and has given BO a chance of a future after all:
"Get NG flying with first space reuse by some date, and I'll fund an immediate transition to NA as a competitor to SS/SH".
In such a scenario, working on NG upper stage reuse makes as much (or as little, rather) sense as for SpaceX to work on F9 US reuse.
Maybe.
If that's not the case, then BO will not succeed.
I bet that is almost impossible, that BFR will be the first than the NG...
How many year needed the Saturn V in development?
5-6 years and that with the wallets wide opens, and the rivers of money, they flowed for the biggest industry of aerospace in the world in that moment...
And for the second question, yes I think so too, than in the moment NG is start to fly, Blue start to work in the NA whatever this rocket will be...
I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
Large-scale manned spaceflight at the very least.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
What's your definition of "success" for Blue?
Large-scale manned spaceflight at the very least.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
What's your definition of "success" for Blue?
Significant market-share.
A viable path towards its stated long-term goal.
I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter.
The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
Don't assume launch market in future will be dominated solely by Blue and SpaceX. Arianespace, Boeing, LM and NG are huge aerospace companies with finances and ability to build their own competiting RLVs.
For them to justify building a RLV they need to see a significant demand for space launch. At this stage its a wait a see, hopefully lower cost launch be Blue and SpaceX will create a big enough market to justify more RLVs.
Didn't someone say somewhere that SuperHeavy with an expendable upper stage could do 250 tons to LEO. No fins, no hydraulic legs, no transpiration skin, Vacuum upper Raptor engines (probably only need 3-5) would contribute to the heavier payload.
Didn't someone say somewhere that SuperHeavy with an expendable upper stage could do 250 tons to LEO. No fins, no hydraulic legs, no transpiration skin, Vacuum upper Raptor engines (probably only need 3-5) would contribute to the heavier payload.
If memory serves, that 250 tonnes was for the original 12m ITS.
I did a very crude estimate of the LEO performance of the current SH topped with a crude, heavy (water-tank based?) expendable upper stage with 1-2 SL Raptors, and got performance comparable to FH. The real performance is probably significantly better since I didn't do much optimization.
If the SH is fully developed and reusable, its cost per flight is likely in the few $M range. If the upper stage is built mainly for cheapness (say it costs $15M, or roughly what a Falcon US costs) such a beast could be pretty competitive against anything short of a full-fledged Starship.
Unless the economy tanks and stays tanked, BO can run at losses of a billion dollars for essentially a year forever. The USG does not seem to care about predatory pricing & monopsonies anymore. Blue has plenty of time to get their operational costs in line with their revenue.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
"non-starter" as a competitive vehicle when SS/SH are flying, yes.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter.
Nonsense. The first step is never a non-starter. They've got to start somewhere. (they haven't even reached ORBIT yet) It's lovely how you basically claim that anything Blue does is a non-starter if it isn't fully reusable.
And even if SS does work as planned (still not a certainty), NG still wouldn't be a non-starter because it would be halfway there... just develop a reusable upper stage.The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
...And now you are back in your binary mode again. There is a HUGE GULF of potential outcomes for SS. Success or distant pipe dream are only the two most extreme outcomes.
Don't assume launch market in future will be dominated solely by Blue and SpaceX. Arianespace, Boeing, LM and NG are huge aerospace companies with finances and ability to build their own competiting RLVs.
For them to justify building a RLV they need to see a significant demand for space launch. At this stage its a wait a see, hopefully lower cost launch be Blue and SpaceX will create a big enough market to justify more RLVs.
Don't assume launch market in future will be dominated solely by Blue and SpaceX. Arianespace, Boeing, LM and NG are huge aerospace companies with finances and ability to build their own competiting RLVs.
For them to justify building a RLV they need to see a significant demand for space launch. At this stage its a wait a see, hopefully lower cost launch be Blue and SpaceX will create a big enough market to justify more RLVs.
Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman are unlikely to try to compete with SpaceX and Blue Origin no matter how big the market is. The issue is return on investment. It would take an investment of billions to match SpaceX and Blue Origin. And what they would end up with would be a low-margin, cut-throat competition with SpaceX and Blue Origin. Those big aerospace companies would have no competitive advantage. In fact, they'd still be likely to have higher costs than SpaceX and Blue Origin because they're structured for cost-plus government business.
No, investing in competing with SpaceX and Blue Origin for the fully-reusable launch market would not be at all attractive to the big aerospace primes.
Arianspace, maybe, because European governments might finance it for reasons other than return on investment.
I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will be arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
Recent developments only reinforce my opinion - it might actually turn out that BFR will fly before NG, incredible as this might have sounded a few years ago.
However, I can spin this latest bit of information from BO in a more positive way:
JB realized all of the above, and has given BO a chance of a future after all:
"Get NG flying with first space reuse by some date, and I'll fund an immediate transition to NA as a competitor to SS/SH".
In such a scenario, working on NG upper stage reuse makes as much (or as little, rather) sense as for SpaceX to work on F9 US reuse.
Maybe.
If that's not the case, then BO will not succeed.
I bet that is almost impossible, that BFR will be the first than the NG...
How many year needed the Saturn V in development?
5-6 years and that with the wallets wide opens, and the rivers of money, they flowed for the biggest industry of aerospace in the world in that moment...
And for the second question, yes I think so too, than in the moment NG is start to fly, Blue start to work in the NA whatever this rocket will be...
How many year needed the Saturn V in development?
5-6 years and that with the wallets wide opens, and the rivers of money, they flowed for the biggest industry of aerospace in the world in that moment...
So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
- Ed Kyle
I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
Zero sum is not necessary and wasn't implied.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
You didn’t say it but you effectively implied it. Your zero sum game is pretty faulty thinking in my view. If anyone is going to lose market share longer term it’s more likely to be Ariane than BO.
Zero sum is not necessary and wasn't implied.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
You didn’t say it but you effectively implied it. Your zero sum game is pretty faulty thinking in my view. If anyone is going to lose market share longer term it’s more likely to be Ariane than BO.
BO has very high ambitions. They don't want to be another Arianne or ULA, and they do want to be commercially competitive since they want to partner. JB does not have enough money to populate orbit or the moon.
So in that view, NG is a non-starter, since why would anyone run with it when there's a fully reusable and larger system right nearby?
NG only looks favorable when compared with FH, but that comparison will be relevant over a minimal amount of time at most.
Even in that rare scenario, Spacex could expend a used, fully amortized, core stage. The only new stage that will be expended will be the Falcon Upper Stage.So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
- Ed Kyle
Zero sum is not necessary and wasn't implied.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
You didn’t say it but you effectively implied it. Your zero sum game is pretty faulty thinking in my view. If anyone is going to lose market share longer term it’s more likely to be Ariane than BO.
BO has very high ambitions. They don't want to be another Arianne or ULA, and they do want to be commercially competitive since they want to partner. JB does not have enough money to populate orbit or the moon.
So in that view, NG is a non-starter, since why would anyone run with it when there's a fully reusable and larger system right nearby?
NG only looks favorable when compared with FH, but that comparison will be relevant over a minimal amount of time at most.
I suspect reality and your expectations will not meet.
As an aside no one on here knows what New Armstrong is, people on here expect a conventional reusable launcher, but there’s nothing to say that from BO.
That's what I was saying - they need to define NA as fully reusable and large enough... NG, by the time it flies, will be too little too late.Zero sum is not necessary and wasn't implied.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
You didn’t say it but you effectively implied it. Your zero sum game is pretty faulty thinking in my view. If anyone is going to lose market share longer term it’s more likely to be Ariane than BO.
BO has very high ambitions. They don't want to be another Arianne or ULA, and they do want to be commercially competitive since they want to partner. JB does not have enough money to populate orbit or the moon.
So in that view, NG is a non-starter, since why would anyone run with it when there's a fully reusable and larger system right nearby?
NG only looks favorable when compared with FH, but that comparison will be relevant over a minimal amount of time at most.
I suspect reality and your expectations will not meet.
As an aside no one on here knows what New Armstrong is, people on here expect a conventional reusable launcher, but there’s nothing to say that from BO.
Yup. Which is my take on their latest PR. They won't do NG US reuse because they realize there's no point.Zero sum is not necessary and wasn't implied.I never said SpaceX needed to do that!I have long advocated here that while NG was designed as an "FH-killer", because of BO's and SpaceX's relative velocities, NG will arrive as a competitor to BFR, and will be essentially DOA.
That’s binary thinking, or a false dilemma. It’s not all or nothing - SpaceX does not need to smash Blue, or vice versa. There is plenty of room for both, NG can be very successful even if it is more expensive that BFR.
And since JB is who he is, if NG never gets market traction, BO doesn't automatically shut down..
But for BO to succeed, NG is a non-starter. The only way to think otherwise is if you believe SS is still a distant pipe dream, as some posters here do.
That's like ignoring F9R until after "it was proven".
You didn’t say it but you effectively implied it. Your zero sum game is pretty faulty thinking in my view. If anyone is going to lose market share longer term it’s more likely to be Ariane than BO.
BO has very high ambitions. They don't want to be another Arianne or ULA, and they do want to be commercially competitive since they want to partner. JB does not have enough money to populate orbit or the moon.
So in that view, NG is a non-starter, since why would anyone run with it when there's a fully reusable and larger system right nearby?
NG only looks favorable when compared with FH, but that comparison will be relevant over a minimal amount of time at most.
I suspect reality and your expectations will not meet.
As an aside no one on here knows what New Armstrong is, people on here expect a conventional reusable launcher, but there’s nothing to say that from BO.
From my understanding reusable second stage either needs a very large first stage (like SH), to have enough margins to have enough fuel to safely reenter again. Or an orbital refueling infrastructure. It is difficult for smaller rockets. SpaceX gave up trying it on a Falcon and even FH sized rocket too.
For BO to build a fully reusable rocket on the first try would have required starting with a very large rocket, which would seem unwise. Have to take smaller steps before you can run.
On NA it might be simpler if it is bigger. Or they plan to establish an orbital refueling infrastructure, and then upgrade NG.
So BO should start serious NA dev. now...
...and retire NG as soon as it has completed it's launch manifest in order for them to have a chance of catching up with SpaceX.
BO have the funding and likely a no. of ex SpaceXers from SpaceX's recent layoffs to get cracking on with NA dev. now. NA will make the future of BO not NG which is just a stopgap until NA. Ditching NG US reuse could be an indicator that BO are about to get serious with NA dev. like with SpaceX ditching F9 and FH US reuse in favour of SH/SS.
So BO should start serious NA dev. now and retire NG as soon as it has completed it's launch manifest in order for them to have a chance of catching up with SpaceX. BO have the funding and likely a no. of ex SpaceXers from SpaceX's recent layoffs to get cracking on with NA dev. now. NA will make the future of BO not NG which is just a stopgap until NA. Ditching NG US reuse could be an indicator that BO are about to get serious with NA dev. like with SpaceX ditching F9 and FH US reuse in favour of SH/SS.Yup, that was my point.
So BO should start serious NA dev. now and retire NG as soon as it has completed it's launch manifest in order for them to have a chance of catching up with SpaceX. BO have the funding and likely a no. of ex SpaceXers from SpaceX's recent layoffs to get cracking on with NA dev. now. NA will make the future of BO not NG which is just a stopgap until NA. Ditching NG US reuse could be an indicator that BO are about to get serious with NA dev. like with SpaceX ditching F9 and FH US reuse in favour of SH/SS.Yup, that was my point.
That whole "NG is just the right size" line of argument is bunk. NG is BO's chance to show they can built an orbital rocket, but it is no longer a player itself, not anymore.
NG was a player until the schedule of SS became apparent.So BO should start serious NA dev. now and retire NG as soon as it has completed it's launch manifest in order for them to have a chance of catching up with SpaceX. BO have the funding and likely a no. of ex SpaceXers from SpaceX's recent layoffs to get cracking on with NA dev. now. NA will make the future of BO not NG which is just a stopgap until NA. Ditching NG US reuse could be an indicator that BO are about to get serious with NA dev. like with SpaceX ditching F9 and FH US reuse in favour of SH/SS.Yup, that was my point.
That whole "NG is just the right size" line of argument is bunk. NG is BO's chance to show they can built an orbital rocket, but it is no longer a player itself, not anymore.
Now that is just amusing... You are starting to sound like one of those Skylon amazing peoples. I'm a SpaceX fan, but this kind of blind faith should be embarrassing. NG is going to be far more of a player than any other rocket out there (ignoring SpaceX), and more reusable to boot. Yet it is "no longer a player". ::)
...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
- Ed Kyle
I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing.
Track record seems to be ignored by many BO supporters. 15 years in they don’t have an orbital rocket of any size yet. SpaceX has built 3.
If BO starts NA development today their track record suggests 2030-2035 as the earliest date for its arrival. At which point SpaceX may be flying something equivalent to the original 12m diameter ITS system already. Or perhaps something toyally different, based on lessons learnt from the SS generation 1.
Gradatim seems to receive far more emphasis than ferociter, in the BO philosophy.
I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing. It may be via a new 'USA' conglomerate, or via a front such as ULA but they have more interests in common than anything else - and Bezos can print money ad infinitum, while Musk is always vulnerable financially - he's a visionary, not a businessman.
Very rich middleman.I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing. It may be via a new 'USA' conglomerate, or via a front such as ULA but they have more interests in common than anything else - and Bezos can print money ad infinitum, while Musk is always vulnerable financially - he's a visionary, not a businessman.
This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.
This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.Very rich middleman.
Comments like that won't help Amazon share price.This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.Very rich middleman.
Middleman who is not bankrupt yet. ::)
“Amazon will go bankrupt. ... We have to try and delay that day for as long as possible.” -- Jeff Bezos (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/16/jeff-bezos-amazon-will-fail-recording-report), November 2018
But at least 5 years left ... he predicted that it will happen NET 2024 (“lifespans tend to be 30-plus years” - Amazon founded in 1994).
...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
- Ed Kyle
Funny. When people argue with manufacturing/launch rate, SpaceX fans always go "but it's not reusable and thus more expensive by default" yadda yadda yadda.
Blue and fast in the same paragraph?...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
- Ed Kyle
Funny. When people argue with manufacturing/launch rate, SpaceX fans always go "but it's not reusable and thus more expensive by default" yadda yadda yadda.
I know, right?
In fact there's an entire thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) dedicated to a discussion of a spreadsheet that makes the exact same point you're making.
I'm coming to the realization that the "optimally-sized mass-produced expendable" rocket paradigm will only die after SS is flying. Those who don't see it will just ride their companies to the ground, and that's how history goes.
FWIW I think BO sees it very clearly. IMO they'll indeed treat NG as an extremely transient step. The test is how fast they'll pivot to NA.
I am an admitted fan of Musk's vision and ventures and Bezos gives me the heebie-jeebies but let's give the man his due. He had a vision and he's been ruthless in making Amazon what it is. He also recognized the value of IaaS (being a cloud computing provider) when that was completely unrelated to their core business. Google didn't enter the market for 6 additional years.I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing. It may be via a new 'USA' conglomerate, or via a front such as ULA but they have more interests in common than anything else - and Bezos can print money ad infinitum, while Musk is always vulnerable financially - he's a visionary, not a businessman.
This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.
Et velox nec mortui suntBlue and fast in the same paragraph?...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
- Ed Kyle
Funny. When people argue with manufacturing/launch rate, SpaceX fans always go "but it's not reusable and thus more expensive by default" yadda yadda yadda.
I know, right?
In fact there's an entire thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) dedicated to a discussion of a spreadsheet that makes the exact same point you're making.
I'm coming to the realization that the "optimally-sized mass-produced expendable" rocket paradigm will only die after SS is flying. Those who don't see it will just ride their companies to the ground, and that's how history goes.
FWIW I think BO sees it very clearly. IMO they'll indeed treat NG as an extremely transient step. The test is how fast they'll pivot to NA.
So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage.
In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
Very well put.I am an admitted fan of Musk's vision and ventures and Bezos gives me the heebie-jeebies but let's give the man his due. He had a vision and he's been ruthless in making Amazon what it is. He also recognized the value of IaaS (being a cloud computing provider) when that was completely unrelated to their core business. Google didn't enter the market for 6 additional years.I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing. It may be via a new 'USA' conglomerate, or via a front such as ULA but they have more interests in common than anything else - and Bezos can print money ad infinitum, while Musk is always vulnerable financially - he's a visionary, not a businessman.
This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.
They're both "real" businessmen. Amazon changed how the world shopped. They weren't the first, they did it the best and dominated. He has a vision for Blue, I don't see him giving up though I have never understood their lack of ferociter.
...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
- Ed Kyle
Funny. When people argue with manufacturing/launch rate, SpaceX fans always go "but it's not reusable and thus more expensive by default" yadda yadda yadda.
I know, right?
In fact there's an entire thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) dedicated to a discussion of a spreadsheet that makes the exact same point you're making.
I'm coming to the realization that the "optimally-sized mass-produced expendable" rocket paradigm will only die after SS is flying. Those who don't see it will just ride their companies to the ground, and that's how history goes.
FWIW I think BO sees it very clearly. IMO they'll indeed treat NG as an extremely transient step. The test is how fast they'll pivot to NA.
In a world of SS and NG, sorry, it will do very poorly - you just can't compete with a fully reusable system.
It's going to be in better shape than Vulcan and A6, but not for long.
Sure customers have signed up.. it means very little, since there's still uncertainty about SS...
But in a world where both rockets hit their schedules, I just don't see it looking good for NG.
Again, the only thing BO should do right now os get NG flying and immediately turn full attention to NA. And this time, aim ahead of where SpaceX is.
EDIT:
Curiously, this is almost an echo of conversations held here 5 years ago, comparing the futures of SpaceX to those of Arianne, ULA, and the Russian rockets.
Except, the leap in performance in this case is even more extreme, and NG doesn't have the kind of inertia those other systems already had.
Blue Origin only has one version of their launcher, so they are unlikely to get orders for light payloads without some sort of discount, or unless they are able to bundle a number of light payloads into one launch.If both Vulcan and New Glenn fly, Blue Origin would have a big foot in the Medium game.
So far I haven't heard of any commercial payloads that would require an expendable Falcon Heavy …New Glenn seems aimed directly at EELV-2 heavy missions, which Falcon Heavy can't do in full reusable mode. Blue Origin appears to be planning dual launch to fill in with "medium" size commercial and government missions. New Glenn could likely boost two 6 tonne sats to GTO at once. Falcon Heavy reusable could only do one - but it could do four in full expendable mode (mass-wise, if not fairing-wise).
Blue Origin only has one version of their launcher, so they are unlikely to get orders for light payloads without some sort of discount, or unless they are able to bundle a number of light payloads into one launch.If both Vulcan and New Glenn fly, Blue Origin would have a big foot in the Medium game.QuoteSo far I haven't heard of any commercial payloads that would require an expendable Falcon Heavy …New Glenn seems aimed directly at EELV-2 heavy missions, which Falcon Heavy can't do in full reusable mode. Blue Origin appears to be planning dual launch to fill in with "medium" size commercial and government missions. New Glenn could likely boost two 6 tonne sats to GTO at once. Falcon Heavy reusable could only do one - but it could do four in full expendable mode (mass-wise, if not fairing-wise).
They each should have their niches. It should be interesting competition. Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.
- Ed Kyle
Blue Origin only has one version of their launcher, so they are unlikely to get orders for light payloads without some sort of discount, or unless they are able to bundle a number of light payloads into one launch.If both Vulcan and New Glenn fly, Blue Origin would have a big foot in the Medium game.
QuoteSo far I haven't heard of any commercial payloads that would require an expendable Falcon Heavy …New Glenn seems aimed directly at EELV-2 heavy missions, which Falcon Heavy can't do in full reusable mode.
Blue Origin appears to be planning dual launch to fill in with "medium" size commercial and government missions. New Glenn could likely boost two 6 tonne sats to GTO at once.
They each should have their niches. It should be interesting competition.
Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.
Ariane 5 needed a large or small satellite combined with 2nd small satellite for dual launch to work. NG can launch 2 large satellites upto 6.5t each, it doesn't have same mass and volume constraints that Ariane5 had.
Ariane 5 needed a large or small satellite combined with 2nd small satellite for dual launch to work. NG can launch 2 large satellites upto 6.5t each, it doesn't have same mass and volume constraints that Ariane5 had.
Still it requires two different payloads to be ready to launch at the same time, which is a business situation that doesn't aways exist.
Ariane 5 needed a large or small satellite combined with 2nd small satellite for dual launch to work. NG can launch 2 large satellites upto 6.5t each, it doesn't have same mass and volume constraints that Ariane5 had.
Still it requires two different payloads to be ready to launch at the same time, which is a business situation that doesn't aways exist.
And as I mentioned previously, this type of New Glenn capability affects Arianespace more than it does SpaceX. Falcon 9 has a large part of the market that it is well positioned to be the competitive choice, and New Glenn is more likely to take away launch business from the remaining expendable launch providers that SpaceX has not yet put out of business... ;)
And as I mentioned previously, this type of New Glenn capability affects Arianespace more than it does SpaceX. Falcon 9 has a large part of the market that it is well positioned to be the competitive choice, and New Glenn is more likely to take away launch business from the remaining expendable launch providers that SpaceX has not yet put out of business... ;)
Actually New Glenn will affect both SpaceX and Arianespace. Since it is the only launcher with a wide enough payload fairing that can lifted large comsats with the new 5 meter diameter fixed mesh reflector antenna from Harris Corp. :P
Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.Far-out? Seems like you're not giving SpaceX sufficient credit.
I doubt F9 and FH can take 7m fairing. Vulcan and Ariane6 should be able to.
It's not a weight issue, it's aerodynamics. Google hammerhead effect as it applies to launchers. I think CST has some skirting to help with this, IIRC.I doubt F9 and FH can take 7m fairing. Vulcan and Ariane6 should be able to.
Not sure why. It is designed to carry 63.8mT to LEO, so the added weight and wind resistance shouldn't be a problem.
And when the SpaceX Starship starts flying we can talk about payloads that require a 9m launcher... ;)
It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.Far-out? Seems like you're not giving SpaceX sufficient credit.
Which is why we (I) love them so much and consider their approach to be better.It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.Far-out? Seems like you're not giving SpaceX sufficient credit.
- Ed Kyle
There are many statements here about Blue Origin being "slow". But are they really?
BE-4 engine development started in 2011; first operational flight is expected for 2021. Raptor engine development started in 2011; first operational flight is expected for 2021.
Falcon 9 and Heavy were both planned in 2005; first flight of F9 was after 5 years, FH after 13 years - 6 years late. Blue Origin was founded in 2000; first flight is expected for 2021, after 11 years.
Vulcan was announced in 2014; first flight expected for 2021.
SLS was announced in 2011, but has its roots in the Ares which was developed from ~2006 (?). 15 years until expected first flight in 2021.
Regarding Starhopper & Super Heavy, I think it's very hard to predict when they will both fly. The public hopper construction is percieved as quick progress - but remember that it's rather a flying engine test stand than a Starship prototype. There are huge technical challenges ahead. SpaceX has been working on the "Mars Colonial Transporter" project at least since 2013. Would be 8 years until a first flight in 2021, or e.g. 10 years until 2023, which my guess for SH first flight.
Summary: Compared to other recent or ongoing developments of huge rockets, Blue Origin dosn't look particularly slow to me. Rather average. But they are working much quieter, which may lead to the misconception that there is little happening at BO.
This is 21 years, not 11.
There are many statements here about Blue Origin being "slow". But are they really?
BE-4 engine development started in 2011; first operational flight is expected for 2021. Raptor engine development started in 2011; first operational flight is expected for 2021.
Falcon 9 and Heavy were both planned in 2005; first flight of F9 was after 5 years, FH after 13 years - 6 years late. Blue Origin was founded in20102000; New Glenn first flight is expected for 2021,after 11 yearsAfaik it is not known when Blue Origin started to work on an orbital rocket, but I think a reasonable guess is that it was not long before starting on the engine. (They had an orbital rocket on their website (https://web.archive.org/web/20111120201134/http://www.blueorigin.com/about/about.html) in 2011).
Vulcan was announced in 2014; first flight expected for 2021.
SLS was announced in 2011, but has its roots in the Ares which was developed from ~2006 (?). 15 years until expected first flight in 2021.
Regarding Starhopper & Super Heavy, I think it's very hard to predict when they will both fly. The public hopper construction is percieved as quick progress - but remember that it's rather a flying engine test stand than a Starship prototype. There are huge technical challenges ahead. SpaceX has been working on the "Mars Colonial Transporter" project at least since 2013. Would be 8 years until a first flight in 2021, or e.g. 10 years until 2023, which is my guess for SH first flight.
Summary: Compared to other recent or ongoing developments of huge rockets, Blue Origin dosn't look particularly slow to me. Rather average. But they are working much quieter, which may lead to the misconception that there is little happening at BO.
[Edit: Fixed the BO founding date error.]
Hmm. These comparisons are really tricky, because of different goals and approaches of both companies. Blue originally focused on bringing humans to space, and it looks like they will achieve that within 19 years (compared to 17 years for SpaceX).
Hmm. These comparisons are really tricky, because of different goals and approaches of both companies. Blue originally focused on bringing humans to space, and it looks like they will achieve that within 19 years (compared to 17 years for SpaceX).
You are conflating/confusing bringing humans to suborbital space vs bringing humans to orbital space.
It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.Far-out? Seems like you're not giving SpaceX sufficient credit.
- Ed Kyle
It’s true that the Falcon 1 doesn’t compare to New Glenn in developmental complexity, but it does reflect an achievement that Blue has yet to reach. I’d personally consider Falcon 9 to be a good comparative, and both Falcon Heavy and Starship to represent a step beyond New Glenn in complexity.
It’s true that the Falcon 1 doesn’t compare to New Glenn in developmental complexity, but it does reflect an achievement that Blue has yet to reach. I’d personally consider Falcon 9 to be a good comparative, and both Falcon Heavy and Starship to represent a step beyond New Glenn in complexity.
As far as I understand BO's plans, they are trying to build a New Glenn v1.0 which is more capable [1] and higher reusable [2] than today's Falcon 9 Block 5 and has a more sophisticated engine [3]. This would be something more ferociter than a F9 v1.0 and of course take more grandatim to develop ...
[1] 50-100% more payload, 200% more fairing volume
[2] 25 vs 10 flights; Methalox vs. RP1-Lox engine
[3] closed cycle with oxygen-rich preburner vs. open cycle / fuel-rich
No idea if they will really achive that. If so, I guess it will take significantly longer than with Falcon 9.
It’s true that the Falcon 1 doesn’t compare to New Glenn in developmental complexity, but it does reflect an achievement that Blue has yet to reach. I’d personally consider Falcon 9 to be a good comparative, and both Falcon Heavy and Starship to represent a step beyond New Glenn in complexity.
As far as I understand BO's plans, they are trying to build a New Glenn v1.0 which is more capable [1] and higher reusable [2] than today's Falcon 9 Block 5 and has a more sophisticated engine [3]. This would be something more ferociter than a F9 v1.0 and of course take more grandatim to develop ...
[1] 50-100% more payload, 200% more fairing volume
[2] 25 vs 10 flights; Methalox vs. RP1-Lox engine
[3] closed cycle with oxygen-rich preburner vs. open cycle / fuel-rich
No idea if they will really achive that. If so, I guess it will take significantly longer than with Falcon 9.
Blue has been working on BE-4 and New Glenn (formerly "Very Big Brother") for quite some time. Their schedule for first flight in 2021 is entirely reasonable, although they will probably need a few iterations to get to New Glenn's ultimate performance and reuse specs. The current performance specs are heavily sandbagged and Blue only needs a few reuses out of the first couple boosters to meet their flight rate expectations.
The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.
So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.
The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.
So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.
Yes. A single Raptor upper stage about the same size as the NG upper stage would have similar performance, even to GEO, thanks to better mass fractions with methalox. A triple Raptor stage about the size of the hopper propulsion module would let SuperHeavy match SLS Block 1B to TLI.
If they put a radiatively cooled nozzle extension on that upper stage Raptor, even a stubby SH with half as many engines could still match New Glenn even with booster RTLS.
I too feel that Superheavy would be much easier to build than Starship. It is like a giant F9 booster.Elon believes this too. He has said as much. It’s why they are starting with building Starship and proving out its systems before building the booster.
Now you 30 engine reuseable booster with expendable US competiting against 7 engine reuseable booster. Guess which ones going to be cheaper to operate per launch.The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.
So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.
Yes. A single Raptor upper stage about the same size as the NG upper stage would have similar performance, even to GEO, thanks to better mass fractions with methalox. A triple Raptor stage about the size of the hopper propulsion module would let SuperHeavy match SLS Block 1B to TLI.
If they put a radiatively cooled nozzle extension on that upper stage Raptor, even a stubby SH with half as many engines could still match New Glenn even with booster RTLS.
Now you 30 engine reuseable booster with expendable US competiting against 7 engine reuseable booster. Guess which ones going to be cheaper to operate per launch.The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.
So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.
Yes. A single Raptor upper stage about the same size as the NG upper stage would have similar performance, even to GEO, thanks to better mass fractions with methalox. A triple Raptor stage about the size of the hopper propulsion module would let SuperHeavy match SLS Block 1B to TLI.
If they put a radiatively cooled nozzle extension on that upper stage Raptor, even a stubby SH with half as many engines could still match New Glenn even with booster RTLS.
Now you 30 engine reuseable booster with expendable US competiting against 7 engine reuseable booster. Guess which ones going to be cheaper to operate per launch.The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.
So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.
Yes. A single Raptor upper stage about the same size as the NG upper stage would have similar performance, even to GEO, thanks to better mass fractions with methalox. A triple Raptor stage about the size of the hopper propulsion module would let SuperHeavy match SLS Block 1B to TLI.
If they put a radiatively cooled nozzle extension on that upper stage Raptor, even a stubby SH with half as many engines could still match New Glenn even with booster RTLS.
Now you 30 engine reuseable booster with expendable US competiting against 7 engine reuseable booster. Guess which ones going to be cheaper to operate per launch.The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.
So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.
Yes. A single Raptor upper stage about the same size as the NG upper stage would have similar performance, even to GEO, thanks to better mass fractions with methalox. A triple Raptor stage about the size of the hopper propulsion module would let SuperHeavy match SLS Block 1B to TLI.
If they put a radiatively cooled nozzle extension on that upper stage Raptor, even a stubby SH with half as many engines could still match New Glenn even with booster RTLS.
Is NSF bit biased? Or is it just me.As I recall the BE-4 powerpack failure occurred during routine firing under normal operating conditions. The raptor failure occurred during a max pressure test. Evidence also suggests it didn’t go boom and destroy stuff. It just failed and shutdown. The BE-4 failure shutdown testing for several months. They don’t seem equivalent.
BE-4 powerpack accident; "ooh no whole program is in jeopardy!"
Raptor pressure failure (*read as RUD); "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
*(Still hope that parts didn't hit any cows
Is NSF bit biased? Or is it just me.
BE-4 powerpack accident; "ooh no whole program is in jeopardy!"
Raptor pressure failure (*read as RUD); "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
;P
*(Still hope that parts didn't hit any cows
Is NSF bit biased? Or is it just me.
BE-4 powerpack accident; "ooh no whole program is in jeopardy!"
Raptor pressure failure (*read as RUD); "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
;P
*(Still hope that parts didn't hit any cows
Is NSF bit biased? Or is it just me.
BE-4 powerpack accident; "ooh no whole program is in jeopardy!"
Raptor pressure failure (*read as RUD); "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
>
Is NSF bit biased? Or is it just me.Another consideration is that despite their very ambitious goals Blue hasn't launched anything to orbit yet. I could see how some saw a testing failure as a sign they were trying to go a bridge too far.
BE-4 powerpack accident; "ooh no whole program is in jeopardy!"
Raptor pressure failure (*read as RUD); "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
;P
*(Still hope that parts didn't hit any cows
Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust?It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.Far-out? Seems like you're not giving SpaceX sufficient credit.
- Ed Kyle
I could have sworn the US launch industry already built and flew a human-rated large diameter HLV with a large reusable orbital stage and high pressure reusable staged combustion engines.
No? Hmm. Must have been imagining things.
Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust?It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.I could have sworn the US launch industry already built and flew a human-rated large diameter HLV with a large reusable orbital stage and high pressure reusable staged combustion engines.
No? Hmm. Must have been imagining things.
Honestly, if you have no affiliation to either company and your interest is purely in spaceflight, it is not difficult to understand why the majority of people would favour SpaceX. For the last number of years they have given us scores of exhilirating experiences, incrementally going further and further in their displays of daring, innovative orbital endeavours. And their CEO has openly shared their highs and lows with us lowly observers to an extent undreamed of before. Bringing us with them on their journey every step of the way.
BO by contrast has promised much but after 20 years not made orbit yet. And they keep a veil of secrecy over even the gradual progress they supposedly are making behind the scenes.
So from an emotional gratification point of view it is highly understandable that the average spaceflight fan would be more invested in SpaceX’s success.
As Musk indicated, it was intentional "test to destruction". Was that the case with the powerpack?
As Musk indicated, it was intentional "test to destruction". Was that the case with the powerpack?
Uh--oh, which one of the staged combustion methalox engines, eats copper and releases gases from wrong places and runs mere seconds, and which one runs at high throttle setting over two hundred seconds...
.... ;PPPP
Can't complain about bias when you're showing significant bias yourself.As Musk indicated, it was intentional "test to destruction". Was that the case with the powerpack?
Uh--oh, which one of the staged combustion methalox engines, eats copper and releases gases from wrong places and runs mere seconds, and which one runs at high throttle setting over two hundred seconds...
.... ;PPPP
Probably both... But BE is too secretive so we can't tell for sure. All we knew is that at some point BE's engine exploded unexpectedly, took out the test cell with it, and that they're still at 70% power.
Is NSF bit biased? Or is it just me.
BE-4 powerpack accident; "ooh no whole program is in jeopardy!"
Raptor pressure failure (*read as RUD); "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
;P
*(Still hope that parts didn't hit any cows
I didn't use the word "progress", so not sure why its in quotes, but thrust is one of the means of comparison. BFR would make 3.6 times more thrust than New Glenn and 2.73 times more than Falcon Heavy. It would make 1.36 times more thrust than any rocket ever and 1.78 times more thrust than any successful rocket. It would weigh 3.17 times more than New Glenn and 1.49 times more than any previous launch vehicle. It will reenter its entire upper stage - a stage that itself is as large and heavy as most of today's standard launch vehicles - from interplanetary velocity, something only done by small reentry vehicles to date. So yes, it is outside the envelope of previous experience. That's why I tagged it "far out".Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust?It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.I could have sworn the US launch industry already built and flew a human-rated large diameter HLV with a large reusable orbital stage and high pressure reusable staged combustion engines.
No? Hmm. Must have been imagining things.
So amount of thrust if the only metric that should be looked at for "progress"?
Of that list, only the last bit is revolutionary or "far out".I didn't use the word "progress", so not sure why its in quotes, but thrust is one of the means of comparison. BFR would make 3.6 times more thrust than New Glenn and 2.73 times more than Falcon Heavy. It would make 1.36 times more thrust than any rocket ever and 1.78 times more thrust than any successful rocket. It would weigh 3.17 times more than New Glenn and 1.49 times more than any previous launch vehicle. It will reenter its entire upper stage - a stage that itself is as large and heavy as most of today's standard launch vehicles - from interplanetary velocity, something only done by small reentry vehicles to date. So yes, it is outside the envelope of previous experience. That's why I tagged it "far out".Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust?It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.I could have sworn the US launch industry already built and flew a human-rated large diameter HLV with a large reusable orbital stage and high pressure reusable staged combustion engines.
No? Hmm. Must have been imagining things.
So amount of thrust if the only metric that should be looked at for "progress"?
- Ed Kyle
...but thrust is one of the means of comparison.
BFR would make 3.6 times more thrust than New Glenn and 2.73 times more than Falcon Heavy.
It would make 1.36 times more thrust than any rocket ever...
I didn't use the word "progress", so not sure why its in quotes, but thrust is one of the means of comparison. BFR would make 3.6 times more thrust than New Glenn and 2.73 times more than Falcon Heavy. It would make 1.36 times more thrust than any rocket ever and 1.78 times more thrust than any successful rocket. It would weigh 3.17 times more than New Glenn and 1.49 times more than any previous launch vehicle. It will reenter its entire upper stage - a stage that itself is as large and heavy as most of today's standard launch vehicles - from interplanetary velocity, something only done by small reentry vehicles to date. So yes, it is outside the envelope of previous experience. That's why I tagged it "far out".Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust?It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside.I could have sworn the US launch industry already built and flew a human-rated large diameter HLV with a large reusable orbital stage and high pressure reusable staged combustion engines.
No? Hmm. Must have been imagining things.
So amount of thrust if the only metric that should be looked at for "progress"?
- Ed Kyle
I am sure BO will get a leg up over SpaceX with NA producing significantly more thrust than SH with greater payload capability to boot.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking, more or less. New Glenn is being designed to compete for existing or soon to exist launch contracts. It is sized for its payloads, more or less, and is competing head to head with Vulcan, Omega, and maybe Falcon Heavy for EELV-2 work. I'm not sure it is better or worse than any of those. BFR, on the other hand, is being designed for enormous payloads that don't exist, as near as I can tell. It isn't even in the EELV-2 running....but thrust is one of the means of comparison.Sure, it's one of many points of comparison, but regarding this thread topic you seem to be implying that bigger is not better, and that Blue Origin focusing on essentially matching Falcon Heavy is better.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking, more or less. New Glenn is being designed to compete for existing or soon to exist launch contracts. It is sized for its payloads, more or less, and is competing head to head with Vulcan, Omega, and maybe Falcon Heavy for EELV-2 work. I'm not sure it is better or worse than any of those. BFR, on the other hand, is being designed for enormous payloads that don't exist, as near as I can tell. It isn't even in the EELV-2 running....but thrust is one of the means of comparison.Sure, it's one of many points of comparison, but regarding this thread topic you seem to be implying that bigger is not better, and that Blue Origin focusing on essentially matching Falcon Heavy is better.
- Ed Kyle
I am sure BO will get a leg up over SpaceX with NA producing significantly more thrust than SH with greater payload capability to boot.
Yes. That's what I'm thinking, more or less. New Glenn is being designed to compete for existing or soon to exist launch contracts. It is sized for its payloads, more or less, and is competing head to head with Vulcan, Omega, and maybe Falcon Heavy for EELV-2 work. I'm not sure it is better or worse than any of those. BFR, on the other hand, is being designed for enormous payloads that don't exist, as near as I can tell. It isn't even in the EELV-2 running....but thrust is one of the means of comparison.Sure, it's one of many points of comparison, but regarding this thread topic you seem to be implying that bigger is not better, and that Blue Origin focusing on essentially matching Falcon Heavy is better.
- Ed Kyle
BFR, on the other hand, is being designed for enormous payloads that don't exist, as near as I can tell. It isn't even in the EELV-2 running.
Imagine for a moment that China has built and launched Starship/Superheavy. Do you think the US military would be uninterested in having its capabilities?Yes, because the Pentagon has no payload this heavy. DoD was uninterested in Saturn, and it wasn't thrilled about Shuttle - in both cases when the USSR was working on its own giant rockets.
For EELV-2 SpaceX can compete by Falcon Heavy, which is more capable than the New Glenn ...As previously discussed, Falcon Heavy is only more capable than New Glenn when it is expended, which is not how SpaceX intends to use this rocket. When its core and boosters are recovered, it is only a bit more capable than an expendable Falcon 9. When only its side boosters are recovered, it is a bit more capable than New Glenn but at the cost of much more expended hardware than New Glenn.
As many prior comments have shown, many find it amazing that anyone could NOT know what the purpose of the BFR (aka Starship) is for - Elon Musk has only spent the last 16 years trying to build an interplanetary transportation system that can make humanity multi-planetary, so there should be no question what it is for.I don't see the funding for such a purpose. The rocket will cost multiple billions and the payloads will cost more than the rocket.
Falcon 9/H have been greeted with great joy in the commercial marketplace while forcing other launch providers (and those that want to enter the market) to "step up their game". Starship, which should offer even lower launch prices, should do the same.I don't believe the BFR pricing claim. It is a nice goal, but the odds of achieving this goal are very small.
But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
QuoteFalcon 9/H have been greeted with great joy in the commercial marketplace while forcing other launch providers (and those that want to enter the market) to "step up their game". Starship, which should offer even lower launch prices, should do the same.I don't believe the BFR pricing claim. It is a nice goal, but the odds of achieving this goal are very small.
SpaceX's greatest achievement, in my opinion, is its reliability up to this point (48 launches in) with the v1.2 variant. No small achievement, as history has shown. It will need to do even better, far better than v1.2, far better than any launch vehicle ever, to have any chance at all of meeting its launch cost goals for BFR. A system based on reuse of all elements to achieve cost goals can afford no failures over hundreds of launches, not during launch or in space or in recovery.
But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
Note 9 out of 10 Merlins could be old engines that have flown several times already. The center core itself could also have flown several times before being expended.QuoteFalcon 9/H have been greeted with great joy in the commercial marketplace while forcing other launch providers (and those that want to enter the market) to "step up their game". Starship, which should offer even lower launch prices, should do the same.I don't believe the BFR pricing claim. It is a nice goal, but the odds of achieving this goal are very small.
SpaceX's greatest achievement, in my opinion, is its reliability up to this point (48 launches in) with the v1.2 variant. No small achievement, as history has shown. It will need to do even better, far better than v1.2, far better than any launch vehicle ever, to have any chance at all of meeting its launch cost goals for BFR. A system based on reuse of all elements to achieve cost goals can afford no failures over hundreds of launches, not during launch or in space or in recovery.
I don't think so. If we assume whole BFR stack costs $500M, a fairly conservative estimate at this point, then they only need to fly each stack 20 times without accident to reach a per launch amortization cost comparable to F9/FH ($25M per launch). 20 launches without accident is well below what the Shuttle was able to achieve.
EDIT: Original post came out wrong... So:But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
- Ed Kyle
As many prior comments have shown, many find it amazing that anyone could NOT know what the purpose of the BFR (aka Starship) is for - Elon Musk has only spent the last 16 years trying to build an interplanetary transportation system that can make humanity multi-planetary, so there should be no question what it is for.I don't see the funding for such a purpose.
The rocket will cost multiple billions and the payloads will cost more than the rocket.
QuoteFalcon 9/H have been greeted with great joy in the commercial marketplace while forcing other launch providers (and those that want to enter the market) to "step up their game". Starship, which should offer even lower launch prices, should do the same.I don't believe the BFR pricing claim.
A system based on reuse of all elements to achieve cost goals can afford no failures over hundreds of launches, not during launch or in space or in recovery.
... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
- Ed Kyle
Lost you there. Who's they?... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
- Ed Kyle
I think this is missing an important option. If this market becomes important, SpaceX can build one more barge, then land the side boosters downrange and the center booster way downrange. Of course the center booster has to reserve more fuel for braking, since it's going really fast, but the initial FH launch did just about the amount of braking required (that's why the center core ended up close to shore, not way downrange). The difference between RTLS and ship recovery is about 800 m/s, from existing SpaceX missions. If the second stage does not need to provide this, the GTO injection mass can increase from about 8 tons (2 RTLS+barge) to 12-13 tons (3 barge). So SpaceX can potentially compete with New Glenn, while only disposing of the second stage. They should then have a cost advantage since a F9 second stage is much smaller, less massive, and lower tech than an NG second stage.For EELV-2 SpaceX can compete by Falcon Heavy, which is more capable than the New Glenn ...As previously discussed, Falcon Heavy is only more capable than New Glenn when it is expended, which is not how SpaceX intends to use this rocket. When its core and boosters are recovered, it is only a bit more capable than an expendable Falcon 9. When only its side boosters are recovered, it is a bit more capable than New Glenn but at the cost of much more expended hardware than New Glenn.
Oh, I see. My bad.Lost you there. Who's they?... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
- Ed Kyle
10 Merlins on a per flight basis are likely less expensive if this is not the first flight so some of the build cost was amortized for 9 of them ... you're only tossing 1 of the 10Lost you there. Who's they?... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
- Ed Kyle
Yeah that's what I meant10 Merlins on a per flight basis are likely less expensive if this is not the first flight so some of the build cost was amortized for 9 of them ... you're only tossing 1 of the 10Lost you there. Who's they?... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?I don't know. Are 10 Merlins more expensive than two BE-3s?
- Ed Kyle
I think this is missing an important option. If this market becomes important, SpaceX can build one more barge, then land the side boosters downrange and the center booster way downrange. Of course the center booster has to reserve more fuel for braking, since it's going really fast, but the initial FH launch did just about the amount of braking required (that's why the center core ended up close to shore, not way downrange). The difference between RTLS and ship recovery is about 800 m/s, from existing SpaceX missions. If the second stage does not need to provide this, the GTO injection mass can increase from about 8 tons (2 RTLS+barge) to 12-13 tons (3 barge). So SpaceX can potentially compete with New Glenn, while only disposing of the second stage. They should then have a cost advantage since a F9 second stage is much smaller, less massive, and lower tech than an NG second stage.For EELV-2 SpaceX can compete by Falcon Heavy, which is more capable than the New Glenn ...As previously discussed, Falcon Heavy is only more capable than New Glenn when it is expended, which is not how SpaceX intends to use this rocket. When its core and boosters are recovered, it is only a bit more capable than an expendable Falcon 9. When only its side boosters are recovered, it is a bit more capable than New Glenn but at the cost of much more expended hardware than New Glenn.
Granted SpaceX cannot do this now, but it seems like a simple solution if this market becomes important.
I’m fully expecting New Glenn to outperform Falcon Heavy in a number of missions, but I don’t know that it’s going to be much of an issue since I think it will be competing against Starship rather than Falcon Heavy.
As of the latest projections I’ve seen, Blue is targeting a first launch of New Glenn in 2021, while SpaceX is looking at 60% chance of first orbital launch in 2020. To me that looks like both vehicles will be coming online at roughly the same time.
When it comes to costing, SpaceX will be paying more for propellant, but I’m not sure how other costs will play out. Blue is using a smaller number of larger and probably more expensive engines and expending the upper stage. Blue is also using a landing ship which adds another level of operational cost. Add in the difference in materials cost between steel and aluminum-lithium and it becomes very difficult to say how much of a cost difference there’s going to be between the two vehicles.
You are overestimating the payload capacity of F9. Due to limitations of its payload adapter and the sturdiness of S2, it is limited to 10mT (I believe to remember) or slightly more but not much. Any payload capacity above that is theoretical as it would require a redesign of S2 and the adapter. FH is not build for heavy payloads, its build for high energy missions of the same payload as F9. F9 also cant launch its theoretical payload limit to LEO due to the same effect. Also, NG has a much larger fairing volume.Correct about heavy payloads, but they don't exist yet, and if we suppose them, we can equally suppose SS-only payloads.
So there are payloads and cases out there where NG has an advantage over F9/FH.
Still, NG will have to compete with Starship, if not initially than for the most part of its existence. And if you look at first flights of new rockets, there usually is a year long gap between first flight and paying customer flights. I would guess this is somewhat different for Starship if it doesnt burn up on its first orbital flight. But still, either Starship works, then NG is designed to compete with the wrong vehicle, or it doesnt than NG has a good perspective. But that again assumes that NG will work as advertised, which is in my opinion less likely than Starship, simply because BO hasnt orbited anything yet. They will get there eventually, but its anybodies guess how long that takes.
You are overestimating the payload capacity of F9. Due to limitations of its payload adapter and the sturdiness of S2, it is limited to 10mT (I believe to remember) or slightly more but not much. Any payload capacity above that is theoretical as it would require a redesign of S2 and the adapter.
FH is not build for heavy payloads, its build for high energy missions of the same payload as F9. F9 also cant launch its theoretical payload limit to LEO due to the same effect.
Also, NG has a much larger fairing volume.
So there are payloads and cases out there where NG has an advantage over F9/FH.
Still, NG will have to compete with Starship, if not initially than for the most part of its existence.
And if you look at first flights of new rockets, there usually is a year long gap between first flight and paying customer flights.
But still, either Starship works, then NG is designed to compete with the wrong vehicle, or it doesnt than NG has a good perspective.
A bear jumps out of a bush and starts chasing two hikers. They both start running for their lives, but then one of them stops to put on his running shoes.
His friends says, "What are you doing? You can't outrun a bear!"
His friend replies, "I don't have to outrun the bear; I only have to outrun you!"
Probably both... But BE is too secretive so we can't tell for sure. All we knew is that at some point BE's engine exploded unexpectedly, took out the test cell with it, and that they're still at 70% power.
Hmm, highest achieved thrust number I have seen was 172 mT for Raptor. Which is 55% targeted thrust (IAC 2016). Anyways, 70% thrust for BE4 is still more than 172 mT. Maybe Blue just didn't shorten the yard stick.
Probably both... But BE is too secretive so we can't tell for sure. All we knew is that at some point BE's engine exploded unexpectedly, took out the test cell with it, and that they're still at 70% power.
Hmm, highest achieved thrust number I have seen was 172 mT for Raptor. Which is 55% targeted thrust (IAC 2016). Anyways, 70% thrust for BE4 is still more than 172 mT. Maybe Blue just didn't shorten the yard stick.
There has never been a target of 312 milliteslas for the current design of the Raptor engine.
The engine spesifications presented at 2016 were for much bigger engine, for much bigger craft.
When the craft was downsized for 2017, the engine was also downsized, for 174 tonnes of thrust (atmospheric version), and much smaller size, lighter weight and cheaper price.
If they are not at 172 tonnes, then they have achieved 98% of this thrust they targeted at 2017.
Probably both... But BE is too secretive so we can't tell for sure. All we knew is that at some point BE's engine exploded unexpectedly, took out the test cell with it, and that they're still at 70% power. It stands to reason that during that episode it "vaporized some copper and released gases from wrong places"...
Meanwhile Raptor hit full working pressure and is about to lift a prototype full-size rocket.
These comparisons are not painting BO in a good light, and the expectation that somewhere in their secret facility they're actually miles ahead are based on hope, not on any evidence.
EDIT: FWIW, I wish it were otherwise. Two spaceflight companies are better than one, and space is big enough for both. But I find the combination of secrecy, high promises and low deliveries to be off-putting.
edit: Anyways, I think you miss the point really. Why complain about thrust levels for BE-4 when they are actually more or approximately equal to Raptor. IF Raptor was 1 MN and the BE-4 was 10 MN, and Blue only achieved 70% thrust(ie 7 MN) and Raptor achieved 100% thrust(ie 1 MN)...how is this supposed to be used to make the original assertion that Blue is sub-par. Because they aim higher? Because that was the case the original post was making...
edit: Anyways, I think you miss the point really. Why complain about thrust levels for BE-4 when they are actually more or approximately equal to Raptor. IF Raptor was 1 MN and the BE-4 was 10 MN, and Blue only achieved 70% thrust(ie 7 MN) and Raptor achieved 100% thrust(ie 1 MN)...how is this supposed to be used to make the original assertion that Blue is sub-par. Because they aim higher? Because that was the case the original post was making...
Well, you design an engine to do a particular job. Currently with BE-4 @ 70% of thrust, neither NG or Vulcan are getting into orbit. That's what makes it currently sub par (it's inability to do it's designed job), whereas Raptor at 98% or whatever of it's designed spec CAN get SS into orbit.
I'm sure they'll get there and it will be a fine engine, but based on current, public knowledge it's not quite there yet.
For all we know, the switch to a hydrogen upper stage is meant to deal with BE-4 not being quite as powerful as they hoped for among the other reasons stated. I'll have to go check, but I don't think the rocket changed dimensions that much, but it replaced quite a bit of that volume with hydrolox instead of methalox.I doubt this. ULA didn't make its BE-4 decision official until September 2018. By then BE-4 had been testing for nearly a year. I don't see ULA picking an engine that isn't meeting expectations. Blue Origin went with BE-3 for the second stage to avoid the time and cost of having to develop a Vacuum BE-4. The BE-3 stage met the needs of the EELV-2 competition.
And curiously, you seem to ignore the $Billions Jeff Bezos will have spent on Blue Origin in order to get New Glenn operational. I don't think you treat Elon Musk the same way you treat Jeff Bezos... ;)I admire both, and I am also wary of both - much more wary of Bezos, actually, because he has more power to affect people's day-to-day existence. The recent Ring thing is only one example of how such power can veer toward the nefarious.
Fully reusable space transportation systems are REQUIRED if we are going to expand humanity out into space. We can't afford it otherwise. And luckily capitalism is aligned with the same goals, meaning once companies build new products and services that rely on fully reusable transportation systems, they will tolerate a certain level of loss.I hope SpaceX succeeds in improving launch vehicle reliability beyond the long-running 5-7% failure rate norm. But then again, they'll have to.
So will SH/SS be failure free? Maybe not. But just like American astronauts knew they were taking a calculated risk when flying on the Shuttle, so too will future passengers know they won't be flying on a risk-free transportation system.
For all we know, the switch to a hydrogen upper stage is meant to deal with BE-4 not being quite as powerful as they hoped for among the other reasons stated. I'll have to go check, but I don't think the rocket changed dimensions that much, but it replaced quite a bit of that volume with hydrolox instead of methalox.I doubt this. ULA didn't make its BE-4 decision official until September 2018. By then BE-4 had been testing for nearly a year. I don't see ULA picking an engine that isn't meeting expectations.
Seems like SpaceX has developed slang for their internal use to avoid confusion between tonnes and tons(especially verbally). The General Conference of Weights and Measures is horrified..surely. Excent tonne isn't even an SI unit. If you really want to get uptight about it, you should only accept megagrams(Mg).
I hope SpaceX succeeds in improving launch vehicle reliability beyond the long-running 5-7% failure rate norm. But then again, they'll have to.
- Ed Kyle
Chances are that BE-4 will reach the 100% thrust target.
If push comes to shove 70% should be good enough, for now.
In the absence of engines that meet the 100% target let ULA buy engines that (only!) fail the contracted thrust requirement during the acceptance test for scrap price. That should leave enough room to make up the shortfall with solids. ;D
Chances are that BE-4 will reach the 100% thrust target.
If push comes to shove 70% should be good enough, for now.
In the absence of engines that meet the 100% target let ULA buy engines that (only!) fail the contracted thrust requirement during the acceptance test for scrap price. That should leave enough room to make up the shortfall with solids. ;D
A hypothetical 30% thrust shortfall is NOT going to be acceptable for ULA. It would have cascading effects on the entire design and jeopardize the ability to launch payloads that they need to be able to launch. If you are already maxed out on solids, you can't add more.
Chances are that BE-4 will reach the 100% thrust target.
If push comes to shove 70% should be good enough, for now.
In the absence of engines that meet the 100% target let ULA buy engines that (only!) fail the contracted thrust requirement during the acceptance test for scrap price. That should leave enough room to make up the shortfall with solids. ;D
A hypothetical 30% thrust shortfall is NOT going to be acceptable for ULA. It would have cascading effects on the entire design and jeopardize the ability to launch payloads that they need to be able to launch. If you are already maxed out on solids, you can't add more.
1.)The current max of 6 solids doesn't take up the full perimeter of the vehicle. Delta 2 had up to 9 solids with essentially the whole perimeter occupied. With the design not finalized, and the new solids projected to cost half the existing ones, it might be an attractive option.
2.)The current projection for the heaviest Vulcan version is over 2,000 kg more payload to GTO than their current heaviest vehicle (Delta IV Heavy). There is some room for performance shortfall and still meeting the requirement to meet the performance of their current heavy lifter.
3.)Even 2 BE-4 engines at ~70% has roughly equivalent thrust to their current liquid booster stages(the Delta IV CBC and the Atlas V CCB...a bit less than Atlas V, a bit more than Delta IV).
It is a non-starter, and not as easy as you would think. A 30% thrust shortfall would NOT be appreciated by ULA, and this is why BE-4 design, testing, and qualification is continuing and not declared "done".
edit: Anyways, I think you miss the point really. Why complain about thrust levels for BE-4 when they are actually more or approximately equal to Raptor. IF Raptor was 1 MN and the BE-4 was 10 MN, and Blue only achieved 70% thrust(ie 7 MN) and Raptor achieved 100% thrust(ie 1 MN)...how is this supposed to be used to make the original assertion that Blue is sub-par. Because they aim higher? Because that was the case the original post was making...
Well, you design an engine to do a particular job. Currently with BE-4 @ 70% of thrust, neither NG or Vulcan are getting into orbit. That's what makes it currently sub par (it's inability to do it's designed job), whereas Raptor at 98% or whatever of it's designed spec CAN get SS into orbit.
I'm sure they'll get there and it will be a fine engine, but based on current, public knowledge it's not quite there yet.
Bezos not a fan of Musk Mars plans.Ha, hard vacuum with unfiltered solar radiation is clearly more hospitable place, right Jeff? Microgravity mining and ore-processing is clearly matured technology, compared to you know regular mining with 6000 years development history...
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-mount-everest-challenge-mars-spacex-elon-musk-2019-3 (https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-mount-everest-challenge-mars-spacex-elon-musk-2019-3)
Any habitat in space whether its, Mars, Moon, or free flying Oneil Cylinder will meaning living in metal can surround by tons of radiation blocking material. The Oneil Cylinder type allows you control the gravity, location to earth and sun plus has no energy sapping gravity well.Bezos not a fan of Musk Mars plans.Ha, hard vacuum with unfiltered solar radiation is clearly more hospitable place, right Jeff? Microgravity mining and ore-processing is clearly matured technology, compared to you know regular mining with 6000 years development history...
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-mount-everest-challenge-mars-spacex-elon-musk-2019-3 (https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-mount-everest-challenge-mars-spacex-elon-musk-2019-3)
Also I hate whole Antarctica/mountain top comparison, Earth's winter storms/summit blizzards out class any sandstorms at Mars.
Regardless of where the colonies are, one thing is certain survival of earth civilization means we have to colonize space and start doing it soon. NB the biggest threat to us isn't giant asteriods but ourselves, we are very good at self destruction.But wouldn't it be "ourselves", with all of our self destructive tendencies, living out there, bringing our problems?
Any habitat in space whether its, Mars, Moon, or free flying Oneil Cylinder will meaning living in metal can surround by tons of radiation blocking material. The Oneil Cylinder type allows you control the gravity, location to earth and sun plus has no energy sapping gravity well.Bezos not a fan of Musk Mars plans.Ha, hard vacuum with unfiltered solar radiation is clearly more hospitable place, right Jeff? Microgravity mining and ore-processing is clearly matured technology, compared to you know regular mining with 6000 years development history...
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-mount-everest-challenge-mars-spacex-elon-musk-2019-3 (https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-mount-everest-challenge-mars-spacex-elon-musk-2019-3)
Also I hate whole Antarctica/mountain top comparison, Earth's winter storms/summit blizzards out class any sandstorms at Mars.
Grounded indeed.Regardless of where the colonies are, one thing is certain survival of earth civilization means we have to colonize space and start doing it soon. NB the biggest threat to us isn't giant asteriods but ourselves, we are very good at self destruction.But wouldn't it be "ourselves", with all of our self destructive tendencies, living out there, bringing our problems?
I'm not a fan of the utopian argument. Profit is a better motive, if there is any profit to be made. I would think about moving to space if it was a tax haven, but only if all the sums worked out. ;)
Bezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.
- Ed Kyle
Regardless of where the colonies are, one thing is certain survival of earth civilization means we have to colonize space and start doing it soon. NB the biggest threat to us isn't giant asteriods but ourselves, we are very good at self destruction.But wouldn't it be "ourselves", with all of our self destructive tendencies, living out there, bringing our problems?
I'm not a fan of the utopian argument. Profit is a better motive, if there is any profit to be made. I would think about moving to space if it was a tax haven, but only if all the sums worked out. ;)
Bezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.
- Ed Kyle
Regardless of where the colonies are, one thing is certain survival of earth civilization means we have to colonize space and start doing it soon. NB the biggest threat to us isn't giant asteriods but ourselves, we are very good at self destruction.But wouldn't it be "ourselves", with all of our self destructive tendencies, living out there, bringing our problems?
I'm not a fan of the utopian argument. Profit is a better motive, if there is any profit to be made. I would think about moving to space if it was a tax haven, but only if all the sums worked out. ;)
Bezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.
- Ed Kyle
Space colonies won't be utopias, but they don't need to be. It's not about eliminating problems, it's about isolating their effects. If Earth dwellers self destruct self sufficient space settlements can still carry on. It's likely that several space settlements die out before life on Earth does; but as long as we replace the ones that do and they don't all die out at the same time as Earth does, we'll be good.
The motive is profit.Regardless of where the colonies are, one thing is certain survival of earth civilization means we have to colonize space and start doing it soon. NB the biggest threat to us isn't giant asteriods but ourselves, we are very good at self destruction.But wouldn't it be "ourselves", with all of our self destructive tendencies, living out there, bringing our problems?
I'm not a fan of the utopian argument. Profit is a better motive, if there is any profit to be made. I would think about moving to space if it was a tax haven, but only if all the sums worked out. ;)
Bezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.
- Ed Kyle
Space colonies won't be utopias, but they don't need to be. It's not about eliminating problems, it's about isolating their effects. If Earth dwellers self destruct self sufficient space settlements can still carry on. It's likely that several space settlements die out before life on Earth does; but as long as we replace the ones that do and they don't all die out at the same time as Earth does, we'll be good.
That said, I don't think the plan b argument alone will motivate enough people to go to make a viable plan b. There has to be some other major draw.
The motive is profit.
If a Mars colony becomes self sufficient, you have created an entire new economy, and whoever got in early, can be a mars-global player. There aren't opportunities like that on Earth since the days of the East India company...
Individuals won't, but corporations will.The motive is profit.
If a Mars colony becomes self sufficient, you have created an entire new economy, and whoever got in early, can be a mars-global player. There aren't opportunities like that on Earth since the days of the East India company...
While it's true that the desire to make a profit drove a lot of the commerce aspects of discovery in our history, that doesn't explain why individuals and families would risk their lives to travel to a place that they know little about, and have few resources when they arrive.
We humans have, for whatever reason, a collective desire to push out into new places. And I don't see the desire to migrate to space or Mars as being any different.
I will agree though that billionaires and crowdfunding will only allow for so many people in space, so at some point a successful economic model has to evolve, but even then that will only support the migration of people that really don't have the economic ability to fully sustain themselves without societal help (i.e. money from home/friends, a job, etc.).
And I think both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are doing a good job of only focusing on the first barrier to getting humans out into space, which is the cost of transportation. Once that is solved then we'll discover what the next barrier is, find a bunch of people to focus on that... lather, rinse, repeat. Which is what humanity has done before.
My $0.02
New Glenn is probably ahead of BFR, developmentally speaking.QuoteBezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.Grounded indeed.
New Glenn is probably ahead of BFR, developmentally speaking.QuoteBezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.Grounded indeed.
- Ed Kyle
New Glenn is probably ahead of BFR, developmentally speaking.QuoteBezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.Grounded indeed.
- Ed Kyle
Propulsion first. Blue Origin did its first full-scale BE-4 testing in 2017. SpaceX just recently fired up its first full scale Raptor.New Glenn is probably ahead of BFR, developmentally speaking.QuoteBezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.Grounded indeed.
- Ed Kyle
I'd be interested to hear your arguments for this opinion!
Bent metal prototype? CDR/PDR? shown simulations? Battleship stages? Tooling? What are in your opinion the differences?
Propulsion first. Blue Origin did its first full-scale BE-4 testing in 2017. SpaceX just recently fired up its first full scale Raptor.New Glenn is probably ahead of BFR, developmentally speaking.QuoteBezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.Grounded indeed.
- Ed Kyle
I'd be interested to hear your arguments for this opinion!
Bent metal prototype? CDR/PDR? shown simulations? Battleship stages? Tooling? What are in your opinion the differences?
Infrastructure second. Blue Origin is setting up tooling in its completed New Glenn factory. SpaceX does not have a dedicated production site for BFR, having recently pulled out of plans for a factory at the Port of LA. Blue Origin is building a New Glenn launch site. SpaceX is building a Starship hopper test pad at Boca Chica.
Design third. New Glenn's design seemed to firm up last year if not earlier. Meanwhile, SpaceX completely revised BFR, or parts of it, from composite to stainless steel, etc.
I think that the biggest difference may be scale. New Glenn's first stage will be about 1/3rd the gross takeoff weight of the BFR first stage (that BFR Super Heavy first stage by itself will apparently weigh more than a Saturn V).
- Ed Kyle
Propulsion first. Blue Origin did its first full-scale BE-4 testing in 2017. SpaceX just recently fired up its first full scale Raptor.
Propulsion first. Blue Origin did its first full-scale BE-4 testing in 2017. SpaceX just recently fired up its first full scale Raptor.
This is not accurate, though. SpaceX fired a 50% thrust version in 2016, and fired a 100% version this year at operating thrust.
Blue fired a 70% thrust engine in 2017, and has yet to get the 100% version to the test stand or reach operating thrust. There is no way they are closer to a flight ready engine.
New Glenn is probably ahead of BFR, developmentally speaking.QuoteBezos is positioning himself as the more grounded "New Space" alternative. He knows what he's doing, I think.Grounded indeed.
- Ed Kyle
Propulsion first. Blue Origin did its first full-scale BE-4 testing in 2017. SpaceX just recently fired up its first full scale Raptor.
This is not accurate, though. SpaceX fired a 50% thrust version in 2016, and fired a 100% version this year at operating thrust.
Blue fired a 70% thrust engine in 2017, and has yet to get the 100% version to the test stand or reach operating thrust. There is no way they are closer to a flight ready engine.
They haven't reached 100% as far as I know. They reached 172 t /203 t or 85%.
Propulsion first. Blue Origin did its first full-scale BE-4 testing in 2017. SpaceX just recently fired up its first full scale Raptor.
This is not accurate, though. SpaceX fired a 50% thrust version in 2016, and fired a 100% version this year at operating thrust.
Blue fired a 70% thrust engine in 2017, and has yet to get the 100% version to the test stand or reach operating thrust. There is no way they are closer to a flight ready engine.
They haven't reached 100% as far as I know. They reached 172 t /203 t or 85%.
They have reached 100% of the 2017 design numbers, which is enough to proceed with operation of Starship and SuperHeavy per Musk. That is the initial operating goal, at 250 bar. The ultimate goal is 300+ bar, but they don't need that to fly.
Blue needs to get to 550 klbf or Vulcan isn't going to work. New Glenn might not work either. They aren't ready to fly.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
F9 made fully expendable rockets irrelevant. Some of them don't know it yet, and some are realizing it even as I type these words.As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
You forgot to mention that BFR will also cure cancer. :-X I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but this attitude that BFR is destined to succeed and make anything else irrelevant is just silly. Just as silly as someone saying that NG would make F9/FH irrelevant.
F9 made fully expendable rockets irrelevant. Some of them don't know it yet, and some are realizing it even as I type these words.As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
You forgot to mention that BFR will also cure cancer. :-X I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but this attitude that BFR is destined to succeed and make anything else irrelevant is just silly. Just as silly as someone saying that NG would make F9/FH irrelevant.
F9 made fully expendable rockets irrelevant. Some of them don't know it yet, and some are realizing it even as I type these words.As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
You forgot to mention that BFR will also cure cancer. :-X I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but this attitude that BFR is destined to succeed and make anything else irrelevant is just silly. Just as silly as someone saying that NG would make F9/FH irrelevant.
So, is the military retiring hellfire missiles?Technically, it could eject its payload and then fly back to the launch point.
Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
- Ed Kyle
SpaceX slowed down production since the F9 reusability program is a success ... They also moved R&D to the SS/SH system - which is not exactly hurting F9 is it?Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
- Ed Kyle
SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience.
But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR...
...a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle.
That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience.
And this is not a small point, but a big one. SpaceX has hundreds, if not thousands of people that have experience with orbital hardware and reusable launch operations. Blue Origin likely has hundreds of people that have experience with sub-orbital hardware and reusable launch operations.
Clearly SpaceX has far less to learn when bringing the SH/SS online than Blue Origin does.QuoteBut SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR...
Yes, but not until the SH/SS are proven enough to bet the company on them. SpaceX is still likely years away from that, as shown by how slowly they are ramping up their Falcon 9 core inventory.Quote...a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle.
I had to go back and see who you were talking about, since this applies to both Blue Origin and SpaceX. The methane fueled BE-4 is not like hydrogen fueled BE-3. And Both Blue Origin and SpaceX have been working on their methane engines for quite a long time, so I don't see this as a cause for concern at this point.QuoteThat plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
It cedes none, since Falcon 9 will be flying well into the operational life of the SH/SS. Remember SpaceX customers will have the choice as to which they want to use, so it's market demand that will determine how long Falcon 9 flies - at least until it's overwhelmingly clear that SH/SS is just as safe as Falcon 9/H.
F9 made fully expendable rockets irrelevant. Some of them don't know it yet, and some are realizing it even as I type these words.
BFR will make partially reusable rockets obsolete. BO took years too long to bring it to flight (still some TBD time, 2021 and beyond) and this is what happens. It'll come in too late, but maybe just maybe it'll enable BO to start moving more quickly.
F9 made fully expendable rockets irrelevant. Some of them don't know it yet, and some are realizing it even as I type these words.
Expendable rockets are still relevant as that technology is being used by countries who currently do not have reusable rockets. The US is also still relying on expendable rockets. I would agree that expendable rockets are now an obsolete technology. That companies stubbornly cling onto expendable technology for their new vehicles, when they could just copy SpaceX or Blue Origin, boggles the mind!QuoteBFR will make partially reusable rockets obsolete. BO took years too long to bring it to flight (still some TBD time, 2021 and beyond) and this is what happens. It'll come in too late, but maybe just maybe it'll enable BO to start moving more quickly.
My opinion is that BFR is oversized for the commercial market, just like the Airbus 380. A scaled down BFR that can deliver 7.5 t to GTO (like what New Glenn could do) would be much less costly to develop, build and operate. With in-orbit refuelling it can also do crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
My opinion is that BFR is oversized for the commercial market, just like the Airbus 380. A scaled down BFR that can deliver 7.5 t to GTO (like what New Glenn could do) would be much less costly to develop, build and operate. With in-orbit refuelling it can also do crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
My opinion is that BFR is oversized for the commercial market, just like the Airbus 380. A scaled down BFR that can deliver 7.5 t to GTO (like what New Glenn could do) would be much less costly to develop, build and operate. With in-orbit refuelling it can also do crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
Counterpoint: Cost to develop, manufacture and operate two different vehicles is going to be higher than one. If your market is Mars, a smaller vehicle that is more optimized for LEO-GTO-cislunar be able to do it, but operating costs are going to increase.
QuoteBFR will make partially reusable rockets obsolete. BO took years too long to bring it to flight (still some TBD time, 2021 and beyond) and this is what happens. It'll come in too late, but maybe just maybe it'll enable BO to start moving more quickly.
My opinion is that BFR is oversized for the commercial market, just like the Airbus 380. A scaled down BFR that can deliver 7.5 t to GTO (like what New Glenn could do) would be much less costly to develop, build and operate. With in-orbit refuelling it can also do crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
QuoteBFR will make partially reusable rockets obsolete. BO took years too long to bring it to flight (still some TBD time, 2021 and beyond) and this is what happens. It'll come in too late, but maybe just maybe it'll enable BO to start moving more quickly.
My opinion is that BFR is oversized for the commercial market, just like the Airbus 380. A scaled down BFR that can deliver 7.5 t to GTO (like what New Glenn could do) would be much less costly to develop, build and operate. With in-orbit refuelling it can also do crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
When people talks about "A-380 is oversized" they meant it cost too much in terms of fuel consumption. For fuel cost to be even a factor in competing with BFR, the competitor has to be fully reusable. Right now nobody else is even considering full reusability, Blue has already stated they're not doing it, so I don't see oversized as a problem for BFR.
Additionally we're already seeing GTO market in sharp decline, it may never recover, optimizing your future LV for GTO seems to be a risky proposition.
Finally the size of the BFR may actually makes it less costly to develop, this is still highly speculative since SpaceX's strategy here is not entirely clear right now, but I fully expect them to take advantage of the huge mass margin provided by the bigger size to drive down initial development cost.
With planes as full as they are nowadays, it’s rare to have an empty seat next to you. Two empty seats is practically a miracle. But the holy grail is scoring an entire empty row in economy all to yourself, especially on a long-haul flight.https://thepointsguy.com/2018/01/fly-europe-entire-row-to-yourself/
Well, that appears to be happening with some regularity on Emirates’ A380 daily flight from New York’s JFK to Milan, Italy (MXP). This fifth freedom route is designed to continue onward from Milan to Dubai (DXB), but you can buy a ticket for just the round-trip portion from the US to Europe and back. In fact, Emirates has periodic sales to Milan in the $400s and sometimes even in the $300s, so you can definitely get an excellent price if you buy at the right time.
But it seems not enough people are buying, because this past Monday’s Emirates flight 206 from JFK to MXP was roughly one-third full in economy at best, and the word is that’s not completely unusual for this flight.
The main problem was overcapacity, as demonstrated by the following article:
Certainly, from a business point of view, the giant aircraft was something of an albatross. It was expensive to buy, although the $465 million list price was no doubt heavily discounted. But for most of the A380’s operational life, no one was discounting jet fuel or operating costs estimated at between $26,000 and $29,000 per hour. Compare that to a long-range twin-engine Boeing 787-9 with operational costs estimated at between $11,000-$15,000 per hour.
The main problem was overcapacity, as demonstrated by the following article:
Overcapacity doesn't matter if the operating cost is low enough. The problem is fuel cost is too high: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2019/02/15/and-its-gone-an-appreciation-of-the-airbus-a380/#28f25da4543fQuoteCertainly, from a business point of view, the giant aircraft was something of an albatross. It was expensive to buy, although the $465 million list price was no doubt heavily discounted. But for most of the A380’s operational life, no one was discounting jet fuel or operating costs estimated at between $26,000 and $29,000 per hour. Compare that to a long-range twin-engine Boeing 787-9 with operational costs estimated at between $11,000-$15,000 per hour.
The main problem was overcapacity, as demonstrated by the following article:
Overcapacity doesn't matter if the operating cost is low enough. The problem is fuel cost is too high: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2019/02/15/and-its-gone-an-appreciation-of-the-airbus-a380/#28f25da4543fQuoteCertainly, from a business point of view, the giant aircraft was something of an albatross. It was expensive to buy, although the $465 million list price was no doubt heavily discounted. But for most of the A380’s operational life, no one was discounting jet fuel or operating costs estimated at between $26,000 and $29,000 per hour. Compare that to a long-range twin-engine Boeing 787-9 with operational costs estimated at between $11,000-$15,000 per hour.
The roughly 2x operating cost per hour wouldn't be a problem as the A380 holds roughly 600 in a two class configuration vs the 300 in the 787-9. The problem was the ~2x larger plane was flying half full. So, why would you use the bigger plane even if it cost $1 more per hour.
And it isn't just the fuel. The larger plane has 2x the engines to maintain and inspect, 24 wheels on the landing gear compared to 8. It goes on and on down to the number of bathrooms and hangar fees.
Anyways, you are assuming that upper stage re-use on BFS is near term. Could just be the latest "party balloon" scheme that doesn't come to pass. What TRL level is transpiration cooling?
...
My opinion is that BFR is oversized for the commercial market, just like the Airbus 380. A scaled down BFR that can deliver 7.5 t to GTO (like what New Glenn could do) would be much less costly to develop, build and operate. With in-orbit refuelling it can also do crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
The main problem was overcapacity, as demonstrated by the following article:
Overcapacity doesn't matter if the operating cost is low enough. The problem is fuel cost is too high: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2019/02/15/and-its-gone-an-appreciation-of-the-airbus-a380/#28f25da4543fQuoteCertainly, from a business point of view, the giant aircraft was something of an albatross. It was expensive to buy, although the $465 million list price was no doubt heavily discounted. But for most of the A380’s operational life, no one was discounting jet fuel or operating costs estimated at between $26,000 and $29,000 per hour. Compare that to a long-range twin-engine Boeing 787-9 with operational costs estimated at between $11,000-$15,000 per hour.
The roughly 2x operating cost per hour wouldn't be a problem as the A380 holds roughly 600 in a two class configuration vs the 300 in the 787-9. The problem was the ~2x larger plane was flying half full. So, why would you use the bigger plane even if it cost $1 more per hour.
And it isn't just the fuel. The larger plane has 2x the engines to maintain and inspect, 24 wheels on the landing gear compared to 8. It goes on and on down to the number of bathrooms and hangar fees.
Anyways, you are assuming that upper stage re-use on BFS is near term. Could just be the latest "party balloon" scheme that doesn't come to pass. What TRL level is transpiration cooling?
The main problem was overcapacity, as demonstrated by the following article:
Overcapacity doesn't matter if the operating cost is low enough. The problem is fuel cost is too high: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2019/02/15/and-its-gone-an-appreciation-of-the-airbus-a380/#28f25da4543fQuoteCertainly, from a business point of view, the giant aircraft was something of an albatross. It was expensive to buy, although the $465 million list price was no doubt heavily discounted. But for most of the A380’s operational life, no one was discounting jet fuel or operating costs estimated at between $26,000 and $29,000 per hour. Compare that to a long-range twin-engine Boeing 787-9 with operational costs estimated at between $11,000-$15,000 per hour.
The roughly 2x operating cost per hour wouldn't be a problem as the A380 holds roughly 600 in a two class configuration vs the 300 in the 787-9. The problem was the ~2x larger plane was flying half full. So, why would you use the bigger plane even if it cost $1 more per hour.
And it isn't just the fuel. The larger plane has 2x the engines to maintain and inspect, 24 wheels on the landing gear compared to 8. It goes on and on down to the number of bathrooms and hangar fees.
Anyways, you are assuming that upper stage re-use on BFS is near term. Could just be the latest "party balloon" scheme that doesn't come to pass. What TRL level is transpiration cooling?
For some context, I like to consider the following:
Spacex:
Founded: 2002
Sent a rocket into orbit orbit - 2009
Sent and returned an orbital cargo vessel from space - 2010
Sent the first ever commercial cargo vessel to the ISS - 2012
Landed the first ever booster from an orbital rocket - 2015
Reused the first ever previously landed orbital booster - 2017
Launched a super heavy class rocket and returned two of its boosters - 2018
Sent the first ever commercial Crew Vehicle to the ISS - 2019
Then we have Blue Origin:
Founded: 2000
As of 2019, still to reach orbit.
<snip>....
For some context, I like to consider the following:
Spacex:
Founded: 2002
Sent a rocket into orbit orbit - 2009
Sent and returned an orbital cargo vessel from space - 2010
Sent the first ever commercial cargo vessel to the ISS - 2012
Landed the first ever booster from an orbital rocket - 2015
Reused the first ever previously landed orbital booster - 2017
Launched a super heavy class rocket and returned two of its boosters - 2018
Sent the first ever commercial Crew Vehicle to the ISS - 2019
Then we have Blue Origin:
Founded: 2000
As of 2019, still to reach orbit.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
That's odd reasoning... If you see a smart kid at school, does that mean all kids are smart?The main problem was overcapacity, as demonstrated by the following article:
Overcapacity doesn't matter if the operating cost is low enough. The problem is fuel cost is too high: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2019/02/15/and-its-gone-an-appreciation-of-the-airbus-a380/#28f25da4543fQuoteCertainly, from a business point of view, the giant aircraft was something of an albatross. It was expensive to buy, although the $465 million list price was no doubt heavily discounted. But for most of the A380’s operational life, no one was discounting jet fuel or operating costs estimated at between $26,000 and $29,000 per hour. Compare that to a long-range twin-engine Boeing 787-9 with operational costs estimated at between $11,000-$15,000 per hour.
The roughly 2x operating cost per hour wouldn't be a problem as the A380 holds roughly 600 in a two class configuration vs the 300 in the 787-9. The problem was the ~2x larger plane was flying half full. So, why would you use the bigger plane even if it cost $1 more per hour.
And it isn't just the fuel. The larger plane has 2x the engines to maintain and inspect, 24 wheels on the landing gear compared to 8. It goes on and on down to the number of bathrooms and hangar fees.
Anyways, you are assuming that upper stage re-use on BFS is near term. Could just be the latest "party balloon" scheme that doesn't come to pass. What TRL level is transpiration cooling?
For some context, I like to consider the following:
Spacex:
Founded: 2002
Sent a rocket into orbit orbit - 2009
Sent and returned an orbital cargo vessel from space - 2010
Sent the first ever commercial cargo vessel to the ISS - 2012
Landed the first ever booster from an orbital rocket - 2015
Reused the first ever previously landed orbital booster - 2017
Launched a super heavy class rocket and returned two of its boosters - 2018
Sent the first ever commercial Crew Vehicle to the ISS - 2019
Then we have Blue Origin:
Founded: 2000
As of 2019, still to reach orbit.
You could have done the same thing with ULA and SpaceX a few years ago. I'm not assuming anything. SpaceX could fail, Blue Origin could fail, they both could fail, they both could succeed. All possible futures are equally real until that time comes. Other people on this thread are making assumptions and it simply is wise to point out how 100% statements of fact about the future are wrong.
As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
Counterpoint: Cost to develop, manufacture and operate two different vehicles is going to be higher than one. If your market is Mars, a smaller vehicle that is more optimized for LEO-GTO-cislunar be able to do it, but operating costs are going to increase.This is the "big picture" issue for Musk and SX.
Additionally we're already seeing GTO market in sharp decline, it may never recover, optimizing your future LV for GTO seems to be a risky proposition.You keep hearing this, usually a few years after the current generation of GEO comm sats have been launched.
Finally the size of the BFR may actually makes it less costly to develop, this is still highly speculative since SpaceX's strategy here is not entirely clear right now, but I fully expect them to take advantage of the huge mass margin provided by the bigger size to drive down initial development cost.That is "huge" by the standards of other VTO TSTO vehicles?
As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
I think anything much smaller and you won't be able to have a reusable 2nd stage without getting almost no payload.
As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
I think anything much smaller and you won't be able to have a reusable 2nd stage without getting almost no payload.
For instance, we know for a fact that New Glenn and Falcon Heavy, which are only partially reusable transportation systems, are not big enough to allow for full reusability.
As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
14? Double that plus 5 Falcon Heavy launches plus Starlink launches. Where does 14 come from?
As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
14? Double that plus 5 Falcon Heavy launches plus Starlink launches. Where does 14 come from?
Almost triple.
14 for the ISS alone? 14 for this year? He could take his pick.
F9 made fully expendable rockets irrelevant. Some of them don't know it yet, and some are realizing it even as I type these words.
Expendable rockets are still relevant as that technology is being used by countries who currently do not have reusable rockets. The US is also still relying on expendable rockets. I would agree that expendable rockets are now an obsolete technology. That companies stubbornly cling onto expendable technology for their new vehicles, when they could just copy SpaceX or Blue Origin, boggles the mind!QuoteBFR will make partially reusable rockets obsolete. BO took years too long to bring it to flight (still some TBD time, 2021 and beyond) and this is what happens. It'll come in too late, but maybe just maybe it'll enable BO to start moving more quickly.
My opinion is that BFR is oversized for the commercial market, just like the Airbus 380. A scaled down BFR that can deliver 7.5 t to GTO (like what New Glenn could do) would be much less costly to develop, build and operate. With in-orbit refuelling it can also do crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
If they can launch a rocket into orbit...As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
14? Double that plus 5 Falcon Heavy launches plus Starlink launches. Where does 14 come from?
Almost triple.
14 for the ISS alone? 14 for this year? He could take his pick.
Most of SpaceX's future launch work is with government agencies. Their commercial order book has dwindled to around a dozen launches. Most new contracts are going to Arianespace/Blue Origin/Rocket Lab/Virgin Orbit. Blue Origin hasn't cracked the government market, but in the commercial launch segment, they are on a trend to eclipse SpaceX.
What FACT are you referring to when stating NG isn't big enough to allow for full reusability.?
Blue have never said it can't be fully reusable. What they have stated is reusable 2nd stage isn't on their current todo list.
If they can launch a rocket into orbit...As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
14? Double that plus 5 Falcon Heavy launches plus Starlink launches. Where does 14 come from?
Almost triple.
14 for the ISS alone? 14 for this year? He could take his pick.
Most of SpaceX's future launch work is with government agencies. Their commercial order book has dwindled to around a dozen launches. Most new contracts are going to Arianespace/Blue Origin/Rocket Lab/Virgin Orbit. Blue Origin hasn't cracked the government market, but in the commercial launch segment, they are on a trend to eclipse SpaceX.
Most of SpaceX's future launch work is with government agencies. Their commercial order book has dwindled to around a dozen launches. Most new contracts are going to Arianespace/Blue Origin/Rocket Lab/Virgin Orbit. Blue Origin hasn't cracked the government market, but in the commercial launch segment, they are on a trend to eclipse SpaceX.
Hate to break it to you, but new shephard is already doing ~60% of what Falcon 9 1st stage did on its first recovery launch. Falcon 9 1st stage accelerated the stack to about 1.66 km/s. New Shephard accelerates to ~1 km/s
Hate to break it to you, but new shephard is already doing ~60% of what Falcon 9 1st stage did on its first recovery launch. In that case, the Falcon 9 1st stage accelerated the stack to about 1.66 km/s. New Shephard accelerates to ~1 km/s. If they wanted to, they could have made this into a TSTO expendable/partially reusable launcher akin to Falcon 1, but they are just doing different tasks. Not necessarily worse or less difficult - just different.
Reaching orbit isn't necessarily the most difficult thing. A small group of pacific islanders did it on their second try.
A fully reusable NG would take significant payload hit for LEO, maybe down to 20-30t to LEO. The payload hit for higher orbits would be worst, may struggle even with GTO missions. To justify new US they would need to be flying lot LEO missions, current manifest is mixed bag. Also reuseable US would likely go from expendable fairing to payload hangar which would have lot less volume. Great for returning cargo to earth, but not lot of demand for that.What FACT are you referring to when stating NG isn't big enough to allow for full reusability.?
Blue have never said it can't be fully reusable. What they have stated is reusable 2nd stage isn't on their current todo list.
You are asking to prove something based on lack of statements from Blue; bit difficult that. NG second stage reuse is most likely technically feasible, but would it make sense?
Maybe some of our experts who have run simulations(?) based on what Blue has shared can opine? Floor is open...
As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
14? Double that plus 5 Falcon Heavy launches plus Starlink launches. Where does 14 come from?
Almost triple.
14 for the ISS alone? 14 for this year? He could take his pick.
Most of SpaceX's future launch work is with government agencies. Their commercial order book has dwindled to around a dozen launches. Most new contracts are going to Arianespace/Blue Origin/Rocket Lab/Virgin Orbit. Blue Origin hasn't cracked the government market, but in the commercial launch segment, they are on a trend to eclipse SpaceX.
No they could not, at least not easily--or all the sounding rocket providers would be launching orbital payloads by now.
What FACT are you referring to when stating NG isn't big enough to allow for full reusability.?I think anything much smaller and you won't be able to have a reusable 2nd stage without getting almost no payload.For instance, we know for a fact that New Glenn and Falcon Heavy, which are only partially reusable transportation systems, are not big enough to allow for full reusability.
Blue have never said it can't be fully reusable. What they have stated is reusable 2nd stage isn't on their current todo list.
Sounding rockets have been converted to orbital rockets.True, but how many and how successful? Blue's NA is still essentially a sounding rocket. As history shows, there is a big gap between that and orbital capability; e = mv2 is a b*tch.
As far as reality goes, New Glenn has 10 commercial launches on the order book. Falcon 9 has 14. BFS has 1. That is the reality as far as today is concerned regarding the future of commercial spaceflight - tomorrow these numbers will most likely be identical or slightly adjusted.
But why is the 100,000 lbf rocket Falcon 1 in your list but the 100,000 lbf rocket New Shephard isn't? And it is worth pointing out that Blue had more unmanned crew capsule time in space than SpaceX until very recently.
14? Double that plus 5 Falcon Heavy launches plus Starlink launches. Where does 14 come from?
Almost triple.
14 for the ISS alone? 14 for this year? He could take his pick.
Most of SpaceX's future launch work is with government agencies. Their commercial order book has dwindled to around a dozen launches. Most new contracts are going to Arianespace/Blue Origin/Rocket Lab/Virgin Orbit. Blue Origin hasn't cracked the government market, but in the commercial launch segment, they are on a trend to eclipse SpaceX.
As this thread is supposed to be comparing which approach / business strategy is better SpaceX or Blue Origin, it would be useful to define what the approach of each company is. I’m familiar with SpaceX, less so with Blue Origin. Perhaps someone else could describe Blue Origins approach? Here’s my take on the approach of SpaceX:You might want to start here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38883.0). Plenty food for thought there and likely answers to your questions.
...
I said "much of", not "entirety of".Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
- Ed Kyle
By this logic, Blue cedes all experience with NS and is basically starting at zero with NG? Did SpaceX cede all advantage leaving the F1 behind for the F9? Going from F9 to F9H? Same fuel, but vastly different engines and rockets. You can't rely on kerolox expertise entirely to develop and run a methalox engine, but the experience developing, building, testing, iterating and refining the engine certainly carries over. As does the experience of making your engines and vehicles better suited for reuse.
Just because you switch fuel/engine doesn't render the entirety of your previous experience null and void. That's a pretty crazy assertion.
Understood, but what was your take on the F9.1 transition?I said "much of", not "entirety of".Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
- Ed Kyle
By this logic, Blue cedes all experience with NS and is basically starting at zero with NG? Did SpaceX cede all advantage leaving the F1 behind for the F9? Going from F9 to F9H? Same fuel, but vastly different engines and rockets. You can't rely on kerolox expertise entirely to develop and run a methalox engine, but the experience developing, building, testing, iterating and refining the engine certainly carries over. As does the experience of making your engines and vehicles better suited for reuse.
Just because you switch fuel/engine doesn't render the entirety of your previous experience null and void. That's a pretty crazy assertion.
To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed. It means shedding infrastructure and people and expertise. This is a process that has already begun, in a tiny 10% step to start. It seems crazy to me. In my view, SpaceX should fly Falcon for decades.
- Ed Kyle
Since BO hasn't achieved orbit yet, and hasn't landed a booster on a ship yet. Blue might loose a rocket or two trying to land. Their landings will be harder than SpaceX. The SpaceX drone ship basically stays still during landings. Blue's ship will be moving. That might be harder. Dunking a booster for Blue may be more expensive also. Their engines (7) are what $6 million each, while SpaceX said theirs were $1 million each. $42 million vs $9 million for engines alone.If its harder for Blue to land on a moving ship why move it?
Who was it said "those who can't hear the music think the dancers are crazy"? I would agree that it's a shame that an excellent piece of engineering is to be abandoned, but thinking along SpaceX lines it will be necessary at some point in order to achieve their goals.I said "much of", not "entirety of".Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
- Ed Kyle
By this logic, Blue cedes all experience with NS and is basically starting at zero with NG? Did SpaceX cede all advantage leaving the F1 behind for the F9? Going from F9 to F9H? Same fuel, but vastly different engines and rockets. You can't rely on kerolox expertise entirely to develop and run a methalox engine, but the experience developing, building, testing, iterating and refining the engine certainly carries over. As does the experience of making your engines and vehicles better suited for reuse.
Just because you switch fuel/engine doesn't render the entirety of your previous experience null and void. That's a pretty crazy assertion.
To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed. It means shedding infrastructure and people and expertise. This is a process that has already begun, in a tiny 10% step to start. It seems crazy to me. In my view, SpaceX should fly Falcon for decades.
- Ed Kyle
I said "much of", not "entirety of".Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
- Ed Kyle
By this logic, Blue cedes all experience with NS and is basically starting at zero with NG? Did SpaceX cede all advantage leaving the F1 behind for the F9? Going from F9 to F9H? Same fuel, but vastly different engines and rockets. You can't rely on kerolox expertise entirely to develop and run a methalox engine, but the experience developing, building, testing, iterating and refining the engine certainly carries over. As does the experience of making your engines and vehicles better suited for reuse.
Just because you switch fuel/engine doesn't render the entirety of your previous experience null and void. That's a pretty crazy assertion.
To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed. It means shedding infrastructure and people and expertise. This is a process that has already begun, in a tiny 10% step to start. It seems crazy to me. In my view, SpaceX should fly Falcon for decades.
- Ed Kyle
To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed.
Do we have any sense of whether BlueOrigin will develop a NewGlenn hopper or are hopper's only part of SpaceX's approach?Well you could say that 'hoppers' is all Blue Origin has built so far...
SpaceX's drone ship has 4 props, one at each corner. They are not for transport, a tug does that, but for keeping it in one steady location when landing a rocket.
Blue Origins' will be an actual ship that will be moving forward to keep it stable. If it comes to a stop in the ocean, it bobbles, as it can only move in one direction, unless it makes a wide circle constantly moving. Blue's ship may be moving at 15-20 knots while the booster is coming down to intercept it. This may be harder and therefore may loose a few rockets while attempting to land. SpaceX lost a few perfecting it. Therefore BO will probably will too. And their rocket costs much more than SpaceX.
I see it this way. With Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, SpaceX, as its advocates keep reminding me, apparently has a massive reusability cost advantage over its competitors. Why, then, is it not exploiting that advantage? Where are the massive price cuts and dizzying payload backlogs? Why are its competitors still winning any launch contracts despite using expendable vehicles? In my view, it is because SpaceX is not exploiting its supposed Falcon cost advantage, choosing instead to raise income and debt for its risky big new project. And it is risky. Where Merlin is elegant and reliable and cost effective, the high pressure staged combustion Raptor is going to inevitably be fussier and costlier and have lower T/W, etc. Where Falcon is closer to the size of its expendable competitors, BFR is going to be massive, and in the event of failure frighteningly destructive and costly. I guess I just don't see BFR being the better design.To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed.
Ed, you're looking at this the wrong way. If BFR flies as planned, SpaceX WILL WANT TO abandon Falcon. Because BFR will be that much better.
Alternatively, if BFR isn't better, SpaceX can keep flying Falcon. The only way Falcon goes away is BFR beats Falcon's capability and costs.
Everyone else is scrambling to match Falcon. SpaceX is already working to beat it.
I said "much of", not "entirety of".Shrug. Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking. Hence "grounded".SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience. But SpaceX has said it plans to shut down its existing launch systems (Falcon 9 production is already or soon will be scaled back as I understand things) in favor of BFR, a new rocket using new fuel and a new combustion cycle. That plan cedes much of the existing launch experience advantage, in my opinion.
As for NG vs. BFR - even if it does, what if NG flies before BFR?
It'll either fly before the current BFR or before the next-gen BFR, and it's equally irrelevant to either of them...
- Ed Kyle
By this logic, Blue cedes all experience with NS and is basically starting at zero with NG? Did SpaceX cede all advantage leaving the F1 behind for the F9? Going from F9 to F9H? Same fuel, but vastly different engines and rockets. You can't rely on kerolox expertise entirely to develop and run a methalox engine, but the experience developing, building, testing, iterating and refining the engine certainly carries over. As does the experience of making your engines and vehicles better suited for reuse.
Just because you switch fuel/engine doesn't render the entirety of your previous experience null and void. That's a pretty crazy assertion.
To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed. It means shedding infrastructure and people and expertise. This is a process that has already begun, in a tiny 10% step to start. It seems crazy to me. In my view, SpaceX should fly Falcon for decades.
- Ed Kyle
I guess I just don't see BFR being the better design.
- Ed Kyle
I see it this way. With Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, SpaceX, as its advocates keep reminding me, apparently has a massive reusability cost advantage over its competitors. Why, then, is it not exploiting that advantage? Where are the massive price cuts and dizzying payload backlogs? Why are its competitors still winning any launch contracts despite using expendable vehicles? In my view, it is because SpaceX is not exploiting its supposed Falcon cost advantage, choosing instead to raise income and debt for its risky big new project. And it is risky. Where Merlin is elegant and reliable and cost effective, the high pressure staged combustion Raptor is going to inevitably be fussier and costlier and have lower T/W, etc. Where Falcon is closer to the size of its expendable competitors, BFR is going to be massive, and in the event of failure frighteningly destructive and costly. I guess I just don't see BFR being the better design.To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed.
Ed, you're looking at this the wrong way. If BFR flies as planned, SpaceX WILL WANT TO abandon Falcon. Because BFR will be that much better.
Alternatively, if BFR isn't better, SpaceX can keep flying Falcon. The only way Falcon goes away is BFR beats Falcon's capability and costs.
Everyone else is scrambling to match Falcon. SpaceX is already working to beat it.
- Ed Kyle
I see it this way. With Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, SpaceX, as its advocates keep reminding me, apparently has a massive reusability cost advantage over its competitors. Why, then, is it not exploiting that advantage? Where are the massive price cuts and dizzying payload backlogs?
Why are its competitors still winning any launch contracts despite using expendable vehicles?
In my view, it is because SpaceX is not exploiting its supposed Falcon cost advantage, choosing instead to raise income and debt for its risky big new project.
Where Falcon is closer to the size of its expendable competitors, BFR is going to be massive, and in the event of failure frighteningly destructive and costly. I guess I just don't see BFR being the better design.
Well if you're going to say "supposed advantages of reusability", you have to pick which side of the fence you're on.I see it this way. With Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, SpaceX, as its advocates keep reminding me, apparently has a massive reusability cost advantage over its competitors. Why, then, is it not exploiting that advantage? Where are the massive price cuts and dizzying payload backlogs? Why are its competitors still winning any launch contracts despite using expendable vehicles? In my view, it is because SpaceX is not exploiting its supposed Falcon cost advantage, choosing instead to raise income and debt for its risky big new project. And it is risky. Where Merlin is elegant and reliable and cost effective, the high pressure staged combustion Raptor is going to inevitably be fussier and costlier and have lower T/W, etc. Where Falcon is closer to the size of its expendable competitors, BFR is going to be massive, and in the event of failure frighteningly destructive and costly. I guess I just don't see BFR being the better design.To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed.
Ed, you're looking at this the wrong way. If BFR flies as planned, SpaceX WILL WANT TO abandon Falcon. Because BFR will be that much better.
Alternatively, if BFR isn't better, SpaceX can keep flying Falcon. The only way Falcon goes away is BFR beats Falcon's capability and costs.
Everyone else is scrambling to match Falcon. SpaceX is already working to beat it.
- Ed Kyle
The commercial satellite market has stated, publicly, that they want NO LESS THAN 3-4 launch providers. They have NO INTEREST in becoming dependent on a single provider. And for good reason.
This is why New Glenn will be so important, because the market will finally have TWO reusable launch providers, and I think that is when we will start to see a definite change in the commercial satellite business, since they will have a redundant and competitive reusable launch market that they can depend upon.
For instance, it takes years (maybe even a decade or more) to change how satellites are built, and to change the business models the current commercial satellite market has been built upon. That is not something SpaceX can change, especially since new business models and new technology will have to be built to fully take advantage of both the reusable Falcon 9 (i.e. high volume) and Falcon Heavy (i.e. high mass).
It depends what you mean by "better". The goal of SpaceX is to land humans on Mars and BFR beats Falcon 9 hands down in that respect. You need a huge payload capability for a human Mars mission. BFR has that Falcon 9 does not. You need to be able to re-tank on Mars BFR can Falcon 9 can't. And in order to make it affordable it needs to be completely reusable, BFR is Falcon 9 is not.I see it this way. With Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, SpaceX, as its advocates keep reminding me, apparently has a massive reusability cost advantage over its competitors. Why, then, is it not exploiting that advantage? Where are the massive price cuts and dizzying payload backlogs? Why are its competitors still winning any launch contracts despite using expendable vehicles? In my view, it is because SpaceX is not exploiting its supposed Falcon cost advantage, choosing instead to raise income and debt for its risky big new project. And it is risky. Where Merlin is elegant and reliable and cost effective, the high pressure staged combustion Raptor is going to inevitably be fussier and costlier and have lower T/W, etc. Where Falcon is closer to the size of its expendable competitors, BFR is going to be massive, and in the event of failure frighteningly destructive and costly. I guess I just don't see BFR being the better design.To fly BFR as their primary launch system - which is what they're planning - they're going to have to give up Merlin and Falcon. It means giving up the best gas generator hydrocarbon rocket engine yet developed.
Ed, you're looking at this the wrong way. If BFR flies as planned, SpaceX WILL WANT TO abandon Falcon. Because BFR will be that much better.
Alternatively, if BFR isn't better, SpaceX can keep flying Falcon. The only way Falcon goes away is BFR beats Falcon's capability and costs.
Everyone else is scrambling to match Falcon. SpaceX is already working to beat it.
- Ed Kyle
If the commercial satellite market as has stated, publicly, that they want NO LESS THAN 3-4 launch providers, then would they accept SS and F9/F9H as 2 launch provisions or since it is the same company would the just lump they vehicles together and count it as one provider?
From an engineering strategy perspective, I'm not convinced you can substitute any existing level of analysis for actual practice. In particular, boosters entering backwards, and looking at the aerodynamics and heating in such cases, seems like a case where existing analysis tools are weak and experimentation is likely both faster and more accurate. As evidence, I submit the plot below, which shows the progression of separation velocity with Block 5 boosters. Despite considerable experience with Block 4, and designing Block 5 by extrapolating from a closely related existing design, it seems that SpaceX still needs an experimental program to get the design perfected and find its limits. It seems to me that trying to do this by analysis, instead of experimentation, risks either failure or much larger (and perhaps uncompetitive) margins.SpaceX clearly leads Blue in orbital launch, and especially in orbital spacecraft, experience.
And this is not a small point, but a big one. SpaceX has hundreds, if not thousands of people that have experience with orbital hardware and reusable launch operations. Blue Origin likely has hundreds of people that have experience with sub-orbital hardware and reusable launch operations.
Clearly SpaceX has far less to learn when bringing the SH/SS online than Blue Origin does.
From an engineering strategy perspective, I'm not convinced you can substitute any existing level of analysis for actual practice. In particular, boosters entering backwards, and looking at the aerodynamics and heating in such cases, seems like a case where existing analysis tools are weak and experimentation is likely both faster and more accurate. As evidence, I submit the plot below, which shows the progression of separation velocity with Block 5 boosters. Despite considerable experience with Block 4, and designing Block 5 by extrapolating from a closely related existing design, it seems that SpaceX still needs an experimental program to get the design perfected and find its limits. It seems to me that trying to do this by analysis, instead of experimentation, risks either failure or much larger (and perhaps uncompetitive) margins.
No, my point is that SpaceX is still experimenting to find the actual performance and limitations of its design. This despite having a very similar previous version, and explicitly designing this version to address problems found in the prior implementation. In such an non-traditional aerodynamic regime (non-aerodynamic objects entering complex-end first) it seems to me the best way to really understand a design is to try it, measure carefully, and iterate. The opposite approach, lots of analysis leading to a almost-final design on the first iteration, seems more risky to me in this case (though it works well in cases where the aerodynamics are better understood, as in commercial planes).From an engineering strategy perspective, I'm not convinced you can substitute any existing level of analysis for actual practice. In particular, boosters entering backwards, and looking at the aerodynamics and heating in such cases, seems like a case where existing analysis tools are weak and experimentation is likely both faster and more accurate. As evidence, I submit the plot below, which shows the progression of separation velocity with Block 5 boosters. Despite considerable experience with Block 4, and designing Block 5 by extrapolating from a closely related existing design, it seems that SpaceX still needs an experimental program to get the design perfected and find its limits. It seems to me that trying to do this by analysis, instead of experimentation, risks either failure or much larger (and perhaps uncompetitive) margins.
If you think they are hunting for a perfect separation velocity, you are mistaken. Separation velocity will continue to vary significantly depending on payload and mission. There are many factors and trade offs involved in picking a trajectory for every mission.
This has been an interesting thread to catch up on- I just finished binging the last 40-odd pages.
In my opinion, Blue has the better "Strategy"- Fast follow, keep an eye on the opponent's mistakes, and don't do those mistakes.
The problem is they're trying to "fast follow" SpaceX. SpaceX's strategy is to fail fast and iterate quickly. This leads to Blue failing to realize what's an actual mistake, and persistently doing a last generation better.
New Shepard is clearly better than Virgin Galactic's Spaceship Two. This is an example of blue's strategy going right, where they identified the risky parts of VG's plan- the air launch- and avoiding it.
New Glenn, however, is what FH "Should have been", with a path to evolve into what SpaceX "should have done" to get ready for BFR. No multi-core design, cheap fuel (on the recoverable stage), an engine that teaches the company about Staged combustion, GTO capability for the heaviest and largest planned birds while recovering, and enough margin to develop a "SFR", a recoverable upperstage prototype for BFR/NA, and to use that prototype on operational missions.
SpaceX has continued firing on cylinders, however, and BFR looks to becoming out in the same timeframe Blue was expecting Red Dragon and Falcon Upper Stage Reuse. Blue's strategy is excellent, but it requires the leader to make costly mistakes, which is hard-countered by SpaceX's strategy of making small mistakes constantly and learning from them.
In 5-10 years, with a bit of effort, Blue will have their reusable upperstage, with hydrogen transpirational cooling and blackjack and hookers. They'll be able to compete with BFR for the smaller market, driving down both company's profit margin. New Armstrong will be on the way as a Starship Killer, with high energy orbital fuel transfer and 400+ tons landed on mars, while SpaceX focuses on Starlink, their mars colony, and Tanker and Chomper varients of the Starship hull. (I'm in the "deploy Starlink out the Starship side door" camp for near term)
I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
New Shepard is clearly better than Virgin Galactic's Spaceship Two. This is an example of blue's strategy going right, where they identified the risky parts of VG's plan- the air launch- and avoiding it.
I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
Falcon 9 1.0 was an incremental improvement in cost.
Falcon 9 reusable is a gamechanger
Full reusability (Starship/NG upper stage reuse) is a second gamechanger. Orbital refueling is a third gamechanger.
But after that, what's the plan? More incremental improvements? Nuclear engines? Elon's shot his wad on "applying the last 50 year's development to rocket design", and rockets are going to platoh again, with improvements to reuse numbers bringing down price but no more gamechangers until martians reinvent NERVA away from their parent goverments.
SpaceX will have a solid lead for a good 10 years, even over "fast follower" Blue, but eventually people will catch up once he can no longer out-Lensemen them.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
Falcon 9 1.0 was an incremental improvement in cost.
Falcon 9 reusable is a gamechanger
Full reusability (Starship/NG upper stage reuse) is a second gamechanger. Orbital refueling is a third gamechanger.
But after that, what's the plan? More incremental improvements? Nuclear engines? Elon's shot his wad on "applying the last 50 year's development to rocket design", and rockets are going to platoh again, with improvements to reuse numbers bringing down price but no more gamechangers until martians reinvent NERVA away from their parent goverments.
SpaceX will have a solid lead for a good 10 years, even over "fast follower" Blue, but eventually people will catch up once he can no longer out-Lensemen them.
Not the end of the line, nessesarally, but the end of the paradime shifts. No more "order of magnatude reductions on launch costs" to be found under the couch. If BFR is the DC3, there will be 747s, but there will also be 787s that take it a march too far. And not all the "747" rockets will be SpaceX.If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
Falcon 9 1.0 was an incremental improvement in cost.
Falcon 9 reusable is a gamechanger
Full reusability (Starship/NG upper stage reuse) is a second gamechanger. Orbital refueling is a third gamechanger.
But after that, what's the plan? More incremental improvements? Nuclear engines? Elon's shot his wad on "applying the last 50 year's development to rocket design", and rockets are going to platoh again, with improvements to reuse numbers bringing down price but no more gamechangers until martians reinvent NERVA away from their parent goverments.
SpaceX will have a solid lead for a good 10 years, even over "fast follower" Blue, but eventually people will catch up once he can no longer out-Lensemen them.
Meanwhile I'll remind you that BFR was intended to be 12 m, and nobody knows if 9m is just a convenient first step or a "forever diameter".
IMHO, no way is 9 m the end of the line.
How is everyone so smart about where the end of the line is?Not the end of the line, nessesarally, but the end of the paradime shifts. No more "order of magnatude reductions on launch costs" to be found under the couch. If BFR is the DC3, there will be 747s, but there will also be 787s that take it a march too far. And not all the "747" rockets will be SpaceX.If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
Falcon 9 1.0 was an incremental improvement in cost.
Falcon 9 reusable is a gamechanger
Full reusability (Starship/NG upper stage reuse) is a second gamechanger. Orbital refueling is a third gamechanger.
But after that, what's the plan? More incremental improvements? Nuclear engines? Elon's shot his wad on "applying the last 50 year's development to rocket design", and rockets are going to platoh again, with improvements to reuse numbers bringing down price but no more gamechangers until martians reinvent NERVA away from their parent goverments.
SpaceX will have a solid lead for a good 10 years, even over "fast follower" Blue, but eventually people will catch up once he can no longer out-Lensemen them.
Meanwhile I'll remind you that BFR was intended to be 12 m, and nobody knows if 9m is just a convenient first step or a "forever diameter".
IMHO, no way is 9 m the end of the line.
How is everyone so smart about where the end of the line is?Not the end of the line, nessesarally, but the end of the paradime shifts. No more "order of magnatude reductions on launch costs" to be found under the couch. If BFR is the DC3, there will be 747s, but there will also be 787s that take it a march too far. And not all the "747" rockets will be SpaceX.If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
Falcon 9 1.0 was an incremental improvement in cost.
Falcon 9 reusable is a gamechanger
Full reusability (Starship/NG upper stage reuse) is a second gamechanger. Orbital refueling is a third gamechanger.
But after that, what's the plan? More incremental improvements? Nuclear engines? Elon's shot his wad on "applying the last 50 year's development to rocket design", and rockets are going to platoh again, with improvements to reuse numbers bringing down price but no more gamechangers until martians reinvent NERVA away from their parent goverments.
SpaceX will have a solid lead for a good 10 years, even over "fast follower" Blue, but eventually people will catch up once he can no longer out-Lensemen them.
Meanwhile I'll remind you that BFR was intended to be 12 m, and nobody knows if 9m is just a convenient first step or a "forever diameter".
IMHO, no way is 9 m the end of the line.
For many years to come, SpaceX will have the only fully reusable space launch system, and an interplanetary transport system.
How is everyone so smart about where the end of the line is?
For many years to come, SpaceX will have the only fully reusable space launch system, and an interplanetary transport system.
How are you so smart about SpaceX's ability to keep their eye on the ball? Anyone can be fast-followed and surpassed. Besides, nobody here is talking certainty, just patterns and potential outcomes.
You're dead-on about many things, meekGee, as is rakaydos. I'd give better than even odds that reusability is the major tech inflection point over the next 10-20 years, minus a breakthrough in propulsion.
that's still only incremental improvement, which can be leapfrogged.How is everyone so smart about where the end of the line is?Not the end of the line, nessesarally, but the end of the paradime shifts. No more "order of magnatude reductions on launch costs" to be found under the couch. If BFR is the DC3, there will be 747s, but there will also be 787s that take it a march too far. And not all the "747" rockets will be SpaceX.If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
Falcon 9 1.0 was an incremental improvement in cost.
Falcon 9 reusable is a gamechanger
Full reusability (Starship/NG upper stage reuse) is a second gamechanger. Orbital refueling is a third gamechanger.
But after that, what's the plan? More incremental improvements? Nuclear engines? Elon's shot his wad on "applying the last 50 year's development to rocket design", and rockets are going to platoh again, with improvements to reuse numbers bringing down price but no more gamechangers until martians reinvent NERVA away from their parent goverments.
SpaceX will have a solid lead for a good 10 years, even over "fast follower" Blue, but eventually people will catch up once he can no longer out-Lensemen them.
Meanwhile I'll remind you that BFR was intended to be 12 m, and nobody knows if 9m is just a convenient first step or a "forever diameter".
IMHO, no way is 9 m the end of the line.
For many years to come, SpaceX will have the only fully reusable space launch system, and an interplanetary transport system.
Why wouldn't they use this capability to forge ahead?
Maybe they'll build an Orbit-to-orbit system next?
Leapfrog implies someone surpasses you and goes directly to the "next level". However, you're also saying that there isn't a significant next level.that's still only incremental improvement, which can be leapfrogged.How is everyone so smart about where the end of the line is?Not the end of the line, nessesarally, but the end of the paradime shifts. No more "order of magnatude reductions on launch costs" to be found under the couch. If BFR is the DC3, there will be 747s, but there will also be 787s that take it a march too far. And not all the "747" rockets will be SpaceX.If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.I'm not so sure about this. SpaceX has been planning BFR since it was called Falcon XX. Everything has been a step toward it. But once SpaceX has BFR... what then? Mars, sure, but mars is a money sink and will be for over 5 decades. My reading is that once SpaceX is comfortable with Starship, they'll expand into dedicated Chomper and Tanker vehicals, but a 12 or 15m ITS would require a different infrastructure.
Second - you're exactly right about NG being planned as an "FH killer" and being way late to the party, but by the same analogy NA will be equally late to the "kill BFR" party, unless BO aims way way higher. SpaceX is getting to the point where SS is overtaking NG, not NA.
Blue, meanwhile, will be late to the party, but at the same time will be soaking infrastructure costs in any case, so might as well meet or beat the original ITS design goals and cut SpaceX's legs out from under it.
People thinking that SpaceX will just rest on their laurels and stagnate with SH/SS are in for the same frustration as the people who thought that F1, or F9, or F9.1, or F9 FT, were the end on the line for development at SpaceX.
Given how infrastructure-lean SS development is turning out to be, why would you think that SS v2 would be the end of the line? The Mars effort will want increasingly large payloads for many years to come... SS as it currently stands is the MVR - Minimum Viable Rocket of its line.
Falcon 9 1.0 was an incremental improvement in cost.
Falcon 9 reusable is a gamechanger
Full reusability (Starship/NG upper stage reuse) is a second gamechanger. Orbital refueling is a third gamechanger.
But after that, what's the plan? More incremental improvements? Nuclear engines? Elon's shot his wad on "applying the last 50 year's development to rocket design", and rockets are going to platoh again, with improvements to reuse numbers bringing down price but no more gamechangers until martians reinvent NERVA away from their parent goverments.
SpaceX will have a solid lead for a good 10 years, even over "fast follower" Blue, but eventually people will catch up once he can no longer out-Lensemen them.
Meanwhile I'll remind you that BFR was intended to be 12 m, and nobody knows if 9m is just a convenient first step or a "forever diameter".
IMHO, no way is 9 m the end of the line.
For many years to come, SpaceX will have the only fully reusable space launch system, and an interplanetary transport system.
Why wouldn't they use this capability to forge ahead?
Maybe they'll build an Orbit-to-orbit system next?
Leapfrog implies someone surpasses you and goes directly to the "next level". However, you're also saying that there isn't a significant next level.you are right as far as you go. Starship will be an amazing technical achievement, but one that's built on the disparity in the last 50 years between aerospace technology and aerospace achievement.
SS is not new science. It's just a smart application of existing science. So you could have argued the same thing after the first liquid rockets. And yet, SpaceX.
The barrier to entry that SpaceX has can continue to grow, and it doesn't depend on anything fundamental - just on company culture and leadership.
As it stands, there isn't a competitor in sight. BO, with a terrible track record to date and a leader who quotes anecdotes from friends about Mars and Mt. Everest - they ain't it.
Maybe as Dave says it's propulsion, maybe surface tech on Mars...Leapfrog implies someone surpasses you and goes directly to the "next level". However, you're also saying that there isn't a significant next level.you are right as far as you go. Starship will be an amazing technical achievement, but one that's built on the disparity in the last 50 years between aerospace technology and aerospace achievement.
SS is not new science. It's just a smart application of existing science. So you could have argued the same thing after the first liquid rockets. And yet, SpaceX.
The barrier to entry that SpaceX has can continue to grow, and it doesn't depend on anything fundamental - just on company culture and leadership.
As it stands, there isn't a competitor in sight. BO, with a terrible track record to date and a leader who quotes anecdotes from friends about Mars and Mt. Everest - they ain't it.
So what is Starship missing? What is the next bit of existing but ignored science that will ensure SpaceX's technical dominance over "conventional minded" competitors?
Starship will have at least 5 years before New Glen has a reusable upper stage, and another 10 before new Armstrong does it better. And in that time, SpaceX can do Starship better too. But it's a level playing field, which favors fast followers like Blue and China.
IMO, the standings, with 2020 in bold:
Tier 5: Soyuz, Atlas V, Ariane 5
Tier 4: Falcon 9 1.0, Ariane 6, Vulcan, the new Russian rocket
Tier 3: Falcon 9 1.1, the European rocket after A6, china's projects
Tier 2: Falcon 9/H block 5, New Glen
Tier 1: Starship, New glen reusable upper stage
Tier ?: ???
Maybe as Dave says it's propulsion, maybe surface tech on Mars...Leapfrog implies someone surpasses you and goes directly to the "next level". However, you're also saying that there isn't a significant next level.you are right as far as you go. Starship will be an amazing technical achievement, but one that's built on the disparity in the last 50 years between aerospace technology and aerospace achievement.
SS is not new science. It's just a smart application of existing science. So you could have argued the same thing after the first liquid rockets. And yet, SpaceX.
The barrier to entry that SpaceX has can continue to grow, and it doesn't depend on anything fundamental - just on company culture and leadership.
As it stands, there isn't a competitor in sight. BO, with a terrible track record to date and a leader who quotes anecdotes from friends about Mars and Mt. Everest - they ain't it.
So what is Starship missing? What is the next bit of existing but ignored science that will ensure SpaceX's technical dominance over "conventional minded" competitors?
Starship will have at least 5 years before New Glen has a reusable upper stage, and another 10 before new Armstrong does it better. And in that time, SpaceX can do Starship better too. But it's a level playing field, which favors fast followers like Blue and China.
IMO, the standings, with 2020 in bold:
Tier 5: Soyuz, Atlas V, Ariane 5
Tier 4: Falcon 9 1.0, Ariane 6, Vulcan, the new Russian rocket
Tier 3: Falcon 9 1.1, the European rocket after A6, china's projects
Tier 2: Falcon 9/H block 5, New Glen
Tier 1: Starship, New glen reusable upper stage
Tier ?: ???
But my point is that SpaceX didn't achieve its position just because of tech, but also because they have an active CEO that (for example) created Starlink to leverage their launch advantage, again without changing the laws of physics.
Mars will be the same. In less than 10 years they'll have people on the surface, and in 20, a colony.
These things are exponential, and favor the leader, not the follower. There's a very slim window in which the follower can start chasing, and once they do, they need to move faster than the leader. With enough lead, the leader can afford the mistakes that the follower was counting on.
BO is acting like they either don't get that, or simply can't move any faster.
That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
So where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations.
While mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
You seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
Tier 5: Soyuz, Atlas V, Ariane 5
Tier 4: Falcon 9 1.0, Ariane 6, Vulcan, the new Russian rocket
Tier 3: Falcon 9 1.1, the European rocket after A6, china's projects
Tier 2: Falcon 9/H block 5, New Glen
Tier 1: Starship, New glen reusable upper stage
Tier ?: ???
In terms of cost for mass to orbit, Shuttle was tier 5 or tier 6 (higher tier is worse), despite the reuse of the orbiter. It was commonly cited as a reason reusables -couldnt- work economically.Tier 5: Soyuz, Atlas V, Ariane 5
Tier 4: Falcon 9 1.0, Ariane 6, Vulcan, the new Russian rocket
Tier 3: Falcon 9 1.1, the European rocket after A6, china's projects
Tier 2: Falcon 9/H block 5, New Glen
Tier 1: Starship, New glen reusable upper stage
Tier ?: ???
Tier 1.5: Space Shuttle
Shuttle is dead, Soyuz still flying ~15 times a year.
Don't be so sure. Elon's destination requires heat shielding, reentry, and high DV return to earth, whereas Bezos needs higher rocket DV to match his targets (NEO asteroids, the lunar surface) but has lower return DV and can field specialist In-space hardware for a greater % of his operations.That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
To a certain degree it doesn't matter where people and things are going in space. Sure, going longer distances means you have to have even more specialized transportation systems, but the requirement to lift mass from Earth is the same regardless how far from Earth people and mass are ultimately going.
SpaceX currently offers the lowest cost method of moving mass to space, and they are rapidly working on dramatically lowering that with the Super Heavy & Starship combo. Blue Origin currently doesn't move mass to space (to stay), and it is still working on its first partially reusable orbital-class transportation system.QuoteSo where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations.
Again, I wouldn't get too fixated on the destination, since the hardware required to get people to the places they will be living and working in space is likely 99%+ common with what's required to get people to the surface of Mars. Plus Musk has businesses he plans to pursue that will require regular operations around Earth, so he's not abandoning Earth.
I am assuming SpaceX with redirect their R&D efforts to ground ops after mars is achieved. Shotwell wants to keep space operations going better, further, and faster, but Elon, who has been driving the pace for the last 15 years, will be distracted by actually achieving his ambition, which Bezos is nowhere near on. Combined with running out of gamechangers (Mars ops don't really support magnoshell capture over regular heat shielding, and noone's touching NERVA for decades), SpaceX will have some improvement on momentum but will mostly consolidate their position.QuoteWhile mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
Remember though that Musk sees SpaceX as the transportation company getting people and material to Mars, he wants others to design, build and operate the Mars surface operations. No doubt he will help, but he sees SpaceX as strictly as a transportation company. Which from what we know of Blue Origin, is what they are too.QuoteYou seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
How? I think you need to describe how you think Blue Origin will overcome the momentum SpaceX appears to have.
For instance, are you assuming SpaceX will slow down, and the current Blue Origin pace of development will eventually catch up and overtake SpaceX?
Or are you assuming that Blue Origin is slowing building up to a faster pace of development?
Seems like much of the confidence in BO comes from JB’s success with Amazon.(Because it certainly can’t be based on any noteworthy achievements by BO to date).That is an amazing tool for SpaceX, but one that is going to be sidetracked by 2024. Once there are boots one the ground and refueling plants in place, Elon can cross off "Build transportation system to mars" and focus on the next step of his master plan for "Making life multiplanatary"
But while Bezos knows a lot about selling stuff on the internet, from what I can see he doesn’t have that deep technical expertise in rocketry. By contrast, Musk himself is the lead designer for SpaceX.
This is a key difference in my view. At SpaceX the vision and the fundamental technical knowledge reside in the same brain, mutually iterating in a fast moving feedback loop that results in relentless, constant innovation. The pace of which is limited only by available capital.
Focusing on NEO has not made Blue more agile in the last 19 years....
These things are exponential, and favor the leader, not the follower. There's a very slim window in which the follower can start chasing, and once they do, they need to move faster than the leader. With enough lead, the leader can afford the mistakes that the follower was counting on.
BO is acting like they either don't get that, or simply can't move any faster.
That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
So where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations. While mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
You seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
Focusing on NEO has not made Blue more agile in the last 19 years....
These things are exponential, and favor the leader, not the follower. There's a very slim window in which the follower can start chasing, and once they do, they need to move faster than the leader. With enough lead, the leader can afford the mistakes that the follower was counting on.
BO is acting like they either don't get that, or simply can't move any faster.
That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
So where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations. While mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
You seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
Let's revisit the list. SpaceX got to orbit first (Blue still hasn't). SpaceX got customers first. SpaceX has flown 67 successful orbital missions so far. Measured from founding, SpaceX will get humans to orbit before Blue gets humans suborbital. It is probable that SpaceX will have a fully reusable rocket well before Blue.
I actually agree that Blue can bide their time and eventually dominate the market. In 10 years from now, nearly 30 from founding, infinite time and money will be the superior business strategy. It's just not one available to most companies and why I find this topic so silly.
P.S. If Blue is a fast follower, I'm Usain Bolt.
Maybe as Dave says it's propulsion, maybe surface tech on Mars...Leapfrog implies someone surpasses you and goes directly to the "next level". However, you're also saying that there isn't a significant next level.you are right as far as you go. Starship will be an amazing technical achievement, but one that's built on the disparity in the last 50 years between aerospace technology and aerospace achievement.
SS is not new science. It's just a smart application of existing science. So you could have argued the same thing after the first liquid rockets. And yet, SpaceX.
The barrier to entry that SpaceX has can continue to grow, and it doesn't depend on anything fundamental - just on company culture and leadership.
As it stands, there isn't a competitor in sight. BO, with a terrible track record to date and a leader who quotes anecdotes from friends about Mars and Mt. Everest - they ain't it.
So what is Starship missing? What is the next bit of existing but ignored science that will ensure SpaceX's technical dominance over "conventional minded" competitors?
Starship will have at least 5 years before New Glen has a reusable upper stage, and another 10 before new Armstrong does it better. And in that time, SpaceX can do Starship better too. But it's a level playing field, which favors fast followers like Blue and China.
IMO, the standings, with 2020 in bold:
Tier 5: Soyuz, Atlas V, Ariane 5
Tier 4: Falcon 9 1.0, Ariane 6, Vulcan, the new Russian rocket
Tier 3: Falcon 9 1.1, the European rocket after A6, china's projects
Tier 2: Falcon 9/H block 5, New Glen
Tier 1: Starship, New glen reusable upper stage
Tier ?: ???
But my point is that SpaceX didn't achieve its position just because of tech, but also because they have an active CEO that (for example) created Starlink to leverage their launch advantage, again without changing the laws of physics.
Mars will be the same. In less than 10 years they'll have people on the surface, and in 20, a colony.
These things are exponential, and favor the leader, not the follower. There's a very slim window in which the follower can start chasing, and once they do, they need to move faster than the leader. With enough lead, the leader can afford the mistakes that the follower was counting on.
BO is acting like they either don't get that, or simply can't move any faster.
That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
So where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations. While mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
You seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
What better fitness?Maybe as Dave says it's propulsion, maybe surface tech on Mars...
But my point is that SpaceX didn't achieve its position just because of tech, but also because they have an active CEO that (for example) created Starlink to leverage their launch advantage, again without changing the laws of physics.
Mars will be the same. In less than 10 years they'll have people on the surface, and in 20, a colony.
These things are exponential, and favor the leader, not the follower. There's a very slim window in which the follower can start chasing, and once they do, they need to move faster than the leader. With enough lead, the leader can afford the mistakes that the follower was counting on.
BO is acting like they either don't get that, or simply can't move any faster.
That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
So where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations. While mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
You seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
The question I have, given Blue's existing speed of execution, is whether better fitment for NEO operations will be enough to exceed SpaceX's overall margins.
Using New Glenn and Starship as examples it can be argued that even though New Glenn is more optimized for the current market, Starship is so much massively more capable overall that Blue's optimizations may get lost in the noise. Any direct successor to Starship is going to be more capable for Earth lift and NEO operations than Starship even though those operations aren't going to drive the design; the only way for Blue to shine in comparison is not for New Armstrong to outshine Starship, but for New Armstrong to outshine Starship's successor.
SpaceX is a rapidly moving target and as long as Blue is seeking to outdo SpaceX's current mainstay, Bezos is unlikely to ever catch up. The very least level of capability Blue should be targeting for New Armstrong is the 2017 ITS, and even that may not be more than enough to keep skin in the game by 2030.
Blue has a huge amount of potential, but the company needs to start realizing it soon. Jeff Bezos will be 66 in 2030, and there's no way to tell how active he will be into that decade and considering what happened to Stratolaunch after Paul Allen passed it may be hard to predict Blue's future without Bezos.
Blue's potential to shine in the 2030's and later is undeniable; Blue's ability to realize that potential is not something I'm comfortable in taking for granted.
I don't think a schrogener's New Armstrong is a good comparison here. Suffice to say it will be whatever is considered a "Starship killer", when NA comes around in 10-15 years.What better fitness?Maybe as Dave says it's propulsion, maybe surface tech on Mars...Leapfrog implies someone surpasses you and goes directly to the "next level". However, you're also saying that there isn't a significant next level.you are right as far as you go. Starship will be an amazing technical achievement, but one that's built on the disparity in the last 50 years between aerospace technology and aerospace achievement.
SS is not new science. It's just a smart application of existing science. So you could have argued the same thing after the first liquid rockets. And yet, SpaceX.
The barrier to entry that SpaceX has can continue to grow, and it doesn't depend on anything fundamental - just on company culture and leadership.
As it stands, there isn't a competitor in sight. BO, with a terrible track record to date and a leader who quotes anecdotes from friends about Mars and Mt. Everest - they ain't it.
So what is Starship missing? What is the next bit of existing but ignored science that will ensure SpaceX's technical dominance over "conventional minded" competitors?
Starship will have at least 5 years before New Glen has a reusable upper stage, and another 10 before new Armstrong does it better. And in that time, SpaceX can do Starship better too. But it's a level playing field, which favors fast followers like Blue and China.
IMO, the standings, with 2020 in bold:
Tier 5: Soyuz, Atlas V, Ariane 5
Tier 4: Falcon 9 1.0, Ariane 6, Vulcan, the new Russian rocket
Tier 3: Falcon 9 1.1, the European rocket after A6, china's projects
Tier 2: Falcon 9/H block 5, New Glen
Tier 1: Starship, New glen reusable upper stage
Tier ?: ???
But my point is that SpaceX didn't achieve its position just because of tech, but also because they have an active CEO that (for example) created Starlink to leverage their launch advantage, again without changing the laws of physics.
Mars will be the same. In less than 10 years they'll have people on the surface, and in 20, a colony.
These things are exponential, and favor the leader, not the follower. There's a very slim window in which the follower can start chasing, and once they do, they need to move faster than the leader. With enough lead, the leader can afford the mistakes that the follower was counting on.
BO is acting like they either don't get that, or simply can't move any faster.
That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
So where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations. While mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
You seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
The question I have, given Blue's existing speed of execution, is whether better fitment for NEO operations will be enough to exceed SpaceX's overall margins.
Using New Glenn and Starship as examples it can be argued that even though New Glenn is more optimized for the current market, Starship is so much massively more capable overall that Blue's optimizations may get lost in the noise. Any direct successor to Starship is going to be more capable for Earth lift and NEO operations than Starship even though those operations aren't going to drive the design; the only way for Blue to shine in comparison is not for New Armstrong to outshine Starship, but for New Armstrong to outshine Starship's successor.
SpaceX is a rapidly moving target and as long as Blue is seeking to outdo SpaceX's current mainstay, Bezos is unlikely to ever catch up. The very least level of capability Blue should be targeting for New Armstrong is the 2017 ITS, and even that may not be more than enough to keep skin in the game by 2030.
Blue has a huge amount of potential, but the company needs to start realizing it soon. Jeff Bezos will be 66 in 2030, and there's no way to tell how active he will be into that decade and considering what happened to Stratolaunch after Paul Allen passed it may be hard to predict Blue's future without Bezos.
Blue's potential to shine in the 2030's and later is undeniable; Blue's ability to realize that potential is not something I'm comfortable in taking for granted.
What magic does NA has that allows it to be more optimal than all variants of SS which can go from E2E to Mars?
What better fitness?Maybe as Dave says it's propulsion, maybe surface tech on Mars...Leapfrog implies someone surpasses you and goes directly to the "next level". However, you're also saying that there isn't a significant next level.you are right as far as you go. Starship will be an amazing technical achievement, but one that's built on the disparity in the last 50 years between aerospace technology and aerospace achievement.
SS is not new science. It's just a smart application of existing science. So you could have argued the same thing after the first liquid rockets. And yet, SpaceX.
The barrier to entry that SpaceX has can continue to grow, and it doesn't depend on anything fundamental - just on company culture and leadership.
As it stands, there isn't a competitor in sight. BO, with a terrible track record to date and a leader who quotes anecdotes from friends about Mars and Mt. Everest - they ain't it.
So what is Starship missing? What is the next bit of existing but ignored science that will ensure SpaceX's technical dominance over "conventional minded" competitors?
Starship will have at least 5 years before New Glen has a reusable upper stage, and another 10 before new Armstrong does it better. And in that time, SpaceX can do Starship better too. But it's a level playing field, which favors fast followers like Blue and China.
IMO, the standings, with 2020 in bold:
Tier 5: Soyuz, Atlas V, Ariane 5
Tier 4: Falcon 9 1.0, Ariane 6, Vulcan, the new Russian rocket
Tier 3: Falcon 9 1.1, the European rocket after A6, china's projects
Tier 2: Falcon 9/H block 5, New Glen
Tier 1: Starship, New glen reusable upper stage
Tier ?: ???
But my point is that SpaceX didn't achieve its position just because of tech, but also because they have an active CEO that (for example) created Starlink to leverage their launch advantage, again without changing the laws of physics.
Mars will be the same. In less than 10 years they'll have people on the surface, and in 20, a colony.
These things are exponential, and favor the leader, not the follower. There's a very slim window in which the follower can start chasing, and once they do, they need to move faster than the leader. With enough lead, the leader can afford the mistakes that the follower was counting on.
BO is acting like they either don't get that, or simply can't move any faster.
That's the thing, Blue isn't interested in Mars. Blue wants "people living and working in space."
So where SpaceX will optimize for mars operations, Blue will be optimizing for earth lift and NEO operations. While mars ops includes earth lift, NEO operations does NOT overlap with mars ops, putting SpaceX under contraints for earth lift that blue isn't.
You seem to be focusing on the next 10 years, where SpaceX's domination is certiantly assured. It's beyond 2030 that Blue will shine.
The question I have, given Blue's existing speed of execution, is whether better fitment for NEO operations will be enough to exceed SpaceX's overall margins.
Using New Glenn and Starship as examples it can be argued that even though New Glenn is more optimized for the current market, Starship is so much massively more capable overall that Blue's optimizations may get lost in the noise. Any direct successor to Starship is going to be more capable for Earth lift and NEO operations than Starship even though those operations aren't going to drive the design; the only way for Blue to shine in comparison is not for New Armstrong to outshine Starship, but for New Armstrong to outshine Starship's successor.
SpaceX is a rapidly moving target and as long as Blue is seeking to outdo SpaceX's current mainstay, Bezos is unlikely to ever catch up. The very least level of capability Blue should be targeting for New Armstrong is the 2017 ITS, and even that may not be more than enough to keep skin in the game by 2030.
Blue has a huge amount of potential, but the company needs to start realizing it soon. Jeff Bezos will be 66 in 2030, and there's no way to tell how active he will be into that decade and considering what happened to Stratolaunch after Paul Allen passed it may be hard to predict Blue's future without Bezos.
Blue's potential to shine in the 2030's and later is undeniable; Blue's ability to realize that potential is not something I'm comfortable in taking for granted.
What magic does NA has that allows it to be more optimal than all variants of SS which can go from E2E to Mars?
Hydrogen is also, theoretically, a better Transpiration Cooling fluid. Don't know if the trades work out in the end with the larger storage, (it doesn't with dedicated transpiration-only storage, IIRC) but Blue is already planning hydrogen upper stages, so trades less away to add it.Actually hydrolox is better suited for high energy trajectories. In theory.
I'm not expecting magic from New Armstrong, but I can see Blue using a hydrolox upper stage that could prove more efficient than Starship's methalox design. That greater efficiency could easily make it a better fit for certain missions. Blue may also be able to get away with a less massive heat shield by eliminating the capability for direct interplanetary returns. The end result could easily be a vehicle that could lift mass more efficiently from Earth to orbit or the Moon than Starship because it doesn't require Mars return capability.
The catch I'm seeing is that even though New Armstrong could be more efficient for lunar missions (as an example), that efficiency might well prove irrelevant unless the overall performance of the system is competitive and I'm not entirely convinced of Blue's ability to execute yet.
Once you refuel in orbit, it's pretty much moot since everything is a first stage at that point.
Except of course Methane is easier to tank.
I'm not expecting magic from New Armstrong, but I can see Blue using a hydrolox upper stage that could prove more efficient than Starship's methalox design. That greater efficiency could easily make it a better fit for certain missions.
The catch I'm seeing is that even though New Armstrong could be more efficient for lunar missions (as an example), that efficiency might well prove irrelevant unless the overall performance of the system is competitive...
Blue may also be able to get away with a less massive heat shield by eliminating the capability for direct interplanetary returns. The end result could easily be a vehicle that could lift mass more efficiently from Earth to orbit or the Moon than Starship because it doesn't require Mars return capability.
Unfortunately for Blue, the upcoming generation of rockets isn't going to be much contest for low cost bulk transport like prop -- but it would certainly still be cool if New Glenn's second stage was refuelable via another New Glenn S2. Whether SpaceX will retain the lead in orbital prop delivery once New Armstrong comes along to compete with SH/SS, is anyone's guess. It may be that no one buys on-orbit prop, just transport services from companies that do their own orbital refueling.
There's nothing stopping SpaceX from deploying a STAR48 out the side door as an earth departure stage for a payload.
Unfortunately for Blue, the upcoming generation of rockets isn't going to be much contest for low cost bulk transport like prop -- but it would certainly still be cool if New Glenn's second stage was refuelable via another New Glenn S2. Whether SpaceX will retain the lead in orbital prop delivery once New Armstrong comes along to compete with SH/SS, is anyone's guess. It may be that no one buys on-orbit prop, just transport services from companies that do their own orbital refueling.
This approach to distrubuted launch works well for ULA as they have small light weight US due to expendable booster and SRB.
Doesn't work as well for NG, where US is lot larger and would end up being well under 50%, probably closer to 25% from the 45t tanker topup.
NG would get better BLEO performance by launching payload with small light EDS (earth departure stage)and use tanker launch to completely fill EDS.
SpaceX SS has same problem which is why they need handfulof tanker launches to match EDS performance and also allow recovery of SS.
Unfortunately for Blue, the upcoming generation of rockets isn't going to be much contest for low cost bulk transport like prop -- but it would certainly still be cool if New Glenn's second stage was refuelable via another New Glenn S2. Whether SpaceX will retain the lead in orbital prop delivery once New Armstrong comes along to compete with SH/SS, is anyone's guess. It may be that no one buys on-orbit prop, just transport services from companies that do their own orbital refueling.
This approach to distrubuted launch works well for ULA as they have small light weight US due to expendable booster and SRB.
Doesn't work as well for NG, where US is lot larger and would end up being well under 50%, probably closer to 25% from the 45t tanker topup.
NG would get better BLEO performance by launching payload with small light EDS (earth departure stage)and use tanker launch to completely fill EDS.
SpaceX SS has same problem which is why they need handfulof tanker launches to match EDS performance and also allow recovery of SS.
Allow for boiloff of payload US while waiting for tanker. Tanker may have separate tanks which will need to be deducted from 45t payload, also some boil off this fuel. May endup in 25-30t payload range.
Unfortunately for Blue, the upcoming generation of rockets isn't going to be much contest for low cost bulk transport like prop -- but it would certainly still be cool if New Glenn's second stage was refuelable via another New Glenn S2. Whether SpaceX will retain the lead in orbital prop delivery once New Armstrong comes along to compete with SH/SS, is anyone's guess. It may be that no one buys on-orbit prop, just transport services from companies that do their own orbital refueling.
This approach to distrubuted launch works well for ULA as they have small light weight US due to expendable booster and SRB.
Doesn't work as well for NG, where US is lot larger and would end up being well under 50%, probably closer to 25% from the 45t tanker topup.
NG would get better BLEO performance by launching payload with small light EDS (earth departure stage)and use tanker launch to completely fill EDS.
SpaceX SS has same problem which is why they need handfulof tanker launches to match EDS performance and also allow recovery of SS.
Distributed launch still works out in favor of the reusable booster with larger upper stage for large payloads and moderate to low BLEO delta-v. For example, New Glenn with a single refueling launch can send about 33,500 kg payload on TLI, while Vulcan Heavy-ACES can send 31,750 kg. And a 1+1 launch of New Glenn will probably be cheaper than a 1+1 launch of VH-ACES, expending only 4x BE-3U instead of 4x BE-4 and 8x RL-10 and 12x SRBs.
(assuming ACES is 77 t wet, NG S2 is 180 t wet, both S2 at 10% dry mass fraction, 451 ISP for RL-10, 435 ISP for BE-4U, VH-ACES gets 36 t to LEO, NG gets 45 t).
The billionaire space race between Musk, Bezos and BransonDid they not even bother to read SpaceX's or Blue Origin's websites? Total failure to mention SpaceX wants to make humanity multi-planetary and Blue Origin wants to make it possible for millions of people to work and live and space.
Jon Mace, BNN Bloomberg
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-billionaire-space-race-between-musk-bezos-and-branson-1.1257228
If the companies that shine in ten years are still the ones that launch stuff into space, rather than those paying for the launches, I'll consider this new space race a bust, honestly.Some of each, maybe... SpaceX will be minting money from Starlink (which, wait for it.. is a payload that has to pay for a launch)
I think we touched on this in the Martian Economy thread, but the limit on exports is the number of vessels that come to your port. While there's till a majority of investment building your colony, this is not an issue, but a mature base that only needs a single rocket's worth of spare parts every 10 years is only going to have a rocket come by to take exports every 10 years, unless the colony pays the rocket to come anyway (thus, subsidizing imports, either partially or fully) or builds their own every time they need to send one away.If the companies that shine in ten years are still the ones that launch stuff into space, rather than those paying for the launches, I'll consider this new space race a bust, honestly.Some of each, maybe... SpaceX will be minting money from Starlink (which, wait for it.. is a payload that has to pay for a launch)
What's the next phase change improvement after Starship has been incrementally improved as far as it can be? (which by the way I think gets you FedEx pricing to LEO or even to Luna) ... ? Not launchers. The next phase change improvement is propagating the infrastructure. If you have infrastructure everywhere you reduce the need to launch anything from Terra down to just vitamins and CPU chips....
The plans for NG and SS are very different, but maybe it's instructional to look at the engines, which at the end of the day have similar goals:
Earth ascent and landing for first stage engine, earth orbit for second stage, and then TLI for BO, Earth landing/TPI/Mars landing and launch for SpaceX.
And yet even though the second stage requirements for SpaceX are much more complex, they still went with the same engine as they chose for the first stage, but with a more complex design than BOs.
Key difference is: smaller engines, max commonality, and go back to basics to really excel at that small common engine.
And execute as if you're a fast follower...
Common engine helps with keeping cost down on a ELV but for RLV vehicle performance is more important than engine build cost. Mixed engines optimised for the different stages is better for RLV.The plans for NG and SS are very different, but maybe it's instructional to look at the engines, which at the end of the day have similar goals:
Earth ascent and landing for first stage engine, earth orbit for second stage, and then TLI for BO, Earth landing/TPI/Mars landing and launch for SpaceX.
And yet even though the second stage requirements for SpaceX are much more complex, they still went with the same engine as they chose for the first stage, but with a more complex design than BOs.
Key difference is: smaller engines, max commonality, and go back to basics to really excel at that small common engine.
And execute as if you're a fast follower...
The engine thing is huge. Once SpaceX hits thier stride with Raptor manufacturing they will benefit greatly from only having to crank out a single main propulsion engine for all stages.
Why? If a single engine works it's likely cheaper to develop, cheaper to build and cheaper to maintain. Same for GSE with a single fuel. If all that's true, it's down fuel costs and related operational cost....Common engine helps with keeping cost down on a ELV but for RLV vehicle performance is more important than engine build cost. Mixed engines optimised for the different stages is better for RLV.
The engine thing is huge. Once SpaceX hits thier stride with Raptor manufacturing they will benefit greatly from only having to crank out a single main propulsion engine for all stages.
Common engine helps with keeping cost down on a ELV but for RLV vehicle performance is more important than engine build cost. Mixed engines optimised for the different stages is better for RLV.Disagree. Optimize for cost not ultimate performance. Same engine or as much the same as possible, and certainly same fuel to reduce GSE cost. Blue hasn't internalized this yet.
Why? If a single engine works it's likely cheaper to develop, cheaper to build and cheaper to maintain. Same for GSE with a single fuel. If all that's true, it's down fuel costs and related operational cost....Common engine helps with keeping cost down on a ELV but for RLV vehicle performance is more important than engine build cost. Mixed engines optimised for the different stages is better for RLV.
The engine thing is huge. Once SpaceX hits thier stride with Raptor manufacturing they will benefit greatly from only having to crank out a single main propulsion engine for all stages.
Disagree. Optimize for cost not ultimate performance. Same engine or as much the same as possible, and certainly same fuel to reduce GSE cost. Blue hasn't internalized this yet.
Common engine helps with keeping cost down on a ELV but for RLV vehicle performance is more important than engine build cost. Mixed engines optimised for the different stages is better for RLV.Disagree. Optimize for cost not ultimate performance. Same engine or as much the same as possible, and certainly same fuel to reduce GSE cost. Blue hasn't internalized this yet.
SpaceX and Blue aren't really competitors yet.
Lastly, Bezos tries to salt Musk's fields from time to time (e.g., 39A, patents).
So the obvious question is - if BO has all the time and money it needs, and decided to optimize rather than get there quick - why did they produce a less capable (but maybe simpler) first stage engine? Why did they back away from the second stage engine and go with an existing one? (Which was an obvious choice all along if they wanted to cut costs?)
In a way there's an inconsistency in the near-term techdev plan that mirrors those in the long term roadmap of a couple of a year ago, and the lack of leadership in the bizdev area.
It's as if top-level mgmt is only thinking tactically, and JB is disconnected from them.
Bezo's said his goals are multi-generational. I don't think he plans to have space manufacturing in his lifetime.
Musk wants to get to Mars in his lifetime, thus the faster pace of development.
I've wondered for a long time whether Elon Musk chose colonizing Mars as a real goal or just something to keep people excited. But there's no doubt in my mind that Bezos' goal of continuing where O'Neill left off is far more ambitious, and SpaceX will (if they survive) end up as a player on Bezos' board.I think there is a chance for this outcome. But I also think that it is far more likely that SpaceX ends up dominant in interplanetary transport with a number of people trying to catch up, and also forms keiretsu that cover resources, food, etc.... and Blue ends up an interesting footnote. At least on this timeline.
Lastly, Bezos tries to salt Musk's fields from time to time (e.g., 39A, patents).
Trying to gain access to a heavy lift pad rather than having to build their own like they are doing is completely legitimate. In fact, that is exactly what SpaceX did.
I think that's really a stretch... If anything, SpaceX is leading and everyone else is reacting (or pretending it doesn't matter), or wondering what the heck happened to their market.
So what SpaceX does right now and where they do it is being dictated by a rich guy with a space hobby. They're playing on his board.
Why? SpaceX lead is increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing. Blue can't dawdle forever.
except not 5 years early.... SpaceX started using 39A pretty soon afterwards (and started converting it almost as soon as the ink was dry) Trying to lock it in 5+ years early was a salty move.
Bezo's said his goals are multi-generational. I don't think he plans to have space manufacturing in his lifetime.See, that's so weird, because people are actually doing that today on-board ISS. There's the 3D printer(s) on board and also Made In Space's high quality ZBLAN optical fiber being produced in microgravity.
...
What little manufacturing in space on ISS is trivial in comparison to what will be needed for mass production, huge O'Neil cylinders or huge stations of some type. At the rate Blue is progressing, I just don't see this mass production in Bezos' lifetime.
I liked Blue Origin's approach with reusability. Musk is an... unstable personality, so it'd be really nice to have a viable, more stable backup.
But Blue seems so disappointing so far. Hopefully that will change, soon. Or I'll cancel my Amazon Prime membership, dang it! :)
Common engine helps with keeping cost down on a ELV but for RLV vehicle performance is more important than engine build cost. Mixed engines optimised for the different stages is better for RLV.Disagree. Optimize for cost not ultimate performance. Same engine or as much the same as possible, and certainly same fuel to reduce GSE cost. Blue hasn't internalized this yet.
I think we're the ones who haven't internalized something. Blue is basically Jeff Bezos' toy space company. He puts well under a percent of his fortune into it annually - his personal worth grows faster than he's spending it. He's collecting all the available options and accessories for his end goal, which is a strong and complete cislunar infrastructure built according to his own perception of what will be necessary to make it thrive.
In other words, Blue Origin is Jeff Bezos, and Jeff Bezos' business strategy emphasizes the juggernaut that is Amazon.
SpaceX and Blue aren't really competitors yet.
Blue's R&D budget is far larger than SpaceX's without bringing in a dime
and once they do get around to competing they'll just have that much more.
For the record, I've always objected to the topic, because I strongly believe it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you're trying to build an entire cislunar society, you're not going to sweat a few extra years or a few extra billion dollars.
But there's no doubt in my mind that Bezos' goal of continuing where O'Neill left off is far more ambitious, and SpaceX will (if they survive) end up as a player on Bezos' board.
Bezos seems to also be unstable, he recently divorced giving up what? 35 billion dollars?That's what I'm saying. Bezos doesn't seem to be acting in a manner proportionate to his vision and his wealth. It's disappointing.
Musk doesn't run the day to day operations of his company. He has goals and objectives, but Shotwell runs it and gets things done. Musk does too because he is hyper.
What little manufacturing in space on ISS is trivial in comparison to what will be needed for mass production, huge O'Neil cylinders or huge stations of some type. At the rate Blue is progressing, I just don't see this mass production in Bezos' lifetime. SpaceX seems like it will make it to Mars and the moon and have a 100 ton to LEO rocket within the next couple of years. New Glenn? Next year, the year after, 45 tons to LEO. The will need New Armstrong for serious in space work.
Also, for a lot of people living and working in space, food production may have to be moved to Space or Mars to avoid constant supply shipping.
It will take time and a lot of space flights to do either Mars or O'Neil cylinders. Just seems like SpaceX is moving at a much faster pace.
....Musk never has much fun money. It's always tied up in his companies. And his net worth now is about the same as before. Elon's net worth in Tesla and SpaceX tends to vary (Tesla up, SpaceX down or flat. Tesla down or flat, SpaceX up), but tend to go up in sum.
Overall Bezos has the money to do WTF he wants with it while Musk increasingly does not....
How so? If you compare New Shephard to Falcon 9(the current situation) and then compare New Glenn to Starship/Super-Heavy (a possible future), the lead is shrinking.
New Glenn vs SS/SH:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ajyxx8/starship_vs_new_glenn_size_comparison/
New Shephard vs Falcon 9
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/52k715/size_comparison_of_the_reusable_stages/
Blue has this multi-generational goal for O'Neill cylinders but they have yet to demonstrate a concrete plan for getting the human-rated version of Blue Moon to the Moon. New Glenn can apparently just lift the base version, but can't get the larger version into TLI.
So what SpaceX does right now and where they do it is being dictated by a rich guy with a space hobby. They're playing on his board.
What's weird to me is that if you listen to Bezos, that's not the case. Blue IS his passion project, according to him. He protected it in the divorce. He says it's what he wants to sink his money into from Amazon. He clearly sees it as his main legacy.
...but he doesn't seem to put a real drive into it. It's very strange. Hopefully it will change.
...
SpaceX and Blue aren't really competitors yet. Both have lofty goals, Mars for SpaceX versus orbital colonies for Blue, ...
I've wondered for a long time whether Elon Musk chose colonizing Mars as a real goal or just something to keep people excited. But there's no doubt in my mind that Bezos' goal of continuing where O'Neill left off is far more ambitious, and SpaceX will (if they survive) end up as a player on Bezos' board.
Musk has said (at least in part) he chose Mars because will be a forcing-function. The thing that holds NASA back is that failure is always an option, up until the point someone else succeeds, then failures get really embarrassing.
If SpaceX does land a Starship on Mars, that will force NASA to ramp up its Mars activity.
If SpaceX builds a spaceport on Mars (where "Spaceport" as a minimum means a facility that produces propellant, has pressurized living space, and has a stockpile of provisions), then NASA and a half-dozen other national space agencies will be forced (by their taxpayers) to send people there.
So what SpaceX does right now and where they do it is being dictated by a rich guy with a space hobby. They're playing on his board.What's weird to me is that if you listen to Bezos, that's not the case. Blue IS his passion project, according to him. He protected it in the divorce. He says it's what he wants to sink his money into from Amazon. He clearly sees it as his main legacy.
...but he doesn't seem to put a real drive into it. It's very strange. Hopefully it will change.
He's saying "it's my passion" as if a focus group told him that he needs to have a passion.
He certainly doesn't act like it is, ...
...and he's demonstrating how having large resources is not a guarantee of success. The USG has even larger resources, and they've managed to mismanage the space program into near oblivion.
I don't know how Dave defines who's playing on whose board, but I can tell you who's winning.Well, yeah, he's not tweeting! Anybody who's winning is definitely, definitely tweeting! :)
...
SpaceX and Blue aren't really competitors yet. Both have lofty goals, Mars for SpaceX versus orbital colonies for Blue, ...
I've wondered for a long time whether Elon Musk chose colonizing Mars as a real goal or just something to keep people excited. But there's no doubt in my mind that Bezos' goal of continuing where O'Neill left off is far more ambitious, and SpaceX will (if they survive) end up as a player on Bezos' board.
Musk has said (at least in part) he chose Mars because will be a forcing-function. The thing that holds NASA back is that failure is always an option, up until the point someone else succeeds, then failures get really embarrassing.
If SpaceX does land a Starship on Mars, that will force NASA to ramp up its Mars activity.
If SpaceX builds a spaceport on Mars (where "Spaceport" as a minimum means a facility that produces propellant, has pressurized living space, and has a stockpile of provisions), then NASA and a half-dozen other national space agencies will be forced (by their taxpayers) to send people there.
Also, a spaceport on Mars will prove that Moon bases are also possible, therefore we'll also see government funded crew missions to the Moon.
Crewed Lunar missions will be cheaper than Mars missions, since launch vehicle re-use will be much greater. Frequent resupply and spare parts will make Lunar work logistically easier. So the Lunar market should be much larger than the Mars market.
(snip)
So the existence of a Mars spaceport will force the existence of a Moon base and also LEO tourism.
If the Mars port expands into a Mars colony (i.e. civilians entrepreneurs move to Mars to sell goods and services to government explorers, and Mars has lots to explore), then that will also prove the viability of and therefore help to force the existence of O'Neil colonies near Earth (e.g. Lagrangia), since as Bezos points out, Earth orbit is enormously closer than Mars and can be reached for much less time commitment. [But O'Neil colonies are really hard to justify].
So effectively, SpaceX's activity on Mars helps build the market for Blue Origin's activity on the Moon. SpaceX's choice to forgo hydrolox engines might reduce their competitiveness for launches leaving from the Moon with Lunar propellant, but that's many years away.
Blue Origin's choice to forgo fly-back boosters (which requires a 2nd stage that has >20% of the first stage thrust, and NG's 2nd stage is smaller than that) will hurt them for the LEO tourism market. For launches to Lagrangia, a NG-like architecture can fly non-stop, whereas Starship will have a LEO refueling; but that's even more years away, and we haven't seen New Armstrong).
Blue's R&D budget is far larger than SpaceX's without bringing in a dime
Incorrect. SpaceX has billions in yearly revenue. Blue Origin has one billion in yearly revenue. It's likely that SpaceX's R&D budget is over $1 billion per year.
and once they do get around to competing they'll just have that much more.
Only if they can out-compete SpaceX. Many posters have put forward good reasons on this thread that they are not likely to be able to do that.
And by the time Blue Origin gets revenue from launching satellites for customers, SpaceX is likely to have much more revenue coming in from Starlink.
For the record, I've always objected to the topic, because I strongly believe it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you're trying to build an entire cislunar society, you're not going to sweat a few extra years or a few extra billion dollars.
Of course their approaches are different. But they're trying for, broadly, the same thing -- to enable human civilization to move off this planet. That makes the topic of this thread completely valid.
But there's no doubt in my mind that Bezos' goal of continuing where O'Neill left off is far more ambitious, and SpaceX will (if they survive) end up as a player on Bezos' board.
Long term ambitions are irrelevant. SpaceX has far more revenue than Blue Origin today, they have a history of making much more effective use of their revenue than Blue Origin,
...and the revenues of SpaceX are likely to go up greatly in the near future with Starlink, while Blue Origin's revenues are not likely to go up.
This tread is repeating itself well into stubbornness and lunacy. When there is nothing to say, there is nothing to say. Haters, saviors and all the likes are bringing the site to an infinite loop of arguments going nowhere. This is not reddit, there no karma so please don't farm for it with thoughtless comments and responses.Nothing like a comment that insults everybody in the thread and then pleads for civility and reason. Is there a Taylor Swift lyric for hypocrisy?
SpaceX has more revenue, and real operations to pay for, and plenty of other expenses that Blue won't have until they start launching and competing in earnest. You've got Starlink flipped, though. Expenses go up with Starlink, followed slowly by revenue, followed very slowly by profits, or so we all hope.No doubt getting Starlink up and running takes a huge investment. They need around 13 launches to get to the point where they have decent coverage and can start getting paying customers, and that's an investment of something like $1 billion. But SpaceX may have completed that initial investment in the first half of 2020. (Fingers crossed for no major failures...)
Blue could throw up Starlink and lose money on it for a decade while they watch the revenue curve climb, and Bezos probably wouldn't even look in on it all that often. Blue does not have to make a profit.Blue doesn't have to make money, if they want to remain irrelevant. If they want to become relevant, they need to make a profit.
For Elon and SpaceX the opening of the stock market will be interesting in the Chinese sense. Friday was not looking good for Tesla stock. Will it stabilize, recover or bomb as the detractors say? No need to believe anyone, we'll find out over the next 24h or so.Doesn't really matter. The share price really only matters if you need to do a cap raise, and Tesla just did a cap raise. They likely won't need to do a cap raise ever again.
Musk has said (at least in part) he chose Mars because will be a forcing-function. The thing that holds NASA back is that failure is always an option, up until the point someone else succeeds, then failures get really embarrassing.
NASA is just a government agency, and government agencies don't make their own goals, they work for the President and get funded by Congress.
...
Why would they care? There is no money to be made there, and it's VERY costly to establish and maintain a presence there. What is the payoff?
...
I'm of the opinion that no major government on Earth will care what Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos do in space. Which also means that they are unlikely to get any significant funding from any major government, but they haven't been counting on that anyways...
...
Do you seriously believe there will be a spaceport on Mars any time soon, much less before there's a spaceport on the Moon? And what's a "spaceport" in this context, anyway? Like Kennedy? Like Mos Eisley?
...
I will bet you a good craft brew we'll have multiple manned lunar landings before we see a Mars landing. And we'll have lunar infrastructure and at least one more orbital station before we see any Mars infrastructure. ...
Umm ... wow; similar responses from Coastal Ron and Dave Klinger. As a child of the Apollo era, I have the exact opposite opinion. I feel like the Apollo program united America in a way that nothing short of a war ever has.
I could be wrong, but I believe that crewed Lunar and Mars landings will have that effect again.
If manned space exploration excites the public, then the political "leaders" will follow.
Everybody wants to step into the winners circle and be seen with the winner.
I also believe Blue and SpaceX are counting on most of the funding/revenu to come from government customers. SpaceX especially needs the money, and both need the government validation to get the investment community on-board.
So at 640,000 users, each user has to pay $26/month for SpaceX to break even.
I think SpaceX could easily charge more than that. If they charge $100/month and get to 400.000 users by the end of next year, they could be running a profit of $280 million/year. That money can be invested back into the business, launching more satellites. No additional investment would be needed, and the Starlink constellation would double in size every 3-5 years, allowing them to hit 12,000 satellites in 12-20 years, possibly with a profit of around $10 billion/year.
Bezos can continue funding BO, and BO can continue using that money on R&D, and that's fine. But once Blue Origin starts to do meaningful business, the revenue will quickly grow beyond what Bezos puts into the company. And if all that revenue is at a significant loss, BO will have to divert more and more money away from R&D to operations, to cover the shortfall.
If we say BO is flying New Glenn 10 times per year in 2024, at a revenue of $900 million, but a cost of $1.5 billion, that would mean R&D would have to be slashed from $1 billion to $400 million. Less and less money into R&D means they will fall further and further behind SpaceX.
Now, I hope BO get to the point where they can fly New Glenn profitably, in the near future. But it's a mistake to think this is optional, if BO wants to become relevant...
...
BO is relevant in the mind of its founder, and I don't think he cares a lot whether the rest of us think so. I know that if I had $155B (and growing) I wouldn't sweat much about relevance.
The USG/NASA has more than all of them combined.
See the above for the reason, but the answer is no, they won't. Only if the President and Congress care will NASA be assigned to do something more on Mars. And unless there is a geo-political drama that influences the situation, they are unlikely to care.Depends on the cost. The USG would certainly like a Mars research/exploration base, for the right price. And all US presidents would love the prestige and legacy of putting the first human on Mars. The price hasn't been right for either, but if Starship works out who knows.
I think you're leaving out a large portion of necessary Starlink infrastructure: ground receivers, data centers, content, personnel of all kinds, advertising and marketing, etc. Starlink benefits from accessibility, but they still have to compete with the existing players in every other respect.It was a simplification of course. Though there should be plenty of room for all that in the profit margins.
At $400M, I suspect they're still at 2 or 3 or 4 times what SpaceX will have available for the next several years. Like everyone else commenting, I suspect, I hope SpaceX comes out the other side of this thing smelling like a rose. But I think Musk has turned SpaceX into another Tesla, in the sense that he's risking the company for rapid growth.He's taking risk by focusing on rapid growth, sure, but that's how you outrun the competition. If you want the business, it can be more risky to take it slow, as you risk the competition getting established first.
BO is relevant in the mind of its founder, and I don't think he cares a lot whether the rest of us think so. I know that if I had $155B (and growing) I wouldn't sweat much about relevance.I care if BO is relevant and you should too. If all BO produces is fancy powerpoints, they might as well not exist at all.
.. for less than one annual NASA budget.The USG/NASA has more than all of them combined.
Yes, and NASA has nuclear powered rovers on Mars, spacecraft in interstellar space, permanently occupied space habitats, sent people to the moon, surveyed the moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars, the moons of Jupiter, the moons of Saturn, Pluto, Ceres, a myriad of earth observation satellites, spacecraft that directly sample the Sun's atmosphere and monitor space weather. Just a few days ago, they discovered a couple planets. The list goes on.
see:https://www.nasa.gov/missions
SpaceX self funded sending a $100,000 car past mars orbit and quickly lost contact.
All right, SpaceX is the new NASA, they will do the science only for the benefit of mankind, right? Ridiculous... for less than one annual NASA budget.The USG/NASA has more than all of them combined.
Yes, and NASA has nuclear powered rovers on Mars, spacecraft in interstellar space, permanently occupied space habitats, sent people to the moon, surveyed the moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars, the moons of Jupiter, the moons of Saturn, Pluto, Ceres, a myriad of earth observation satellites, spacecraft that directly sample the Sun's atmosphere and monitor space weather. Just a few days ago, they discovered a couple planets. The list goes on.
see:https://www.nasa.gov/missions
SpaceX self funded sending a $100,000 car past mars orbit and quickly lost contact.
Nobody belittles NASA's achievements, but their capital efficiency is very low. The bottom line is that (large amounts of bucks) * (small bang for bucks) is not a winning formula.
At this point, for a very small investment, SpaceX is flying more than anyone else (except maybe China), is the only one with a reusable first stage, has Dragon and the remains of Dragon 2, a best-in-the-world engine, and is the only one actively working on a large (and interplanetary) manned vehicle.
That capital efficiency, coupled with a moderate amount of investment, is what makes the difference, and no amount of JB richness can compensate for that. He can keep pouring $1B /yr into BO, or double it.. if all he's getting out of it is NG in 2021 maybe, then he's just slipping further behind.
People have been working there for 20 years, they're getting ready to retire soon, and still there are only unicorns in the trench.
All right, SpaceX is the new NASA, they will do the science only for the benefit of mankind, right? Ridiculous.
Pretty much the only consistent argument that keeps being raised by Bezos supporters is that he has lots of money. He could be achieving nothing and not reach orbit for another 10 years and they would repeat that argument.The thing is, that is Blue's business model. Use Bezos money so there's "no rush" to cut corners, take what contracts they can get. If/when Blue starts launching orbital payloads then they could quickly undercut the competition since they don't "need" money. I agree in spirit that's not a business model. It's a hobby that may someday be a business. But that does mean they won't major player. Someday. [1]
To me that is not an argument that deals with the merit of Blue’s business strategy. It just says Bezos can do stuff because he has cash.
All right, SpaceX is the new NASA, they will do the science only for the benefit of mankind, right? Ridiculous.
SpaceX self funded sending a $100,000 car past mars orbit and quickly lost contact.
Well one question is how intentional it is.Pretty much the only consistent argument that keeps being raised by Bezos supporters is that he has lots of money. He could be achieving nothing and not reach orbit for another 10 years and they would repeat that argument.The thing is, that is Blue's business model. Use Bezos money so there's "no rush" to cut corners, take what contracts they can get. If/when Blue starts launching orbital payloads then they could quickly undercut the competition since they don't "need" money. I agree in spirit that's not a business model. It's a hobby that may someday be a business. But that does mean they won't major player. Someday. [1]
To me that is not an argument that deals with the merit of Blue’s business strategy. It just says Bezos can do stuff because he has cash.
Frankly as a mere space voyeur, I like SpaceX's business model better. It's more exciting and I get to actually see stuff happen. Someday maybe Blue will put stuff in orbit as often as SpaceX (not counting New Shepard, I'm not interested in suborbital unless it's high speed transport.) That'll be fun to watch. If they let us.
[1] To be fair, they are already a player in the rocket engine business. Got to give 'em that.
Indeed. SpaceX now has about $2 billion in annual launch revenue. They use that to exercise and perfect their reusable launch capacity. At some point, the higher revenue is more important than a $1 billion in free money without much other revenue. If capital efficiency is much lower for the free money, SpaceX may end up ahead anyway. Particularly if they can convert their manifest to Starlink launches.All right, SpaceX is the new NASA, they will do the science only for the benefit of mankind, right? Ridiculous.
This is not about NASA. It's about the line of thought that says that if you have a wealthy backer, than dilly dallying along is suddenly some sort of cunning strategy, "positioning", alternate-vision, or fast-follower play.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I think it's very intentional.Well one question is how intentional it is.Pretty much the only consistent argument that keeps being raised by Bezos supporters is that he has lots of money. He could be achieving nothing and not reach orbit for another 10 years and they would repeat that argument.The thing is, that is Blue's business model. Use Bezos money so there's "no rush" to cut corners, take what contracts they can get. If/when Blue starts launching orbital payloads then they could quickly undercut the competition since they don't "need" money. I agree in spirit that's not a business model. It's a hobby that may someday be a business. But that does mean they won't major player. Someday. ...
To me that is not an argument that deals with the merit of Blue’s business strategy. It just says Bezos can do stuff because he has cash.
Are you saying that BO could have been flying NG already, but are choosing not to?Sort of. From the outside they seem risk averse. The guarantee of money "forever" allows the slow and steady approach. To go faster, Bezos would need to be in a hurry. They don't seem like they are wasting money (one possible outcome of endless money.) They do seem extremely focused, capable, and persistent. So if Bezos was in a hurry, and the culture at Blue was different, would that even be Blue?
Well one question is how intentional it is.I think it's very intentional.QuoteAre you saying that BO could have been flying NG already, but are choosing not to?Sort of. From the outside they seem risk averse. The guarantee of money "forever" allows the slow and steady approach. To go faster, Bezos would need to be in a hurry. They don't seem like they are wasting money (one possible outcome of endless money.) They do seem extremely focused, capable, and persistent. So if Bezos was in a hurry, and the culture at Blue was different, would that even be Blue?
On the plus side, when NG flies it may turn out to be the most reliable 2 stage rocket with a reusable 1st stage ever. Which Bezos can subsidize as long as his money lasts (which managed wisely should be forever) while they develop a fully reusable rocket.
I'll be really curious what happens once NG starts flying. How reliable will it be from day 1? How reliable will recovery be from "day one?" How fast twill hey ramp up to develop a fully reusable rocket?
Well one question is how intentional it is.I think it's very intentional.QuoteAre you saying that BO could have been flying NG already, but are choosing not to?Sort of. From the outside they seem risk averse. The guarantee of money "forever" allows the slow and steady approach. To go faster, Bezos would need to be in a hurry. They don't seem like they are wasting money (one possible outcome of endless money.) They do seem extremely focused, capable, and persistent. So if Bezos was in a hurry, and the culture at Blue was different, would that even be Blue?
On the plus side, when NG flies it may turn out to be the most reliable 2 stage rocket with a reusable 1st stage ever. Which Bezos can subsidize as long as his money lasts (which managed wisely should be forever) while they develop a fully reusable rocket.
I'll be really curious what happens once NG starts flying. How reliable will it be from day 1? How reliable will recovery be from "day one?" How fast twill hey ramp up to develop a fully reusable rocket?
As for reliability, without a doubt, projects that linger become LESS reliable, not more. This is because system knowledge tends to deteriorate as people leave and new ones come in. At some point you lose the ability to make holistic decisions, since people are only familiar with their narrow scopes.
But if it's intentional, why the earlier predictions of flight dated several years ago?
That doesn't make it seem "slow and steady". It makes it sound simply late.
As for reliability, without a doubt, projects that linger become LESS reliable, not more. This is because system knowledge tends to deteriorate as people leave and new ones come in. At some point you lose the ability to make holistic decisions, since people are only familiar with their narrow scopes.
You are a hopeful man, I'll give you that.But if it's intentional, why the earlier predictions of flight dated several years ago?
That doesn't make it seem "slow and steady". It makes it sound simply late.
They can be slow and steady and also late.QuoteAs for reliability, without a doubt, projects that linger become LESS reliable, not more. This is because system knowledge tends to deteriorate as people leave and new ones come in. At some point you lose the ability to make holistic decisions, since people are only familiar with their narrow scopes.
They're not THAT late.
Blue isn't nearly as interesting as SpaceX to watch, and I'm not sure they'll ever be. EM likes to bet the company quite often, and JB doesn't at all seem to be a "bet the company" kind of guy. Nonetheless, it'll be very interesting to see what happens when Blue starts flying. Will they fly every month or once a year?
Thinking about the last five years' activity in space development, I extrapolated forward and realized that my mind will probably be quite blown in the next five years. Just given the amount of progress I expect to see with SpaceX, and then adding in a little bit from each of several other companies, especially Blue, I got giddy.
Unless SpaceX craters, this is going to be a lot of fun. And if Blue turns up (as I expect them to) with a capsule and service module, in addition to a working OTV, well...it'll still be a lot of fun.
EDIT: Oooo...what if Bigelow actually did something?
This race is increasingly looking like the boring company race from earlier today.
I'll be happy to change my opinion when I see flames in the flame trench. But as long as it's unicorns, BO hasn't delivered even on its very basic promise, and the competition is capitalizing on it.
While the other guys launch powerful press conferences, we power launches of people and critical payloads. In fact, we’ve powered 14 launches in 12 months with 100% success. While the other guys deliver press conferences, we deliver astronauts and important communication, science and national defense payloads. So, before you listen to their next promise, scan the tag and watch all 14 zero-fail launches. At FutureSpaceUSA.com.http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/01/22/pratt-whitney-rocketdyne-takes-shot-at-spacex/
Dude, that was rigged. There was no line of cars waiting to get on the elevator. You could do the same thing the other way around. Clear the streets and put 50 cars in line at the tunnel.Sure it was rigged but there is a difference, there are plenty of room for new tunnels while the surface space for roads are more or less full in most large cities. Building low cost tunnels in many layers allow you to grow traffic to a completely new level!
BO and SpaceX were founded at the same time. Falcon 1 was in orbit 6 years later, some 11 years ago.
I'll be happy to change my opinion when I see flames in the flame trench. But as long as it's unicorns, BO hasn't delivered even on its very basic promise, and the competition is capitalizing on it.
BTW, you sound like Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne circa 2012
Jeff Bezos has said that Amazon will not last forever. Many others are getting into the mail order business like Wal-mart/Sam's Club. As they cut into Amazon's business this may limit Bezos' earnings. Most of his wealth isn't in cash, but tied up in Stock of his company. So don't look for Blue to have unlimited cash input forever as some seem to think. At some point Blue has to start making money for all the money they have spent developing rockets, engines, etc.
You are a hopeful man, I'll give you that.But if it's intentional, why the earlier predictions of flight dated several years ago?
That doesn't make it seem "slow and steady". It makes it sound simply late.
They can be slow and steady and also late.QuoteAs for reliability, without a doubt, projects that linger become LESS reliable, not more. This is because system knowledge tends to deteriorate as people leave and new ones come in. At some point you lose the ability to make holistic decisions, since people are only familiar with their narrow scopes.
They're not THAT late.
Blue isn't nearly as interesting as SpaceX to watch, and I'm not sure they'll ever be. EM likes to bet the company quite often, and JB doesn't at all seem to be a "bet the company" kind of guy. Nonetheless, it'll be very interesting to see what happens when Blue starts flying. Will they fly every month or once a year?
Thinking about the last five years' activity in space development, I extrapolated forward and realized that my mind will probably be quite blown in the next five years. Just given the amount of progress I expect to see with SpaceX, and then adding in a little bit from each of several other companies, especially Blue, I got giddy.
Unless SpaceX craters, this is going to be a lot of fun. And if Blue turns up (as I expect them to) with a capsule and service module, in addition to a working OTV, well...it'll still be a lot of fun.
EDIT: Oooo...what if Bigelow actually did something?
To those of us who've seen many space "entrants" come and go (Beal, Kistler, etc) SpaceX stood out as an outlier, one that had both vision and ability to perform.
Except that if JB is so rich, why would he be afraid of moving fast?
The answer is simple - they're simply not very good, not in comparison to their competition. That's all there is to it. If JB was any poorer, they'd be bankrupt by now. But he's not, so they're not.
I'll be happy to change my opinion when I see flames in the flame trench. But as long as it's unicorns, BO hasn't delivered even on its very basic promise, and the competition is capitalizing on it.
Jeff Bezos has said that Amazon will not last forever. Many others are getting into the mail order business like Wal-mart/Sam's Club. As they cut into Amazon's business this may limit Bezos' earnings. Most of his wealth isn't in cash, but tied up in Stock of his company. So don't look for Blue to have unlimited cash input forever as some seem to think. At some point Blue has to start making money for all the money they have spent developing rockets, engines, etc.
SpaceX is making money, probably more than they spend on development of Raptor and Starship. When Tesla begins to make more money, Musk will probably begin to sell off his shares and pour it into Starship/Mars colony materials.
In the meantime, Bezos is not only holding up New Glenn, but also Vulcan, at the same time SLS snails along. I think OmegA will be ready before New Glenn and Vulcan at the pace Blue is going, and Starship may be orbital testing before SLS launches.
For someone who supposedly has been passionate about space since high school Bezos doesn’t seem that interested in achieving much before he dies. He is almost 10 years older than Musk and at his current gradatim pace isn’t going revolutionize much on the space front by the time he reaches 80.
Musk in contrast is on track to see maybe ten thousand people on Mars by the time he reaches 80.
...Now they're into an "audacious telecom constellation" - is there no self respect left?I have no problem with that one. There's only so many uses for a reusable launch vehicle. It's kind of inevitable.
No problem here either (if they actually ever do). The kicker was the "audacious" bit....Now they're into an "audacious telecom constellation" - is there no self respect left?I have no problem with that one. There's only so many uses for a reusable launch vehicle. It's kind of inevitable.
QuoteExcept that if JB is so rich, why would he be afraid of moving fast?
What makes you think he's afraid of moving fast? He's got enough money to move at any pace he chooses, so this is the pace he's choosing.
Another thing: what makes you think Blue's pace isn't fast?
There's no technical leadership, only faint following. Now they're into an "audacious telecom constellation" - is there no self respect left?
There's no technical leadership, only faint following. Now they're into an "audacious telecom constellation" - is there no self respect left?
SpaceX didn't invent com satellites nor LEO com satellites nor LEO com constellations. There are no grounds for astro-turfing. Maybe by Iridium, certainly not by SpaceX.
They didn't invent rockets or rocket engines or VTVL either.
There's no technical leadership, only faint following. Now they're into an "audacious telecom constellation" - is there no self respect left?
SpaceX didn't invent com satellites nor LEO com satellites nor LEO com constellations. There are no grounds for astro-turfing. Maybe by Iridium, certainly not by SpaceX.
I generally think that people put too much stock in the "Blue must be reliable because Bezos's money means that they can afford to do things The Right WayTM" argument. However, the fact that New Shepard has only ever had one partial failure after eleven launches suggests that they do a fairly good job.
I want to be clear.I also want ULA to turn around and start heading in a sensible direction.
I absolutely want and think Blue Origin will succeed.
There’s room for more than 1.
You know, for all the back and forth, one thing really sticks out that says SpaceX's approach is better to me....Resource utilization.
For all resources that SpaceX and BO started with....BO should be ahead by a light year....all other things being equal.
Difference?
Musk seems to have the passion and drive to do the absolute most with the resources available. He will do things no one has done/tried before...fail (publicly)...and try again till he gets it right or realizes it won't help his main goals.
Bezos, contrary to what he actually says in public, doesn't seem to have any passion or drive, and it shows in BO. He kinda keeps a hand off approach to BO with a direction...but no drive to get it done any time soon.
That is the most confusing part. They both say the same thing....but their actions do not.
I still hope Bezos doesn't kick the bucket before BO is able to stand without him. If he died today and his estate didn't continue to fund BO till they are up and running, BO would have a problem since they really don't have much money coming in to finish building up and sustaining the business.(example...Stratolaunch) If Musk died today, SpaceX at least seems to be income positive and working on other sources of income. They would survive but the drive might not be as hard anymore.
If business strategy comparison is based on if the company will fold if the founder dies....SpaceX wins by a mile.
I'm not a amazing people of any one company. I want to see them all succeed so we can get off this rock in my lifetime. But I also am one who believes actions are much, much louder then words....and SpaceX wins on that too......
I absolutely want and think Blue Origin will succeed.I also want ULA to turn around and start heading in a sensible direction.
There’s room for more than 1.
Few people believe this is in the cards, however, and with every passing year (19 now) BO looks more and more like a new old space company. Same pace of development, but without the track record.
...
Thinking about the last five years' activity in space development, I extrapolated forward and realized that my mind will probably be quite blown in the next five years. Just given the amount of progress I expect to see with SpaceX, and then adding in a little bit from each of several other companies, especially Blue, I got giddy.
Unless SpaceX craters, this is going to be a lot of fun. And if Blue turns up (as I expect them to) with a capsule and service module, in addition to a working OTV, well...it'll still be a lot of fun.
EDIT: Oooo...what if Bigelow actually did something?
Having just looked up to watch the train pass overhead, I'm praying that they start doing whatever they can to make them invisible. I'd rather have SpaceX and every other constellation manufacturer go permanently defunct than look up to see the night sky swarming with thousands of satellites.
SpaceX has the much better approach and business strategy than Blue because they actually get things done with a fairly limited budget.
Blue has much more funding but they are sitting around and are very slow to get anything done. Perhaps too much funding is a bad thing making you think you don't need to get anything done with any sense of urgency.
By the time NG 1st launches the horse will have bolted and Blue will never catch up with SpaceX unless for some unlikely reason SpaceX goes to the wall.
Once Starlink starts earning revenue then no one will be able to catch up with SpaceX.
I only see one practical problem for SpaceX. In 10 years or less SpaceX will have reached all it's technical and corporate goals of a mass cheap BEO transport and the start of a Mars Base/Colony. What next?
BO's goals are farther out and involves the complete replacement of Earth industry with Space industry. This goal is one probably not reachable but could still cause significant industrial shifts into space of those industries with costly environmental impacts making the higher costs in space actually cheaper overall. JB wants to "Amazon" space by vertically integrating services for achieving optimizing costs.
Will SpaceX go after the Space industrial goal competing with BO?
I only see one practical problem for SpaceX. In 10 years or less SpaceX will have reached all it's technical and corporate goals of a mass cheap BEO transport and the start of a Mars Base/Colony. What next?Musk has occasionally talked about how BFS/ITS/Starship is capable of going well beyond mars: https://www.space.com/34219-spacex-mars-spaceship-solar-system-exploration.html
Exactly - Starship is just a tool.
Mining there? Hmmm. That's a tough call. A bit of chicken and egg problem, unless it solves something fundamental for the Mars colony.
I'm all for money, but it's a market /capacity thing. You need a consumer for the goods, and it doesn't exist before you have established the industry.Exactly - Starship is just a tool.
Mining there? Hmmm. That's a tough call. A bit of chicken and egg problem, unless it solves something fundamental for the Mars colony.
Yes. The most fundamental resource of all. Money.
I'm all for money, but it's a market /capacity thing. You need a consumer for the goods, and it doesn't exist before you have established the industry.Exactly - Starship is just a tool.
Mining there? Hmmm. That's a tough call. A bit of chicken and egg problem, unless it solves something fundamental for the Mars colony.
Yes. The most fundamental resource of all. Money.
It's a very different starting point than a colony.
Now if someone wanted to try for an Asteroid colony (e.g. Ceres) then that's more interesting, but I don't see that happening quickly, not before Mars is fully populated.
If you can get metal from asteroids cheaper than you can get it on Earth, then yes, absolutely, game's on.I'm all for money, but it's a market /capacity thing. You need a consumer for the goods, and it doesn't exist before you have established the industry.Exactly - Starship is just a tool.
Mining there? Hmmm. That's a tough call. A bit of chicken and egg problem, unless it solves something fundamental for the Mars colony.
Yes. The most fundamental resource of all. Money.
It's a very different starting point than a colony.
Now if someone wanted to try for an Asteroid colony (e.g. Ceres) then that's more interesting, but I don't see that happening quickly, not before Mars is fully populated.
A million person city on Mars will take a century to establish. By contrast asteroid mining could take off as soon as cheap access to space becomes a reality. A hundred tons of gold is worth about $6 billion. How much would it cost Starship to transport 100 tons from a mined asteroid to Earth? $100m?
So once the mining infrastructure is established, it can be quite lucrative indeed.
If you can get metal from asteroids cheaper than you can get it on Earth, then yes, absolutely, game's on.I'm all for money, but it's a market /capacity thing. You need a consumer for the goods, and it doesn't exist before you have established the industry.Exactly - Starship is just a tool.
Mining there? Hmmm. That's a tough call. A bit of chicken and egg problem, unless it solves something fundamental for the Mars colony.
Yes. The most fundamental resource of all. Money.
It's a very different starting point than a colony.
Now if someone wanted to try for an Asteroid colony (e.g. Ceres) then that's more interesting, but I don't see that happening quickly, not before Mars is fully populated.
A million person city on Mars will take a century to establish. By contrast asteroid mining could take off as soon as cheap access to space becomes a reality. A hundred tons of gold is worth about $6 billion. How much would it cost Starship to transport 100 tons from a mined asteroid to Earth? $100m?
So once the mining infrastructure is established, it can be quite lucrative indeed.
And then yes, SpaceX will be on it early
Surely it doesn’t need to be cheaper than on earth. It just needs to be profitable.
What I mean is, all mines aren’t equally profitable even on Earth. As long as they turn a profit they are a worthwhile investment.
A million person city on Mars will take a century to establish. By contrast asteroid mining could take off as soon as cheap access to space becomes a reality. A hundred tons of gold is worth about $6 billion. How much would it cost Starship to transport 100 tons from a mined asteroid to Earth? $100m?
So once the mining infrastructure is established, it can be quite lucrative indeed.
Surely it doesn’t need to be cheaper than on earth. It just needs to be profitable.
What I mean is, all mines aren’t equally profitable even on Earth. As long as they turn a profit they are a worthwhile investment.
Correct, though in the limit you'll reduce the going price and eventually have to beat them.
I didn't revisit the idea of metals for terrestrial consumption in light of Starship capabilities... If this works out that's huge... So let me catch up here. You're saying:
- Load up a Starship with a minimal crew and a mining toolset.
- Top up on propellant since there's no refueling on the asteroid.
- Do a 2-3 month low dV transit to a near-earth-orbit metal asteroid.
- Hack at it until it gives. Find a way to pack up metal chunks, probably in those after containers.
- All of that in the Boca Chica spirit - just manually do it. Careful not to ban the engines.
- Fly back, unload, profit, repeat.
Probably do it in pairs of ships? Same profit margin, less personal risk.
Hell yeah. I can see it, and I can see people wanting to do it, it's in the American DNA.
I only see one practical problem for SpaceX. In 10 years or less SpaceX will have reached all it's technical and corporate goals of a mass cheap BEO transport and the start of a Mars Base/Colony. What next?
BO's goals are farther out and involves the complete replacement of Earth industry with Space industry. This goal is one probably not reachable but could still cause significant industrial shifts into space of those industries with costly environmental impacts making the higher costs in space actually cheaper overall. JB wants to "Amazon" space by vertically integrating services for achieving optimizing costs.
Will SpaceX go after the Space industrial goal competing with BO?
I don’t think there is any doubt about that.
If SpaceX has established a Mars colony...[snip]
If you can get metal from asteroids cheaper than you can get it on Earth, then yes, absolutely, game's on.I'm all for money, but it's a market /capacity thing. You need a consumer for the goods, and it doesn't exist before you have established the industry.Exactly - Starship is just a tool.
Mining there? Hmmm. That's a tough call. A bit of chicken and egg problem, unless it solves something fundamental for the Mars colony.
Yes. The most fundamental resource of all. Money.
It's a very different starting point than a colony.
Now if someone wanted to try for an Asteroid colony (e.g. Ceres) then that's more interesting, but I don't see that happening quickly, not before Mars is fully populated.
A million person city on Mars will take a century to establish. By contrast asteroid mining could take off as soon as cheap access to space becomes a reality. A hundred tons of gold is worth about $6 billion. How much would it cost Starship to transport 100 tons from a mined asteroid to Earth? $100m?
So once the mining infrastructure is established, it can be quite lucrative indeed.
And then yes, SpaceX will be on it early
Surely it doesn’t need to be cheaper than on earth. It just needs to be profitable.
What I mean is, all mines aren’t equally profitable even on Earth. As long as they turn a profit they are a worthwhile investment.
The whole idea of asteriod mining is to return construct materials and volatiles for fuel to EML1-2 for use in cis lunar space. Precious metal mining is by product of extracting construction metals.
I only see one practical problem for SpaceX. In 10 years or less SpaceX will have reached all it's technical and corporate goals of a mass cheap BEO transport and the start of a Mars Base/Colony. What next?
BO's goals are farther out and involves the complete replacement of Earth industry with Space industry. This goal is one probably not reachable but could still cause significant industrial shifts into space of those industries with costly environmental impacts making the higher costs in space actually cheaper overall. JB wants to "Amazon" space by vertically integrating services for achieving optimizing costs.
Will SpaceX go after the Space industrial goal competing with BO?
I don’t think there is any doubt about that.
If SpaceX has established a Mars colony...[snip]
I'm actually betting on SpaceX being a major player in any kind of cislunar infrastructure activity, long before they get to the point where they can go after Mars. In fact, I think Starlink's going to slow them down for the next few years, at least until it begins to break even, and that will mean a greater dependency on NASA and the DoD, leaving some 36-60 months for Blue, Sierra, Maxar, ULA and the various other players to play catch-up. After that time, Vulcan and Blue should be operational, along with all of the Sand Snake startups nipping at their heels.
So we may go through a period where SpaceX's development pace is somewhat abbreviated, during which the field is going to change to make room for the other players.
A million person city on Mars will take a century to establish. By contrast asteroid mining could take off as soon as cheap access to space becomes a reality. A hundred tons of gold is worth about $6 billion. How much would it cost Starship to transport 100 tons from a mined asteroid to Earth? $100m?
So once the mining infrastructure is established, it can be quite lucrative indeed.
The whole idea of asteriod mining is to return construct materials and volatiles for fuel to EML1-2 for use in cis lunar space. Precious metal mining is by product of extracting construction metals.
I only see one practical problem for SpaceX. In 10 years or less SpaceX will have reached all it's technical and corporate goals of a mass cheap BEO transport and the start of a Mars Base/Colony. What next?
....
To do WHAT in cislunar space?
A million person city on Mars will take a century to establish. By contrast asteroid mining could take off as soon as cheap access to space becomes a reality. A hundred tons of gold is worth about $6 billion. How much would it cost Starship to transport 100 tons from a mined asteroid to Earth? $100m?
So once the mining infrastructure is established, it can be quite lucrative indeed.
The whole idea of asteriod mining is to return construct materials and volatiles for fuel to EML1-2 for use in cis lunar space. ...
To do WHAT in cislunar space?
A million person city on Mars will take a century to establish. By contrast asteroid mining could take off as soon as cheap access to space becomes a reality. A hundred tons of gold is worth about $6 billion. How much would it cost Starship to transport 100 tons from a mined asteroid to Earth? $100m?
So once the mining infrastructure is established, it can be quite lucrative indeed.
The whole idea of asteriod mining is to return construct materials and volatiles for fuel to EML1-2 for use in cis lunar space. ...
Who ultimately pays the bills, here?
Beware the self-licking ice cream cone. There's not a HUGE market for propellant. There's a huge market for communication services, which MIGHT benefit from a bit of propellant if it's super cheap. Same for construction materials.
There are only a few actual end markets:
1) telecommunications
2) Earth observation (much smaller than telecommunications, at least a factor of 10 smaller, at least for non-military purposes)
3) space tourism (currently way smaller than the above 2), perhaps some niche health treatments in less-than-1-gee--kind of like medical tourism, space settlement
4) point to point rocket travel for Earth
5) space based solar power (and possibly space-based data storage/servers, etc)
6) in-space-mined minerals for use on Earth (platinum group metals, maybe other stuff).
7) niche manufacturing taking advantage of microgravity or ultra high vacuum
( 8: possibly weapons, etc)
Everything else like propellant or construction materials or in-space servicing or whatever are SECONDARY markets, only existing to serve the primary markets is going to necessarily be smaller than whatever market it's supporting.
NG and blue moon were announced early because it was needed to sell to customers. Launches are awarded years in advance. It would be hard to sell them without announcing the rocket first. For blue moon I bet he wouldn't have announced it yet without the sudden possibility to bid for artemis. Evidence for this is that it was several years in the works in secret. But for other in space projects there is probably no need yet to look for customers so the announcement can be delayed until it is possible with a bang.I mean, okay, but the only two major things announced (besides New Shepard, I guess? still has flown no human passengers) contradict your point about things only being announced when they're ready.
NG and blue moon were announced early because it was needed to sell to customers. Launches are awarded years in advance. It would be hard to sell them without announcing the rocket first. For blue moon I bet he wouldn't have announced it yet without the sudden possibility to bid for artemis. Evidence for this is that it was several years in the works in secret. But for other in space projects there is probably no need yet to look for customers so the announcement can be delayed until it is possible with a bang.
NG and blue moon were announced early because it was needed to sell to customers. Launches are awarded years in advance. It would be hard to sell them without announcing the rocket first. For blue moon I bet he wouldn't have announced it yet without the sudden possibility to bid for artemis. Evidence for this is that it was several years in the works in secret. But for other in space projects there is probably no need yet to look for customers so the announcement can be delayed until it is possible with a bang.
The market for space settlement will be really small for a long time.
If you’re able to make point to point Earth rocket travel cheap and routine, you may have lots of people willing to live in large habitats in LEO (where they can quickly travel to and from all over the Earth).
But... if the aneurism of people screaming about the non-problem of Starlink being visible in the near-dusk sky is anything to go by, people will go nuclear over gigantic LEO habitats.
So the market for real estate is small any time this century.
I mean, okay, but the only two major things announced (besides New Shepard, I guess? still has flown no human passengers) contradict your point about things only being announced when they're ready.
I mean, okay, but the only two major things announced (besides New Shepard, I guess? still has flown no human passengers) contradict your point about things only being announced when they're ready.
I was trying to explain the disparity between their high budget, how long they exist and what they announced so far. Posters earlier made a comparison to JPL which has a similar budget, but gets much more done.
There are multiple possibilities:
- Either they are a rather inefficient organization
or
- Reusable rockets are really hard and need a large organization
or
- The BE/NG/NA teams are not that big, but others are working on lots of stuff that hasn't been announced yet.
My guess was it's the last, but they are waiting for the launcher to fly before announcing more because it's needed for everything. Of course could be wrong. Perhaps it's really one of the other cases. But given Blue Moon's existence some more hidden projects are likely there.
Everything else like propellant or construction materials or in-space servicing or whatever are SECONDARY markets, only existing to serve the primary markets is going to necessarily be smaller than whatever market it's supporting.The US economy is about 10 times the size of the services it provides to the rest of the world.
When the off-world population is of the same order of magnitude as the US, then sure.Everything else like propellant or construction materials or in-space servicing or whatever are SECONDARY markets, only existing to serve the primary markets is going to necessarily be smaller than whatever market it's supporting.The US economy is about 10 times the size of the services it provides to the rest of the world.
Similarly there is no reason the secondary market, keeping people alive in space, can't be larger than the services provided to Earth.
I mean, okay, but the only two major things announced (besides New Shepard, I guess? still has flown no human passengers) contradict your point about things only being announced when they're ready.
I was trying to explain the disparity between their high budget, how long they exist and what they announced so far. Posters earlier made a comparison to JPL which has a similar budget, but gets much more done.
Uh huh, I've worked at a campus observatory as well and did public outreach with my own telescope off and on for several years. Fleets of enormous space stations which make ISS (which already can be brighter than Venus) look like children's toys are not going to be less noticeable and distracting than a dozen or so mag 5 satellites on the edge of human eyesight. And those satellites will be serving hundreds of millions to billions of people, several orders of magnitude more than even a whole bunch of huge habitats. But don't take me wrong: I'm not against large LEO habitats (on the contrary, it'd be AWESOME), I'm just trying to help you see that we're on the same team, here.QuoteBut... if the aneurism of people screaming about the non-problem of Starlink being visible in the near-dusk sky is anything to go by, people will go nuclear over gigantic LEO habitats.
What's worse is the aneurism of laymen who are unable to grasp the subtle difference between near-dusk and midnight, or the distinctly different effects on the night sky of the single reflection of a large space station versus the hundreds of reflections of multiple thousands of satellites.
I spent a couple of semesters running a campus observatory, during which I tried to explain to people the difference between astrology and astronomy. It all feels about the same. Archimedes knew the feeling all too well.
I'm skeptical that point to point travel will become so cheap, but it'd be great if it does. And even if it does, that does not guarantee there will be a huge market for LEO habitats.QuoteSo the market for real estate is small any time this century.
To sum up your argument, point to point rocket travel will not become cheap and routine at any time during the next century, therefore the market for real estate in space will be small at any time during the next century.
I disagree. Time will tell.
I mean, okay, but the only two major things announced (besides New Shepard, I guess? still has flown no human passengers) contradict your point about things only being announced when they're ready.
I was trying to explain the disparity between their high budget, how long they exist and what they announced so far. Posters earlier made a comparison to JPL which has a similar budget, but gets much more done.
Blue Origin's budget of similar scale to JPL goes back a few years. Nothing big happens in this industry on that time scale. See: Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy. Crew dragon was unveiled in 2014 and flew 5 years later unmanned. Falcon Heavy was announced in 2011 and didn't fly until 2018.
People think that Blue Origin's budget is Jeff Bezo's net worth which is akin to thinking that NASA's budget is the sum total of money in the U.S. treasury.
His strategy seems to be more of long term planning. For instance, given the average Dow Jones Industrial Average return on investment, Jeff Bezos will be worth a trillion dollars by the time he is 80 which is comparable to the entire sum total of the world national space budgets going back to the dawn of space travel and exploration. As long as he doesn't leave the money to his sister, it probably will go to its intended purpose. This essentially can maintain space exploration independently of Congress or national governments determining that it is a complete waste of money and shutting down..for the rest of the 21st century.
Again, this is different than Musk's approach, but you don't judge effectiveness by how Musk-like something is or a Muskiness index rating(a value between 0 and 1 mathamatically determined by how similar something is to Musk).
Luckily, we can even support both.
Blue Origin's budget of similar scale to JPL goes back a few years. Nothing big happens in this industry on that time scale.
I mean, okay, but the only two major things announced (besides New Shepard, I guess? still has flown no human passengers) contradict your point about things only being announced when they're ready.
I was trying to explain the disparity between their high budget, how long they exist and what they announced so far. Posters earlier made a comparison to JPL which has a similar budget, but gets much more done.
Blue Origin's budget of similar scale to JPL goes back a few years. Nothing big happens in this industry on that time scale. See: Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy. Crew dragon was unveiled in 2014 and flew 5 years later unmanned. Falcon Heavy was announced in 2011 and didn't fly until 2018.
People think that Blue Origin's budget is Jeff Bezo's net worth which is akin to thinking that NASA's budget is the sum total of money in the U.S. treasury.
His strategy seems to be more of long term planning. For instance, given the average Dow Jones Industrial Average return on investment, Jeff Bezos will be worth a trillion dollars by the time he is 80 which is comparable to the entire sum total of the world national space budgets going back to the dawn of space travel and exploration. As long as he doesn't leave the money to his sister, it probably will go to its intended purpose. This essentially can maintain space exploration independently of Congress or national governments determining that it is a complete waste of money and shutting down..for the rest of the 21st century.
Again, this is different than Musk's approach, but you don't judge effectiveness by how Musk-like something is or a Muskiness index rating(a value between 0 and 1 mathamatically determined by how similar something is to Musk).
However, for those of us alive today, motivated by wanting to see the maximum amount of progress before we die, Musk’s approach is clearly the one to support.
Most countries produce more than they trade. We can find some small ones, such as New Zealand or Saint Vincent where exports are about 25% of GDP. That brings the population bar down 2 to 4 orders of magnitude.When the off-world population is of the same order of magnitude as the US, then sure.Everything else like propellant or construction materials or in-space servicing or whatever are SECONDARY markets, only existing to serve the primary markets is going to necessarily be smaller than whatever market it's supporting.The US economy is about 10 times the size of the services it provides to the rest of the world.
Similarly there is no reason the secondary market, keeping people alive in space, can't be larger than the services provided to Earth.
Blue Origin's budget of similar scale to JPL goes back a few years. Nothing big happens in this industry on that time scale.
Complex projects usually have a funding profile where they only need a low budget in the first years for preliminary development, then peak at some point during the actual execution, and then go lower again. So even if their JPL scale budget only goes a few years back you would expect they had already started the early phases of some projects earlier. This should have been possible even with a much lower budget. Then as projects ramp up they would eat more and more budget, which lead to the current total budget.
So you're right projects take a long time, but they've had significant time for it too.
There are only a few actual end markets:
1) telecommunications
2) Earth observation (much smaller than telecommunications, at least a factor of 10 smaller, at least for non-military purposes)
3) space tourism (currently way smaller than the above 2), perhaps some niche health treatments in less-than-1-gee--kind of like medical tourism, space settlement
4) point to point rocket travel for Earth
5) space based solar power (and possibly space-based data storage/servers, etc)
6) in-space-mined minerals for use on Earth (platinum group metals, maybe other stuff).
7) niche manufacturing taking advantage of microgravity or ultra high vacuum
( 8: possibly weapons, etc)
Everything else like propellant or construction materials or in-space servicing or whatever are SECONDARY markets, only existing to serve the primary markets is going to necessarily be smaller than whatever market it's supporting.
Real estate is a secondary market. Secondary to space settlement.
The market for space settlement will be really small for a long time.
[snip]
So the market for real estate is small any time this century.
Buzz Aldrin is looking forward, not back—and he has a plan to bring NASA along..Buzz and the spaceflight community...
"There has to be a better way of doing things. And I think I’ve found it.”
ERIC BERGER - 7/9/2019, 4:30 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/buzz-aldrin-is-looking-forward-not-back-and-he-has-a-plan-to-bring-nasa-along/
Seems like we have a new metric.
New Shepard, described in the first webcast as a vehicle that would allow cheap and regular launch so Blue Origin would be able to learn about launching rockets much faster, had its most recent test flight 85 days ago.
Starhopper, the vehicle SpaceX uses to prepare for a full scale StarShip, had 112 days between the tethered hop and today's 20m hop.
If tests on Starhopper progress at a faster pace than New Shepard tests (or even launches), which has arguably less in common with New Glenn than Starhopper has with StarShip, that's a pretty strong sign the 'Blue Origin is just so secretive we don't know how far along they really are' arguments can be put to rest, IMO.
Points 1 and 2 above, sure. But point 3 isn't accurate. BO can fly New Shepard whenever they choose to.
Seems like we have a new metric.
New Shepard, described in the first webcast as a vehicle that would allow cheap and regular launch so Blue Origin would be able to learn about launching rockets much faster, had its most recent test flight 85 days ago.
Starhopper, the vehicle SpaceX uses to prepare for a full scale StarShip, had 112 days between the tethered hop and today's 20m hop.
If tests on Starhopper progress at a faster pace than New Shepard tests (or even launches), which has arguably less in common with New Glenn than Starhopper has with StarShip, that's a pretty strong sign the 'Blue Origin is just so secretive we don't know how far along they really are' arguments can be put to rest, IMO.
Not Really:
1. New Shepard is an operational design that needs to maximize reliability, Starhopper is a test prototype .
2. New Shepard launches over 100.6km and carries a crew capsule to the edge of space, Starhopper has flown a few meters, and doesnt carry any payload.
3. New Shepard is carrying customer payloads (NASA) so is dependent on them when scheduling launches, starhopper flies when SpaceX wants.
Seems like we have a new metric.
New Shepard, described in the first webcast as a vehicle that would allow cheap and regular launch so Blue Origin would be able to learn about launching rockets much faster, had its most recent test flight 85 days ago.
Starhopper, the vehicle SpaceX uses to prepare for a full scale StarShip, had 112 days between the tethered hop and today's 20m hop.
If tests on Starhopper progress at a faster pace than New Shepard tests (or even launches), which has arguably less in common with New Glenn than Starhopper has with StarShip, that's a pretty strong sign the 'Blue Origin is just so secretive we don't know how far along they really are' arguments can be put to rest, IMO.
Not Really:
1. New Shepard is an operational design that needs to maximize reliability, Starhopper is a test prototype .
2. New Shepard launches over 100.6km and carries a crew capsule to the edge of space, Starhopper has flown a few meters, and doesnt carry any payload.
3. New Shepard is carrying customer payloads (NASA) so is dependent on them when scheduling launches, starhopper flies when SpaceX wants.
New Shepard is NOT operational. It's primary mission is to fly humans to the edge of space and back down. If it operational then they would be flying people in it. Looks like it's going to be well into 2020 before we see that.
And please can we not even try to compare NS to Starhopper. They are in completely different leagues and the only thing they have in common is a rocket engine.
Is it possible that milestone payments for various contracts have been triggered by Starhopper is an interesting question.New Shepard is NOT operational. It's primary mission is to fly humans to the edge of space and back down. If it operational then they would be flying people in it. Looks like it's going to be well into 2020 before we see that.
But it is an operational design (especially compared to Starhopper) flying paying customers (although not people, but zero-g payloads are bringing in revenue)
I wouldn't be surprised if StarHopper flies less than 10 times total and is mothballed by the end of the year in favor of SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if starhopper, or at least the current version of it, finishes all the tests it can perform, before the first paying customers are on NG. In the flesh, that is.
I wouldn't be surprised if StarHopper flies less than 10 times total and is mothballed by the end of the year in favor of SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if starhopper, or at least the current version of it, finishes all the tests it can perform, before the first paying customers are on NG. In the flesh, that is.
I'd actually be surprised if it doesn't.
What SS, the SS with carbon fiber, the SS with stainless steel or the SS with ceramic tiles?Nice snark, but of course the CF is long gone and the ceramic is just a possible mod to the, uh, SS SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if StarHopper flies less than 10 times total and is mothballed by the end of the year in favor of SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if starhopper, or at least the current version of it, finishes all the tests it can perform, before the first paying customers are on NG. In the flesh, that is.
I'd actually be surprised if it doesn't.
What SS, the SS with carbon fiber, the SS with stainless steel or the SS with ceramic tiles?
I wouldn't be surprised if StarHopper flies less than 10 times total and is mothballed by the end of the year in favor of SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if starhopper, or at least the current version of it, finishes all the tests it can perform, before the first paying customers are on NG. In the flesh, that is.
I'd actually be surprised if it doesn't.
What SS, the SS with carbon fiber, the SS with stainless steel or the SS with ceramic tiles?
The two SSs that are currently being built.
I'm a bit unclear, are you snarking on the fact that there was a CF version of SS?
If anything, it's even more embarrassing for BO that SS development can get in major changes in direction and still remain ahead, not to mention that NG was originally meant to compete with FH, and that it is only a lifter...
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...New Glenn is definitely going to be a better system than F9/FH when it comes online.
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...New Glenn is definitely going to be a better system than F9/FH when it comes online.
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
New Glenn should be a better system than FH, but F9 should be more cost-effective for payloads within its booster-recovery performance envelope. The most significant economic downside of NG is that the expendable upper stage is much larger in dry mass and handles LH2.
The most difficult comparison is for the LEO constellations. NG will be able to launch more birds at a time than F9 at a higher cost. Which is more cost-effective in this critical market segment depends a lot on satellite design and payload integration.
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
New Glenn is definitely going to be a better system than F9/FH when it comes online.
Having said that, I very much doubt that it will be flying significantly earlier than Starship. BE-4 has yet to officially reach full thrust, while Raptor is already entering the initial stages of flight tests. SpaceX is building ships and engines, Blue is working on factories. SpaceX has far more urgency in its corporate DNA than Blue has ever demonstrated, and there's no evidence that things are likely to change.
I would absolutely love to see New Glenn fly, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately, until Blue gets the engine to full thrust, neither New Glenn nor Vulcan is going to be flying anytime soon.
Betting on SpaceX to slow down so that Blue can overtake them seems more than a trifle optimistic from where I sit.
Even if NG flies before SS, Bezos has estimated NG launches at only 12 annually, in initial years.
I imagine that Musk has a rather different frequency ramp up in mind for SS.
Point being that there is no reason to believe that BO’s rate of progress will escalate once NG flies. Money is no constraint, yet everything they do is slow. By contrast, SpaceX’s only constraint IS money, else they would be iterating even faster than their already incredible pace.
Given Blue's careful, plodding, slow pace, they will likely take apart the entire booster and xray every inch of it and inspect every part (as they should for the first one.) It took SpaceX a long time before reusing the first booster, particularly since the boosters weren't designed for ease of reuse prior to Block 5. I expect Blue to take just as long given their careful nature, so actual reuse of a landed stage could take a year or two.
When they finish the NG they don't have to wait nothing, no capex, no amortization, nothing...
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...
Complete agree...isn't going to be easy for nobody to follow the path of complete reusability...
But the NG with methalox and the engine like BE-4 maybe should be more easy the reshufflement and reuse than the Merlin and the F9 of kerolox...
I don't see why they don't be able the recover the fairings of the NG, like Spacex...
Will see...
When they finish the NG they don't have to wait nothing, no capex, no amortization, nothing...It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...
Which is it? "We're richer than god so can afford to be slower than paint" or "SpaceX got money from NASA it's not fair"?
Tywin, I think you just keep saying Blue is better. Not everything you say is easy to parse but I'm missing the substantive (not already refuted) reasons why. Assertions don't cut it.
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
New Glenn is definitely going to be a better system than F9/FH when it comes online.
Having said that, I very much doubt that it will be flying significantly earlier than Starship. BE-4 has yet to officially reach full thrust, while Raptor is already entering the initial stages of flight tests. SpaceX is building ships and engines, Blue is working on factories. SpaceX has far more urgency in its corporate DNA than Blue has ever demonstrated, and there's no evidence that things are likely to change.
I would absolutely love to see New Glenn fly, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately, until Blue gets the engine to full thrust, neither New Glenn nor Vulcan is going to be flying anytime soon.
Betting on SpaceX to slow down so that Blue can overtake them seems more than a trifle optimistic from where I sit.
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...
If Blue Origin would have won the Crew program, they already will have a orbital launcher like the OTS, planned in 2012...off course at lose this contract, they decide to go to something more importan like New Glenn, because they don't need the satellites commercial contracts for her development...and they go directly for this launcher...
All the factories and the ramp will be ready in time for 2021...and I don't say SS will fail, I only say that is very difficult to be ready for 2021...especially if SpaceX continue focus in development of the crew SS before the SS cargo...
PD: Nobody say SpaceX is not the leader right now, but other like me, think that what they have is perfectly replicable for other companies like BLUE...and the leap from the BE-3 to the BE-4 is bigger, than the BE-4 to the Raptor...Blue is on his right way...
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
New Glenn is definitely going to be a better system than F9/FH when it comes online.
Having said that, I very much doubt that it will be flying significantly earlier than Starship. BE-4 has yet to officially reach full thrust, while Raptor is already entering the initial stages of flight tests. SpaceX is building ships and engines, Blue is working on factories. SpaceX has far more urgency in its corporate DNA than Blue has ever demonstrated, and there's no evidence that things are likely to change.
I would absolutely love to see New Glenn fly, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately, until Blue gets the engine to full thrust, neither New Glenn nor Vulcan is going to be flying anytime soon.
Betting on SpaceX to slow down so that Blue can overtake them seems more than a trifle optimistic from where I sit.
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...
If Blue Origin would have won the Crew program, they already will have a orbital launcher like the OTS, planned in 2012...off course at lose this contract, they decide to go to something more importan like New Glenn, because they don't need the satellites commercial contracts for her development...and they go directly for this launcher...
All the factories and the ramp will be ready in time for 2021...and I don't say SS will fail, I only say that is very difficult to be ready for 2021...especially if SpaceX continue focus in development of the crew SS before the SS cargo...
PD: Nobody say SpaceX is not the leader right now, but other like me, think that what they have is perfectly replicable for other companies like BLUE...and the leap from the BE-3 to the BE-4 is bigger, than the BE-4 to the Raptor...Blue is on his right way...
It may be difficult for SpaceX to pull off Starship by 2021, but it's also difficult for Blue to pull off New Glenn by 2021 and SpaceX is moving faster.
As for engine development, while I agree that it's a bigger leap from BE-3 to BE-4 than from BE-4 to Raptor, the real comparison would be to compare the leap from BE-3 to BE-4 to the leap from Merlin to Raptor. There's also the fact that Raptor is an objectively more difficult design; BE-4 is a medium-performance example of a high-performance architecture, while Raptor is a high-performance example of a higher-performance architecture.
Going from Tim Dodd's numbers in his video, Raptor has 83% of the design thrust of BE-4 from 60% of the mass. It also has twice the chamber pressure of BE-4. Raptor is a more ambitious design that has arguably progressed further in about the same amount of time.
Given those figures, it's hard to believe that Blue is more likely to hit its targets by 2021 than SpaceX is to hit its.
In 2021 will see how long is ahead, SpaceX vs Blue Origin if they don't finish the SS in all this time...
Both companies want a systems reusable to LEO to downside the kg in orbit...if SpaceX lost time in the SS, the NG will be the better system in that moment vs F9-FH...
New Glenn is definitely going to be a better system than F9/FH when it comes online.
Having said that, I very much doubt that it will be flying significantly earlier than Starship. BE-4 has yet to officially reach full thrust, while Raptor is already entering the initial stages of flight tests. SpaceX is building ships and engines, Blue is working on factories. SpaceX has far more urgency in its corporate DNA than Blue has ever demonstrated, and there's no evidence that things are likely to change.
I would absolutely love to see New Glenn fly, and the sooner the better. Unfortunately, until Blue gets the engine to full thrust, neither New Glenn nor Vulcan is going to be flying anytime soon.
Betting on SpaceX to slow down so that Blue can overtake them seems more than a trifle optimistic from where I sit.
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...
If Blue Origin would have won the Crew program, they already will have a orbital launcher like the OTS, planned in 2012...off course at lose this contract, they decide to go to something more importan like New Glenn, because they don't need the satellites commercial contracts for her development...and they go directly for this launcher...
All the factories and the ramp will be ready in time for 2021...and I don't say SS will fail, I only say that is very difficult to be ready for 2021...especially if SpaceX continue focus in development of the crew SS before the SS cargo...
PD: Nobody say SpaceX is not the leader right now, but other like me, think that what they have is perfectly replicable for other companies like BLUE...and the leap from the BE-3 to the BE-4 is bigger, than the BE-4 to the Raptor...Blue is on his right way...
It may be difficult for SpaceX to pull off Starship by 2021, but it's also difficult for Blue to pull off New Glenn by 2021 and SpaceX is moving faster.
As for engine development, while I agree that it's a bigger leap from BE-3 to BE-4 than from BE-4 to Raptor, the real comparison would be to compare the leap from BE-3 to BE-4 to the leap from Merlin to Raptor. There's also the fact that Raptor is an objectively more difficult design; BE-4 is a medium-performance example of a high-performance architecture, while Raptor is a high-performance example of a higher-performance architecture.
Going from Tim Dodd's numbers in his video, Raptor has 83% of the design thrust of BE-4 from 60% of the mass. It also has twice the chamber pressure of BE-4. Raptor is a more ambitious design that has arguably progressed further in about the same amount of time.
Given those figures, it's hard to believe that Blue is more likely to hit its targets by 2021 than SpaceX is to hit its.
And that is why SpaceX is leading the space sector right now...
Off course the Raptor is better than the BE-4...but like I say, maybe the time necessary for BLUE to development now a engine like Raptor, is a lot less that the time they taked for development the BE-4...
The problem with the Raptor, is you want to create the complete system BFR and this continue with delays because of the problem with the SS crew, you are maybe losing you advantage of that engine, in a cargo SS with the Super Heavy...(all this is speculation, will see)
And we don't know how fast, is BLUE right now (because they are quiet in twitter don't means they are not working), with the Blue Moon for example, maybe is almost ready...the improvement they show with the engine BE-7 in the last months, show something "ferociter" in BLUE...
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...Can you explain why the lack of LC39A meaningfully affected Blues development process?
I love Elon but this particular statement? Yeah, no, it was a taunt, not a real offer.It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...Can you explain why the lack of LC39A meaningfully affected Blues development process?
Especially given Elons statement that he is happy to work with them if they turn up with a vehicle he's happy to work with them on launching it from there.
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...Can you explain why the lack of LC39A meaningfully affected Blues development process?
Especially given Elons statement that he is happy to work with them if they turn up with a vehicle he's happy to work with them on launching it from there.
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...Can you explain why the lack of LC39A meaningfully affected Blues development process?
Especially given Elons statement that he is happy to work with them if they turn up with a vehicle he's happy to work with them on launching it from there.
Yeah, nothing to do with contracts, money, or LC39A. The difference between SpaceX and Blue is that Elon is pushing like a driven man who's afraid he's going to be dead in 10 years and wants to get to Mars before then, while Bezos seems to have all the urgency of a retiree playing golf without a cart.
Not sure what 39A has to do with it. Blue has never been delayed waiting for pad completion. And for COTS billions? Blue did not then and does not now have an engine or a rocket even close to flying to orbit.
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...Can you explain why the lack of LC39A meaningfully affected Blues development process?
Especially given Elons statement that he is happy to work with them if they turn up with a vehicle he's happy to work with them on launching it from there.
Yeah, nothing to do with contracts, money, or LC39A. The difference between SpaceX and Blue is that Elon is pushing like a driven man who's afraid he's going to be dead in 10 years and wants to get to Mars before then, while Bezos seems to have all the urgency of a retiree playing golf without a cart.
It's true and is not true...
If SpaceX don't win the contract of COTS and Crew Commercial, maybe they are still with the Falcon 5....
If you don't need to spend years and hundreds of millions in a new PAD, like BLUE have to, that delay any project easy 2-3 years...and without a pad, for launch, is stupid have the rocket before...Not sure what 39A has to do with it. Blue has never been delayed waiting for pad completion. And for COTS billions? Blue did not then and does not now have an engine or a rocket even close to flying to orbit.
IF Blue win the Crew Commercial instead of Boeing, they already will have the launcher OTS, and a new spacecraft...
But everybody continue talking looking the mirror...in the past...in the past ULA and ILS-Glavkosmos, have 10-20 years of advantage vs SpaceX...now, look at theirs...
IF everybody think Blue in 2021 will be the same company like was in 2015 without all the factories, facilities, more mass producction, pad, more experimented and focus employees...well very good...but I bet it's go to be a very faster one company, maybe at the same fast than SpaceX...
And after the Raptor you don't go for the development of the Raptor 5 or Starship 3, it's will be very difficult improve that hardware, and this in the year they have that tecnhologoy...I think so is possible catch then...
The competition between New Glenn and Falcon 9/Heavy/Superheavy-Starship is primarily for NSSL at the moment. If you are looking for "who is ahead" than look who won the NSSL/Phase 2 money (subject to the SpaceX legal challenge, of course). That was a direct competition (in part) between New Glenn and SHSS. New Glenn won.
We'll see about the long term, of course. For me it really comes down to propulsion, Raptor/Vacuum Raptor versus BE-4/BE-3. Reliability and cost and performance. Hopefully we'll get to see both fly for awhile. These methane rockets seem a bit crazy to me, though, with flames shooting out in all directions. :)
- Ed Kyle
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...Can you explain why the lack of LC39A meaningfully affected Blues development process?
Especially given Elons statement that he is happy to work with them if they turn up with a vehicle he's happy to work with them on launching it from there.
Yeah, nothing to do with contracts, money, or LC39A. The difference between SpaceX and Blue is that Elon is pushing like a driven man who's afraid he's going to be dead in 10 years and wants to get to Mars before then, while Bezos seems to have all the urgency of a retiree playing golf without a cart.
It's true and is not true...
If SpaceX don't win the contract of COTS and Crew Commercial, maybe they are still with the Falcon 5....
If you don't need to spend years and hundreds of millions in a new PAD, like BLUE have to, that delay any project easy 2-3 years...and without a pad, for launch, is stupid have the rocket before...Not sure what 39A has to do with it. Blue has never been delayed waiting for pad completion. And for COTS billions? Blue did not then and does not now have an engine or a rocket even close to flying to orbit.
IF Blue win the Crew Commercial instead of Boeing, they already will have the launcher OTS, and a new spacecraft...
But everybody continue talking looking the mirror...in the past...in the past ULA and ILS-Glavkosmos, have 10-20 years of advantage vs SpaceX...now, look at theirs...
IF everybody think Blue in 2021 will be the same company like was in 2015 without all the factories, facilities, more mass producction, pad, more experimented and focus employees...well very good...but I bet it's go to be a very faster one company, maybe at the same fast than SpaceX...
And after the Raptor you don't go for the development of the Raptor 5 or Starship 3, it's will be very difficult improve that hardware, and this in the year they have that tecnhologoy...I think so is possible catch then...
Blue knew that they needed a non-39A pad more than 5 years ago. It doesn't take 5 years to lease and rebuild a pad, and Blue isn't hurting for money, so I don't see how not having 39A slowed them down at all.
The competition between New Glenn and Falcon 9/Heavy/Superheavy-Starship is primarily for NSSL at the moment. If you are looking for "who is ahead" than look who won the NSSL/Phase 2 money (subject to the SpaceX legal challenge, of course). That was a direct competition (in part) between New Glenn and SHSS. New Glenn won.
We'll see about the long term, of course. For me it really comes down to propulsion, Raptor/Vacuum Raptor versus BE-4/BE-3. Reliability and cost and performance. Hopefully we'll get to see both fly for awhile. These methane rockets seem a bit crazy to me, though, with flames shooting out in all directions. :)
- Ed Kyle
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...and you win the contracts for billion of dollars, of the COTS and Commercial Crew program...Can you explain why the lack of LC39A meaningfully affected Blues development process?
Especially given Elons statement that he is happy to work with them if they turn up with a vehicle he's happy to work with them on launching it from there.
Yeah, nothing to do with contracts, money, or LC39A. The difference between SpaceX and Blue is that Elon is pushing like a driven man who's afraid he's going to be dead in 10 years and wants to get to Mars before then, while Bezos seems to have all the urgency of a retiree playing golf without a cart.
It's true and is not true...
If SpaceX don't win the contract of COTS and Crew Commercial, maybe they are still with the Falcon 5....
If you don't need to spend years and hundreds of millions in a new PAD, like BLUE have to, that delay any project easy 2-3 years...and without a pad, for launch, is stupid have the rocket before...Not sure what 39A has to do with it. Blue has never been delayed waiting for pad completion. And for COTS billions? Blue did not then and does not now have an engine or a rocket even close to flying to orbit.
IF Blue win the Crew Commercial instead of Boeing, they already will have the launcher OTS, and a new spacecraft...
But everybody continue talking looking the mirror...in the past...in the past ULA and ILS-Glavkosmos, have 10-20 years of advantage vs SpaceX...now, look at theirs...
IF everybody think Blue in 2021 will be the same company like was in 2015 without all the factories, facilities, more mass producction, pad, more experimented and focus employees...well very good...but I bet it's go to be a very faster one company, maybe at the same fast than SpaceX...
And after the Raptor you don't go for the development of the Raptor 5 or Starship 3, it's will be very difficult improve that hardware, and this in the year they have that tecnhologoy...I think so is possible catch then...
Blue knew that they needed a non-39A pad more than 5 years ago. It doesn't take 5 years to lease and rebuild a pad, and Blue isn't hurting for money, so I don't see how not having 39A slowed them down at all.
Pad rebuild, really? SLC-36 wasn't designed to handle anything like New Glenn. Can you really just put a 7 meter core on a pad used for 3 meter rockets and call it good? LC-39A works for Falcon Heavy because it was designed for a 35 MN 10 meter diameter rocket.
Frankly, a empty lot would have probably been easier to work with.
I don't see any reason to suggest that if they had access to 39A they would also have a rocket to launch from it today.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.The competition between New Glenn and Falcon 9/Heavy/Superheavy-Starship is primarily for NSSL at the moment. If you are looking for "who is ahead" than look who won the NSSL/Phase 2 money (subject to the SpaceX legal challenge, of course). That was a direct competition (in part) between New Glenn and SHSS. New Glenn won.
We'll see about the long term, of course. For me it really comes down to propulsion, Raptor/Vacuum Raptor versus BE-4/BE-3. Reliability and cost and performance. Hopefully we'll get to see both fly for awhile. These methane rockets seem a bit crazy to me, though, with flames shooting out in all directions. :)
- Ed Kyle
I find this an extraordinary statement.
There is only one New Space company that has launched heavy lift rockets to orbit. There is only one New Space company that has launched medium lift rockets to orbit (70 or so versus zero by anyone else, including the competitor you just claimed was in the lead).
In fact, said competitor has not even launched a small sat rocket to orbit. In truth, Rocketlab has achieved more than BO in terms of orbital rocketry to date.
I honestly cannot fathom how any objective person can claim in good faith that BO is ahead of SpaceX by any reasonable measure.
Pad rebuild, really? SLC-36 wasn't designed to handle anything like New Glenn. Can you really just put a 7 meter core on a pad used for 3 meter rockets and call it good? LC-39A works for Falcon Heavy because it was designed for a 35 MN 10 meter diameter rocket.That's essentially what SLC 36 and adjacent SLC 11 were - empty lots. The old Atlas Centaur pads had been ground into gravel, the site essentially leveled, long before Blue Origin got the keys to the place. The New Glenn pad is really the first all-new from scratch launch pad to be built in Florida since the 1990s (Falcon and Atlas 5 were able to use a lot of existing launch infrastructure).
Frankly, a empty lot would have probably been easier to work with.
I don't see any reason to suggest that if they had access to 39A they would also have a rocket to launch from it today.
There isn't evidence of any alternative history.
It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...
I don't see any reason to suggest that if they had access to 39A they would also have a rocket to launch from it today.
There isn't evidence of any alternative history.
Tell that to the OP:It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...
This is equivalent to stating that lack of access to 39A significantly affected Blue's progress.
SpaceX was initially pushed out of VAFB and still reached orbit from 4 different pads in a span of 9 years... so why hasn't Blue been able to reach orbit even once, if they are really able to move as fast?
I don't see any reason to suggest that if they had access to 39A they would also have a rocket to launch from it today.
There isn't evidence of any alternative history.
Tell that to the OP:It's easy go faster when the NASA give you in exclusivity the ramp LC-39A...
This is equivalent to stating that lack of access to 39A significantly affected Blue's progress.
SpaceX was initially pushed out of VAFB and still reached orbit from 4 different pads in a span of 9 years... so why hasn't Blue been able to reach orbit even once, if they are really able to move as fast?
1.)They use their merlin class engines in pursuit of other things(sub-orbital tourism, at least initially). Not for falcon orbital activities. Focus on full reuse from the get-go rather than reaching orbit.
2.)Government contracts allowed them to scale far earlier. In 2013, Blue Origin had 250 employees. SpaceX had 3800.
3.)Unfettered technical/infrastructure assistance from the government because of participation in the industrial team supporting the ISS(LC-39A just being one example).
4.)A lot of money that Blue Origin likely "spent" was on things that weren't consumed in the process. For instance, their rocket development facility is hundred's of thousands of acres that is more of a real estate investment than an investment in rockets. It does allow for activities to happen without closing public roads/beaches though. So, more of a community impact investment and less externalization of costs to county/state.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
The competition between New Glenn and Falcon 9/Heavy/Superheavy-Starship is primarily for NSSL at the moment. If you are looking for "who is ahead" than look who won the NSSL/Phase 2 money (subject to the SpaceX legal challenge, of course). That was a direct competition (in part) between New Glenn and SHSS. New Glenn won.
We'll see about the long term, of course. For me it really comes down to propulsion, Raptor/Vacuum Raptor versus BE-4/BE-3. Reliability and cost and performance. Hopefully we'll get to see both fly for awhile. These methane rockets seem a bit crazy to me, though, with flames shooting out in all directions. :)
- Ed Kyle
I find this an extraordinary statement.
There is only one New Space company that has launched heavy lift rockets to orbit. There is only one New Space company that has launched medium lift rockets to orbit (70 or so versus zero by anyone else, including the competitor you just claimed was in the lead).
In fact, said competitor has not even launched a small sat rocket to orbit. In truth, Rocketlab has achieved more than BO in terms of orbital rocketry to date.
I honestly cannot fathom how any objective person can claim in good faith that BO is ahead of SpaceX by any reasonable measure.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
I'm pretty sure he went one to say there's an argument that giving the LSA to Blue was the same thing as what happened to spaceX- Money given to give a newcomer a seat at the table. But if that argument is used, you cannot at the same time argue that the LSA contract means Blue is "ahead" of spaceX in some way,
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
The competition between New Glenn and Falcon 9/Heavy/Superheavy-Starship is primarily for NSSL at the moment. If you are looking for "who is ahead" than look who won the NSSL/Phase 2 money (subject to the SpaceX legal challenge, of course). That was a direct competition (in part) between New Glenn and SHSS. New Glenn won.I'll turn that one around. By NOT getting money, SpaceX proved they're far ahead, since they don't need it. But if they win their challenge, then some balance is restored.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
Let's not actually call people trolls. Just let people draw their own conclusions.So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
Very different contracts with very different rules. But you knew that, didn't you? If you did not know you should have done more research before making such statements. If you did know you are just trolling.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
CRS prioritized cost and industry contribution, while NSSL prioritized assured access and reliability. These priorities lead to very different types of launch providers... But you knew all this already.
68. Based on the Total Evaluated Price calculations and its purported funding
limitations, the Agency elected to fund Blue Origin, Northrop, and ULA because they proposed
the three lowest "overall total Government investment" options. (Portfolio Recommendation at
26, Ex. D.)
edit: the redacted SpaceX document says this:Quote68. Based on the Total Evaluated Price calculations and its purported funding
limitations, the Agency elected to fund Blue Origin, Northrop, and ULA because they proposed
the three lowest "overall total Government investment" options. (Portfolio Recommendation at
26, Ex. D.)
So, they were evaluated on price, exactly like CRS.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
CRS prioritized cost and industry contribution, while NSSL prioritized assured access and reliability. These priorities lead to very different types of launch providers... But you knew all this already.
Of course I don't know how the bids were evaluated. There is no publically available source selection documentation from the Air Force, not that that would completely describe the judgement call made. It could have boiled down to SpaceX was the most expensive proposal, full stop, end of story. In which case, yes it was evaluated similarly to CRS.
edit: the redacted SpaceX document says this:Quote68. Based on the Total Evaluated Price calculations and its purported funding
limitations, the Agency elected to fund Blue Origin, Northrop, and ULA because they proposed
the three lowest "overall total Government investment" options. (Portfolio Recommendation at
26, Ex. D.)
So, they were evaluated on price, exactly like CRS.
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
CRS prioritized cost and industry contribution, while NSSL prioritized assured access and reliability. These priorities lead to very different types of launch providers... But you knew all this already.
Of course I don't know how the bids were evaluated. There is no publically available source selection documentation from the Air Force, not that that would completely describe the judgement call made. It could have boiled down to SpaceX was the most expensive proposal, full stop, end of story. In which case, yes it was evaluated similarly to CRS.
edit: the redacted SpaceX document says this:Quote68. Based on the Total Evaluated Price calculations and its purported funding
limitations, the Agency elected to fund Blue Origin, Northrop, and ULA because they proposed
the three lowest "overall total Government investment" options. (Portfolio Recommendation at
26, Ex. D.)
So, they were evaluated on price, exactly like CRS.
Cost of course is a factor, however the LSA solicitation made it clear that both technical risk and schedule risk were priorities over cost, see paragraphs 40 and 41 of the redacted complaint.
The LSA Solicitation provided the following factor weighting: EEL V Approach is
more important than Technical, and Technical and Investment Cost are of equal importance and
when combined, more important than EELV Approach. (Id. at 22, 24-25.) The Technical factor
consists of two subfactors, Technical Design and Technical Schedule, with the former more
important than the latter. (Id. at 24-25.)
It wasn't me making a "claim". It was the United States Air Force awarding funding to one and not the other.
- Ed Kyle
And this is the irony of the LSA award to Blue, and part of the SpaceX complaint laid out in their lawsuit. SpaceX is far ahead of Blue in terms of being able to launch the 30+ Class A and B missions listed in the LSA procurement, because they have a rocket that's ready today (F9) to launch those missions, and Blue has none.
So, what you are saying is that CRS contracts should have gone on ULA rockets (meaning SpaceX would probably be dead and buried)...not newcomers with questionable track records.
CRS prioritized cost and industry contribution, while NSSL prioritized assured access and reliability. These priorities lead to very different types of launch providers... But you knew all this already.
Of course I don't know how the bids were evaluated. There is no publically available source selection documentation from the Air Force, not that that would completely describe the judgement call made. It could have boiled down to SpaceX was the most expensive proposal, full stop, end of story. In which case, yes it was evaluated similarly to CRS.
edit: the redacted SpaceX document says this:Quote68. Based on the Total Evaluated Price calculations and its purported funding
limitations, the Agency elected to fund Blue Origin, Northrop, and ULA because they proposed
the three lowest "overall total Government investment" options. (Portfolio Recommendation at
26, Ex. D.)
So, they were evaluated on price, exactly like CRS.
Cost of course is a factor, however the LSA solicitation made it clear that both technical risk and schedule risk were priorities over cost, see paragraphs 40 and 41 of the redacted complaint.
Umm, you need to read that again.QuoteThe LSA Solicitation provided the following factor weighting: EEL V Approach is
more important than Technical, and Technical and Investment Cost are of equal importance and
when combined, more important than EELV Approach. (Id. at 22, 24-25.) The Technical factor
consists of two subfactors, Technical Design and Technical Schedule, with the former more
important than the latter. (Id. at 24-25.)
... evaluate the extent to which each offeror's development and qualification approach demonstrates that it will meet the following requirements ...
7) The proposed mission assurance approach to ensure low risk and high confidence in launching NSS missions
So mission risk is higher importance to, and program risk is equal importance to, the cost factors. And the overall focus on risk is much greater than on cost.
I'll turn that one around. By NOT getting money, SpaceX proved they're far ahead, since they don't need it. But if they win their challenge, then some balance is restored.Twisting facts? I'm pointing out a fact - that Blue Origin won the LSA over SpaceX. This fact is, by the way, precisely on topic with the thread title.
I don't know which I like better ... Tywin's pig in a poke "just you wait and see" with Russian doll excuses for why nothing much so far (TBH it's kind of amusing), or your twisting facts on the ground around to always make SpaceX look as bad as possible.
As to the thread topic of which business strat is better, I guess I'm in the wait and see camp.Out of curiosity, what are you waiting to see? We're currently waiting to see whether Blue's Falcon Heavy competitor makes orbit before SpaceX retires the Falcon Heavy as obsolete.
I'll turn that one around. By NOT getting money, SpaceX proved they're far ahead, since they don't need it. But if they win their challenge, then some balance is restored.Twisting facts? I'm pointing out a fact - that Blue Origin won the LSA over SpaceX. This fact is, by the way, precisely on topic with the thread title.
I don't know which I like better ... Tywin's pig in a poke "just you wait and see" with Russian doll excuses for why nothing much so far (TBH it's kind of amusing), or your twisting facts on the ground around to always make SpaceX look as bad as possible.
Asserting that SpaceX "won" by losing the LSA sounds more like a fact twist to me.
- Ed Kyle
As to the thread topic of which business strat is better, I guess I'm in the wait and see camp.Out of curiosity, what are you waiting to see? We're currently waiting to see whether Blue's Falcon Heavy competitor makes orbit before SpaceX retires the Falcon Heavy as obsolete.
It seems to me like Blue has been trying to hit a moving target by shooting where it is, not where it will be. After the Ansari X prize, when everyone jumped into the rocket business, suborbital tourism seemed like the next big thing, so Blue, along with others like Virgin, went straight for human rated suborbital flights. SpaceX went with the relatively conservative smallsat market, got a minimum product out the door without worrying about human safety, and snagged a contract from NASA for a medium lift that they have since leveraged as a research and development platform, often using paying customer's flights to develop internal SpaceX programs.
With SpaceX demonstrating cheap medium and heavy lift, Blue pivots to heavy lift with New Glen and government contracting with Blue Moon and LSA, trying to mimic SpaceX's tools of success. But SpaceX has moved on to developing Fully Reusable Superheavy Lift, funded by LEO constellations, and while I've seen the names "New Armstrong" and "Kuiper Constellation" thrown around, Blue seems to waiting to see where SpaceX goes before they follow.
As to the thread topic of which business strat is better, I guess I'm in the wait and see camp.With SpaceX demonstrating cheap medium and heavy lift, Blue pivots to heavy lift with New Glen and government contracting with Blue Moon and LSA, trying to mimic SpaceX's tools of success. But SpaceX has moved on to developing Fully Reusable Superheavy Lift, funded by LEO constellations, and while I've seen the names "New Armstrong" and "Kuiper Constellation" thrown around, Blue seems to waiting to see where SpaceX goes before they follow.
I'll wait and see because it seems the most rational choice in the really long term. SpaceX has to succeed as a business to progress (happily it has been, as I'm a huge fan). Quite simply, BO does not due to the wealth of Bezos. BO has been around nearly 20 years, and they have yet to do anything meaningful in space (sorry, NS), so they're way behind ATM, and I think it stays that way a while. That said, what if Starlink doesn't generate the required revenue?
Why would anyone be willing to make a prediction on better business models arbitrarily far into the future without data?
Which model is better (more success in space, depending on how that is defined) measured 5 years from now?
10 years?
25?
50?
100?
I think for 5 right now, it's SpaceX, no question. 10+? I'm unsure.
As to the thread topic of which business strat is better, I guess I'm in the wait and see camp.With SpaceX demonstrating cheap medium and heavy lift, Blue pivots to heavy lift with New Glen and government contracting with Blue Moon and LSA, trying to mimic SpaceX's tools of success. But SpaceX has moved on to developing Fully Reusable Superheavy Lift, funded by LEO constellations, and while I've seen the names "New Armstrong" and "Kuiper Constellation" thrown around, Blue seems to waiting to see where SpaceX goes before they follow.
I'll wait and see because it seems the most rational choice in the really long term. SpaceX has to succeed as a business to progress (happily it has been, as I'm a huge fan). Quite simply, BO does not due to the wealth of Bezos. BO has been around nearly 20 years, and they have yet to do anything meaningful in space (sorry, NS), so they're way behind ATM, and I think it stays that way a while. That said, what if Starlink doesn't generate the required revenue?
Why would anyone be willing to make a prediction on better business models arbitrarily far into the future without data?
Which model is better (more success in space, depending on how that is defined) measured 5 years from now?
10 years?
25?
50?
100?
I think for 5 right now, it's SpaceX, no question. 10+? I'm unsure.
Indeed, I think this is one of those edge cases where the answer might just be something closer to "Ehh, who cares really" than a definite winner.
The way I see it, the more pressure/competition/alternative to SpaceX/ULA/Orbital/Rosco, the better the future is in space, and the stronger ULA and the other "established" providers have to be to succeed.
We all win at a certain point, I'm just hopeful BO gets to orbit soon before SpaceX Tocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model) all over New Glenn with SS/SH
As to the thread topic of which business strat is better, I guess I'm in the wait and see camp.With SpaceX demonstrating cheap medium and heavy lift, Blue pivots to heavy lift with New Glen and government contracting with Blue Moon and LSA, trying to mimic SpaceX's tools of success. But SpaceX has moved on to developing Fully Reusable Superheavy Lift, funded by LEO constellations, and while I've seen the names "New Armstrong" and "Kuiper Constellation" thrown around, Blue seems to waiting to see where SpaceX goes before they follow.
I'll wait and see because it seems the most rational choice in the really long term. SpaceX has to succeed as a business to progress (happily it has been, as I'm a huge fan). Quite simply, BO does not due to the wealth of Bezos. BO has been around nearly 20 years, and they have yet to do anything meaningful in space (sorry, NS), so they're way behind ATM, and I think it stays that way a while. That said, what if Starlink doesn't generate the required revenue?
Why would anyone be willing to make a prediction on better business models arbitrarily far into the future without data?
Which model is better (more success in space, depending on how that is defined) measured 5 years from now?
10 years?
25?
50?
100?
I think for 5 right now, it's SpaceX, no question. 10+? I'm unsure.
Indeed, I think this is one of those edge cases where the answer might just be something closer to "Ehh, who cares really" than a definite winner.
The way I see it, the more pressure/competition/alternative to SpaceX/ULA/Orbital/Rosco, the better the future is in space, and the stronger ULA and the other "established" providers have to be to succeed.
We all win at a certain point, I'm just hopeful BO gets to orbit soon before SpaceX Tocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model) all over New Glenn with SS/SH
I have long disagreed with this position and continue to do so.
If more competition means SpaceX can’t secure the short term revenue to complete Starship, we all lose. Because SpaceX has a vision of the future that is based on a dramatically faster pace of innovation than any other Old or New space company. With that aggressive approach comes an increased risk of failure. But the lack of short term competition goes at least some way to mitigating that risk.
Simply put, if SpaceX fails, we will see less spaceflight progress in our lifetimes than if they succeed. Without SpaceX, BO’s glacial pace would be the benchmark. And from a selfish point of view I would like to experience the maximum amount of progress in the 40 or so years that I have left on this earth. As would most Space enthusiasts, surely.
...
But without competition, SpaceX has no incentive to drop their prices.
...
If the competition is not ready in a similar time frame as Starship, it's mere existence and the knowledge that SpaceX will just drop its prices to an unknown level if any competition should arise, will stifle further investments in cheaper access to space.
So everybody else is dead before even trying, nice....
But without competition, SpaceX has no incentive to drop their prices.
...
If the competition is not ready in a similar time frame as Starship, it's mere existence and the knowledge that SpaceX will just drop its prices to an unknown level if any competition should arise, will stifle further investments in cheaper access to space.
It doesn't cease to amaze me how many people either don't get this, or are willingly burying their heads in the sand and ignoring it, to the tune of "but look at recent launch prices they haven't come down enough" etc.
SpaceX is killing it, margin wise, and will continue to do so with Starship.
SpaceX doesn't need an elastic market... They need to launch Starlink and cis-lunar tourism at cost, and watch everyone else pay Soyuz full running rates.
They need to develop p2p bases on their internal cost structure, and watch everyone else just not even being able to digest it.
The "market" is not agile enough to keep up. When a business opportunity arises that can capitalize on cheap launch, so far SpaceX was in a position to be the first mover, and took advantage of it.
SpaceX starlink constellation is a way to create its own launch market. If successful i expect it will give SX the revenue to accelerate all its plans. BO is a meto organisation and because Bezos is so rich they can afford to be 3-4 years behind SX however if starlink starts producing $3-5 billion a year in free cash flow each year Bezos will probably never catch Musk even if he spends his whole fortune. Musk just moves to fast. If you are 1 mile behind someone and they are running at 15 mph and you are doing 10mph you never catch up.
So everybody else is dead before even trying, nice.
As to the thread topic of which business strat is better, I guess I'm in the wait and see camp.With SpaceX demonstrating cheap medium and heavy lift, Blue pivots to heavy lift with New Glen and government contracting with Blue Moon and LSA, trying to mimic SpaceX's tools of success. But SpaceX has moved on to developing Fully Reusable Superheavy Lift, funded by LEO constellations, and while I've seen the names "New Armstrong" and "Kuiper Constellation" thrown around, Blue seems to waiting to see where SpaceX goes before they follow.
I'll wait and see because it seems the most rational choice in the really long term. SpaceX has to succeed as a business to progress (happily it has been, as I'm a huge fan). Quite simply, BO does not due to the wealth of Bezos. BO has been around nearly 20 years, and they have yet to do anything meaningful in space (sorry, NS), so they're way behind ATM, and I think it stays that way a while. That said, what if Starlink doesn't generate the required revenue?
Why would anyone be willing to make a prediction on better business models arbitrarily far into the future without data?
Which model is better (more success in space, depending on how that is defined) measured 5 years from now?
10 years?
25?
50?
100?
I think for 5 right now, it's SpaceX, no question. 10+? I'm unsure.
Indeed, I think this is one of those edge cases where the answer might just be something closer to "Ehh, who cares really" than a definite winner.
The way I see it, the more pressure/competition/alternative to SpaceX/ULA/Orbital/Rosco, the better the future is in space, and the stronger ULA and the other "established" providers have to be to succeed.
We all win at a certain point, I'm just hopeful BO gets to orbit soon before SpaceX Tocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model) all over New Glenn with SS/SH
I have long disagreed with this position and continue to do so.
If more competition means SpaceX can’t secure the short term revenue to complete Starship, we all lose. Because SpaceX has a vision of the future that is based on a dramatically faster pace of innovation than any other Old or New space company. With that aggressive approach comes an increased risk of failure. But the lack of short term competition goes at least some way to mitigating that risk.
Simply put, if SpaceX fails, we will see less spaceflight progress in our lifetimes than if they succeed. Without SpaceX, BO’s glacial pace would be the benchmark. And from a selfish point of view I would like to experience the maximum amount of progress in the 40 or so years that I have left on this earth. As would most Space enthusiasts, surely.
The American Beauty Rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working-out of a law of nature and a law of God.
They need to develop p2p bases on their internal cost structure, and watch everyone else just not even being able to digest it.
They need to develop p2p bases on their internal cost structure, and watch everyone else just not even being able to digest it.
Yeahh, sure, and after that, they invent Warp engine...
If we see, p2p service for SpaceX in the next 30 years will be a miracle...
BO is banking on a "guaranteed" financing stream.That diddn't work so well for Stratolaunch.
SpaceX doesn't need an elastic market... They need to launch Starlink and cis-lunar tourism at cost, and watch everyone else pay Soyuz full running rates.
They need to develop p2p bases on their internal cost structure, and watch everyone else just not even being able to digest it.
The "market" is not agile enough to keep up. When a business opportunity arises that can capitalize on cheap launch, so far SpaceX was in a position to be the first mover, and took advantage of it.
SpaceX has no reason to leave money on the table until there is meaningful competition, so they won't. They can reduce prices a little below the competition, and still make money.
One way I would differentiate the two as businesses is that I would say that SpaceX has reached the point as a business where it could continue without Elon Musk, while it is unclear whether Blue would go on without Jeff Bezos.
Without Elon, SpaceX would still have its existing contracts and revenue flow. Gwynne Shotwell would be able to keep the company going with its current business plans. Mars might be delayed, but Starship would continue because of its use for projects like Starlink. Take Jeff Bezos out of the Blue Origin picture and the company loses its primary source of funding. It too has existing contracts but I think it’s questionable whether Blue could survive on that income alone.
It can be argued that since Elon Musk’s SpaceX strategy has been more successful than Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin strategy for that reason alone.
No true, Gwynne Shotwell is a employee, she don't own the majority of the stocks...if Elon is gone, will depend who and what do, with the majority share of SpaceX...And you know what Shotwell owns or how Musk's estate might dispose of his holdings? This is rampant speculation of things we know nothing about, nor which anyone on this forum is qualified to speak of. Take it elsewhere please.
Well for a company, that is like a "hobby", that is slow like a tortoise, that are a rookie in orbit...they development maybe the second best rocket engine in the industry right now...and that engine was choose for a launcher company for her new rocket, with 50 years of experience, in her back...
I will say, is nothing bad, for that guys...
Here's a rough guess at what Tywin means. I appreciate him posting despite the language barrier. It's better than I could do in any foreign language.Well for a company, that is like a "hobby", that is slow like a tortoise, that are a rookie in orbit...they development maybe the second best rocket engine in the industry right now...and that engine was choose for a launcher company for her new rocket, with 50 years of experience, in her back...
I will say, is nothing bad, for that guys...
Please provide a bit more comprehensible content and context. Understand that English may not be your first language, but that post is gibberish, and remains gibberish no matter how many Google translations I put it through.
People complain that Blue Origin is just a hobby, a company that moves as slowly as a tortoise, and is a complete rookie at orbital operations. But consider that they are building what is likely the second-best rocket engine in the industry, one good enough to be chosen by ULA (a company with 50 years of experience) for their new rocket.
Overall, that's not too shabby.
One way I would differentiate the two as businesses is that I would say that SpaceX has reached the point as a business where it could continue without Elon Musk, while it is unclear whether Blue would go on without Jeff Bezos.
Without Elon, SpaceX would still have its existing contracts and revenue flow. Gwynne Shotwell would be able to keep the company going with its current business plans. Mars might be delayed, but Starship would continue because of its use for projects like Starlink. Take Jeff Bezos out of the Blue Origin picture and the company loses its primary source of funding. It too has existing contracts but I think it’s questionable whether Blue could survive on that income alone.
It can be argued that since Elon Musk’s SpaceX strategy has been more successful than Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin strategy for that reason alone.
No true, Gwynne Shotwell is a employee, she don't own the majority of the stocks...if Elon is gone, will depend who and what do, with the majority share of SpaceX...
I can see in the documentary, of FH launch, that the kids of Elon are enthusiastics of Space...but they are little, and you never know...the same with the kids of Bezos, but this are older, we don't know how they feel about this project...
My point is that SpaceX does not depend on Elon’s money, while Blue Origin does depend on Jeff Bezos’ money.
I'm not one to dump on BO, I like them (though I wish they worked faster).
That said, their engine can be fine, but it has yet to prove itself at this point, which I still think is odd considering their press about being hardware rich. We know Be-7 works, because they (rightfully) crowed when it did. That they haven't for Be-4 tells us it's still not there yet.
ULA picking them... Certainly it means they have confidence, though to be fair AR-1 was even less of a thing than Be-4 when they selected Be-4, so it's not like ULA was spoiled for choice.
I'm not one to dump on BO, I like them (though I wish they worked faster).
That said, their engine can be fine, but it has yet to prove itself at this point, which I still think is odd considering their press about being hardware rich. We know Be-7 works, because they (rightfully) crowed when it did. That they haven't for Be-4 tells us it's still not there yet.
ULA picking them... Certainly it means they have confidence, though to be fair AR-1 was even less of a thing than Be-4 when they selected Be-4, so it's not like ULA was spoiled for choice.
I really do want the BE-4 to succeed, and the New Glenn to have a high recovery rate once it's flying. I see Mr. Bezos just converted another $2B of his shares into cash, so I have a feeling they'll overcome any difficulties.
They better. $2B is over 60% of SpaceX total investments.
They better. $2B is over 60% of SpaceX total investments.
But this is like the fabled "tortoise and hare" race. Even if Bezos doesn't generate the same acceleration per dollar, his overall greater cash reserves means he'll power through in the end.
They better. $2B is over 60% of SpaceX total investments.
But this is like the fabled "tortoise and hare" race. Even if Bezos doesn't generate the same acceleration per dollar, his overall greater cash reserves means he'll power through in the end.
No, there is no such guarantee that more spending will work. Has it so far? Whatever Blue Origin is lacking at the moment, it certainly IS NOT cash...
They better. $2B is over 60% of SpaceX total investments.
But this is like the fabled "tortoise and hare" race. Even if Bezos doesn't generate the same acceleration per dollar, his overall greater cash reserves means he'll power through in the end.
No, there is no such guarantee that more spending will work. Has it so far? Whatever Blue Origin is lacking at the moment, it certainly IS NOT cash...
Hmm, SpaceX needs lots of cash...
https://craft.co/spacex/funding-rounds
Total is 1.737 billion between April 2018 and April 2019 not counting what they take in from NASA/DoD/commercial/foreign governments. In fact, that amount is probably approaching 4 billion dollars annually - roughly equal to Blue Origins total expenditures since 2002. If Blue Origin wants to compete technologically and in capacity, they likely need the same financial resources (whether that money comes from NASA contracts to develop a crew launch capability or Jeff Bezos' Amazon stock makes no difference, $1 = $1).
No, there is no such guarantee that more spending will work. Has it so far? Whatever Blue Origin is lacking at the moment, it certainly IS NOT cash...
They better. $2B is over 60% of SpaceX total investments.
But this is like the fabled "tortoise and hare" race. Even if Bezos doesn't generate the same acceleration per dollar, his overall greater cash reserves means he'll power through in the end. He doesn't have to worry about selling underpants, or doing P2P flights, or creating Starlink. He'll just keep selling his stock in the usual way, as the progress gradually happens. There'll be no switch to stainless steel, or to transpiration and back to tiles, etc. It seems like Blue's overall architectural roadmap and trajectory have remained on a rather steady course.
Once New Glenn is flying - once they're past that hurdle - then what's to prevent them from lumbering forward with continued momentum? And while the leap from New Shepard to New Glenn may be relatively big, is the leap from New Glenn to New Armstrong as comparably big?
No, there is no such guarantee that more spending will work. Has it so far? Whatever Blue Origin is lacking at the moment, it certainly IS NOT cash...
Blue Origin is hardly in limbo either. They're continuing to advance - it's just that they've not yet built their orbital rocket which they intend to launch. Once they cross that line, then they'll soon have paying customers - and then the money from Bezos' routine stock liquidation will be added to the launch revenues.
I'm curious - could Bezos' continued cash injections into Blue Origin one day be construed as some kind of anti-competitive subsidy? It's kind of a unique situation, since not everybody has $100B laying around to spend on their personal hobby, in a way that could skew the entire playing field for everyone else.
It’s hard to judge the size of the leap from New Glenn to New Armstrong when we don’t know anything about the details of the latter (and I personally am not entirely convinced that Blue has settled on a design either). However, if we postulate for purpose of discussion that New Armstrong is a fully reusable design with a staged combustion methalox lower stage and hydrolox upper stage then I would argue that the leap from New Glenn to New Armstrong would be similar to but smaller than the leap from Falcon 9 to Starship.
Having said that, while I agree that Blue could eventually get there on the strength of Bezos’ investments alone, I don’t know that it would be enough to power past SpaceX even with fewer changes in design.
As for New Armstrong, I personally think it’s probably at least ten to fifteen years out at this point purely because I don’t think Blue has quite figured out the design paradigm. Starship is easy, its design is driven by the needs of Earth/Mars transport; New Armstrong is going to be a superheavy lifter, but will it be focused on building up orbital industry or supporting Lunar exploration? Until Blue knows for sure they can’t finalize the design.
With Bezos’ focus on getting it right over getting it right now, I don’t see Blue ever rushing to a design. Blue will figure out exactly what it has to do and then design to that spec based on lessons learned from operating New Glenn. That will get Blue to its destination, but it won’t get the company moving significantly faster.
That’s a very good question. Bezos’ funding has definitely made Blue possible, and while someone could possibly attempt to sue based on the idea that it’s unfair competition I personally hope they don’t. For what little it’s worth I think there’s enough other billionaires who are or did fund aerospace startups that the only thing different here is the scale.
Also, while Musk and SpaceX are more than willing to go to the lawyers when they think it necessary, this doesn’t strike me as something they would sue over. Admittedly I think part of that has to do with the fact that Blue simply isn’t moving fast enough to hurt SpaceX’s business. New Glenn is still about two years out and Blue is only planning a dozen launches a year. Given Starlink, I don’t think SpaceX is going to lose enough business because of Blue to worry. If anything, the real loser would be ULA, and you don’t want to sue your engine manufacturer.
If New Glenn is orbital and New Armstrong is for Moon missions then will the Blue Mars rocket be named New Musk?!!! 😂😂😂
Guess you are right, however it would make Elon a super celebrity if he would be the first on Mars! But obviously not vise from a risk perspective...If New Glenn is orbital and New Armstrong is for Moon missions then will the Blue Mars rocket be named New Musk?!!! 😂😂😂
No, that would be like calling New Armstrong "New von Brown". The Blue Mars rocket would be named after the first human setting foot on Mars (likely out of the SpaceX rocket), which will probably not be named Musk.
If New Glenn is orbital and New Armstrong is for Moon missions then will the Blue Mars rocket be named New Musk?!!! 😂😂😂
No, that would be like calling New Armstrong "New von Brown". The Blue Mars rocket would be named after the first human setting foot on Mars (likely out of the SpaceX rocket), which will probably not be named Musk.
From the environmental assessment for SS/SH we learned that Super Heavy will initially land on a barge and have a flight rate similar to Falcon 9. At least initially, it seeming more similar to New Glenn which lands on a platform down range too. The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.
Given all that, if SS/SH can be made available by 2021, the time-frame for New Glenn to come online, they may both end up at similar prices per flight as each other early on. Even though New Glenn is not fully reusable. Later on, if they chose, Blue Origin could make a fully reusable version of New Glenn with a Spaceship-like Upper Stage. Or simply skip that step and make a huge New Armstrong that incorporates all the lessons learned from New Glenn and SS/SH. An advantage Blue Origin will have in not moving first in developing a fully reusable launcher is that they will benefit from avoiding pitfalls their competitor will inevitably fall into. They can also hire away talent from SpaceX after the Starship system becomes operational.That's all speculative on my part but I would say wait a few years before declaring a winner in the competition for reusable systems.
All that said, who would have thought 10 years ago there would be two companies competing to launch Saturn V sized launch vehicles that are reusable and relatively cheap? The landscape has shifted so much since the Augustine Report. Just, WOW!
... progress gradually happens. There'll be no switch to stainless steel, or to transpiration and back to tiles, etc. It seems like Blue's overall architectural roadmap and trajectory have remained on a rather steady course.
From the environmental assessment for SS/SH we learned that Super Heavy will initially land on a barge and have a flight rate similar to Falcon 9. At least initially, it seeming more similar to New Glenn which lands on a platform down range too. The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.
Given all that, if SS/SH can be made available by 2021, the time-frame for New Glenn to come online, they may both end up at similar prices per flight as each other early on. Even though New Glenn is not fully reusable. Later on, if they chose, Blue Origin could make a fully reusable version of New Glenn with a Spaceship-like Upper Stage. Or simply skip that step and make a huge New Armstrong that incorporates all the lessons learned from New Glenn and SS/SH. An advantage Blue Origin will have in not moving first in developing a fully reusable launcher is that they will benefit from avoiding pitfalls their competitor will inevitably fall into. They can also hire away talent from SpaceX after the Starship system becomes operational.That's all speculative on my part but I would say wait a few years before declaring a winner in the competition for reusable systems.
All that said, who would have thought 10 years ago there would be two companies competing to launch Saturn V sized launch vehicles that are reusable and relatively cheap? The landscape has shifted so much since the Augustine Report. Just, WOW!
The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.
I imagine both Musk and Bezos are smart enough to have lawyerred [1] up their money (investments) in some sort of trust with very explicit details as to its use.My point is that SpaceX does not depend on Elon’s money, while Blue Origin does depend on Jeff Bezos’ money.
And further, if the new controlling interests are only interested in profit maximisation without believing in the cause - a BFR finished off and able to deliver payloads into GEO is 100% identical to one capable of throwing ~500 tons through TLI or TMI, even without actually going to the destinations.
I imagine both Musk and Bezos are smart enough to have lawyerred [1] up their money (investments) in some sort of trust with very explicit details as to its use.Paul Allen did not, even though he could see his death coming. It's not guaranteed.
I imagine both Musk and Bezos are smart enough to have lawyerred [1] up their money (investments) in some sort of trust with very explicit details as to its use.Paul Allen did not, even though he could see his death coming. It's not guaranteed.
From the environmental assessment for SS/SH we learned that Super Heavy will initially land on a barge and have a flight rate similar to Falcon 9. At least initially, it seeming more similar to New Glenn which lands on a platform down range too. The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.If they both have similar flight profiles, but one is fully reusable and the other isn't - how are their costs similar?
Given all that, if SS/SH can be made available by 2021, the time-frame for New Glenn to come online, they may both end up at similar prices per flight as each other early on. Even though New Glenn is not fully reusable. Later on, if they chose, Blue Origin could make a fully reusable version of New Glenn with a Spaceship-like Upper Stage. Or simply skip that step and make a huge New Armstrong that incorporates all the lessons learned from New Glenn and SS/SH. An advantage Blue Origin will have in not moving first in developing a fully reusable launcher is that they will benefit from avoiding pitfalls their competitor will inevitably fall into. They can also hire away talent from SpaceX after the Starship system becomes operational.That's all speculative on my part but I would say wait a few years before declaring a winner in the competition for reusable systems.
All that said, who would have thought 10 years ago there would be two companies competing to launch Saturn V sized launch vehicles that are reusable and relatively cheap? The landscape has shifted so much since the Augustine Report. Just, WOW!
The only thing about SS early on is that the flight rate will be limited, but in that respect the SS system is designed ti fly > 1/day, and no conventional system (including NG) can compete with that.<nit>
What is the latest on BO pad development at KSC? The recent release of the environmental assessment for Spaceship at KSC seems to put SpaceX ahead in this regard.Blue Origin's launch/test facilities at SLC 36/(LC 11) seem pretty far along. They've been under construction for many months now. You could see them in the background of NASA TV coverage of the CRS-18 Falcon 9 first stage landing. Definitely ahead of suborbital Starship launch site build (that the EA described), and far, far ahead of anything for Super Heavy/Starship.
Blue Origin's launch/test facilities at SLC 36/(LC 11) seem pretty far along. They've been under construction for many months now. You could see them in the background of NASA TV coverage of the CRS-18 Falcon 9 first stage landing. Definitely ahead of suborbital Starship launch site build (that the EA described), and far, far ahead of anything for Super Heavy/Starship.
- Ed Kyle
Sure, one flight a day, they're not there yet.From the environmental assessment for SS/SH we learned that Super Heavy will initially land on a barge and have a flight rate similar to Falcon 9. At least initially, it seeming more similar to New Glenn which lands on a platform down range too. The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.If they both have similar flight profiles, but one is fully reusable and the other isn't - how are their costs similar?
Given all that, if SS/SH can be made available by 2021, the time-frame for New Glenn to come online, they may both end up at similar prices per flight as each other early on. Even though New Glenn is not fully reusable. Later on, if they chose, Blue Origin could make a fully reusable version of New Glenn with a Spaceship-like Upper Stage. Or simply skip that step and make a huge New Armstrong that incorporates all the lessons learned from New Glenn and SS/SH. An advantage Blue Origin will have in not moving first in developing a fully reusable launcher is that they will benefit from avoiding pitfalls their competitor will inevitably fall into. They can also hire away talent from SpaceX after the Starship system becomes operational.That's all speculative on my part but I would say wait a few years before declaring a winner in the competition for reusable systems.
All that said, who would have thought 10 years ago there would be two companies competing to launch Saturn V sized launch vehicles that are reusable and relatively cheap? The landscape has shifted so much since the Augustine Report. Just, WOW!
The only thing about SS early on is that the flight rate will be limited, but in that respect the SS system is designed ti fly > 1/day, and no conventional system (including NG) can compete with that.
I don't think you're taking the time to read before replying...Sure, one flight a day, they're not there yet.From the environmental assessment for SS/SH we learned that Super Heavy will initially land on a barge and have a flight rate similar to Falcon 9. At least initially, it seeming more similar to New Glenn which lands on a platform down range too. The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.If they both have similar flight profiles, but one is fully reusable and the other isn't - how are their costs similar?
Given all that, if SS/SH can be made available by 2021, the time-frame for New Glenn to come online, they may both end up at similar prices per flight as each other early on. Even though New Glenn is not fully reusable. Later on, if they chose, Blue Origin could make a fully reusable version of New Glenn with a Spaceship-like Upper Stage. Or simply skip that step and make a huge New Armstrong that incorporates all the lessons learned from New Glenn and SS/SH. An advantage Blue Origin will have in not moving first in developing a fully reusable launcher is that they will benefit from avoiding pitfalls their competitor will inevitably fall into. They can also hire away talent from SpaceX after the Starship system becomes operational.That's all speculative on my part but I would say wait a few years before declaring a winner in the competition for reusable systems.
All that said, who would have thought 10 years ago there would be two companies competing to launch Saturn V sized launch vehicles that are reusable and relatively cheap? The landscape has shifted so much since the Augustine Report. Just, WOW!
The only thing about SS early on is that the flight rate will be limited, but in that respect the SS system is designed ti fly > 1/day, and no conventional system (including NG) can compete with that.
The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.
Marginal costs matter for pricing. Development costs don't. If a launch costs you $10 million in fuel, operations, and so on, and there's a customer willing to pay $12 million but no more, you do it. You can't recoup your development costs any quicker by not making $2 million.
It's pretty hard to see Blue's marginal launch costs being competitive with SpaceX's, at least for the first few years. Even ignoring upper stage reusability, SpaceX has a higher flight rate and much more launch experience.
Corollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
Question: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll stop borrowing? After their first flight to Mars? After the tenth? The fiftieth?
Corollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".Blue Origin's launch/test facilities at SLC 36/(LC 11) seem pretty far along. They've been under construction for many months now. You could see them in the background of NASA TV coverage of the CRS-18 Falcon 9 first stage landing. Definitely ahead of suborbital Starship launch site build (that the EA described), and far, far ahead of anything for Super Heavy/Starship.
- Ed Kyle
What the EA described is the launch site plan for the full Starship/SuperHeavy stack at 39A.
Well if the EA is only about starship then the below quote from the by Chris from the EA means they have massively upgraded starships performanceI'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".Blue Origin's launch/test facilities at SLC 36/(LC 11) seem pretty far along. They've been under construction for many months now. You could see them in the background of NASA TV coverage of the CRS-18 Falcon 9 first stage landing. Definitely ahead of suborbital Starship launch site build (that the EA described), and far, far ahead of anything for Super Heavy/Starship.
- Ed Kyle
What the EA described is the launch site plan for the full Starship/SuperHeavy stack at 39A.
- Ed Kyle
Make Static Fires Great Again!
"Super Heavy booster static fire tests are planned to occur at LC-39A where all 31 engines are fired for 15 seconds"
Holy moly! ;D
I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".Maybe read the document?
I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".Maybe read the document?
https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
Corollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
What are you talking about? SpaceX doesn't have billions in debt, the only debt we know of is the $250M they got last year for Starlink.
And there is not one single SpaceX price (despite what they shown on the website), SpaceX has one vehicle but will have many prices, what they charge for smallsat rideshare or small NASA missions like IXPE will be quite different from what they charge for GEO bird or USAF missions.
For missions that SpaceX and Blue compete head to head, SpaceX could very well be charging just below the competition, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have much lower price on market segment that Blue doesn't participate.
Question: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll stop borrowing? After their first flight to Mars? After the tenth? The fiftieth?
Mars related stuff will continue to cost money, not give them more cash. If they start borrowing money for that, that'll be a very bad thing. So there's no relation whatsoever between the number of flights to Mars and the moment they won't need to attract more money.
I think your point is whether they will stop borrowing money after StarShip is operational, or whether they will have to continue developing new technology at breakneck speed (hence the need to borrow) to remain far ahead of the competition, as more markets open up. That will beQuoteCorollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
Mars is on the backburner until there's enough cash, which is what Starlink is all about. If Starlink fails, Mars will indeed be quite a long ways away, but that's of no consequence to SpaceX' financial health.
For missions that SpaceX and Blue compete head to head, SpaceX could very well be charging just below the competition, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have much lower price on market segment that Blue doesn't participate.
So you're saying that in markets where they have competition, they'll have higher launch prices than in markets where they don't? I don't follow.
Question: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll stop borrowing? After their first flight to Mars? After the tenth? The fiftieth?
Mars related stuff will continue to cost money, not give them more cash. If they start borrowing money for that, that'll be a very bad thing. So there's no relation whatsoever between the number of flights to Mars and the moment they won't need to attract more money.
I think your point is whether they will stop borrowing money after StarShip is operational, or whether they will have to continue developing new technology at breakneck speed (hence the need to borrow) to remain far ahead of the competition, as more markets open up. That will beQuoteCorollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
Mars is on the backburner until there's enough cash, which is what Starlink is all about. If Starlink fails, Mars will indeed be quite a long ways away, but that's of no consequence to SpaceX' financial health.
To clarify, I see Mars as an open-ended proposition, i.e. no matter how much money SpaceX earns, it'll never be enough to get very far with Mars as a settlement. A Mars settlement, if it happens, will (IMO) be far beyond the resources of any company, even if Starlink flies off the virtual shelves and SpaceX becomes the next Dutch East India. Practically speaking, that means that SpaceX's prices will always be just below their competition's, because they'll always have a need for as much money as they can earn.
And on the topic hand, I see orbital settlements and lunar and asteroid mining as perfectly achievable within the resources of Blue Origin. Moreover, I see them as even more easily achievable by SpaceX, whether or not Starlink works, if they'd only get off this whole crazy Mars kick and focus on sanity. :) Even more moreover, I think SpaceX will be forced by physics and economics to compete where the money can be made, which will most likely be closer to home than Mars, and they'll probably do a better job than Blue will until Blue begins poaching SpaceX employees.
For missions that SpaceX and Blue compete head to head, SpaceX could very well be charging just below the competition, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have much lower price on market segment that Blue doesn't participate.
So you're saying that in markets where they have competition, they'll have higher launch prices than in markets where they don't? I don't follow.
No, in these other market segments SpaceX will face different competitions such as Soyuz, PSLV and all the smallsat launchers, they'll need lower price to compete there. Blue and all the other big launchers wouldn't be able to enter these markets without full reusability.
Question: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll stop borrowing? After their first flight to Mars? After the tenth? The fiftieth?
Mars related stuff will continue to cost money, not give them more cash. If they start borrowing money for that, that'll be a very bad thing. So there's no relation whatsoever between the number of flights to Mars and the moment they won't need to attract more money.
I think your point is whether they will stop borrowing money after StarShip is operational, or whether they will have to continue developing new technology at breakneck speed (hence the need to borrow) to remain far ahead of the competition, as more markets open up. That will beQuoteCorollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
Mars is on the backburner until there's enough cash, which is what Starlink is all about. If Starlink fails, Mars will indeed be quite a long ways away, but that's of no consequence to SpaceX' financial health.
To clarify, I see Mars as an open-ended proposition, i.e. no matter how much money SpaceX earns, it'll never be enough to get very far with Mars as a settlement. A Mars settlement, if it happens, will (IMO) be far beyond the resources of any company, even if Starlink flies off the virtual shelves and SpaceX becomes the next Dutch East India. Practically speaking, that means that SpaceX's prices will always be just below their competition's, because they'll always have a need for as much money as they can earn.
And on the topic hand, I see orbital settlements and lunar and asteroid mining as perfectly achievable within the resources of Blue Origin. Moreover, I see them as even more easily achievable by SpaceX, whether or not Starlink works, if they'd only get off this whole crazy Mars kick and focus on sanity. :) Even more moreover, I think SpaceX will be forced by physics and economics to compete where the money can be made, which will most likely be closer to home than Mars, and they'll probably do a better job than Blue will until Blue begins poaching SpaceX employees.
well said. I would add something has to be found on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, low earth orbit wherever that involves people and makes money and is transferable to the Earth economy for any of this to happen.
Question: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll stop borrowing? After their first flight to Mars? After the tenth? The fiftieth?
Mars related stuff will continue to cost money, not give them more cash. If they start borrowing money for that, that'll be a very bad thing. So there's no relation whatsoever between the number of flights to Mars and the moment they won't need to attract more money.
I think your point is whether they will stop borrowing money after StarShip is operational, or whether they will have to continue developing new technology at breakneck speed (hence the need to borrow) to remain far ahead of the competition, as more markets open up. That will beQuoteCorollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
Mars is on the backburner until there's enough cash, which is what Starlink is all about. If Starlink fails, Mars will indeed be quite a long ways away, but that's of no consequence to SpaceX' financial health.
To clarify, I see Mars as an open-ended proposition, i.e. no matter how much money SpaceX earns, it'll never be enough to get very far with Mars as a settlement. A Mars settlement, if it happens, will (IMO) be far beyond the resources of any company, even if Starlink flies off the virtual shelves and SpaceX becomes the next Dutch East India. Practically speaking, that means that SpaceX's prices will always be just below their competition's, because they'll always have a need for as much money as they can earn.
And on the topic hand, I see orbital settlements and lunar and asteroid mining as perfectly achievable within the resources of Blue Origin. Moreover, I see them as even more easily achievable by SpaceX, whether or not Starlink works, if they'd only get off this whole crazy Mars kick and focus on sanity. :) Even more moreover, I think SpaceX will be forced by physics and economics to compete where the money can be made, which will most likely be closer to home than Mars, and they'll probably do a better job than Blue will until Blue begins poaching SpaceX employees.
However, where I disagree is with your suggestion that SpaceX cannot focus on Mars and every other space opportunity at the same time. If Starship is the most competitive vehicle for Moon colonisation, SpaceX will enter and dominate that market. Same for LEO industrialization, or asteroid mining or satellite constellations.
SpaceX is uniquely placed to be the dominant player in all these markets, ...
...and channel that revenue into their ultimate goal, which is building a city on Mars.
well said. I would add something has to be found on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, low earth orbit wherever that involves people and makes money and is transferable to the Earth economy for any of this to happen.
It's not like this anywhere on Earth, why would it be like this on Mars?
Economy is much more complex than that, and you cannot circle geographical locations and declare that "import must equal export" or some similar constraint.
With remote ownership you can have zero export and a 100% sustainable economy, and you don't need any "Mars diamonds" to export to Earth.
As new opportunities develop in cislunar space, SpaceX will face a decision: shall we play in this sandbox or use our development money for some Mars-related project that will contribute toward our founder's Mars goals but probably never yield any sort of monetary profit in our lifetimes? In most cases, they'll probably choose the faster payoff, because they're a commercial company, and, well, because no matter how much money you have, it's still not enough.
As new opportunities develop in cislunar space, SpaceX will face a decision: shall we play in this sandbox or use our development money for some Mars-related project that will contribute toward our founder's Mars goals but probably never yield any sort of monetary profit in our lifetimes? In most cases, they'll probably choose the faster payoff, because they're a commercial company, and, well, because no matter how much money you have, it's still not enough.
SpaceX is a private company and Elon Musk owns the majority of it. SpaceX does what Elon says. If SpaceX management doesn't like it, they can go work somewhere else.
Eventually, once Elon's heirs control the company, then they might rethink the founder's goals.
Either people on Earth are making donations for Mars colonies, or they're making investments in Mars colonies. If they're making investments in Mars colonies, there must be something coming back that can be turned into enough Earth currency that people will invest again.
All of this assumes that Mars colonists won't be self-sufficient for many decades, perhaps centuries. The "vacuum of space" will take on new meaning, as small satellite launch investors will attest.
Sure, but not town that don't make money don't last very long against other that do. That's why mining town die, walmarts closes and people go from small to big town, not the other way around.
Either people on Earth are making donations for Mars colonies, or they're making investments in Mars colonies. If they're making investments in Mars colonies, there must be something coming back that can be turned into enough Earth currency that people will invest again.
All of this assumes that Mars colonists won't be self-sufficient for many decades, perhaps centuries. The "vacuum of space" will take on new meaning, as small satellite launch investors will attest.
In capitalism, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
The total worth of the Martian economy, comprised of the companies doing business there but owned mostly by Earth bound investors (since that's where people are) can grow without Mars exporting anything, simply because there's demand for stock in that growing economy.
Draw a circle around any town. Some will be trade positive, some trade negative. It doesn't matter, since people from outside of town own companies inside the town.
The flow of money (in the form of wealth being accumulated by entities outside the town) completely demolishes the boundary drawn around the town.
Categorically not true.Sure, but not town that don't make money don't last very long against other that do. That's why mining town die, walmarts closes and people go from small to big town, not the other way around.
Either people on Earth are making donations for Mars colonies, or they're making investments in Mars colonies. If they're making investments in Mars colonies, there must be something coming back that can be turned into enough Earth currency that people will invest again.
All of this assumes that Mars colonists won't be self-sufficient for many decades, perhaps centuries. The "vacuum of space" will take on new meaning, as small satellite launch investors will attest.
In capitalism, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
The total worth of the Martian economy, comprised of the companies doing business there but owned mostly by Earth bound investors (since that's where people are) can grow without Mars exporting anything, simply because there's demand for stock in that growing economy.
Draw a circle around any town. Some will be trade positive, some trade negative. It doesn't matter, since people from outside of town own companies inside the town.
The flow of money (in the form of wealth being accumulated by entities outside the town) completely demolishes the boundary drawn around the town.
Categorically not true.Sure, but not town that don't make money don't last very long against other that do. That's why mining town die, walmarts closes and people go from small to big town, not the other way around.
Either people on Earth are making donations for Mars colonies, or they're making investments in Mars colonies. If they're making investments in Mars colonies, there must be something coming back that can be turned into enough Earth currency that people will invest again.
All of this assumes that Mars colonists won't be self-sufficient for many decades, perhaps centuries. The "vacuum of space" will take on new meaning, as small satellite launch investors will attest.
In capitalism, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
The total worth of the Martian economy, comprised of the companies doing business there but owned mostly by Earth bound investors (since that's where people are) can grow without Mars exporting anything, simply because there's demand for stock in that growing economy.
Draw a circle around any town. Some will be trade positive, some trade negative. It doesn't matter, since people from outside of town own companies inside the town.
The flow of money (in the form of wealth being accumulated by entities outside the town) completely demolishes the boundary drawn around the town.
Entire town are based on banking for example. They manufacture nothing, only invest or manage other people's investments (aka banking) amd do fine.
Mars's economy can grow and prosper without having to balance trade with Earth or even export a single thing.
An economy has an inherent value, and as long as it is growing, it basically sells itself to Earth investors.
Trade balance, in a limited form, will become relevant once Mars's economy stops growing. Not anytime soon.
Also remember that wealth moves. What happens when a terrestrial investor that owns a chunk of the Martian aluminum industry decides to relocate to Mars? Does he bring his money with him? Now we get into questions of currency and what backs it up.
I think a fair statement is that self-sufficiency is a necessary condition for there to be a viable Martian currency, and again at that point trade balance would become meaningful. Again though - not anytime soon.
As new opportunities develop in cislunar space, SpaceX will face a decision: shall we play in this sandbox or use our development money for some Mars-related project that will contribute toward our founder's Mars goals but probably never yield any sort of monetary profit in our lifetimes? In most cases, they'll probably choose the faster payoff, because they're a commercial company, and, well, because no matter how much money you have, it's still not enough.
SpaceX is a private company and Elon Musk owns the majority of it. SpaceX does what Elon says. If SpaceX management doesn't like it, they can go work somewhere else.
SpaceX has investors, and while Elon may be able to ignore them if he controls the company, he probably won't blithely spend their money on development that has no return.QuoteEventually, once Elon's heirs control the company, then they might rethink the founder's goals.
Eventually, Elon might rethink the founder's goals, if someone else demonstrates a 1G bolo settlement...
My impression is that they are going to build this thing in phases. The first iteration will be for the suborbital Starship testing. More work will be needed to get it ready for the final giant two-stage rocket.I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".Maybe read the document?
https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
My impression is that they are going to build this thing in phases. The first iteration will be for the suborbital Starship testing. More work will be needed to get it ready for the final giant two-stage rocket.I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".Maybe read the document?
https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
I cannot understand why SpaceX would want to co-locate this with the Falcon 9/Heavy pad. If things go AMOS 6 wrong during static testing, launch, or landing, the company could lose two launch complexes at once.
- Ed Kyle
Blue's traditional approach is what is really slowing them down compared to SpaceX. If Blue can take a leaf out of SpaceX's book then they will be able to rapidly increase their pace of dev. and start to make a serious attempt to catch up with SpaceX. Otherwise Blue will have no chance of competing with SpaceX. By the time NA is ready to launch, SS/SH may well have a 15m dia. version launching.
Perhaps for a start Blue could rip it up and start again and switch NG and NA to all stainless steel construction. Looks like this is working for SS/SH. Perhaps Blue can build an all stainless steel NA outdoors like SS/SH which will save a lot of time and money in not having to build an all new factory for it.
well said. I would add something has to be found on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, low earth orbit wherever that involves people and makes money and is transferable to the Earth economy for any of this to happen.
It's not like this anywhere on Earth, why would it be like this on Mars?
Economy is much more complex than that, and you cannot circle geographical locations and declare that "import must equal export" or some similar constraint.
With remote ownership you can have zero export and a 100% sustainable economy, and you don't need any "Mars diamonds" to export to Earth.
You took a very long time to describe a barter economy, which is not applicable here, and would indeed require balanced trade.
well said. I would add something has to be found on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, low earth orbit wherever that involves people and makes money and is transferable to the Earth economy for any of this to happen.
It's not like this anywhere on Earth, why would it be like this on Mars?
Economy is much more complex than that, and you cannot circle geographical locations and declare that "import must equal export" or some similar constraint.
With remote ownership you can have zero export and a 100% sustainable economy, and you don't need any "Mars diamonds" to export to Earth.
I dont know why you are bringing geographics into this. I never mentioned them. and our understand of economics is quite different.
after getting home yesterday, I got up pretty early and went down to the local breakfast place and met my friend who own another cattle farm about 15 miles away. Over steak and eggs we cut a barter deal for me to deliver some feed to hisi farm and him to deliver a bull to my farm. it was all barter, but we both exactly knew what the dollar equivalent was worth. He needs feed because his sale of beef to an overseas market was cancelled due to current US economic policy and I need another bull bcause well one of my prize ones is getting old..
This follows in the long tradition of say G. Washington who use to barter tobacco to English dealers for various goods that he couldnt buy or barter for any amount of "money" locally in the then "colonies"
buy or barter requires a basic thing to be true. things of equal value are exchanged for each other...do you agree or not agree with that?
I believe and my experience as an adult is any sort of transaction outside or inside of local economic systems requires a trading of things of equal or perceived equal value...so If a Mars colony wants to buy say space suit parts to replace things that have worn out...they are going to either have to generate the cash in some currency to buy those parts or have to be able to trade someone of equal value for them. Otherwise how do you suggest they are going to get the space suit parts?
THATS why I said what I said. If a Mars, Moon, asteroid whatever group is going to have a local economy, particularly one that is consumed by high tech that is manufactured somewhere else, they are going to have to produce something in that local economy that will buy that high tech from whoever manufactors that high tech.
What strtikes me as entertaining is that no one has any notion what that thing of value might be that an off world "colony" produces...so the concept has started up that "money" or value that the space colony can use to buy things on earth is going to come from the pockets of folks like Musk who made the money doing something else....and are willing to donate it to the cause.
OK might work, but ......
I dont know a single economic or historical example of that working, ie supporting an economy that has found NOTHING that it has of credible value to interact with other economies. Do you have one?
I am not an economic expert but three things seem obvious from just current affairs 1) no sub economy particularly one that depends on high tech is 100 percent self sufficient, 2) most high tech economies are terribly dependent on other "nations" or groups and 3) bartering or buying really requires some product of value
based on that I dont see how you make the statements you make
Blue's approach to business is dictated by two things 1) they do not need a revenue stream to do what they are doing and 2) Jeff Bezos...and where he wants to go
As of yet, we don't know what Mars has to offer in barter or trade. They do have a higher concentration of argon in their atmosphere than earth. Argon could be extracted along with CO2 in the process of making liquid methane and lox. This argon can be used in SEP tugs, and could be one trade item.I bet that A) there won't be financially significant export from Mars (compared to money needed to establish colony) and B) the finances and economy of the colony will be sound and won't require continuous philanthropy.
Until extensive mining operations are operational, who knows what they may find on Mars, gold, silver, or other valuable metal may be found in significant quantities to export for goods.
You took a very long time to describe a barter economy, which is not applicable here, and would indeed require balanced trade.
well said. I would add something has to be found on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, low earth orbit wherever that involves people and makes money and is transferable to the Earth economy for any of this to happen.
It's not like this anywhere on Earth, why would it be like this on Mars?
Economy is much more complex than that, and you cannot circle geographical locations and declare that "import must equal export" or some similar constraint.
With remote ownership you can have zero export and a 100% sustainable economy, and you don't need any "Mars diamonds" to export to Earth.
I dont know why you are bringing geographics into this. I never mentioned them. and our understand of economics is quite different.
after getting home yesterday, I got up pretty early and went down to the local breakfast place and met my friend who own another cattle farm about 15 miles away. Over steak and eggs we cut a barter deal for me to deliver some feed to hisi farm and him to deliver a bull to my farm. it was all barter, but we both exactly knew what the dollar equivalent was worth. He needs feed because his sale of beef to an overseas market was cancelled due to current US economic policy and I need another bull bcause well one of my prize ones is getting old..
This follows in the long tradition of say G. Washington who use to barter tobacco to English dealers for various goods that he couldnt buy or barter for any amount of "money" locally in the then "colonies"
buy or barter requires a basic thing to be true. things of equal value are exchanged for each other...do you agree or not agree with that?
I believe and my experience as an adult is any sort of transaction outside or inside of local economic systems requires a trading of things of equal or perceived equal value...so If a Mars colony wants to buy say space suit parts to replace things that have worn out...they are going to either have to generate the cash in some currency to buy those parts or have to be able to trade someone of equal value for them. Otherwise how do you suggest they are going to get the space suit parts?
THATS why I said what I said. If a Mars, Moon, asteroid whatever group is going to have a local economy, particularly one that is consumed by high tech that is manufactured somewhere else, they are going to have to produce something in that local economy that will buy that high tech from whoever manufactors that high tech.
What strtikes me as entertaining is that no one has any notion what that thing of value might be that an off world "colony" produces...so the concept has started up that "money" or value that the space colony can use to buy things on earth is going to come from the pockets of folks like Musk who made the money doing something else....and are willing to donate it to the cause.
OK might work, but ......
I dont know a single economic or historical example of that working, ie supporting an economy that has found NOTHING that it has of credible value to interact with other economies. Do you have one?
I am not an economic expert but three things seem obvious from just current affairs 1) no sub economy particularly one that depends on high tech is 100 percent self sufficient, 2) most high tech economies are terribly dependent on other "nations" or groups and 3) bartering or buying really requires some product of value
based on that I dont see how you make the statements you make
This here will be investment based, a completely different thing.
Blue's approach to business is dictated by two things 1) they do not need a revenue stream to do what they are doing and 2) Jeff Bezos...and where he wants to go
I bet he wants to go where at least a partial revenue stream is. Because he is smart enough to know that if there is no revenue stream his space program will end in the same way as Paul Allen's.
This doesn't mean that everything they do will bring revenue, but a substantial portion of it has.
Categorically not true.Sure, but not town that don't make money don't last very long against other that do. That's why mining town die, walmarts closes and people go from small to big town, not the other way around.
Either people on Earth are making donations for Mars colonies, or they're making investments in Mars colonies. If they're making investments in Mars colonies, there must be something coming back that can be turned into enough Earth currency that people will invest again.
All of this assumes that Mars colonists won't be self-sufficient for many decades, perhaps centuries. The "vacuum of space" will take on new meaning, as small satellite launch investors will attest.
In capitalism, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
The total worth of the Martian economy, comprised of the companies doing business there but owned mostly by Earth bound investors (since that's where people are) can grow without Mars exporting anything, simply because there's demand for stock in that growing economy.
Draw a circle around any town. Some will be trade positive, some trade negative. It doesn't matter, since people from outside of town own companies inside the town.
The flow of money (in the form of wealth being accumulated by entities outside the town) completely demolishes the boundary drawn around the town.
Entire countries are based on banking for example. They manufacture nothing, only invest or manage other people's investments (aka banking) amd do fine.
Mars's economy can grow and prosper without having to balance trade with Earth or even export a single thing.
An economy has an inherent value, and as long as it is growing, it basically sells itself to Earth investors.
Trade balance, in a limited form, will become relevant once Mars's economy stops growing. Not anytime soon.
Also remember that wealth moves. What happens when a terrestrial investor that owns a chunk of the Martian aluminum industry decides to relocate to Mars? Does he bring his money with him? Now we get into questions of currency and what backs it up.
I think a fair statement is that self-sufficiency is a necessary condition for there to be a viable Martian currency, and again at that point trade balance would become meaningful. Again though - not anytime soon.
You took a very long time to describe a barter economy, which is not applicable here, and would indeed require balanced trade.
This here will be investment based, a completely different thing.
no investment based effort will survive if it does not produce goods that have value in the economy of the investors
there is no history of that ever. you dont understand an investor based economy as best I can tell
you have not answered...how will the folks on Mars buy parts for their space suits?
Categorically not true.Sure, but not town that don't make money don't last very long against other that do. That's why mining town die, walmarts closes and people go from small to big town, not the other way around.
Either people on Earth are making donations for Mars colonies, or they're making investments in Mars colonies. If they're making investments in Mars colonies, there must be something coming back that can be turned into enough Earth currency that people will invest again.
All of this assumes that Mars colonists won't be self-sufficient for many decades, perhaps centuries. The "vacuum of space" will take on new meaning, as small satellite launch investors will attest.
In capitalism, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
The total worth of the Martian economy, comprised of the companies doing business there but owned mostly by Earth bound investors (since that's where people are) can grow without Mars exporting anything, simply because there's demand for stock in that growing economy.
Draw a circle around any town. Some will be trade positive, some trade negative. It doesn't matter, since people from outside of town own companies inside the town.
The flow of money (in the form of wealth being accumulated by entities outside the town) completely demolishes the boundary drawn around the town.
Entire countries are based on banking for example. They manufacture nothing, only invest or manage other people's investments (aka banking) amd do fine.
Mars's economy can grow and prosper without having to balance trade with Earth or even export a single thing.
An economy has an inherent value, and as long as it is growing, it basically sells itself to Earth investors.
Trade balance, in a limited form, will become relevant once Mars's economy stops growing. Not anytime soon.
Also remember that wealth moves. What happens when a terrestrial investor that owns a chunk of the Martian aluminum industry decides to relocate to Mars? Does he bring his money with him? Now we get into questions of currency and what backs it up.
I think a fair statement is that self-sufficiency is a necessary condition for there to be a viable Martian currency, and again at that point trade balance would become meaningful. Again though - not anytime soon.
It's possible there's something I'm missing here, so please bear with me.
So, let's say some guys want to form a company in the small town of New Donner, Mars. They get a group of early investors together, say, a bunch of plumbers who want to earn a decent interest rate on their retirement money and pull it out in 15 years. So the plumbers put their money into this Mars venture. We'll call it Soylent Industries, which sounds like it could do very well in New Donner.
Over the next 15 years, Soylent quadruples in size. Back on Earth, the plumbers are ready to retire. They go to the annual Plumbers Convention and sell their holdings to younger plumbers for a good return, and now everybody's happy. So far, so good.
I can understand that part of what you're talking about. If Earth investors are willing to accept Soylent's valuation (presumably done independently by an accounting company in New Donner), and Soylent's revenue grows along with the town's, the Earth investors don't ever have to go to Mars in order to get a return on their investment.
But if Soylent needs materials that can't be made on Mars, which is likely, they either need to sell more shares on Earth, which will devalue their share price, or they need to export a product for sale on Earth, which will be difficult.
And that's the part where you lose me.
You took a very long time to describe a barter economy, which is not applicable here, and would indeed require balanced trade.
This here will be investment based, a completely different thing.
no investment based effort will survive if it does not produce goods that have value in the economy of the investors
there is no history of that ever. you dont understand an investor based economy as best I can tell
you have not answered...how will the folks on Mars buy parts for their space suits?
The way I like to describe what Elon Musk is attempting to do helps to explain one of the economic models - he views colonizing Mars as a humanitarian mission.
Humanitarian efforts are invariably non-profits that take in money without a direct ROI to those donating the money. I know that I would be willing to invest in a Mars colonizing effort.
And since this thread is about both SpaceX and Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos has stated that he is willing to invest in expanding humanity out into space too, and so far he hasn't been concerned with a direct ROI.
There are nonprofit and low-profit business models that could expand humanity out into space, and for right now SpaceX appears to be in the lead for the transportation portion, but Blue Origin has shown recently that they are expanding out beyond Earth-bound payload launchers.
It's a fun time for American aerospace! :D
It's possible there's something I'm missing here, so please bear with me.
So, let's say some guys want to form a company in the small town of New Donner, Mars. They get a group of early investors together, say, a bunch of plumbers who want to earn a decent interest rate on their retirement money and pull it out in 15 years. So the plumbers put their money into this Mars venture. We'll call it Soylent Industries, which sounds like it could do very well in New Donner.
Over the next 15 years, Soylent quadruples in size. Back on Earth, the plumbers are ready to retire. They go to the annual Plumbers Convention and sell their holdings to younger plumbers for a good return, and now everybody's happy. So far, so good.
I can understand that part of what you're talking about. If Earth investors are willing to accept Soylent's valuation (presumably done independently by an accounting company in New Donner), and Soylent's revenue grows along with the town's, the Earth investors don't ever have to go to Mars in order to get a return on their investment.
But if Soylent needs materials that can't be made on Mars, which is likely, they either need to sell more shares on Earth, which will devalue their share price, or they need to export a product for sale on Earth, which will be difficult.
And that's the part where you lose me.
The only reason that Arizona is not a dust bowl is that the US government made the economics work (and they did it for other reasons actually, LA needed power) by building the dam. otherwise...its new mexico. The economiics of oil have made Alaska what it is, otherwise its not even that...
It's possible there's something I'm missing here, so please bear with me.
So, let's say some guys want to form a company in the small town of New Donner, Mars. They get a group of early investors together, say, a bunch of plumbers who want to earn a decent interest rate on their retirement money and pull it out in 15 years. So the plumbers put their money into this Mars venture. We'll call it Soylent Industries, which sounds like it could do very well in New Donner.
Over the next 15 years, Soylent quadruples in size. Back on Earth, the plumbers are ready to retire. They go to the annual Plumbers Convention and sell their holdings to younger plumbers for a good return, and now everybody's happy. So far, so good.
I can understand that part of what you're talking about. If Earth investors are willing to accept Soylent's valuation (presumably done independently by an accounting company in New Donner), and Soylent's revenue grows along with the town's, the Earth investors don't ever have to go to Mars in order to get a return on their investment.
But if Soylent needs materials that can't be made on Mars, which is likely, they either need to sell more shares on Earth, which will devalue their share price, or they need to export a product for sale on Earth, which will be difficult.
And that's the part where you lose me.
I think what's missing is scale of the multiplier.
When a company on Mars (my favorite example would be a resource extraction company, say Alcoa for Aluminum) grows, it will be by an immense scale. We're talking about an economy that starts at near zero (however many $B will be initially invested) and will end up planetary-scale.
What's the worth of a planetary economy?
So Alcoa Earth (the investor) will be seeing a continuous appreciation of its stock, so it can pay the plumbers (and welders etc). The welders, meanwhile, now have their own business, with revenue, so have a worth of their own. This is how an economy functions.
Think about a thousand Googles, or Exxons, or what have you - all allowed to grow in a world that is not already saturated. That's the carrot that Musk will be dangling in front of everyone. "There's a virgin new world I just opened up, and your know-how can give you an edge there."
Export doesn't play a part in this. The prize is a piece of the new pie.
QuoteThe only reason that Arizona is not a dust bowl is that the US government made the economics work (and they did it for other reasons actually, LA needed power) by building the dam. otherwise...its new mexico. The economiics of oil have made Alaska what it is, otherwise its not even that...
But we are not at the stage where the 'US Government' does anything. We are probably even before the Mayflower sets sale for the new world.
Once it can be proved that people can survive and thrive on Mars, even with help, then people will go.
Governments first then shop keepers and families.
People will die along the way, but that's what makes it a frontier.
If nothing comes back to earth then they will not (money being the biggest thing that needs to come back). If money can be made, then money will be invested.
It's possible there's something I'm missing here, so please bear with me.
So, let's say some guys want to form a company in the small town of New Donner, Mars. They get a group of early investors together, say, a bunch of plumbers who want to earn a decent interest rate on their retirement money and pull it out in 15 years. So the plumbers put their money into this Mars venture. We'll call it Soylent Industries, which sounds like it could do very well in New Donner.
Over the next 15 years, Soylent quadruples in size. Back on Earth, the plumbers are ready to retire. They go to the annual Plumbers Convention and sell their holdings to younger plumbers for a good return, and now everybody's happy. So far, so good.
I can understand that part of what you're talking about. If Earth investors are willing to accept Soylent's valuation (presumably done independently by an accounting company in New Donner), and Soylent's revenue grows along with the town's, the Earth investors don't ever have to go to Mars in order to get a return on their investment.
But if Soylent needs materials that can't be made on Mars, which is likely, they either need to sell more shares on Earth, which will devalue their share price, or they need to export a product for sale on Earth, which will be difficult.
And that's the part where you lose me.
I think what's missing is scale of the multiplier.
When a company on Mars (my favorite example would be a resource extraction company, say Alcoa for Aluminum) grows, it will be by an immense scale. We're talking about an economy that starts at near zero (however many $B will be initially invested) and will end up planetary-scale.
What's the worth of a planetary economy?
So Alcoa Earth (the investor) will be seeing a continuous appreciation of its stock, so it can pay the plumbers (and welders etc). The welders, meanwhile, now have their own business, with revenue, so have a worth of their own. This is how an economy functions.
Think about a thousand Googles, or Exxons, or what have you - all allowed to grow in a world that is not already saturated. That's the carrot that Musk will be dangling in front of everyone. "There's a virgin new world I just opened up, and your know-how can give you an edge there."
Export doesn't play a part in this. The prize is a piece of the new pie.
why would a company like Alcoa invest on Mars? thats the part I dont get
It's possible there's something I'm missing here, so please bear with me.
So, let's say some guys want to form a company in the small town of New Donner, Mars. They get a group of early investors together, say, a bunch of plumbers who want to earn a decent interest rate on their retirement money and pull it out in 15 years. So the plumbers put their money into this Mars venture. We'll call it Soylent Industries, which sounds like it could do very well in New Donner.
Over the next 15 years, Soylent quadruples in size. Back on Earth, the plumbers are ready to retire. They go to the annual Plumbers Convention and sell their holdings to younger plumbers for a good return, and now everybody's happy. So far, so good.
I can understand that part of what you're talking about. If Earth investors are willing to accept Soylent's valuation (presumably done independently by an accounting company in New Donner), and Soylent's revenue grows along with the town's, the Earth investors don't ever have to go to Mars in order to get a return on their investment.
But if Soylent needs materials that can't be made on Mars, which is likely, they either need to sell more shares on Earth, which will devalue their share price, or they need to export a product for sale on Earth, which will be difficult.
And that's the part where you lose me.
I think what's missing is scale of the multiplier.
When a company on Mars (my favorite example would be a resource extraction company, say Alcoa for Aluminum) grows, it will be by an immense scale. We're talking about an economy that starts at near zero (however many $B will be initially invested) and will end up planetary-scale.
What's the worth of a planetary economy?
So Alcoa Earth (the investor) will be seeing a continuous appreciation of its stock, so it can pay the plumbers (and welders etc). The welders, meanwhile, now have their own business, with revenue, so have a worth of their own. This is how an economy functions.
Think about a thousand Googles, or Exxons, or what have you - all allowed to grow in a world that is not already saturated. That's the carrot that Musk will be dangling in front of everyone. "There's a virgin new world I just opened up, and your know-how can give you an edge there."
Export doesn't play a part in this. The prize is a piece of the new pie.
The Antarctica analogy fails, but we've covered this before and so I'll take the hint above, it is indeed off-topic, so can continue somewhere else.
I also have trouble with the economics of the situation. Think of Antarctica. Let’s say it gets opened for resource extraction, but with the condition that none of the resources can be exported to the rest of the world. It all has to be consumed locally, in Antarctica.
There will then be no business case for investing in a mine there. Unless an artificial local economy is created by massive, continuous inflow of capital through donations.
The same applies to Mars. In my view a local economy will need to be funded from money generated elsewhere, without any prospect of returns, for at least a century. Maybe much longer, until it has a billion or so people on it, and is partially terraformed.
why would a company like Alcoa invest on Mars? thats the part I dont get
It's possible there's something I'm missing here, so please bear with me.
So, let's say some guys want to form a company in the small town of New Donner, Mars. They get a group of early investors together, say, a bunch of plumbers who want to earn a decent interest rate on their retirement money and pull it out in 15 years. So the plumbers put their money into this Mars venture. We'll call it Soylent Industries, which sounds like it could do very well in New Donner.
Over the next 15 years, Soylent quadruples in size. Back on Earth, the plumbers are ready to retire. They go to the annual Plumbers Convention and sell their holdings to younger plumbers for a good return, and now everybody's happy. So far, so good.
I can understand that part of what you're talking about. If Earth investors are willing to accept Soylent's valuation (presumably done independently by an accounting company in New Donner), and Soylent's revenue grows along with the town's, the Earth investors don't ever have to go to Mars in order to get a return on their investment.
But if Soylent needs materials that can't be made on Mars, which is likely, they either need to sell more shares on Earth, which will devalue their share price, or they need to export a product for sale on Earth, which will be difficult.
And that's the part where you lose me.
I think what's missing is scale of the multiplier.
When a company on Mars (my favorite example would be a resource extraction company, say Alcoa for Aluminum) grows, it will be by an immense scale. We're talking about an economy that starts at near zero (however many $B will be initially invested) and will end up planetary-scale.
What's the worth of a planetary economy?
So Alcoa Earth (the investor) will be seeing a continuous appreciation of its stock, so it can pay the plumbers (and welders etc). The welders, meanwhile, now have their own business, with revenue, so have a worth of their own. This is how an economy functions.
Think about a thousand Googles, or Exxons, or what have you - all allowed to grow in a world that is not already saturated. That's the carrot that Musk will be dangling in front of everyone. "There's a virgin new world I just opened up, and your know-how can give you an edge there."
Export doesn't play a part in this. The prize is a piece of the new pie.
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't missing anything.
If I'm looking for business development opportunities to invest my stockholders' money, there are a million of them right here on Earth I'd look at before I'd look at anything on Mars. Every single one of them would have a better chance of yielding anything at all.
There is nothing on Mars. If I dumped all of Bezos' current fortune, plus his ex-wife's, into developing a Martian settlement, there would still be nothing on Mars, and the above statement regarding business development opportunities would still be just as true. A drop poured from a bucket still leaves the bucket.
Some people have said that this is off-topic, but I think it's vital to the topic to put this "invest in Mars" canard to rest. There are no serious "investment" in Mars. End of story.
Musk has no investment opportunities or virgin new worlds to dangle. Spending money on Mars is just spending money. Businesses require investment to develop, generally loads of it, but in order for that to even take place, infrastructure has to be built first. People have been building infrastructure on Earth for tens of thousands of years. That infrastructure is what's necessary for investment to take place, in the "ROI" sense of the world, and that will take a very long time to be developed by millions, and not thousands, of human beings, if ever.
People in this thread talk as if standing up a solar panel factory is one of those things that will happen a few years after humans touch down on Mars. If that's true, it'll have to be one that doesn't use any currently known technology, because there are literally millions of people involved in the supply and manufacture chains of even a low-efficiency solar panel. The exact same thing goes for most of the other manufactured goods bandied about on this thread as if they're straightforward. Even steel nuts and bolts would take a long time to manufacture on Mars.
All of that "Mars investment" misconception seems to keep making its way into this thread's discussion of "approach" and "business strategy", and needs to be dropped. There is no such thing as "investment" in Martian settlements, not in any serious, non-nebulous sense. Please, let's keep Mars out of this discussion of "business strategy" except as a liability and not an asset.
The way I like to describe what Elon Musk is attempting to do helps to explain one of the economic models - he views colonizing Mars as a humanitarian mission.
Humanitarian efforts are invariably non-profits that take in money without a direct ROI to those donating the money. I know that I would be willing to invest in a Mars colonizing effort.
that part of Musk I get...and am impressed by . Him, Bezos, Branson, Bigelow, the guy at Rocketlabs, even the folks at OSC (NASA's favorite startup) they are all pushing hard in my view to start the new space frontier...and Musk with his sort of messianic focus on mars is something I dont share but I am impressed with
...
the thing "I" dont get out of all of it...however is the economic theory of colonization of Mars...
...but just as a policy thing...well I dont get how the "money flows"
Jeff Bezos could spend a lot more on expanding humanity out into space, and maybe he will as he gets closer to leaving Amazon to the next generation of leaders. But between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos we are seeing, for the first time in history, actual progress on moving humanity off of Earth. It's still real early, but significant sums of money are being spent - without the need to have any money being returned.
I don't think you do get what Musk is doing, because he is already doing it - in plain sight in Texas and Florida.
Elon Musk started SpaceX to colonize Mars. And while he has had to find profitable business models to grow the company and to create a cash flow in order to fund the work on the Mars colonization (i.e. affordable transportation to Mars), colonizing Mars will not generate any significant money - if any.
That is why I say you have to look at what he is doing as a humanitarian effort, because he is pouring money into this effort and does not expect a profit to be returned. Ever. At least in his lifetime.
Jeff Bezos appears to be following the same path, since he has spent far more on Blue Origin than he brought in with revenue, and he doesn't care.
Jeff Bezos could spend a lot more on expanding humanity out into space, and maybe he will as he gets closer to leaving Amazon to the next generation of leaders. But between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos we are seeing, for the first time in history, actual progress on moving humanity off of Earth. It's still real early, but significant sums of money are being spent - without the need to have any money being returned.
I think (and its not important what the rest of us think I guess) that Bezos is different at least in his goal.
I think that Bezos believes 1) that space access cost can come down farther then they have come down even to date and 2) he would like to be the guy who "does that" ( his Dash 80 analogies) and3) that he thinks at some point those lower cost will allow humans to do things in orbit that actually do make money and 4) like the mill in Seattle start the cycle of transforming space from nothing to something...but 5) I dont think he knows what that is...but thinks someone else will figure that out.
Bezos sees himself and his company as the Boeing of the 1950's making the leap to the Dash...he doesnt think he is either Juan Trippe or Herb K.
Oddly enough I think OSC which is failing horribly as a launch provider...might be one of the first of the Jaun Trippe's.
My impression is that they are going to build this thing in phases. The first iteration will be for the suborbital Starship testing. More work will be needed to get it ready for the final giant two-stage rocket.Maybe they will build in phases. However, it is abundantly clear the environmental assessment document is for the full Starship/Super Heavy vehicle. If there is an earlier phase, we don't know what it will look like.
I cannot understand why SpaceX would want to co-locate this with the Falcon 9/Heavy pad. If things go AMOS 6 wrong during static testing, launch, or landing, the company could lose two launch complexes at once.
- Ed Kyle
My impression is that they are going to build this thing in phases. The first iteration will be for the suborbital Starship testing. More work will be needed to get it ready for the final giant two-stage rocket.I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".Maybe read the document?
https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
I cannot understand why SpaceX would want to co-locate this with the Falcon 9/Heavy pad. If things go AMOS 6 wrong during static testing, launch, or landing, the company could lose two launch complexes at once.
- Ed Kyle
There was once a thread called something like "developing a martian economy" .... this isn't it. How do any of the recent several pages relate to SX vs BO????? Sooooo off topic!They are not. We have several posters who like to hear themselves talk opining about how hard it will be to get the economics to work and none of it is relevant, unless specifically directly tied to the topic.
The costs with that flight rate and ocean operations should be more expensive initially and SpaceX will be wanting to recuperate the costs of development of SS/SH through more expensive flights early on. Prices below that of Falcon 1 are very unlikely in the near term. Blue Origin is under less pressure to recuperate those costs early on and so will be able to price quite competitively.
Marginal costs matter for pricing. Development costs don't. If a launch costs you $10 million in fuel, operations, and so on, and there's a customer willing to pay $12 million but no more, you do it. You can't recoup your development costs any quicker by not making $2 million.
It's pretty hard to see Blue's marginal launch costs being competitive with SpaceX's, at least for the first few years. Even ignoring upper stage reusability, SpaceX has a higher flight rate and much more launch experience.
What you're saying is that the launch industry will have so much overcapacity that they'll be willing to take whatever's offered if it covers their marginal costs. While it's quite possible that SpaceX does a little bit of that now, I think it'll be quite a while before it's common.
For one thing, lead times will stay fairly long until satellite manufacturers have satellite inventory sitting on the shelf - even if prices drop by 90% the amounts of money and regulatory overhead are large enough that lead times will be multiple years for a while. That means that any launch company will be able to closely tailor their work capacity to their workload many months in advance.
And THAT means they'll be unwilling to allow price erosion with regular customers who are apt to come back and lowball them again if they're rewarded the first time they try it. Said customers have a single priority - to get a satellite or satellites up and working when needed. $10M, or $20M isn't that big a deal compared to the other amounts of money involved once the sat's operational. They'll shop it around a little and lock in a launch, like they do now, which means SpaceX will attempt to price launches just below what the competition is charging.
Further, SpaceX has a pretty hefty debt load, which represents their development costs. Blue has none. It does SpaceX no good to fly for cheap if it gets in the way of a higher-paying customer, and it will be quite a while before SpaceX isn't eager to keep their margins high enough to service all that debt.
Question: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll stop borrowing? After their first flight to Mars? After the tenth? The fiftieth?
Corollary: at what point will SpaceX have "enough" cash that they'll want to lower their prices more than just below what their competitors are charging? In a few years, it won't just be Blue. It'll be Chinese and Indian launchers, too, while SpaceX is trying to service billions in debt and launch constellations and colonize Mars. All of these factors will make life interesting for SpaceX as they fight for enough cashflow to keep the whole ever-expanding number of balls (or flaming chainsaws) "in the air".
It's not cash that's holding Blue back, it's the corporate culture. Once they have everything arranged to Bezos' satisfaction they will put something in orbit. I'm expecting New Glenn's first launch to hit in 2021-22 as scheduled.What's your basis for that expectation? I've evaluated the public statements and while I'm hopeful, it's not currently how I would bet at even odds.
It's not cash that's holding Blue back, it's the corporate culture. Once they have everything arranged to Bezos' satisfaction they will put something in orbit. I'm expecting New Glenn's first launch to hit in 2021-22 as scheduled.What's your basis for that expectation? I've evaluated the public statements and while I'm hopeful, it's not currently how I would bet at even odds.
It's not cash that's holding Blue back, it's the corporate culture. Once they have everything arranged to Bezos' satisfaction they will put something in orbit. I'm expecting New Glenn's first launch to hit in 2021-22 as scheduled.JB's DNA is not as embedded into BO as Musk's is into SpaceX.
How do you see hate in this post?!Ha, I guess you will always be a hater.It's not cash that's holding Blue back, it's the corporate culture. Once they have everything arranged to Bezos' satisfaction they will put something in orbit. I'm expecting New Glenn's first launch to hit in 2021-22 as scheduled.JB's DNA is not as embedded into BO as Musk's is into SpaceX.
JB is not a rocket man. He opened his check book and bought himself the best old space company money can buy. It is fair to say that it is company culture that's holding them back, but "as planned" is not 2021-2022. "As planned" has been a shifting target, and we have yet to see how far they actually are.
By the time NG has it's maiden launch it will likely be obsoleted by SH/SS which may well launch before NG. Blue are just far too laid back believing they don't need to get the job done ASAP due to JB's huge money pot. It is time for Blue to wake up and realize they will have no chance of competing with SpaceX without getting NA up and running within the next few years. Without serious competition, SpaceX will likely become a monopoly with SH/SS.
By the time NG has it's maiden launch it will likely be obsoleted by SH/SS which may well launch before NG. Blue are just far too laid back believing they don't need to get the job done ASAP due to JB's huge money pot. It is time for Blue to wake up and realize they will have no chance of competing with SpaceX without getting NA up and running within the next few years. Without serious competition, SpaceX will likely become a monopoly with SH/SS.
I'm a big SpaceX/SS fan, but they admittedly have a LOT of technical problems yet to solve on that system. Enough that I think there is a window for New Glenn viability. And if New Glenn becomes viable, even for a 1-2 year window, I think Blue Origin will be in good shape.
By the time NG has it's maiden launch it will likely be obsoleted by SH/SS which may well launch before NG. Blue are just far too laid back believing they don't need to get the job done ASAP due to JB's huge money pot. It is time for Blue to wake up and realize they will have no chance of competing with SpaceX without getting NA up and running within the next few years. Without serious competition, SpaceX will likely become a monopoly with SH/SS.
I'm a big SpaceX/SS fan, but they admittedly have a LOT of technical problems yet to solve on that system. Enough that I think there is a window for New Glenn viability. And if New Glenn becomes viable, even for a 1-2 year window, I think Blue Origin will be in good shape.
Agreed. I'm a big SpaceX fan (and Blue Origin), but SS is far from a given. And even if it was, it does not mean that everyone else should just close up shop. I don't foresee SpaceX becoming a monopoly.
Any estimates on how SS production cost compares to NG production cost? This is to try and assess how the two would compare from a cost perspective as cargo rockets to orbit if upper stage recovery doesn’t work out for SS.Hard to say exactly what a non-reusable version of Starship would look like. They would of course drop the fins/landing legs as well as TPS. Maybe even swap over to aluminium or carbonfiber to keep weight down. The sea-level Raptors would be gone. I don't think it's really possible to come up with a good estimate when the design could change so much.
Any estimates on how SS production cost compares to NG production cost? This is to try and assess how the two would compare from a cost perspective as cargo rockets to orbit if upper stage recovery doesn’t work out for SS.Hard to say exactly what a non-reusable version of Starship would look like. They would of course drop the fins/landing legs as well as TPS. Maybe even swap over to aluminium or carbonfiber to keep weight down. The sea-level Raptors would be gone. I don't think it's really possible to come up with a good estimate when the design could change so much.
Payload capacity would also increase. Maybe pass 150 tons to LEO.
My thinking is that a SH/SS with expendable upper stage would still be out of NG’s league, and probably similar to the future New Armstrong in terms of lift capability. Obviously the upper stage would be redesigned with expendability in mind, but SH’s capability would remain.I agree with that. With an expendable upper stage, the SS/SH should be at most something like $100 million per launch. If they can do 150 tons expendable, that would be $750/kg. That's an absolute gamechanger.
The point being that even if SS’s biggest risk - failure of upper stage recovery - materializes, SH/SS still gives SpaceX a huge advantage over BO’s NG.
Thats fine if delivering bulk cargo like fuel to LEO but there is no market for 45t of satellites to LEO let alone 150t.My thinking is that a SH/SS with expendable upper stage would still be out of NG’s league, and probably similar to the future New Armstrong in terms of lift capability. Obviously the upper stage would be redesigned with expendability in mind, but SH’s capability would remain.I agree with that. With an expendable upper stage, the SS/SH should be at most something like $100 million per launch. If they can do 150 tons expendable, that would be $750/kg. That's an absolute gamechanger.
The point being that even if SS’s biggest risk - failure of upper stage recovery - materializes, SH/SS still gives SpaceX a huge advantage over BO’s NG.
New Glenn is what? $90 million for 45 tons? Or $2000/kg.
Thats fine if delivering bulk cargo like fuel to LEO but there is no market for 45t of satellites to LEO let alone 150t.Of course not, but it would open up new markets in space tourism, and exploration of the moon and Mars. Not to mention rendering SLS completely obsolete.
By the time NG has it's maiden launch it will likely be obsoleted by SH/SS which may well launch before NG. Blue are just far too laid back believing they don't need to get the job done ASAP due to JB's huge money pot. It is time for Blue to wake up and realize they will have no chance of competing with SpaceX without getting NA up and running within the next few years. Without serious competition, SpaceX will likely become a monopoly with SH/SS.
I'm a big SpaceX/SS fan, but they admittedly have a LOT of technical problems yet to solve on that system. Enough that I think there is a window for New Glenn viability. And if New Glenn becomes viable, even for a 1-2 year window, I think Blue Origin will be in good shape.
Agreed. I'm a big SpaceX fan (and Blue Origin), but SS is far from a given. And even if it was, it does not mean that everyone else should just close up shop. I don't foresee SpaceX becoming a monopoly.
Any estimates on how SS production cost compares to NG production cost? This is to try and assess how the two would compare from a cost perspective as cargo rockets to orbit if upper stage recovery doesn’t work out for SS.
I don't think a non-reusable SS is realistic, at least in broad terms. Musk is betting everything on it working. Either SS (or some derivation of it) becomes reusable, or SpaceX goes broke trying to make it work.I tend to disagree. I think if it becomes apparent to SpaceX that a radical rethinking is needed to make the reusable upper stage work, beyond what they are capable of funding, they will go for an expendable solution for the short term, while they regroup financially and strategically.
NA will be much closer in capability to SH/SS so we should try to estimate NA's production cost comparison with SH/SS rather than NG. If Blue decide to build NA out of stainless steel like SH/SS then it could be produced at a competitive cost to SH/SS. Building NA out of anything else will likely be more expensive.Any estimates on how SS production cost compares to NG production cost? This is to try and assess how the two would compare from a cost perspective as cargo rockets to orbit if upper stage recovery doesn’t work out for SS.Agreed. I'm a big SpaceX fan (and Blue Origin), but SS is far from a given. And even if it was, it does not mean that everyone else should just close up shop. I don't foresee SpaceX becoming a monopoly.By the time NG has it's maiden launch it will likely be obsoleted by SH/SS which may well launch before NG. Blue are just far too laid back believing they don't need to get the job done ASAP due to JB's huge money pot. It is time for Blue to wake up and realize they will have no chance of competing with SpaceX without getting NA up and running within the next few years. Without serious competition, SpaceX will likely become a monopoly with SH/SS.I'm a big SpaceX/SS fan, but they admittedly have a LOT of technical problems yet to solve on that system. Enough that I think there is a window for New Glenn viability. And if New Glenn becomes viable, even for a 1-2 year window, I think Blue Origin will be in good shape.
Hard to say exactly what a non-reusable version of Starship would look like. They would of course drop the fins/landing legs as well as TPS. Maybe even swap over to aluminium or carbonfiber to keep weight down. The sea-level Raptors would be gone. I don't think it's really possible to come up with a good estimate when the design could change so much.SpaceX does not intend to produce an expendable version of SS and they won't be going back to AL or CF. Stainless steel is the future for reusable LV construction and Blue should embrace it for NA construction to speed up dev. and to become competitive with SpaceX.
Payload capacity would also increase. Maybe pass 150 tons to LEO. Or maybe even 200 tons?
Thats fine if delivering bulk cargo like fuel to LEO but there is no market for 45t of satellites to LEO let alone 150t.My thinking is that a SH/SS with expendable upper stage would still be out of NG’s league, and probably similar to the future New Armstrong in terms of lift capability. Obviously the upper stage would be redesigned with expendability in mind, but SH’s capability would remain.I agree with that. With an expendable upper stage, the SS/SH should be at most something like $100 million per launch. If they can do 150 tons expendable, that would be $750/kg. That's an absolute gamechanger.
The point being that even if SS’s biggest risk - failure of upper stage recovery - materializes, SH/SS still gives SpaceX a huge advantage over BO’s NG.
New Glenn is what? $90 million for 45 tons? Or $2000/kg.
Hard to say exactly what a non-reusable version of Starship would look like. They would of course drop the fins/landing legs as well as TPS. Maybe even swap over to aluminium or carbonfiber to keep weight down. The sea-level Raptors would be gone. I don't think it's really possible to come up with a good estimate when the design could change so much.SpaceX does not intend to produce an expendable version of SS and they won't be going back to AL or CF. Stainless steel is the future for reusable LV construction and Blue should embrace it for NA construction to speed up dev. and to become competitive with SpaceX.
Payload capacity would also increase. Maybe pass 150 tons to LEO. Or maybe even 200 tons?
SpaceX intends SS to be fully reusable so will be MUCH cheaper than the expendable NG US. This is why Blue needs to embrace full reusability ASAP. Quick way to reusable NG US would be to change it from AL to stainless steel. A stainless steel reusable NG US will be a lot cheaper than an expendable one. In the end Blue still needs to get NA out of the door for them to be truly competitive with SpaceX.LEO megaconstellations could probably use the extra lift mass and fairing volume (9 m vs 7 m).Thats fine if delivering bulk cargo like fuel to LEO but there is no market for 45t of satellites to LEO let alone 150t.My thinking is that a SH/SS with expendable upper stage would still be out of NG’s league, and probably similar to the future New Armstrong in terms of lift capability. Obviously the upper stage would be redesigned with expendability in mind, but SH’s capability would remain.I agree with that. With an expendable upper stage, the SS/SH should be at most something like $100 million per launch. If they can do 150 tons expendable, that would be $750/kg. That's an absolute gamechanger.
The point being that even if SS’s biggest risk - failure of upper stage recovery - materializes, SH/SS still gives SpaceX a huge advantage over BO’s NG.
New Glenn is what? $90 million for 45 tons? Or $2000/kg.
I think a 3-engine expendable Starship upper stage would actually be cheaper than the NG upper stage. It's stainless, which is a lot cheaper than CFRP and aluminum-lithium alloy like NG, and Raptor will be produced in much higher quantities than BE-3U, and methalox does not require insulation like hydrolox which is a significant cost driver especially in the common bulkhead.
But I do think SpaceX would burn through a billion or two on making Starship reusable, before they would consider backing down. And Musk might not be the majority owner anymore at that point.Who is going to push him out? A bit far from the topic so leave it at that.
Hard to say exactly what a non-reusable version of Starship would look like. They would of course drop the fins/landing legs as well as TPS. Maybe even swap over to aluminium or carbonfiber to keep weight down. The sea-level Raptors would be gone. I don't think it's really possible to come up with a good estimate when the design could change so much.SpaceX does not intend to produce an expendable version of SS and they won't be going back to AL or CF. Stainless steel is the future for reusable LV construction and Blue should embrace it for NA construction to speed up dev. and to become competitive with SpaceX.
Payload capacity would also increase. Maybe pass 150 tons to LEO. Or maybe even 200 tons?
Musk floated the idea of a 3-engine expendable stripped-down "Starkicker" for outer solar system missions. Producing an expendable upper stage is exactly like producing a Starship while leaving off the TPS, legs, and 3 of the 6 engines. It's not really a different version, just partially outfitted. Depending on the payload, they don't need the solar wings or nose cone either, so it's the fastest and simplest possible way to get SuperHeavy flying usefully.
There is actually a route to directly replacing SLS for Orion launches by ~2021, using just such an upper stage with a new 9 m to 5 m payload adapter. NASA likely wouldn't want to fund any development activities, but it would cost SpaceX next to nothing to offer this.
Who is going to push him out? A bit far from the topic so leave it at that.The dilution of multiple funding rounds at increasingly unfavorable conditions can drop Musk below 50% ownership. I'll leave it at that.
Hard to say exactly what a non-reusable version of Starship would look like. They would of course drop the fins/landing legs as well as TPS. Maybe even swap over to aluminium or carbonfiber to keep weight down. The sea-level Raptors would be gone. I don't think it's really possible to come up with a good estimate when the design could change so much.SpaceX does not intend to produce an expendable version of SS and they won't be going back to AL or CF. Stainless steel is the future for reusable LV construction and Blue should embrace it for NA construction to speed up dev. and to become competitive with SpaceX.
Payload capacity would also increase. Maybe pass 150 tons to LEO. Or maybe even 200 tons?
Musk floated the idea of a 3-engine expendable stripped-down "Starkicker" for outer solar system missions. Producing an expendable upper stage is exactly like producing a Starship while leaving off the TPS, legs, and 3 of the 6 engines. It's not really a different version, just partially outfitted. Depending on the payload, they don't need the solar wings or nose cone either, so it's the fastest and simplest possible way to get SuperHeavy flying usefully.
There is actually a route to directly replacing SLS for Orion launches by ~2021, using just such an upper stage with a new 9 m to 5 m payload adapter. NASA likely wouldn't want to fund any development activities, but it would cost SpaceX next to nothing to offer this.
I would love to see a bunch of NASA inspectors in suits and Wellington boots watching a bunch of welders in a muddy field put together the moon rocket they just bought for $500M. Not gonna happen for that reason, though.
It's not cash that's holding Blue back, it's the corporate culture. Once they have everything arranged to Bezos' satisfaction they will put something in orbit. I'm expecting New Glenn's first launch to hit in 2021-22 as scheduled.
The way I like to describe what Elon Musk is attempting to do helps to explain one of the economic models - he views colonizing Mars as a humanitarian mission.
Humanitarian efforts are invariably non-profits that take in money without a direct ROI to those donating the money. I know that I would be willing to invest in a Mars colonizing effort.
that part of Musk I get...and am impressed by . Him, Bezos, Branson, Bigelow, the guy at Rocketlabs, even the folks at OSC (NASA's favorite startup) they are all pushing hard in my view to start the new space frontier...and Musk with his sort of messianic focus on mars is something I dont share but I am impressed with
...
the thing "I" dont get out of all of it...however is the economic theory of colonization of Mars...
...but just as a policy thing...well I dont get how the "money flows"
I don't think you do get what Musk is doing, because he is already doing it - in plain sight in Texas and Florida.
Elon Musk started SpaceX to colonize Mars. And while he has had to find profitable business models to grow the company and to create a cash flow in order to fund the work on the Mars colonization (i.e. affordable transportation to Mars), colonizing Mars will not generate any significant money - if any.
That is why I say you have to look at what he is doing as a humanitarian effort, because he is pouring money into this effort and does not expect a profit to be returned. Ever. At least in his lifetime.
Jeff Bezos appears to be following the same path, since he has spent far more on Blue Origin than he brought in with revenue, and he doesn't care.
Jeff Bezos could spend a lot more on expanding humanity out into space, and maybe he will as he gets closer to leaving Amazon to the next generation of leaders. But between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos we are seeing, for the first time in history, actual progress on moving humanity off of Earth. It's still real early, but significant sums of money are being spent - without the need to have any money being returned.
Hard to say exactly what a non-reusable version of Starship would look like. They would of course drop the fins/landing legs as well as TPS. Maybe even swap over to aluminium or carbonfiber to keep weight down. The sea-level Raptors would be gone. I don't think it's really possible to come up with a good estimate when the design could change so much.SpaceX does not intend to produce an expendable version of SS and they won't be going back to AL or CF. Stainless steel is the future for reusable LV construction and Blue should embrace it for NA construction to speed up dev. and to become competitive with SpaceX.
Payload capacity would also increase. Maybe pass 150 tons to LEO. Or maybe even 200 tons?
Musk floated the idea of a 3-engine expendable stripped-down "Starkicker" for outer solar system missions. Producing an expendable upper stage is exactly like producing a Starship while leaving off the TPS, legs, and 3 of the 6 engines. It's not really a different version, just partially outfitted. Depending on the payload, they don't need the solar wings or nose cone either, so it's the fastest and simplest possible way to get SuperHeavy flying usefully.
There is actually a route to directly replacing SLS for Orion launches by ~2021, using just such an upper stage with a new 9 m to 5 m payload adapter. NASA likely wouldn't want to fund any development activities, but it would cost SpaceX next to nothing to offer this.
I would love to see a bunch of NASA inspectors in suits and Wellington boots watching a bunch of welders in a muddy field put together the moon rocket they just bought for $500M. Not gonna happen for that reason, though.
TripleSeven and I have been asking MeekGee what he meant by his investment theories. His thesis seems to be that big companies will get involved early in Mars colonization because they'll want to "get in on the ground floor" on a "virgin world". In this way would a new economy be formed on Mars.
I think that any CEO who brought the idea up in a board meeting would be ousted before the meeting was over, and permanently retired unless he or she disavowed it as a joke. There's still an "almost"-virgin world with huge resources that's much closer to home; that is, Earth itself, and 99% of it is untapped as far as a mining company would be concerned. I'd like to permanently retire the idea of "investing" in Mars for this thread, as well.
It IS realistic to think about bringing certain asteroid resources to Earth, as many asteroid mining companies have pointed out. However, as they've all found so far, the infrastructure isn't far enough along to make that economical, either.
And yes, the bottom line is that Bezos would like to jump-start a space economy, while Musk would like to start a Martian colony. One goal is possibly sustainable in the near-term, I believe, because it does have solid economic underpinnings, while the other plan is obviously dependent on the fervent belief of many wealthy and, most importantly, altruistic people that Martian colonies are somehow useful. I'm sure there are some, but I doubt there are enough.
Some companies are more risk averse than others. The reason I like to start with resource extraction companies is that they are used to taking very large gambles when they develop resources, and the time horizons of these gambles are typically long.
Amazon's investors took a gamble and won. Pets.com's investor didn't fare so well. Uber's investors - the Jury's still out. Point is - high-risk/high-reward is not for everyone, and luckily, it doesn't have to be.
Your opinion on their boards is noted, but we'll wait and see if Musk can find partners in his quest. He did ok convincing companies to put their precious satellites on used rockets, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
Facebook's Class A shares get 1 votes, while its Class B shares get 10 votes. Musk could sell an arbitrarily large portion of the company and maintain control if he wanted, just as Zuckerberg has done with Facebook.Who is going to push him out? A bit far from the topic so leave it at that.The dilution of multiple funding rounds at increasingly unfavorable conditions can drop Musk below 50% ownership. I'll leave it at that.
Any estimates on how SS production cost compares to NG production cost? This is to try and assess how the two would compare from a cost perspective as cargo rockets to orbit if upper stage recovery doesn’t work out for SS.SS can nominally do ~150 tons to orbit, or 300, if expendable. (Elon at SXSW)
This will sound implausible, but I think there’s a path to build Starship / Super Heavy for less than Falcon 9
Any estimates on how SS production cost compares to NG production cost? This is to try and assess how the two would compare from a cost perspective as cargo rockets to orbit if upper stage recovery doesn’t work out for SS.SS can nominally do ~150 tons to orbit, or 300, if expendable. (Elon at SXSW)
SS without aerofeatures is ~40 tons lighter ('Without recovery features, SS can get to LEO, without it not' (paraphrasing)', as well as the statements on starkicker.
So, if you recover SH, but do not recover SS, and remove all of the aerofeatures on SS, as well as the sea-level engines, it is arguable it can get ~180 tons or so to orbit.
If you have a considerably lower ambition, basically a shrunken starkicker (3 engines, ~550 tons of propellant), ~90 tons to LEO, then things get interesting.
Especially when you consider the tweetQuote from: ElonTweetsThis will sound implausible, but I think there’s a path to build Starship / Super Heavy for less than Falcon 9
Note that here he is not talking about Starkicker.
Consider Hopper.
Hopper obviously cannot have a liftoff mass of over 170 tons minus required propellant, or 130 tons, allowing for minimal acceleration.
With 20 tons of payload, and ISP of 370, in order to make up from the mentioned superheavy 'mach 9 requires no heat shields' comment you require 5km/s to get to LEO. Call it 6km/s. This requires 750 tons wet, or 620 tons of propellant.
This is around the volume of StarHoppers tank volume between the ~hemispherical ends, leaving the hemispherical spaces as extra for ullage volume.
If upper stage recovery does not work for SS, and SH can be recovered, then literally hopper with three engines and a nosecone works for a F9 replacement to LEO, without any difference in construction at all. (you may want to put the nose back on).
It does not have to have less than the already observed absolute minimum mass. (it is however unclear if hopper has usable tankage in its whole volume).
The fact they already have a suitable(ish) flying vehicle, and we have observed it from construction through flight puts a sharp cap on its costs.
But he has to find investors who will buy on those terms, That gets harder the more desperate SpaceX is for money.Facebook's Class A shares get 1 votes, while its Class B shares get 10 votes. Musk could sell an arbitrarily large portion of the company and maintain control if he wanted, just as Zuckerberg has done with Facebook.Who is going to push him out? A bit far from the topic so leave it at that.The dilution of multiple funding rounds at increasingly unfavorable conditions can drop Musk below 50% ownership. I'll leave it at that.
But he has to find investors who will buy on those terms, That gets harder the more desperate SpaceX is for money.Facebook's Class A shares get 1 votes, while its Class B shares get 10 votes. Musk could sell an arbitrarily large portion of the company and maintain control if he wanted, just as Zuckerberg has done with Facebook.Who is going to push him out? A bit far from the topic so leave it at that.The dilution of multiple funding rounds at increasingly unfavorable conditions can drop Musk below 50% ownership. I'll leave it at that.
In the extreme there is bankruptcy. Musk loses control and any viable pieces are auctioned off. Falcoln 9, or SS in some intermediate non-reusable form, is operated by somebody else with more mercenary goals.
Some companies are more risk averse than others. The reason I like to start with resource extraction companies is that they are used to taking very large gambles when they develop resources, and the time horizons of these gambles are typically long.
Agreed. Resource extraction companies deal with payoffs decades into the future, so it would not be out of character for them to invest in off-planet ISRU. BUT someone is going to have to convince them that there will be a profitable market not too far into the future. That someone could be Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, or even someone else, so I would put this in the "Maybe" category.
Some companies are more risk averse than others. The reason I like to start with resource extraction companies is that they are used to taking very large gambles when they develop resources, and the time horizons of these gambles are typically long.
Agreed. Resource extraction companies deal with payoffs decades into the future, so it would not be out of character for them to invest in off-planet ISRU. BUT someone is going to have to convince them that there will be a profitable market not too far into the future. That someone could be Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, or even someone else, so I would put this in the "Maybe" category.
It would however be out of character for them to go prospecting at random, without a good theoretical understanding of geological processes that make certain sites more likely to contain valuable resources than others. That level of knowledge is not available for any other planet, moon or asteroid.
It would be out of character for them to invest in resources that do not have a clear and measurable demand. Without a preexisting industrial demand for space based resources, that means you're down to a few precious metals that could be sent to earth if transport costs get low enough.
And remember: most of the investments they do, are improvements on a specific extraction or refinement. Never teinventing the entire production chain, which will be required to extract resources in microgravity, months or years away from the nearest maintenance shed or supplies.
TripleSeven and I have been asking MeekGee what he meant by his investment theories. His thesis seems to be that big companies will get involved early in Mars colonization because they'll want to "get in on the ground floor" on a "virgin world". In this way would a new economy be formed on Mars.
I think that any CEO who brought the idea up in a board meeting would be ousted before the meeting was over, and permanently retired unless he or she disavowed it as a joke. There's still an "almost"-virgin world with huge resources that's much closer to home; that is, Earth itself, and 99% of it is untapped as far as a mining company would be concerned. I'd like to permanently retire the idea of "investing" in Mars for this thread, as well.
It IS realistic to think about bringing certain asteroid resources to Earth, as many asteroid mining companies have pointed out. However, as they've all found so far, the infrastructure isn't far enough along to make that economical, either.
And yes, the bottom line is that Bezos would like to jump-start a space economy, while Musk would like to start a Martian colony. One goal is possibly sustainable in the near-term, I believe, because it does have solid economic underpinnings, while the other plan is obviously dependent on the fervent belief of many wealthy and, most importantly, altruistic people that Martian colonies are somehow useful. I'm sure there are some, but I doubt there are enough.
Some companies are more risk averse than others. The reason I like to start with resource extraction companies is that they are used to taking very large gambles when they develop resources, and the time horizons of these gambles are typically long.
Amazon's investors took a gamble and won. Pets.com's investor didn't fare so well. Uber's investors - the Jury's still out. Point is - high-risk/high-reward is not for everyone, and luckily, it doesn't have to be.
Your opinion on their boards is noted, but we'll wait and see if Musk can find partners in his quest. He did ok convincing companies to put their precious satellites on used rockets, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.