NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Blue Origin => Topic started by: sanman on 11/25/2015 09:29 am

Title: SpaceX vs Blue Origin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better? Thread 1
Post by: sanman on 11/25/2015 09:29 am
Like their founders Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, SpaceX and Blue Origin have differences in their respective approaches, strategies, and paths to the future.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Katana on 11/25/2015 01:21 pm
Financing differences:

Musk: sold Paypal early to startup SpaceX, then grow SpaceX in bootstrap mode, plus VC.
Bezos: kept Amazon up to now, and power Blue Origin with tap-off mode.

Revenue of the whole launcher market: 4~5B, a small niche to grow.

Revenue of Space X: 0.5B
Valuation of SpaceX: 12B
Shares of Musk: unknown, after lots of rounds.

R&D cost from BE-2 to BE-3: 0.5B
Revenue of Amazon: 88B
Valuation of Amazon: 241B
Shares of Bezos: 10~20%?

Selling the same amount of shares to VC / capital market could release much more cash to Bezos.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/25/2015 01:51 pm
Yes, it's been mentioned numerous times that Bezos is much more deep-pocketed than Musk, and that enables/affords a different approach by Bezos.

Musk is operating on a thinner margin, trying to earn/pay as he goes, while Bezos can do his deep-pocketed stealth development effort, and just show off the successes when he feels it's warranted.

And yet there seems to be a race going on between these 2 very accomplished pioneering gentlemen.

Is it a race to market? Is it a race for posterity in history?

It doesn't seem like Musk has been looking over his shoulder at Bezos. Musk and Spacex seem to have simply been proceeding according to timelines set with their main customer NASA.

I'm just trying to figure out whose approach will be vindicated in the long run, as the more effective path to space. Recognizing that Bezos has had far more budgetary latitude from the start, was the decision to go direct for manned suborbital space tourism better than trying to COTS his way to space? Is that potential suborbital tourist market a reasonably sound bet? Is it a better bet than cargo-to-orbit first and crewed-to-orbit later? Will he logically extend suborbital space tourism to orbital?

It seems from past videos, there's a strong hint of going to the Moon eventually. Will Bezos focus on the Moon, even while Musk has been famously focusing on Mars? It seems reasonable to assume that Blue Origin can take people to the moon before SpaceX can take people to Mars, since the latter is an altogether more difficult (albeit more impressive) achievement.

Now that the Cold War is left behind, will SpaceX vs BlueOrigin become the great space race of our times?
Who's more deserving of the title of underdog here? As has been said, Bezos has had deeper pockets, on the other hand he's also coming from behind, with SpaceX having long been in the lead.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MattMason on 11/25/2015 02:19 pm
You're comparing totally different goals.

SpaceX's prime objective is to colonize Mars, full stop. To do this, SpaceX is making systematic ventures that develop launch vehicles and spacecraft that deliver human and unmanned payloads to LEO. These results fund larger vehicles and technology that eventually reach Mars. Unlike Blue Origin, SpaceX does not show any interests in space tourism or commercial HSF for the masses.

Blue Origin, specifically Bezos himself, has said explicitly that he is strictly interested in commercial human spaceflight, and New Shepard is specifically designed for human space suborbital joyrides, like Virgin Galactic's troubled SpaceShipTwo. This article appears to summarize his current goals (http://www.space.com/30767-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-spaceflight-goals.html). He's secretive and hasn't spelled out his long-term HSF goals, even in LEO. He has yet to consider launching private satellites as part of any funding initiative. Unlike SpaceX, Blue Origin is currently 100% privately funded by Bezos himself.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/25/2015 03:21 pm
Presumably, when Blue Origin gets its commercial spaceflight operation up and running, then it will be priced for self-sustenance, and no longer rely on Bezos' personal funding.

Thusfar, it's very early on in Musk's plans to get to Mars, and it's not clear how many detours may have to be taken in the meantime, as circumstances arise.
Is it a mistake for Musk to pin himself to Mars right now? Is it possible that if something like suborbital takes off and catches fire and proves to be quite lucrative, that SpaceX could feel compelled to revise its plans in order not to miss out?

BlueOrigin's name seems to imply a neverending voyage outwards, until the Earth becomes that "pale blue dot" which Carl Sagan spoke of. But from their videos, it seems like the Moon is on their path outward. Blue's plan to get there seems much less clear, and I notice there's much less Kremlinology done on BlueOrigin as compared to SpaceX, since Bezos reveals far less than Musk does.

Will we see a change in Bezos' style in the future, as more of his plans crystallize into tangible achievements? Will he be more forthcoming eventually, at some point? Or will he always keep his cards closer to his chest, even as commercial flights are started? How far away does it appear BlueOrigin is from commercial spaceflights?

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/25/2015 03:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/25/2015 03:45 pm
Okay, but I don't really have any intrinsic preference, myself - I'm hoping each approach will yield its respective benefits. If anything, this little space race is proof that a multi-competitor playing field can produce multi-fold improvements.

What practical reasons are there to favor one effort over another? Is the market not big enough to sustain both? Is it even possible for one to chase the other out of the market space, or can't each find its sustainable niche?

I see that a lot of longtime SpaceX fans may have become emotionally invested in SpaceX's efforts, so that they want SpaceX to be the big victor, and see its approach vindicated. On the other hand, it's the market which will ultimately decide.

SpaceX has pretty much gone it alone - but BlueOrigin has made strategic deals with entities like ULA. Are there any other entities with whom BlueOrigin might form further alliances with in the future? Again, somehow I'm thinking that Bezos could do a tie-up with Branson to allow him to purchase and operate his suborbital vehicle, while BlueOrigin continues to progress to higher endeavors.

Does anyone thing that Bezos could make BlueOrigin a publicly traded entity down the road?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 11/25/2015 03:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: SimonFD on 11/25/2015 04:10 pm
"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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 04:14 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: bad_astra on 11/25/2015 04:16 pm
I suspect that race will turn out to be Vulcan vs Falcon. The consumer wins.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MattMason on 11/25/2015 04:46 pm
"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.

Humans are thrillseekers, or the existence of amusement parks would be meaningless. But we tend to want cheap thrills. I'm sure that it will cost several thousand dollars for that New Shepard ride, but with enough interest, a few dollars could be found. I don't think there's a lot of disposable income for that, however.

What I see Jeff looking to do, unlike Musk, are space habitats. Might cost a bit to get you into space but is comporably cheap to keep you there with the right infrastructure. People do spend thousands of dollars now for multi-week cruises and other trips, so why not try something really different? The catch here is having enough clients and enough rooms and recreation to accommodate them, with reliable resources for launches, returns, emergency returns, supplies, and staff. Daunting, but not as scary as making a profit from joyrides, IMO. That's why I believe Bezos "Very Big Brother" lipstick special rocket is part of that strategy.

But how fast will the BE-4 engine, the heart of VBB and UMD Vulcan, be ready?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 11/25/2015 07:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/25/2015 08:16 pm
The companies who ought to be compared are Blue Origin vs Virgin Galactic. Blue are five or more years away from entering the orbital market. However, their suborbital work has some significant advantages over what Virgin is doing.

- Their owner has deeper pockets so they don't rely on publicity. They can work in private until it's done!

- There are no pilots to kill in the testing phase. They can iron out most of the flaws before killing someone.

- Not having the booster part of the crew module structure is an obvious safety advantage.

- They have an escape system and simpler aerodynamics.

- It is very scalable, SS2 is not.


The unknowns here are obviously cost. And that is connected to how much service these vehicles need between flights and how many flights they can do.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LastStarFighter on 11/25/2015 08:32 pm
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.

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 ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: feynmanrules on 11/25/2015 09:22 pm
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.

i don't know about being in cahoots because there is some ego and attention jostling going on here.   

besides that you're exactly right, each adopted a vision and goals based on very different starting points.   both can be successful and have some friendly competition in these areas of importance where they overlap.    this is want we need if we're to actually have people living on moon or mars.   great companies as they both have demonstrated, neither is perfect.   it's better to have two diversified ways to get home than one (see 'the martian' :).  i expect once musk gets his first landing they'll be more of this type of message worked in when musk mentions BO than he has in the past.   

it's a bit enivitable that there's going to be some BO vs spx conversations now... if only because musk as the little guy w/spx and tesla favors david v golliath imagery (ULA or big3 automakers are the "bad guys").     it's not reality, but it works better when your supporters can not only relate to but fill in a story.   

so as of yesterday david has a wealthier, more reserved older brother who seems like he might also throw a mean stone.   nice thanksgiving twist...

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 11/25/2015 09:34 pm
Isn't it funny how Blue Origin only left sleepy hibernation mode after Elon dissed them? I bet they're celebrating now. It makes you wonder if they'll go back to sleep now that they have their victory.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 11/25/2015 09:46 pm
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 ;)

If they are bothered by that, perhaps they should have thought of that before they named their company Blue Origin. They can fight it to the end of time if they want, but people will keep using the abbreviated company name.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rayleighscatter on 11/25/2015 09:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/25/2015 10:11 pm
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.

If Blue Origin's goal is to increase the number of people living and working in space, then it would seem like they would start going after some of the same markets that SpaceX is targeting.

Quote
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.

So from a general standpoint, I'm not sure where Blue Origin has any advantages.  It could be argued that they are at the same level of capabilities that SpaceX is, but leapfrogging?  I'd have to see what the metrics are.

Quote
BE-4, of course, is being developed for ULA too, which is a conduit for some of that government money to Blue.

Well, they are only a commercial contractor to a government contractor.  They would never sell directly to the government.
 
Quote
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.

Being a component supplier to what could be the weakest competitor in a market with only two competitors is not a very good position to be in.  And there is not a lot of upside in that market unless ULA figures out how to compete price-wise with SpaceX (and ESA, Russia, China, Japan, etc.), which means Blue Origin won't be making a lot of profit on their engines.

The real profit opportunity for Blue Origin is the same one that SpaceX is pursuing, which is creating and selling the end product.  And they have the financial backing to pursue that market better than most.  Selling engines will be a side business, and it may be a profitable one, but developing their own services will likely be a better play for them.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/25/2015 10:31 pm
I slightly prefer Blue Origins statement on its vision to SpaceX (and by extension, Zubrin's vision).

Destination doesn't solve the problem of spaceflight. You can be destination driven and pick Titan as the next place humans should go. It doesn't matter that a destination focuses the effort in "Apollo" mode. The problem is still cost. Blue is working on fixing that rather than prescribing a destination as a fix to societies existential malaise.

It is open ended, and I actually like that. When you solve the problem of cost, you solve the problem of destination. NASA can then send astronauts to multiple destinations within its current budget (or less) without constant internecine warfare between Moon-First, Mars First or Wherever-First groups. The technology that SpaceX is developing will obviously help go to these other places too but there obsession with a single destination is of less interest to me than expanding human presence throughout the solar system.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/25/2015 10:41 pm
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.

Blue sounds like Blues, a type of music.

However IMHO BlueO might work as the nick name of a rocket company.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/25/2015 10:54 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: nadreck on 11/25/2015 11:03 pm
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. That said Blue Origin and SpaceX are proceeding along very different paths with many similar technical goals but different business strategies.

SpaceX while potentially could draw on Elon's other sizable assets for cash at some future date, seems unlikely to and  has managed to raise several times the money Elon has put into it in equity and has significant cash flow from its operations.

Blue has no cash flow and while it potentially could grab more money from its founder than SpaceX could from Elon, it has been proceeding at a slower funds burning pace but as well as slower development pace.

SpaceX will probably do more than Blue, but it is yet to be seen whether they can accomplish their stated goals just as Musks very lofty goals for all his post PayPal ventures may not all come to fruition.

I don't see a difference between Raptor and BE-4 in terms of what it will bring either company. Nor do I see there being a tangible race between Falcon and Vulcan, as far as I can tell Falcon will more or less cross the finish line in that race in the next year or so, while Vulcan will still have no track record when metal is being bent on the first rockets to use Raptors and FH will have the track record needed to allow it pricing power against initial flights of the Vulcan.(ie the ability to preserve high margins until the Vulcan has a track record)

When FH launches it really widens the gap that Blue just closed a little, and it really ups the ante with capabilities to compete with the heavy end of launchers still at a price point below the current ones and with no consideration for any level of reuse.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 11/25/2015 11:04 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle

This talk of greatest efficiency is very ironic, coming from the greatest fan of solid rockets on these forums.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/25/2015 11:17 pm
Financing differences:

Revenue of Space X: 0.5B
Valuation of SpaceX: 12B
Shares of Musk: unknown, after lots of rounds.


I think your revenue estimates fro SpaceX are likely too low.
 
The contract for development of commercial crew is about $2.6 billion spread over a few years. That contract by itself is likely over $500 million per year in revenue for SpaceX.

I would guess that their total revenue per year is closer to $1 billion. It really depends on all of those 50+ contracts for future sat launches and the schedule for payments.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LastStarFighter on 11/25/2015 11:27 pm
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.

 - 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/25/2015 11:45 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
RLVs are all about mass fraction. Merlin 1D likely has much better T/W ratio than either of those engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/25/2015 11:48 pm
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.

 - 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.
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.

Getting good Isp alone is WAY over-rated by the spaceflight enthusiast community. Mass fraction is just as important if not more so for an RLV.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/25/2015 11:59 pm
Like their founders Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, SpaceX and Blue Origin have differences in their respective approaches, strategies, and paths to the future.

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.
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)

Their business plans are quite different, and in many ways don't overlap very much at all. Remarkably independent, actually. Blue is going after suborbital tourism, SpaceX is going after orbital spacelaunch. In the near-term, there's a lot (a LOT) more revenue in SpaceX's approach, so SpaceX should be able to bootstrap. But Bezos does have more personal funds to draw on than Musk, so Blue Origin isn't at risk of running out of money (though they are at risk of not being terribly relevant if they have too much "Gradatim" and not enough "Ferociter"), and Blue Origin started out on the right technical path of VTVL while SpaceX was still just doing Falcon 1 and trying to do parachute recovery of the first stage (which turned out to be a dead-end), but SpaceX has overcome that initial handicap and are already a major launch provider likely to demonstrate first stage landing in a matter of 1-4 months.

Blue Origin could end up being fully successful in their original business plan (fully reusable passenger suborbital spaceflight) while being beat to the punch to first-stage orbital reuse by several years.

I hope both are successful.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 11/26/2015 12:35 am
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 11/26/2015 12:38 am
One thing I like about BO, is the BE-3 engine.  That engine can do a lot, and if developed for vacuum, It could send large payloads to Mars or the Moon and it is reusable, so refueling an in space BE-3 truck could be used by everyone. 

SpaceX is way ahead in orbital rocketry though.  Making it reusable is the hard part. 

I've often wondered what a BE-3 based second stage for Falcon Heavy could do. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/26/2015 12:44 am
It's worth noting that NEITHER SpaceX nor Blue Origin have much operational experience with reusable rockets. Blue Origin will launch a rocket 2-3 times and either retire it or it explodes on the last flight. SpaceX does slightly better with Grasshopper and F9Rdev1, getting 8 and 5 launches, respectively. But neither is really gas and go.

Masten Aerospace and XCOR are arguably well ahead on that front, though orders of magnitude smaller (Xombie and EZ-rocket, etc).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/26/2015 01:48 am

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
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 11/26/2015 01:52 am
The approaches of both companies are thoroughly entrepreneurial, taking risk against a profoundly uncertain future, where both entrepreneurs are risk takers--willing to put their own resources at risk in the venture--and are quite optimistic about their ability to make a difference in the state of the world going forward.

Basically, it is as if both see the state of the world (SOTW) as it is and has been since the dawn of the space age (expensive space access, few could go, absurdly expensive cargo transport rates, a government-led enterprise, etc.) and they see a different SOTW that they can help bring about.

Beyond that, to the question of the OP, we simply cannot know which is the better business strategy.  All entrepreneurial outcomes are generated in the very process, over time, of working out in the midst of myriad other individuals working out their own way, on both sides: the providers of space transport services and those who might use such services, the producers and the consumers.

It will be exciting to watch!   8)
 
However, this being an internet forum, where much speculation is acceptable, I will predict that this thread will have hundreds of responses before it is over as many try their hand at arguing for one strategy over the other--Blue vs. SpaceX.  Which, as a side benefit, will generate clicks for NSF and Chris.   ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kryten on 11/26/2015 02:07 am
Isn't asking this question premature? We have only vague hints of what Blue's business strategy even is past New Shepard, there's very little to make a comparison from.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/26/2015 02:22 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/26/2015 02:28 am

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/26/2015 03:03 am
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.

Higher efficiency means nothing if the entire system is not efficient.  For instance, the Shuttle SSME's were very efficient, but on a $/kg to orbit basis the Shuttle system was pretty expensive.  And cost is the most important factor limiting us from doing more in space.

Blue Origin does appear to be focused on cost too, so that is a win for lowering the cost to access space.  And they are helping ULA, one of the most expensive launch providers, to lower their costs too.  But while we know what the costs are for getting mass to space using Merlin 1D engines, we don't yet know what it will be with BE-3 or BE-4 engines.  Let's hope Blue Origin surprises us like SpaceX did when they announced their prices.

Quote
That means less thrust at liftoff, which means less money.

I'm not a rocket engineer, but are you implying that the closer to zero thrust you go the better the engine?

Quote
The BE-3 deep throttling is also impressive and something that Merlin cannot do.

Features without a need are useless.  While the New Shepard requires engines with the BE-3 capabilities, Falcon 9 does not.  But knowing what the BE-3 and BE-4 engines are designed to do, that does provide a window into what Blue Origin plans on doing in the future, and as the New Shepard has shown that future is exciting.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 11/26/2015 03:13 am

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
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.

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.

Did anyone ever say that hydrolox was cheaper than kerolox?  It is higher performance.

Any guesses on BE-3 TWR?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/26/2015 04:14 am
Musk has previously announced intentions to make SpaceX an OEM that would sell launch vehicles to others to operate them. Is there any possibility that Bezos could do the same thing? Or would Blue Origin mainly be a service provider, offering the service of taking people/cargo to space and back? What would business logic suggest as the better choice?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 11/26/2015 04:31 am
Musk has previously announced intentions to make SpaceX an OEM that would sell launch vehicles to others to operate them.

Really?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: NovaSilisko on 11/26/2015 04:37 am
Musk has previously announced intentions to make SpaceX an OEM that would sell launch vehicles to others to operate them.

Citation very much needed, here...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Katana on 11/26/2015 06:29 am
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?

The future revenue of space tourism market may be too small to BO, compared to the development cost and value of New Shepherd booster as hydrolox upperstage.

However, "recent players" (none have success yet) in space tourism market may suffer.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/26/2015 06:43 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/26/2015 07:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zond on 11/26/2015 07:31 pm
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.

There are plenty of reports about Bezos also being a control freak and micromanager. Two examples:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/6/7500443/jeff-bezos-reportedly-approved-even-the-very-smallest-decisions-on (http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/6/7500443/jeff-bezos-reportedly-approved-even-the-very-smallest-decisions-on)
http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-makes-ordinary-control-freaks-look-like-stoned-hippies-says-former-engineer-2011-10?IR=T (http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-makes-ordinary-control-freaks-look-like-stoned-hippies-says-former-engineer-2011-10?IR=T)

And you wanted a cute story about Bezos teaching himself rocketry? Here you go:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2009/02/09/blue-origin-and-jeff-bezoss-reading-habits/ (http://www.newspacejournal.com/2009/02/09/blue-origin-and-jeff-bezoss-reading-habits/)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: nadreck on 11/26/2015 07:44 pm
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.

If Elon were running Amazon it would have a different character that is for sure, vastly different if he had founded it, but he would still be stuck by his role managing a company operating a commercial cloud, order fulfillment, and media company doing a lot of the same things as Bezos does. Arguably one of the reasons Musk moved on from PayPal was that the cost to that organization of Musk learning to manage a large business left everyone better off with the deal with eBay. Musk may still speak and act from his natural character in his roles at SpaceX and Tesla, and I am sure Bezos does the same, but in both SpaceX and Tesla Musk is concerned with far more than 'sticking his finger' in the engineering. He may do that, but it is, possibly sadly for him, a much smaller role than dealing with the organizational issues.  Jeff probably delegates more of every aspect of his job than Musk does, and as such Jeff can probably manage 'more' than Musk can, but both of them must spend more time engaging and refereeing people and in the process figuring out who can really do what, than actually doing professional work in their areas of competence.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 11/26/2015 08:00 pm
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  :-\)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/26/2015 08:13 pm

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.

Why shrink the F9 core tankage. Just make the upper stage fitted with the current core and get more lift performance. Especially for GTO, GSO & BEO flights.

In the unlikely event that SpaceX & Blue have a joint venture. Humor me. Something like the Falcon Heavy top off with a BE-3U powered "kick stage" could make missions to the outer Solar System cheaper with shorter transit time to target.  :)  Of course just as likely as a dancing Unicorn in the fire trench. Oh, wait....
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/27/2015 12:11 am
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  :-\)

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.

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?

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/27/2015 12:13 am
... 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.

Now sure, if development cost doesn't matter (so you build multiple, totally different first stage engine(s) from upper stage engine(s)) and you ignore operations cost, it's clearly better to do both. But if you include development costs and operations cost, it's not at all clear that doing both is optimal.

How many rocket engines has Blue Origin now developed?

They developed some sort of peroxide rocket engine.

Some sort of peroxide/kerosene rocket engine (we think).

BE-3, hydrolox.

What did SpaceX develop?

Merlin kerolox
and
Kestrel kerolox.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/27/2015 12:27 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/27/2015 03:35 am
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.

I think SpaceX likely has far more ammo than Blue Origin. This is not simply a comparison of their individual net worths ($46 billion to $13 billion). 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.

SpaceX has a viable business model already that is attractive to outside investors. SpaceX has proven the ability to raise $1 billion in cash from investors such as Google and Fidelity. There is cash flow and probably profits that can be demonstrated to investors. It is easy for outside investors to understand a profitable business model from launching satellites for commercial companies, NASA and the military. With the 50+ launch manifest, there is a business model for investors.

Blue Origin doesn't really have a viable business model yet. Space Tourism is very questionable right now. Selling engines to ULA for Vulcan is sort of chump change.

As of right now, SpaceX has far more ammo in this space race.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/27/2015 04:06 am

...

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.

Maybe not. IMO it is most likely the Blue manifest will be build with customers from ULA, Ariane & ILS. The high cost launch providers. Customers who wants cheaper launches but could not get a slot with SpaceX. Presuming Blue will be cheaper than the high cost providers, but not as cheap as SpaceX.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 11/27/2015 05:22 am
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  :-\)

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.

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?

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...

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/27/2015 06:24 am
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 hydrolox? 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jarnis on 11/27/2015 07:00 am
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.

Wait, what should I do? I'm a fan of both of them.

 :o
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/27/2015 09:34 am
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.
It may also be used as booster engine in Boeing/ Blue XS1 vehicle.

Beside higher ISP, hydrolox engines are clean burning so no dechoking required, which maybe an issue with RP1 engines. Has option of autogenous, uses hydrogen and oxygen gases to pressurize the tanks instead of He, which is only getting rarer and dearer.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rayleighscatter on 11/27/2015 01:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/27/2015 02:38 pm

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  :-\)

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.


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. 
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.

The Saturn V was indeed a great rocket, but it was hideously expensive.

Quote
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.
(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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/27/2015 02:57 pm

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.
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. 

A Falcon with a high energy upper stage would be tough to beat.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tev on 11/27/2015 03:37 pm

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.
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. 

A Falcon with a high energy upper stage would be tough to beat.

 - Ed Kyle
Listing number of engines without cost makes your argument re: "fiscal challenge" pretty weak.
And it's weird talking about "challenges" of rocket that's to be launched within half a year and rockets that are very early in development . . . sure F9H will have some problems, but  saying they will be much bigger than those of rockets not to be flown for 5 years sounds like too much fortune-telling.

New Shepard flies. F9 flies. Compare those . . . obvious answer to the OP.

EDIT: err you know what I mean about F9 flying :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/27/2015 05:15 pm
A clear counter-example to the hypothesis that higher energy upper stages give lower overall costs is liquid fluorine-H2.  It's even higher energy then hydrolox and reduces the total launch mass still further.  But I've never seen anyone claim it would reduce total launch costs.  This serves as proof that you need to consider both fuel energy and practical implications when trying to find the cost optimum.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 11/27/2015 07:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 11/27/2015 08:22 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/27/2015 09:00 pm
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.

All the components of Falcon Heavy are versions of the same Falcon 9 technology they are already using, so other than cross-feeding and connection points there is not much new that they have to develop.  And they needed an extra pad that could be used for crew launches anyways, as well as Air Force payloads, so it's not like acquiring 39A wasn't needed.

Quote
Vulcan will do the same work using maybe four liquid engines and some solid boosters from an existing launch pad.

Vulcan is going to have at least three different engine designs that they will have to maintain and keep track of, compared to the one for Falcon Heavy.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

As to Blue Origin, we don't know how they will affect the overall market, either from a capability standpoint or a cost standpoint.  I think they will be more competitive than some current providers, but that's kind of a low bar...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/27/2015 09:37 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 11/28/2015 12:39 am
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.

The difference between Bezos/BO and Musk/SpaceX is that Musk doesn't need to sell $1 billion of his personal stock to fund his rocket fantasies.

The SpaceX business model is already mature enough that Musk can raise $1 billion easily from outside investors. At the most recent valuation, that represents less than 10% dilution to current investors.

The BO business model probably cannot raise $1 billion nearly as easily without a much larger dilution hit to Jeff Bezos. Therefore Bezos has to fund it all himself, because he probably doesn't want to lose 2/3 ownership (random amount I picked) to raise $1 billion.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/28/2015 01:10 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/28/2015 03:16 am
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.

The NASA Saturn V News Reference says a payload of 127 t into a 213 km orbit and 45 t to TLI.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 11/28/2015 03:29 am
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

The other systems will come online after F.H. and musk could have mastered reuse or the raptor by then. Using Merlin makes a lot of business sense in the short term.

For B.O. shooting for suborbital likely controls cost and risk like the F1 and F9 did for space x.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/28/2015 03:35 am
I don't think SpaceX will ever have a high-Isp upper stage for Falcon 9. Probably not Falcon Heavy, either.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/28/2015 03:57 am
I don't think SpaceX will ever have a high-Isp upper stage for Falcon 9. Probably not Falcon Heavy, either.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/28/2015 04:53 am
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.

Isn't it wonderful the effect SpaceX has had on the launch market?  Of course ESA and ULA are aiming to match where SpaceX is TODAY, but they won't reach that point for years to come.  SpaceX, if they perfect any form of reusability (especially for Falcon Heavy), will be able to drop their prices significantly faster than ESA or ULA can follow.

Quote
(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.)

You know it's quite easy to go back in time on the internet and see what the facts are for SpaceX, since they advertised their pricing openly.  And for Falcon 9 $35M was for payloads to LEO (or satellite mass <3500kg), but if you wanted to launch something heavier it was $45-55M.  And what is the price today?  $61.2M.  I'd say their pricing is pretty steady.

Also, SpaceX now has pretty mature designs, and very mature manufacturing and launch operations.  They know their costs.  So unless their are still offering introductory pricing for Falcon Heavy, the current expendable pricing should remain pretty much the same.

As for Boeing and Delta IV, keep in mind that Delta IV and Atlas V pricing has been corrupted by monopoly pricing schemes, and ULA being focused on satisfying a single customer that has deep pockets.  Delta IV might have been able to fly that cheap if Boeing would have had enough business to operate on it's own.

Quote
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.

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.

Do we know of any pricing from Blue Origin yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nilof on 11/28/2015 05:16 am
One thing not discussed here is how engine cycles, not just propellant, are important. The Merlin is a very simple gas-gen design that draws a lot from earlier engines, but with SpaceX structures and manufacturing. It is a great engine, but it didn't have much development risk.

The BE-3 on the other hand has a first of its kind engine cycle, and the BE-4 uses oxidizer-rich staged combustion, a very hard cycle to pull off, and does it with an entirely untested fuel, unrefined natural gas. The comparison is not just about hydrolox US vs all-kerolox or all-methalox. It is about going straight for the highest performance engines. SpaceX has started work on the Raptor for the BFR now that it has a fairly secure cashflow, but it is still further out than the BE-4.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/28/2015 05:58 pm
It is about going straight for the highest performance engines.

But what is the goal for the rocket?  Launch providers aren't selling engine performance, they are selling a fungible delivery service.  All launch customer really care about is price and reliability (which is a factor of price) of the entire rocket, not how well individual components work.

High performance engines don't make a difference if the rest of the rocket is not as efficient.  Kind of like sticking a high performance V8 engine in a Mini Cooper - sure it's fun to drive, but it sucks at being practical and affordable.

So rocket manufacturers have to find the right balance between all the features and capabilities they have available.  For ULA, who does not design and manufacture their own engines, they have to go with what they can find on the open market (or they could have someone make an engine for them), and they have chosen to buy the BE-4 and build a rocket around it's features and capabilities.

But Blue Origin plans on building a rocket around the BE-4 too.  Will both the Vulcan and the future Blue Origin vehicle that will be using BE-4 both be equally optimized for using the BE-4?  That both will cost the same to build and cost the same to operate?

SpaceX has an advantage in that they control all the major features and capabilities of their rocket, so they can have a much more integrated product than ULA can.

Blue Origin should be able to use the same approach as SpaceX, and that is what they have been showing they plan to do so far.  But it's going to take a while before we know how well anyone's future engine choices work out.  But it's great to see so much attention being put into that space, since engines are a critical factor in lowering the cost to access space.

Isn't competition great!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/28/2015 06:24 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/28/2015 07:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/28/2015 07:18 pm

Blue doesn't need to get regulatory approval to send up instruments.

Okay, and how long is the process to get regulatory approval? Do they have to do X number of manned testflights? What else do they have to do for it?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/28/2015 07:48 pm
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.

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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/28/2015 07:56 pm
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

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/28/2015 11:37 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 11/29/2015 05:20 am
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.

Reuse would cut cost across the board.  Due to the commonality between F9 and FH either the whole booster or parts of the expended booster could come from reuse from other missions. How much more Space X charges for it is an business decision. What could cost much more is an flight in an expendable mission with a booster that has not been used esp. with parts that have not be used.

Quote
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.

The loss could be manageable(i.e. at an point where there is an market for the capability).
 - Ed Kyle
[/quote]
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Prober on 11/29/2015 03:46 pm
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

To add to this .....Historically speaking we must remember its Hydrogen that got the US to the moon.  The "Hydrogen book" available at one time out of NASA is a must read on the subject.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Prober on 11/29/2015 04:11 pm
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 ;) 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DAZ on 11/29/2015 07:11 pm
Not to nitpick (but that does seem to be what people are doing here) but what BlueOrigin has done here is nothing more than an advance on what SpaceX has already done with their Grasshopper project.  In fact it could be argued that BlueOrigin hasn’t accomplished yet what SpaceX is done with their Grasshopper project.  That is to say that SpaceX has actually launched the same rocket and recovered it multiple times and BlueOrigin has not yet. BlueOrigin’s rocket is basically just a scaled up SpaceX Grasshopper.  SpaceX could’ve scaled up their Grasshopper and most likely could’ve accomplished the same thing but it really would not have served any purpose.  From SpaceX’s point of view the next logical step is to recover a full size stage from hypersonic all the way down to the ground, a task many times more difficult than what BlueOrigin has attempted.  This is something that BlueOrigin is not even attempted to build let alone actually try to accomplish.  This is not to say that BlueOrigin is not making significant progress nor that they will not actually build a full stage and recover it, only that they are in no way ahead of SpaceX at this time in accomplishing this task.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/29/2015 07:25 pm
Blue were doing VTVL in 2007. Look up Goddard on you tube.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Prober on 11/29/2015 09:40 pm
Blue were doing VTVL in 2007. Look up Goddard on you tube.

thx 2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6230245.stm

Edit: fix broken link
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mulp on 11/30/2015 01:34 am
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.

Both Bezos and Musk actually build and own critical capital assets which many other competitors outsource.

That is in contrast with Gates Microsoft and Tim Cook Apple.  Both to the maximum degree possible only own the software and other intangible zero cost to replicate assets. Microsoft charges $10-50 per computer manufactured by others in Asian, and especially Chinese, factories Asians own. Apple contracts with suppliers to build computers for Apple, which for all intents never pass through an Apple facility, unless it is sold in an Apple store front. The same value-supply chain builds both Apple and Microsoft computers as well as the Google Android and Amazon Fire computers.

And the Chinese factories are the model for Musk - he in effect is saying, "I can beat the Asians who beat the US at its own game."
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/30/2015 02:27 am
Isn't the difference between the two the value supply chain strategy?

It's a factor, and definitely a big one, but we don't know yet whether it will be a deciding one.

Quote
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.

Let's leave Tesla out of this since there is no Blue Origin equivalent.  Leave it to SpaceX vs Blue Origin.

Quote
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.

Musk creates his own technology, he doesn't acquire it.

Quote
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.

An interesting dissection, but from what we know Blue Origin is building the New Shepard themselves, as well as the engine for it.  That is pretty much what SpaceX does.

It would not be unreasonable to think that they would continue that same strategy...

Oh, and congrats on your first post!  Don't worry if not everyone agrees with what you say (that happens to all of us), it's important for you to air your thoughts and opinions so you can get feedback and add to the discussion.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/30/2015 10:09 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nilof on 11/30/2015 03:13 pm
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?

F9 first stage recovery is much, much harder. It separates at a much higher velocity, and has to do a braking burn to avoid being torn apart as it falls back into the atmosphere.  It also travels very far horizontally and has to maneuver to a tiny barge in the atlantic. The New Shephard just does a pop-up flight with almost no lateral motion and thus has an easy time navigating to the pad.

On the second part, I would say that Blue is very well positioned to enter the orbital market in a few years. It'll have arguably the two best engines on the market at that time for a reusable launch vehicle and prior experience with operating a reusable suborbital stage. I wouldn't be surprised if they iterated their way to a reusable second stage fairly quickly. Whether they actually end up beating SpaceX is a much harder question to answer.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: saliva_sweet on 11/30/2015 04:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/30/2015 05:08 pm
Here is another possible business for New Shepard, testing space suits. Not large market maybe worth a few flights.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/11/30/nasa-selects-final-frontier-test-iva-spacesuit-microgravity/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 11/30/2015 06:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/30/2015 09:06 pm
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/29/dont-compare-blue-origins-success-to-spacexs-failures/

To what extent are Musk and Bezos the architects of their respective strategies?
Or is it likely more of a senior team decision, even if it's the CEO who gets to stand out in front and make the presentations?

We never hear much from Bezos, so I'm wondering how hands-on he is in guiding the overall plan as compared to Musk. Presumably, he grasps the key fundamentals of rocket science.

It's interesting to see how business and physics meet in the middle.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/30/2015 09:38 pm
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)

Quote
If 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.

Quote
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.

As I recall the first couple flights of Falcon 9 still had cork and parachutes.....
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 11/30/2015 10:09 pm
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)

IIUC, It got to 100 km, which means zero vertical velocity there...  So probably hit Mach 4 somewhere on the way.   So the comparison to VG from a specific energy standpoint stands...

And at that point, it did not have a 100 tons of second stage and 20 tons of payload on top.

The rocket equation makes it so that you're exponentially sensitive to the dV, and linearly sensitive to to your dry weight (which in this case was probably 10% of an F9s1)

Quote
Quote
If you go by results, SpaceX is still much further ahead.

Why does it have to be a race?

A friendly race...  I'm rooting for BO too, but calling the situation for what it is.  They didn't pass SpaceX's results to date, but they certainly made a large leap.  Competition is good, and I hope they catch up.  I actually believe they have aspirations much further than suborbital flight.
Quote

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.

Quote
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.

As I recall the first couple flights of Falcon 9 still had cork and parachutes.....

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 12/01/2015 05:26 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/01/2015 06:13 am
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.

Well, not only that.  SpaceX will also be doing it with paying customers for the flight up - a sustainable business model.

Blue Origin might be able to exist solely on the funding from Jeff Bezos, but if they are going to make a difference in expanding humanity out into space (the only worthy goal in my opinion) they will need to find customers that want to use their services.  I hope they will, but we don't know of any yet.

Quote
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.

That's one point of view.  Thomas Edison would probably have a different point of view based on how many attempts it took him before he succeeded in making a viable light filament.

Of course my thinking is that this moment in history will fade away and not matter much, which given our news cycle this forum is likely one of the last places talking about this subject...   ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 12/01/2015 01:41 pm
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:  [add 4 more  engines and 5x  fuel].   In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing. 
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 12/01/2015 02:07 pm
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.
Exactly...  So what they recovered wasn't a first stage of an orbital system, but a much smaller suborbital vehicle.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnnyhinbos01 on 12/01/2015 07:09 pm

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:  [add 4 more  engines and 5x  fuel].   In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing. 
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/01/2015 07:33 pm

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:  [add 4 more  engines and 5x  fuel].   In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing. 
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.

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.
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.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.
Your idea might work if there was a LNG BE3 size engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/01/2015 07:45 pm
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:  [add 4 more  engines and 5x  fuel].   In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing. 
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.

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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Prober on 12/01/2015 07:55 pm

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:  [add 4 more  engines and 5x  fuel].   In a multiple engine configuration 20klbf thrust is plenty low for hovering on landing. 
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.

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.
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.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.
Your idea might work if there was a LNG BE3 size engine.

think more toward 2 versions of the BE4?
1) for Blue with deep throttle (horizontal parts)
2) for ULA Vulcan spec (vertical assemblies)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/01/2015 11:53 pm

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.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.
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. :)
 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2015 02:49 am
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. ...
Nope nope nope. The Blue Origin New Shepard was going Mach 0 at 100km. The two aren't even close to comparable.

Yes, with an appropriate upper stage, you could get a payload in orbit for New Shepard. Of course, if your "upper stage" is a Falcon booster, then you can also get a payload in orbit starting from the ground in 1 stage (Falcon booster is actually capable of expendable SSTO), so that's not saying a lot.

They'll need a completely new rocket for their orbital first stage. I'm sure they're capable of it, if Bezos stops putzing around.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 12/02/2015 02:52 am
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.
Exactly...  So what they recovered wasn't a first stage of an orbital system, but a much smaller suborbital vehicle.

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.

"How much work needs to be done to covert the current achievement to a reusable booster?"

For Spacex, until they successfully land a stage the answer is unknown.  For Blue, at least it is easily quantified (as evidenced by the fact that we can quantify it.  Of course there are operational issues that are unknown for both of them, but lets leave those out.


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.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2015 02:55 am
The flight envelope that the previous near-successful F9 booster landing entered is the same envelope that they successfully tested using F9R-dev1.

This isn't easy, but as far as I'm concerned, SpaceX has already demonstrated that first-stage landing with their rocket can be done. The question, which remains for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, is economic turnaround.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/02/2015 04:34 am


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.
Not feasible with BE3 and BE4 as they use different fuels LH and LNG.
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

Not proposing tripropellant engine. Core got 2 BE-4 engines and a central BE-3 engine as proposed by @johnnyhinbos01. With the BE-4 running on LNG & Lox and the BE-3 running on HydroLox. The Lox come from a common tank for both the BR-4 and BE-3 engines.

The BE-3 will have limited burns for liftoff and landing.

My previous post is to counter @TrevorMonty's agrument that you can not have the BE-4 & BE-3 engines on the same stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: notsorandom on 12/02/2015 04:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnnyhinbos01 on 12/02/2015 08:37 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/02/2015 09:55 pm
My cut for the orbital 1st stage needed by BO to achieve HSF flights is a 3 BE-4 engine 1.6Mlbf with GLOW of 1.3Mlbs such that with a BE-3 US it could do about the same as a F9R (10mt<Payload<15mt). The engines would in-line on a 5m core such the use of a single center engine for landing would have nearly identical landing problem that the F9R faces. Minimum ~100Klbf thrust on a vehicle of 30Klbs dry weight. The BO vehicle could have a higher LEO capability and definitely larger than a Vulcan without boosters but its US would have better GTO than F9 but poorer than Centaur or ACES. Centaur and ACES having the highest propellant factor of any current, past or future proposed upper stages. Centaur's is at ~92% with ACES being a possible as high as 96%. Combined with Hydrolox ISP values makes these stages performance wise difficult to beat without very significantly larger 1st stages which is why I propose that the BO new first stage will use 3 BE-4 engines vs the Vulcan using only 2.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2015 11:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 12/02/2015 11:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/03/2015 12:21 am
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 in their new user's guide which was just released. (Which unfortunately is nearly silent on payload performance.)
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf

But no doubt they could put a slightly modified M1D for the center engine to allow greater throttle range if it turned out to be necessary.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nilof on 12/04/2015 05:52 am
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.

Hmm, turning this around, it would be rather interesting to speculate on whether the BE-3U throttle range in vaccum may be higher than that of the BE-3 at SL.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: notsorandom on 12/04/2015 01:55 pm

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/11/2016 08:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 04/11/2016 08:48 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/11/2016 10:24 pm

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?

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: baldusi on 04/11/2016 11:31 pm

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?
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.
But that's not the biggest issue. You have to return to your base or landing place. So you either fly back propulsively, or wait until you pass over it. The first option might require more fuel than orbital and the second might take weeks. Which means more mass for life consumables.
Normal propellant mass ratio for upper stages is 85% to 90%. And then payload is something 100% to 200% of dry mass. So adding everything necessary, might quite possibly cost more mass than you have payload.

Sent from my Classic using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/11/2016 11:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 04/12/2016 12:05 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/12/2016 12:31 am
That's the neat thing about pathfinders - you can use them to combine a lot of different elements at once, as they suit a different purpose altogether.

Then you pull apart the parts and apply them to new purposes in different contexts of the new vehicles. Gee, that almost sounds ... smart.

Not "smart aleck"  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/12/2016 01:37 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/12/2016 01:49 am
Blue stand to benefit from SpaceX RLV development by creating market acceptance of RLVs. By time Blue RLV flies in 2019 customers may actually prefer a flight proven stage compared to an unproven new one.



Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 6030X using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/12/2016 01:52 am
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. ...
Agreed. And at that point, the expendable upper stage would bare almost no resemblance whatsoever to New Shepard except the engine and propellant used.

But yes, agreed that it is a pathfinder for a first stage.

Please note the both.

The pathfinder won't bear any resemblance to either stage. Just subsystems and tankage.

Quote

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.

No one ever claimed that it was an off the shelf US as you imply. It's a pathfinder. For both.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/12/2016 04:45 am
Actually someone did think it was basically the upper stg even. That's why I said anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: muazcatalyst on 04/12/2016 11:12 am
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.

Elon has said that with the Raptor engine, the F9 2nd stage might become re-usable. On that bombshell, I doubt New Shepard will still be re-usable as a 2nd stage of a orbital launch vehicle. If it is, it will go through a huge multitude of upgrades and modifications it'll essentially be a new booster.

Edit: I misinterpreted what I read, the Raptor will power the next generation SpaceX launch vehicles, not the Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: gospacex on 04/12/2016 11:24 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 04/12/2016 11:32 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: muazcatalyst on 04/12/2016 12:45 pm
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.

Looks like I misinterpreted what I read. Raptor will power the next generation SpaceX launch vehicles, not the Falcon 9. With the Raptor engine, both lower and upper stages will become re-usable, allowing for full re-usability to be achieved. Wikipedia isn't exactly a source, but it's the best one I can provide as of right now.

According to Elon Musk, this design will be able to achieve full reusability (all rocket stages), and as a result, "a two order of magnitude reduction in the cost of spaceflight".

According to Wikipedia, the quote is from a 50 minute Elon Musk interview: here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJD0MMP4nkM).

You could probably find the quote somewhere in the video. I'll edit out my previous post, thanks for letting me know even though that wasn't what you intended!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/12/2016 02:50 pm
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.
Masten is ahead in the rapidly-reusable race. Miles ahead of almost everyone else, with hundreds of test flights.

They might beat Blue Origin in being the second company (behind SpaceX, of course) to field a reusable (not remanufacturable) orbital booster, in fact. It'd be smaller, but given their experience in rapid reuse, it'd likely be much lower turnaround time than Blue Origin's. I'd still say Blue Origin is likely to field an orbital reusable booster before Masten, but the odds are not insurmountable for Masten.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/12/2016 06:05 pm
The odds are even for Masten and BO to orbital. But SX will have been earning orbital mission revenue off of paying missions with reuse for over a year before either gets to orbital test flights.

SX will have the highest earnings potential. BO will have the most viable celebrity ride safety. Masten will have the lowest reflight fixed costs per launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 04/12/2016 08:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: catdlr on 04/12/2016 10:04 pm
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.

I fully agree.  I see these two companies compared on new articles all the time.  BO should be compared to VG and SpaceX compared to ULA and Orbital, period. (comparing major USA companies only).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/13/2016 02:59 am
Blue Origin and SpaceX grew over the same timescale, and now are using the same technology. VTVL reuse. Staged combustion methane, even. If you can't compare and contrast them, then you can't compare and contrast ANYTHING.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: savuporo on 04/13/2016 03:32 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/13/2016 03:44 am
In order to determine is something is better than something else there needs to be something to be compared.  And I don't think Blue Origin and SpaceX have the same goals.

If we want to make up our own goals, sure, we can determine whose approach is better or worse.

So if the goal was to send humans up to the edge of space and space for the least amount of money, then Blue Origin would likely have the better approach.

If the goal was to send humans to an LEO space station, then SpaceX would likely have the better approach.

But I personally am trying to resist trying to compare Blue Origin to SpaceX on a 1:1 basis, since it's obvious that SpaceX is doing a better job at both lowering the cost to access space for payloads and people, and in doing while generating significant revenue.

However Blue Origin is not competing directly with SpaceX, and they have their own goals that are exciting in their own right.  And I certainly wouldn't want to say that Blue Origin is losing when they are doing an excellent job in developing their own version of reusability.

While fun, I'm not sure comparing these two great companies adds to any conversation.  But I could be wrong...

My $0.02
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 04/15/2016 12:09 am
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.

It is sort of like comparing Cessna to Boeing... yeah, they both make planes that get off the ground, but they are not even remotely in competition with each other.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/15/2016 12:36 am
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.

Wrong. To win at a market, you have to participate. That means you have to sell a single product/service.

Until then, the market is "hypothetical". It comes into existence when you sell.

The best you can say is that BO might create the market Virgin wanted to.

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.

Quote
I 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 04/15/2016 12:52 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/15/2016 12:53 am

Quote
I 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.
I think that Musk has been trying to fight off comparisons of the two companies and their launch vehicles.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: savuporo on 04/15/2016 12:59 am
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 ?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/15/2016 05:26 pm

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.

ULA and SX participate w/o "selling/buying". That is the beauty of both schemes.

Merlins aren't sold to anyone, they are a component of a LV that is part of a service revenue chain, and its accounting may be spread over multiple different activities that have complementary revenue recognition rules.

ULA's private agreement with BO for BE4 is likely about cost/volume sharing, which is an attempt to approximate the same but with two separate, cooperative consumers of the same engine, with the intent to drive more volume and the means that they profit is off the service revenue chain of radically different vehicles for different non competitive services.

My WAG is that they separately underwrite portions of mfr/development so that neither absorbs full cost, probably with IPR trades and fallback "buyout" provisions if the other pulls out at any point of the deal. This would mean that as much as possible they wish to do a "software engine" that can be fabricated/qualified/tested/improved as a separate step in costing - something that would avoid cost loading. That's its chief economic advantage over the heavy cost loading of AR's engines, which eventually are sold.

A better way of looking at it is "an engine service cost activity" that supplies the necessary need for the service provider.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 04/15/2016 10:35 pm

Quote
I 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.

Net Worth race:
Bezos is winning $46 billion to Elon Musk at $13 billion.

Twitter follower race:
Elon Musk is winning with 3.76 million to Jeff Bezos at 107,000 followers.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/16/2016 12:53 am
Orbital launch (success/tries): Musk 24/28, Bezos 0/0
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/16/2016 05:19 pm
Saturn V engine recoveries: Bezos 5, Musk 0 
:)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: taavi_p on 04/16/2016 05:40 pm
Patents according to Google patent search:

Blue Origin 29 (link (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=inassignee:%22Blue Origin, Llc%22))
SpaceX 1 (link2 (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=inassignee:%22Space+Exploration+Technologies%22))

Edit: actually a couple of patents less for BO because some of these are duplicate patents outside US.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/16/2016 05:59 pm
SpaceX have stated that their strategy is secrecy, not patents. Patents allow copying.  So that's not a good metric I don't think (well, it's better than the TOTALLY IRRELEVANT one I put up just before)...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: taavi_p on 04/16/2016 06:18 pm
Yes, it does not show who is more successful but it might indicate a difference between the companies' business strategies. I think it's fun to find different metrics for comparison between these two, and patents were the first thing that popped into mind. Maybe there should be a separate thread for that to not derail the current one.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/16/2016 06:40 pm
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....
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/16/2016 07:24 pm
(well, it's better than the TOTALLY IRRELEVANT one I put up just before)...

Moderation in all things. The very soul of discretion ;)

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.

First off, the legal term of art is "trade secret". Comes from the original concept of how guilds kept advantages in the formulation of glasses/metals/alloys/paints/etc, as a means to retain advantage. Not quite the same as "secrecy" as far as the scope of practice and its requirements.

And yes it was all about pintles and Mueller's prior employer, who made a stink about it, until Musk started being "sick of pintles" in the Falcon 1 days.

Which reminds of the second example of rocket engine in a garage in California I'd seen, which was to the north. Bob Truax, of "Sea Dragon" fame - Atlas verniers for his "Volksrocket". Claimed to be acquiring a sustainer on a test stand. Had the worst taste in whacko investors ... unfortunately.

Quote
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

BO's patent strategy is part of how they can deal with ULA, so it's perfectly consistent. In the LMT/BA scheme of things, patents are like entry tokens to the game, where you can trade them around for influence. Bezo's doesn't disrupt them, he lets them torture themselves and benefits from the sideshow aspect.

Quote
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....

I negotiated with IBM over a patent dispute once with a rival firm. Managed a small(er) legal team. We had them outfoxed on every angle. They just said "we'll outspend your legal for 15 years". Eventually settled on a cross licensing agreement plus them paying us. Then neither company went in that patent's technologic direction ...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/22/2016 02:47 pm
@Lar & Space Ghost
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/22/2016 03:06 pm
@Lar & Space Ghost
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.
Not quite clear on what you are trying to say. Could you clarify?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Dalhousie on 04/23/2016 03:43 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/23/2016 04:11 am
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.

Quote
...and a NASA developed engine, which BO didn't.

Here is a detailed history of the Merlin engine:
http://www.rocket-propulsion.info/resources/articles/TRW_PINTLE_ENGINE.pdf

It was originated by JPL in the mid-1950's, but TRW made it practical and developed it.

The thing to keep in mind though is that it's in NASA's charter to share it's knowledge, so everyone can access the same information that SpaceX did.  However SpaceX also hired a former TRW rocket engine expert to perfect their version of the pintle injector rocket engine.

Blue Origin could have used the same information for pintle injector rocket engines, and hired experts of their own, but they chose a different path.  Is it a better path?  I'm sure for what they see as their future needs that what they are building is the best path for them.  And no doubt they too are benefiting from the 60+ years of research and experience the United States has within it's borders on rocket engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/23/2016 12:45 pm
What I ment is that we have to look at the situation in about five years to compare the approach of BlueOrigin and SpaceX.

SpaceX chose to improve a cheap engine design (pintile injector) that was nearly completly developed under NASA funding. They developed a single engine launcher falcon 1 with a GG first stage and Pressure fed second stage.
Later under COTS they developed falcon 9 and Dragon. Now they are developing Raptor and a man-rated dragon(v2).They have improved the design of F9 so the first stage is retrievable (the 10 test firings at LC-39A have to prove it is reusable). And are developing Falcon Heavy and a Raptor upperstage (I don't know any details on that system).
Later they will develop BFR that used Raptor engines on it first and second stage. And there are plans for a mars colonial transporter.

BlueOrigin is more an engine development company now.
First they developed BE-1 a High Test Peroxide +Cathalist mono propellant engine. Later they developed BE-2 form BE-1, BE-2 uses HTP and RP-1.
BO also used these engines to develop a reusable first stage. First a jet engine test vehicle, then they build Goddard (9x BE-1) next was the Sheperd vehicle that used three BE-2 engines.
Then BlueOrigin started to develop the LOxLH2 BE-3 engine for New Sheperd and the upper-stage of there orbital launcher. They have developed the New Shepard reusable suborbital system.
And now they are developing BE-4 LOxLNG (the same as Raptor) for the first stage of there orbital launcher and very likely for Vulcan. Most likely they will develop a human rated space vehicle form the new Shepard capsule.
And there might be a possibility they will also develop a very heavy launch vehicle that uses BE-4's on both the first and second stage.

BlueOrigin has opted for vehicles with a single engine, SpaceX uses multiple engines on falcon 9/FH. SpaceX is nearly doing evrything themselfs. BlueOrigin works as the old space companies they sell and buy systems from other companies and they collaborate on development projects
(Vulcan; XS-1; OATK Solid EELV; BE-3U).
Time will tell with company is goeing to dominate the launch market.

For now I think SpaceX impact has been the largest. They have forces ULA, Europe and Japan to develop new launch systems that can launch for half the cost of the current systems. And when SpaceX can reuse the Falcon 9 first stage, they will reduce the launch cost by another 30% (65=>45 mln).
It is a very interesting time for the launch market (while there is no real launch demand growth,
there might be a growth when the LEO internet constaletions and micro satellites markets develop).   
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/23/2016 02:48 pm
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.

And Merlin was not a NASA engine. The turbo pump had heritage, but that's about it.

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.

BO also hired up a bunch of old DC-X folk.

I like BO (but sort of dislike Bezos), but do not let the facts get ahead of you.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 04/23/2016 08:22 pm
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. 

I think a lot of the NASA funding they got for BE-3 was in the form of use of Stennis's test stand before they're own was ready.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rocx on 04/23/2016 10:24 pm
BlueOrigin is more an engine development company now.

That's a sharp observation. It kind of reminds me of the saying 'amateurs look at ISP, professionals look at mass fraction'. In this case, BO is good at high ISP engines, SX is good at low mass fraction tanks. And the SpaceX way has lead to orbital spaceflight a lot sooner.

To achieve their goals they also have to learn the other thing, SpaceX creating Raptor and Blue Origin designing orbital rocket stages.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Dalhousie on 04/24/2016 06:52 am
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. 

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: vapour_nudge on 04/24/2016 10:23 am
similar to ULA in that sense
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 04/24/2016 10:56 am


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.

BO also has a funding source that already had billions at their disposal during the company's founding. SpaceX didn't have any billionaires when the company started. They're all getting money from somewhere - the case can't be made that Blue is more financially efficient.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/24/2016 11:30 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/24/2016 04:43 pm
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.
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kryten on 04/24/2016 04:56 pm
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.
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).
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 04/24/2016 05:03 pm
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.

Why do you get that impression? SpaceX is fairly consistently hiring new people, a significant quantity of which seem to be explicitly related to satellite manufacturing. SpaceX is constantly attempting to diversify their present market whilst segueing into fresh ones.

If anything, SpaceX's rate of growth will increase. They have more projects ongoing now in parallel than they've had at any time previous, a fact which will likely continue to be the case for the considerable future as their capabilities expand.

And just to be clear, people are seriously undercutting how much in-house work SpaceX has done on Merlin, Draco and the rest of it. They are good at manufacturing and designing kerolox engines. They're exceptional at doing it cheaply and their reliability isn't too shabby. The thrust-to-weight is top notch and the ISP isn't as bad as a number of people claim considering that it's a kerolox engine.  They've showcased the ability to iteratively improve their engine design rapidly - the performance transition between the prototypical M1a and the M1d is considerable. Then there's the fact that simply designing an engine is insufficient - for design work to have a raison d'être, you have to reliably and consistently manufacture the engine and find a niche/LV for it, which can contend with incumbent engines/LVs. They've done that.

Blue is pushing boundaries, yes. They're demonstrably good at making rocket engines. But the applications for which the Blue Engine series and the Merlin series have been used for are significantly different. It's like comparing a trike to a minivan - they share fundamental principles and a myriad of their components have the same functions, but the engineering actualities between them are different.


Call me back when SpaceX and Blue are using the same fuel types, which should be some point within the next five years. Then we can make propulsion comparisons.


If you're stuck in a universe with very few comparable concepts in it, it's tempting to compare apples to elephants. But you're going to be able to create more useful comparisons if you at least wait for somebody to invent oranges first.

We desperately want to compare Blue and SpaceX because they're both considered "significant" newspace players, whatever that means, but it's a comparison that even the heads of the individual companies actively shirk from. That should tell us something.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 04/24/2016 05:40 pm
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.


Blue long term goal: Millions of people living and working in space (This includes Mars IMHO)

SpaceX long term goal: People living on Mars


Personally, I like Blue's philosophy to low cost, and SpaceX's philosophy toward development.  I like both their goals.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 04/24/2016 07:23 pm
Falcon 9 using nine Merlin engines seems to provide a lot more flexibility in terms of the amount of thrust used during the landing burns. Falcon 9 can dial it down to 3 of 9 engines and then finally 1 of 9 engines for the final few seconds of landing.

Would a first stage rocket with only two BE-4 engines even have the ability to throttle that low during a landing?
It would seem to me that in a side by side configuration, perhaps using one BE-4, the thrust would not be balanced. Or one BE-4 engine might not have the ability to control the landing.

Maybe my assumptions are way off, but I think the 3/9 and 1/9 thrust Merlin engine strategy is a key part of the landing success. I have my doubts about doing it with a much more powerful BE-4.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: StevenV on 04/24/2016 09:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 04/24/2016 09:16 pm

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?

BO is developing and selling their technology to others.
So in that sense, I would say that SpaceX is not moving closer to the BO strategy. Maybe SX would sell their engines to others, but I have yet to read anything about it even being proposed.

Regarding the iteration that happened to figure out their landing strategy, Elon has some comments after the recent barge landing about that. Elon pointed out that it would have been almost impossible to do test launches and practice landings in Texas. To do an orbital test, it gets so far downrange that there would be no way to avoid population areas in any test launches and landings. The only way to practice their landings was out over the ocean with real launches. It took them several soft landings without the barge, then 5 attempts with the barge, before they got it right.

That sort of test launch/land program would have been crazy expensive with a bunch of dummy payloads and no paying customers. So if the standard is to have it be mature first and then working right away with customers, it would require very deep pockets. It seems that customers are fine with the experimental landing attempts after stage separation. Knowing that customers are fine with it, it would be foolish now to wait until the landing tech is mature.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/25/2016 12:20 am
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
....
Disagree. You're conflating "performance" with "Isp."

SpaceX has some of the very highest performance structures in the world, a statement that is more profound when you realize that they're using higher (human-relevant) factors of safety than some expendable vehicles AND they're designing for tens or even hundreds reuses, depending on the component. Tanks are semi-pressure-stabilized, and partly monocoque. They've been using high-performance aluminum-lithium alloys for a while, too.

SpaceX's Merlin 1D achieves a T/W ratio of 180, which is better than any rocket engine ever, by a large margin. (The highest used to be NK-33, which had like a 137 thrust-to-weight ratio....)

SpaceX also is using a very dense propellant and making it significantly denser by SIGNIFICANTLY subcooling both the LOx and the kerosene. This is, again, very high performance.

And SpaceX does utilize composites, and I expect this to grow to the vast majority of the tank structure eventually.

On the structures side, I would say SpaceX probably achieves higher performance than anyone else in the world. Isp, as a performance metric, is far too over-emphasized in this field (that's the fault of the exponent in the rocket equation, but still). Especially for reusable rockets, dry mass is THE key performance innovation that makes low-penalty reuse possible. So I completely disagree with this characterization that SpaceX's architecture is ultimately "low performance."

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.

Blue Origin's structural performance leaves a lot to be desired, IMHO... Seems like a lot of heavy aerosurfaces just to do some landing. Of course, they're still just messing around with suborbital launch. From the standpoint of dry mass, a hydrogen-oxygen engine is actually very low performance, and intrinsically very high mass.


EDIT: Additionally, Raptor has higher Isp than BE-4, based on what we know about these (currently unfinished) engines. And most likely it will also have significantly better T/W ratio. So again, I question the claim that SpaceX's architecture is "lowering performing."
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 04/25/2016 05:41 am
I'm pretty sure your saying the same thing I was saying.  I would argue the architecture or F9 has not changed.  Your statement"

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.

is the embodiment of a high performing version of a medium performing architecture.  If you look at F9's architecture you have:  Kerolox, gas generator, small-ish engines.  That is wholly medium-performance.  At the surface about as simple an orbital rocket you can make.   That is what F9 V1.0 was.

They have taken this architecture and are squeezing every last bit of performance out of it.  Hence the structural optimization, engine improvements, propellant densification.  From version 1.0->1.1->2.0 (FT) the architecture hasn't changed, but the performance has increased dramatically.  This is how we got the high performance F9 FT.

Blue Origin's VBB rocket with methalox staged combustion, medium-large engines will probably have similar performance as F9 FT, but without being optimized.

It sounds like BFR will be a high performing version of a high performance architecture if raptor is higher Isp than BE-4 and the structure starts out highly optimized.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/25/2016 10:01 am
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/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: redliox on 04/25/2016 10:30 am
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/

Good article.  It is relevant because it brings up economics into the equation.  In this case, it comes down to a matter of high-quality versus low-quality product.  Low-quality tends to be bought more often, so long as it doesn't fall apart.  A military might buy a few dozen jets, but that's modest compared to the thousands of missiles required to give an example.  The military doesn't always send in a reusable jet when a dozen missiles can zoom to the target for the same cost.

The STS was a partial failure/partial success (insert YOP here), and surely some still recall the political cartoons that poked fun at the space shuttle throughout final quarter of the 20th and then turn-of-the-centuries.  This is pretty much why the SLS is 100% "dumb" rocket, because of STS' heavy cost, including in 2 lost crews.  After the successes of Blue & X this might seem foolish nowadays but in the Constellation days 'simplicity' was viewed more economical than 'reusability.'

I think to address how economical reuse is, both SpaceX and BlueOrigin should fly their respective rockets as many times as possible in a row with minimal refurbishment to find the failure point; car companies already do a form of this (in an apples-to-oranges way) called "crash tests" for safety regulations.  In the case of rocket companies these tests best done with a non-client-"dummy" payload furthermore...since the point is to find failure point.

Offhand I would say reusable rockets have better potential through commercial than it did through government, it just needs to be proven.  SpaceX seems to have a slight lead over BlueOrigin - after all THEIR rocket goes all the way to orbit...and back (so-to-speak).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 04/25/2016 10:41 am

Blue Origin's VBB rocket with methalox staged combustion, medium-large engines will probably have similar performance as F9 FT, but without being optimized.


The only limits to optimization are the limits of materials science. Really the best metric that applies here is what can deliver how much into what trajectory, to oversimplify; bang for your buck. SpaceX currently manufactures ludicrously cheap LEO optimised LVs. Go to them if you want something put into LEO.

The problem with comparing Blue and SpaceX's design philosophies is that they were both determined by financial caveats. I'm unsure if their philosophies are different so much as they were never in the same financial shoes at any point. They still arn't.

Again, this is mostly pointless when Blue only has one vehicle in existence right now that fills a completely different role and we're comparing blue's aspirations to SpaceX's present. SpaceX will be in a different place when Blue's orbital LV series starts appearing rendering most of this analysis mute.

Compare Blue to VG, XCOR, Masten and the like already. Compare SpaceX to ULA, or better yet Orbital ATK, or any other orbital launch provider. No sense putting together gears that don't mesh. SpaceX and Orbital ATK both launch payloads to space and provide services to the ISS. Both SpaceX and ULA are launch providers for national security payloads - its these companies that have overlapping markets and are worth comparing the differences in their business strategies.


Blue is a suborbital tourism company and engine manufacturer wanting to go orbital. That gives them overlaps with Masten, VG, XCOR, Rocketlab, Firefly and a few others. We're literally only comparing Blue and SpaceX because of Bezos and Musk. It's not a working comparison.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mfck on 04/25/2016 11:30 am
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 new markets and demand to enable technological advancement toward his goals, by means of disrupting whole industries.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: fvandrog on 04/25/2016 11:34 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mfck on 04/25/2016 11:37 am
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.
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 achievements
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/25/2016 08:09 pm
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.
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.

EE and CS are very helpful for Bezos' work at Amazon, but do not provide the sort of extensive physical context and broad-based thinking in the physical realm.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/25/2016 08:09 pm
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.
It's not what one studies, but rather how one perceives the World....
Studying physics most certainly determines how one is able to perceive the world.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/25/2016 09:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 04/25/2016 11:53 pm
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?)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: leaflion on 04/26/2016 08:27 am
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.

Centaur.  Try making a kerolox stage with as much dV.  You can't.  Hence why kerolox is a 'medium performing architecture.'  You can't actually believe that kerolox is the highest performing architecture.  You might be able to say its cheaper, but that is not what the phrase "high performance version of a medium performing architecture" is talking about
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 04/26/2016 09:50 am
Did SpX employees use safety harnesses when they work hights?)

Yes
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 04/26/2016 11:10 am

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?)

I watched with a bit of morbid fascination as the guy climbed out of the basket of the boom lift and climb onto the cap at the top of the stage. Though he was tethered, I think that was stretching OSHA regs a tiny bit.

He kinda seemed like he did it furtively - hoping no one was watching - he'd just be a moment, just had to snag that coiled cable. Nobody's watching, right?

Little did he know he was zoomed in on, big as life, and some 500 rocket nerds (sorry, enthusiasts) were drinking in his every move...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kabloona on 04/26/2016 11:49 am
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.
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.

Yes, and Musk's public comments on the technical challenges of F9 flights and landings have been interesting. You can see in them the grasp he has on the fundamental physics, and his ability to boil them down into a simple nutshell that his audience can understand.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mfck on 04/26/2016 12:03 pm
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.
It's not what one studies, but rather how one perceives the World....
Studying physics most certainly determines how one is able to perceive the world.

Allow me to nitpick your nitpick. What determines how one perceives the world is not the fact that one studied a certain academic discipine, or graduated it, but rather one's personality and the [arthur] dents the academy left in it.


Personality goes a long way (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA_Tl1kvlQU)©

Edited link and formatting
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/26/2016 05:23 pm
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/rjEPCp
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mfck on 04/26/2016 06:31 pm
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/rjEPCp
Any 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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 04/27/2016 02:52 am
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.

While I agree on the first part of your statement -- ~$1.5B dollars in US government contract R&D to-date by my count, and probably over half of their flight revenue and presales also from NASA CRS/CC flights, the Merlin was only loosely related to Fastrac IMO.

~Jon
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: CorvusCorax on 05/01/2016 01:02 am
I think that's a highly relevant video for this topic, considering Dan Rasky has apparently some significant insight into both:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6kz7UZW7Vo


Both SpaceX and BlueOrigin do "secret development" - BlueOrigin on BE-4 and future orbital booster stage (and undisclosed long term plans) - SpaceX on Raptor and beyond that on the BFR.

With BE-4 plus a booster (and upper stage TPS) complete, BlueOrigin will have a supposedly fully reuseable human rated orbital rocket. But to have an advantage over SpaceX, they'd have to get that operational do that before Dragon 2 flies with humans and before SpaceX also has a reuseable upper stage.


SpaceX is already almost there with their rapidly reuseable 1st stage. It hasn't reflown yet, but it looks like this will happen this year.

Blue Origin on the other hand - thanks to the top down approach - already has a reuseable second stage - although currently it's reuseable only when used for standalone suborbital hops without a booster. While the BE-3 would make a superb upper stage with little modification, it would still need stuff like a TPS to return. (Arguably BlueOrigin is likely to have that in development for a while, but they need a booster in the first place to even test it. SpaceX has orbital returns nailed down since 2011 - thanks to Dragon)

SpaceX in turn is developing a Raptor based Upper stage for Falcon 9 (cost share Airforce dev contract) - which would likely mitigate the current Kerolox upper stage ISP disadvantage - and give the upper stage enough margins for a TPS and landing --> full reuseability.  There's a deadline on that contract, and that's 2018, which means from then on it's likely we'd see SpaceX attempt upper stage returns.

Let's assume - since we are talking Elon Musk time - it takes till 2020.

Interestingly it will also be 2018 before any rocket flies with the BE-4 engine, which marks the time when Blue Origin can do orbital tests with a BE-3 upper stage and re-entries.  At this point there might be a direct "race" between SpaceX and BlueOrgin about who has a reuseable second stage first.

Personally I see SpaceX' approach as superior, since their operational launch system gives them lots of practical experience and test cases which provides direct feedback to the research and development cycle. BlueOrigin isn't just developing in secrecy, they also do it "blind" - and have to rely solely on simulation and the experience of the people they hire. Noone can say what unforseen practical problems the big brother booster will encounter on its first flight and how much time it will take Blue Origin to mitigate them.
SpaceX - thanks to CRS-7 - has dealt with the blow of launch failures,  fault analysis and return to flight, while all Blue Origin had so far is an engine test stand blowing up.
As such I'd meanwhile say SpaceX has a better grasp of "what they don't know" with the remaining development than Blue Origin. Especially considering the experience with booster and dragon reentry.

But maybe Blue Origin gets it all right on the first try and will be the first company to have a fully reuseable human rated orbital rocket by somewhen 2019 or early 2020.

Then indeed Blue Origin's approach would have been better. At least up to that critical point.


Now regarding business strategy, I think there couldn't be a clearer difference.

SpaceX is more or less self-funded - after initial limited investment by Elon Musk of a fixed start sum, they had to "earn" all their R&D money through NASA contracts, Airforce contracts, Commercial Customers, Private Investors (Google), ...

Ever since that fateful 4th Falcon1 launch and first orbital entry, SpaceX is a launch provider, and a very successful one, single handedly wrapping up the international launch market. Granted, it wouldn't have been possible without NASAs COTS (commercial cargo dev) money for the F9 development, which leapfrogged SpaceX from near bankruptcy to the uncontested star of "new space". But SpaceX wasn't the only contender in either commercial cargo nor commercial crew. It was money that was there, and arguably SpaceX made the most out of it, which I would deem a very successful business strategy.

The launch manifest is so full, they have problems launching that many, with each client paying money in advance. Recently the WSJ reported that Elon Musk is actually investing surplus SpaceX money into short term bonds to his other ventures like Tesla and Solar City. SpaceX is swimming in money that the company made itself.

The only (known) money Blue Origin made is a research cooperation with ULA in regards to the BE-4 engine for Vulcan. Although space tourism is targeted, the first paid for flight is years out, and the amounts per flight will be much more limited - even if profitable. Unlike SpaceX - the Blue Origin's revenue could never actually pay the research and development costs involved.

Which means a constant drain on the cash cow Amazon, which needs to cross finance Blue Origin since it's founding and also for the forseeable future.

Even if Space Tourism picks up as a profitable enterprise, there is noone preventing a re-seller (read "travel agency") from ordering "DragonFly" launch services from SpaceX and some time in a nice hotel-room on a conveniently placed LEO Bigelow-module for paying tourists somewhen in the 2020's. That way SpaceX would rape Blue Origin's primary market without even offering Space Tourism directly. For Orbital flights, SpaceX would dictate the market price - even for tourism purposes. (Unless Blue Origin could offer orbital flights for much cheaper in the first place. But I don't see that happening, the high ISP architecture with MethaLox and HydroLox combo of BE-3 and BE-4 offers significant advantages for "very high delta-V" flights, aka Earth-Escape-trajectories. For LEO, which would be most of tourism, a much simpler and cheaper Kerolox only architecture - if reuseable - would be able to fly much cheaper.

And latestly when orbital tourism becomes an affordable thing, noone in their right mind would pay for a suborbital hop. At least noone wealthy. As soon as one space tourism vendor offers "the real thing" they will all have to (bye bye Virgin Galactic btw...) After all if all you seek is weightlessness, there's already parabolic flights for that - for a lot cheaper.


So long story short, while both "approaches" are viable, the business strategy of Blue Origin is a money sink, while SpaceX actually makes money. At least in this decade and likely in the next as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/02/2016 05:54 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/02/2016 11:38 am
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.

Just curious - is it the ascent portion that's hardest, or the descent portion? (Cmon, they can't both be exactly equal in difficulty)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/02/2016 02:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: nadreck on 05/02/2016 06:35 pm
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.

Even with the shuttle and its payload bay, no orbital stage design has ever been tested where the ratio of structure to volume is equivalent to a rocket stage with a ΔV that can get it from where ever a first stage leaves it to orbit and then re-enter. There are lots of issues around doing this, shape constraints and orientation at hypersonic re-entry velocities, structural loading at both accelerating and decelerating attitudes among them.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/03/2016 06:02 am
And yet it does seem like Blue Origin is aiming for an orbital rocket with a reusable upper stage, even if New Shepard itself isn't that upper stage in final form. After all, they tried to patent the barge landing, they've made BE-3 and BE-3U with liquid hydrogen. Bezos has pubicly stated the benefits of reusability. So howsoever difficult that road may be, their development road so far gives all signs of having committed to that path.

I'm wondering whether, once Blue's orbital rocket is unveiled, if it will come with a reusable upper stage right from the start.


Musk has stated his lofty goal of making humanity biplanetary, while Bezos has stated his vision in somewhat more conventional terms of having millions of people working and living in space. Is this a case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other" - do they both add up to the same thing?

Bezos doesn't seem as focused on Mars as Musk is. That very first CG-animated video put out by Blue ends with the view of the Moon in the sky above, and it just gave me the impression that Bezos intends to go to the Moon first. If that's the case, then would such a path by Blue to the Moon put it on a more sober and viable course as compared to SpaceX's obviously Mars-centric path?

Let's coin the meme for that right now:

"Blue Moon vs Red Dragon" ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 05/03/2016 09:33 am
Possibly Jeff Bezos is referring to first stage reusability. That might be possible. Second stage reusability is WAY more complicated. The current practice is to not even reenter the upper-stages. Sending them destructively back to the earth is already a large improvement. With a reusable upper-stage you have to control a 7,8km/s deceleration and the structure might not deteriorate to much. (don't forget the dragon capsule is not even reusable, jet) 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jpfulton314 on 05/03/2016 04:26 pm
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.

One possibility is a team up with Bigelow Aerospace.  Given Robert Bigelow's goal of producing space hotels and Jeff Bezos' goal of space tourism/development, I would have no problem imagining a press release in 3 - 5 years of Bezos setting up his own space tourism destination, in addition to whatever agreements are in place with Bigelow/ULA, NASA, etc.  The question becomes one of Blue Origin developing a heavy enough launcher to hoist multiple BA-330's, 1150's, or 2100's into orbit.

Cahoots, well, that may be an interesting possibility.  BFR really opens up possibilities.  What if there are multiple BFR's on the horizon?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/04/2016 11:36 pm


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/05/2016 04:45 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/05/2016 09:32 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/05/2016 11:45 am


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 don't know. It depends on what you define as "infrastructure". Massive monolithic projects to anywhere in the solar system certainly benefit from having launchers that are both heavy lift and reusable in the same package.

Reusability, on purely surface analysis level, scales well. Huge launch vehicles are by their nature extremely expensive if expendable, rendering them inflexible for all but the most important of missions. Reusability offers the potential to make a huge launch vehicle significantly more flexible, adapting it to more mission types, simply by removing some of the financial risk.

This is of course dependent upon you refining your reusability method to the point where the loss of any of your stages is unlikely.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/05/2016 11:53 am
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.

What if you want to build a city on the Moon, or at least some hotels?

Reusability now seems to be a baseline requirement for the likes of Bezos and Musk. With the orbital VTVL concept now proven, everything from them will be at least nominally reusable, and built with it in mind. These billionaires love to show off their cost-breaker innovations.

Quote
Also according the NSF tea readers. The first Blue orbital capable launcher will be more likely to be in the Delta II class.

Ok, fair enough, but if Musk is building MCT, then it's hard to imagine Bezos allowing himself to be left behind. It's only a matter of time. The only question is - what will be the nickname of the "Big Blue Rocket"?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 05/05/2016 08:25 pm
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.

I'd much rather see them pursue airline-like reuse operations than yet another heavy launcher. Fortunately, I think they're more likely to go that route than SpaceX. Going for heavy launchers is great if you have to get to market ASAP to tap the only big existing launch market--GEO commsat launch. But if you can afford to build it and let the market adapt, a smaller vehicle is probably a lot easier to start with for reusability. It just takes new markets time to develop. Stuff like tourism, propellant depots, on-orbit manufacturing of spacecraft and vehicles, etc. None of those need or even really want a FH class vehicle, so long as you have something high flight rate and inexpensive.

My $0.02 of course.

~Jon
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/05/2016 09:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/05/2016 09:31 pm
Musk says humans on Mars. Bezos says humans in space. That's all you need to know to chart interim objectives/goals. Both will increase launch frequency, because neither of those goals are part of govt, military, or commercial launches worldwide.

Humans on Mars - requires two-way HSF of highly reusable SC/RV/LV on two planets - high mass/props meaning heavy launch capability that can be ramped up (like Saturn 1B/V), then ramped down (unlike Saturn/Shuttle).

Humans in space - requires weekly/daily launches with airline like service to few/same locations, where the expectation of service continuity is high.

Neither of these is mutually exclusive, but both will rely on no one but themselves for schedule/program risk issues.

Both will likely have significant in-space propulsion needs. Suggest BO will have a hydrolox logisitical architecture leveraged off of current systems they are flying right now. Suggest SX will leverage off BFR related methalox systems we have yet to see, as an extension of traditional vehicle strategy to be used on two planets.

Both will also "back fill" with other vendors when it suits, and will leave "special case" capabilities (primarily military needed capabilities) to heritage providers as long as is possible. Unclear that habs, power systems, ECLSS, and other related systems fit into BO/SX "silos" very well.

Don't think BO will race ahead on increasing payload to orbit, nor for that matter support much in the way of anything but LEO/GEO for quite awhile (doubt SSO/polar/GTO). They'll probably contract out for any need for unmanned launch of say a hab/station/"hotel", because it would detour from objective of economics of frequent/short HSF, and keeping to a narrow view of where the humans transit to.

SX on the other hand likely will need to become a master at $/kg/dV of unmanned to almost anywhere in the solar system. Because they'll view it as "amping up" capabilities for Mars every two years.

Where Jim's "Demolition Man" Taco Bell SX analogy falls short will be around the awkward needs away from the agendas above. Once Bezos/Musk get rolling, with the basics out of the way, suggest that they will become even more single-minded then before, perhaps even shedding some business capabilities along the way.

Examine Bezos/Musk other core businesses. They are not overreaching scope - AWS could have competed more broadly in verticals, Tesla/Solar City could have gone into more specilized/horizontals too. They are careful to avoid these blunders. Bezo's and his stupid firephone egotrip excepting (or how to waste $100M without really trying). Few more not worth mentioning.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 05/05/2016 09:46 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/05/2016 10:52 pm
I think it won't be too long before reusability (at least for the first stage, if not to LEO) will be "jacks or better to open"
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 05/06/2016 12:19 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/06/2016 01:06 am
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.
May need to factor in reusable US in future. So 20t expendable, 10t fully reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 05/06/2016 02:59 am
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...

Specifically:
1- Reusable upper stages need to have TPS and recovery systems for intact landing.
2- Reusable upper stages will typically have at least some level of pointing and maneuvering capabilities (3axis pointing and thrust in at least one direction).
3- If designed to deliver people to a facility, the prox-ops and capture robotics on the facility side can enable a fairly simple upper stage to rendezvous and be captured.
4- If done wisely, and with the facility having the right emergency rescue vehicles, the actual launch vehicle can do first or second orbit rendezvous, enabling much less sophisticated life support to be used.

Probably the single biggest thing a rocket upper stage doesn't have that a capsule does is a launch escape system. But there may be principles that can be used in the design to make those less necessary. Things like not putting high pressure tanks inside of your LOX tanks (or using autogenous pressurization), using more benign engine cycles, using air-launch, designing the vehicle to minimize the maximum dynamic pressure, etc.

Basically people have assumed that the way we've done things since Apollo is the only safe way to do them, and I'm not convinced we've really pushed very far into the design space of crew-carrying reusable space transports. My guess is that there are approaches that are safer than a capsule with escape rocket on a a traditional launch vehicle that also only need say 2-4klb of "cargo capacity" to LEO in order to carry 4-6 people.

~Jon
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/06/2016 03:35 am
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
THIS.

Jet aircraft like the 737 (largest version, single-class max) which are made out of aluminum get 200-250kg per passenger, and that includes EVERYTHING, including the wings, engines, wheels, cargo hold, lavatories, oxygen supply system, cabin pressurization system, seats, overhead storage, cockpit, inflatable slides, individual flotation devices, life rafts, etc. With composites, you could do even better (though often the better strength to weight ratio of composites is used for longer wings, higher cabin pressures, etc, not a reduction in per-passenger dry weight).

I think there's a huge potential for benefit in improving the mass required to launch people. I think Blue Origin has attempted at least some investment in this area, more than SpaceX has publicly shown (makes sense as Blue Origin's plan was to focus on suborbital tourism at first... though SpaceX is obviously closer to sending people into orbit, and the original Dragon is not at all a cutting-edge design, nor was it intended to be).

...but SpaceX will probably need to make similar strides for MCT to get to its performance and capacity (100 passengers) and cost numbers.


So yeah, 5 tons for 7 passengers is not at all out of the question, IMHO, and you could probably do 100 passengers in 30 tons if the flight was very short (half an hour?) and you used the very best in composites, better than anything flying today.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 05/06/2016 03:48 am
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.

~Jon
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/06/2016 03:51 am
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.

~Jon
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 05/07/2016 12:56 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/07/2016 01:39 am
Blue Origin is already pursuing the same kind of approach. No need for copying.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/07/2016 02:56 am
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.

Ariane physically can't. The organisation, launch rate, their current architectures and the way that they contract elements of said architectures makes it completely impossible for Arianespace to imitate a SpaceX-esque business model. They could hypothetically make a reusable launcher, but the transition would not be smooth. ULA is bound by similar problems, but the potential for gridlock isn't as extreme for ULA. ULA's current LVs are significantly less competitive than Ariane's for the global commercial market however.

Blue are trying their own method, and it seems to be winning them customers. Granted, I expect Blue to be significantly slower to progress than SpaceX, but they have a roadmap they can ride with. Watching Blue be blue is interesting in of itself. For one thing, Besos does not think like Musk - they have very different approaches to running companies. For another, their architectures are incompatible - what unites them is VTVL and having a core grand plan which the companies cater towards.

SpaceX is doing sterling by being SpaceX. Let's see what Blue can do by being Blue.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/07/2016 11:01 pm
Keep in mind origins of finance of each of these. None are chartered to be a SX clone, nor is that ever likely.

ULA is chartered to do govt/military launch. Oh and after the fact possibly maybe sort of commercial. Same thing goes with most global providers.

OA is chartered to do small payload launch with recycled solid motors, Pegasus. And Antares for CRS flights.

BO is doing a narrow reusable HSF program currently suborbital and then orbital.

These are financed very carefully for those limited goals. Nothing more for more legos or snapping them together differently. Sorry space cadets.

To do something like suggested in above posts would require significant commitment beyond what is present.

Ask yourself who/where/what would do such, and for what reason?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 05/07/2016 11:19 pm
The title question for this thread seems to me to be a bit disingenuous.

Why does one have to be better than the other?

Currently, they have very different goals.  What will measure success for each is how they accomplish those goals. 

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.

SpaceX never seriously went for the sub-orbital concept.  All along, they've wanted to put things up there to stay.  Blue Origin has looked at the space tourist market for up and down flights as a source of income.

SpaceX has never offered their engines/systems for sale except as a complete launch vehicle.  Blue Origin has an agreement with ULA to develop and be a contractor for engines for the Vulcan Rocket.

Both have clear-cut paths to success, it is up to the Management of each to stay on point to achieve it.

My only real complaint is the back and forth between Bezos and Musk over landings.  They've made it so you can't see a news report on a SpaceX landing without the reporter mentioning 'Blue Origin does this too'(and vice-versa).  While what neither company is doing is easy, what SpaceX is doing is orders of magnitude harder than what Blue Origin is doing.  They don't need to be so in your face competitive about it since they aren't even after the same markets.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kryten on 05/08/2016 12:07 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/08/2016 02:31 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 05/08/2016 03:14 am
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.

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/08/2016 03:20 am

And slower.

"gradatim ferociter".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/08/2016 07:58 am
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.

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
That should help pay for a orbital LV and its facilities.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/08/2016 05:58 pm
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.

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)...

Be careful with presumptions here. There's no indication that he can step on the pedal and accelerate yet.

Likely scenario is a gradual ramp up of suborbital flight tests, a kerolox methalox booster engine on a test stand, fabrication of orbital stage test articles, a CCAFS pad, fit checks and static tests. Many of these items might be hard to hide away from the public, so you'll see him coming years in advance.

And you don't usually fund these with a large stock sale as being capital efficient. So that also may be unrelated.

From a strictly business perspective, bringing revenue online should be his priority, so producing joy rides and engines should be on the critical path. And, the revenue from those would need to be compared to rivals revenue stream, of GSO sat plus CRS. Also, from a net profit basis considering both with maturity/expectation of future business based on prior performance. The same stuff that ULA uses against SX ...

edit:
wrong
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 05/09/2016 05:11 pm
Ignoring the fact they are two very different business models, if you were to directly compare the two SpaceX is "winning" and it's not even close.

SpaceX is a launch services provider with billions of dollars in contracts and a multi-year track record in the industry. Blue is still testing a research vehicle. As a business, SpaceX is clearly more successful. Then again, I'd argue that at this point it may be a bit of a stretch to even call Blue a "business."

When it comes to achieving their goals, and technological advancement, things get a little murkier, but I would say that SpaceX is further ahead on the "race to reusability." Everything Bezos has is reusable, but none of Blue's hardware is suitable for orbit. Musk has full orbital capability with Falcon 9, and both stage 1 and Dragon are suitable for reuse.

Blue is targeting its first orbital launch for 2019, SpaceX is targeting putting a Dragon on Mars in 2018. I don't know if either company will make those targets, but it does show where their current goals sit.

Personally, I want to see both companies succeed, but right now SpaceX is doing more difficult things than Blue is, and is pushing a more aggressive agenda. Blue's slower pace and greater secrecy makes it harder to get excited about its achievements.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/09/2016 05:43 pm
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.

Could come down to the whims of NASA selection officers. SpaceX got picked, Blue Origin didn't. Simple as that. Blue Origin going as fast as they are is actually impressive considering they didn't win any major government contracts.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/10/2016 05:31 am
Was this related to the fact that Blue Origin started out with suborbital flights, which NASA might not be so interested in as compared to orbital flights, which is what SpaceX started out with through Falcon-1?

SpaceX may have benefited from being in the right place at the right time, as it was one of the only private orbital launch providers when the Shuttle was retired, that at least had a roadmap to more significant capabilities while providing lower costs. If SpaceX launch costs had been more comparable to ULA, would their bids for COTS/CRS have won?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Pipcard on 12/12/2016 03:50 pm

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!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 12/12/2016 04:13 pm
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.

Keep in mind that, the BE-3 is an existing engine whose development as an upper stage engine is already being paid for by an outside customer. This should significantly reduce development and testing costs.

Also, my impression is that the vast majority of New Glenn missions will be the two stage variant with three stage variant being used only for very demanding BLEO missions. New Glenn should be a very powerful rocket, even in its two stage variant. I don't expect the three stage variant to fly very often (i.e., no more than 1-2 times a year) and many of its missions will likely be government customers who won't mind paying a slight premium.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: notsorandom on 12/12/2016 04:26 pm
Speculating about Blue is like reading tea leaves. That said I wouldn't be surprised if the three stage rocket flies most of the missions. The majority of commercial satellites go beyond LEO. The three stage NG has so much performance that it could launch with two or more commercial communications satellites and place them all in their own GTO or GEO orbits even if there were a significant differences between their respective orbits. The extra lift capability makes comanifesting a lot less of a pain.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/12/2016 06:30 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Patchouli on 12/13/2016 02:01 am
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.

The fact NG's design is not pushing the structure as hard may allow it to achieve a higher flight rate if they can find enough payloads for a rocket that size.

As for remarks that Blue should drop the BE-3 Spacex has to run Falcon 9 at some pretty close margins on GTO missions partly because of the lower ISP of the second stage.
I wonder if Spacex should have added a third stage for GTO missions vs messing around with sub cooled lox.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Pipcard on 12/14/2016 01:03 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Patchouli on 12/14/2016 02:53 am

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.

New Glenn is much lower risk than ITS as it's still within the limits of what's known engineering wise and Blue has more secure funding.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: watermod on 03/24/2017 09:10 pm
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.

 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/24/2017 11:27 pm
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".

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 04/03/2017 05:04 pm
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.

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.





Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/03/2017 05:34 pm
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.

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.
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. 

Quote from: Brett Alexander
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/03/2017 06:13 pm
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 04/03/2017 06:37 pm
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.

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.
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. 

Quote from: Brett Alexander
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.

They said that, I know, but have said very little about that HSF market.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 04/03/2017 06:50 pm
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

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.
You 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kansan52 on 04/03/2017 07:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/03/2017 07:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/03/2017 07:46 pm
They said that, I know, but have said very little about that HSF market.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 04/03/2017 07:48 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Flying Beaver on 04/03/2017 07:58 pm
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.

Well everybody else out there seems to be making there costumers somewhat "wait weary" now as well... Just look at all those NET's on schedules out there.

SpaceX are only now beginning to flex there rocket launching muscles, with these back to back 14 day turnarounds.

At this rate by the end of the year they'll hold the majority of orbital launches for 2017.

That does easily begin to sound like "they hold the market".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/03/2017 08:35 pm
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.

Around the time of the Falcon 1, before they had their first successful flight, Musk was not a billionaire, and only a mere multi-millionaire.  And at the time he was investing in both Tesla development and SpaceX development - so much so that they he had to go out and borrow from friends just to pay bills.

So the plan from Day 1 the goal for SpaceX has been to make money along the way.

Quote
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.

Bezos has the luxury of already having a successful company that can fund his personal pursuits, which means he can focus on development to the exclusion of having to have an intermediate product to fund his goals.  And though it could be argued that living your customers pain is critical to building the right product, Bezos has the funds to correct any issues down the road.

Quote
Don't know which will be better in the long run, but SpaceX is making money.

It's almost like comparing an orca to a lion - a lot of similarities, but otherwise completely different.  And if you're a competitor you should respect both of them...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 04/03/2017 09:12 pm
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.

This.

Blue is perfectly positioned to take advantage of an expanding market, in contrast to most other providers which are trying to cut prices and optimize performance to fit the previous or current stable market.

If the naysayers are right -- sad to even consider, but necessary -- then reuse could be a passing fad and a hundred orbital launches could be considered a very good year globally.  If the market fails to grow significantly, then launch service providers across the board are in trouble because of vast excess capability with respect to today's market.

If Musk's and/or Bezos' visions are closer to reality -- hundreds or a thousand launches per year -- Blue will thrive.

Lots of 'ifs' but that is always the case with the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/03/2017 10:14 pm
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

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.
You 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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: vapour_nudge on 04/03/2017 10:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/04/2017 10:38 am
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.

I sort of agree with this with a few caveat.

There is really only 3 ways to fund rocket development programs right now.

1) sell launch services to commercial companies who are mainly satellite operators

2) sell launches services to government agencies

3) have an extremely rich benefactor

SpaceX are using 1 and 2. BO is currently mainly using option 3. Musk is using basically all the money from methods 1 & 2 to develop ITS so than humanity can become interplanetary. My concern would be because SX is so far ahead that Bezos try's to buy the market by reducing launch costs far below his costs. This is competition you might say isn't that for the good, but the net effect here would be less money for the development of ITS and more money in the pockets of the satelite launchers, not really the outcome I would like to see nor many in this forum I would think.

Normally no operator could conduct business this way because share holders wouldn't see a decent return but because Bezos is so wealthy he could carry on with BO as a loss making entity for many years, I believe SX is to far ahead to be caught by BO but I do believe Bezos has enough finances to potentially wreck the launch services market and make it unprofitable for everyone including BO the net result less money for ITS development.

Bezos suggested aim is to make rockets reusable and enable development of space but somebody else just did it. I suppose there are many possible outcomes in next5-10 years. But I think the 2 most likely are

1) BO never catches up and Bezos after spending prob $5-10 billion turns BO in a rocket engine company or sells it off.

2) BO buys market share as it improves its tech and damages SX ITS development plans, prob satellite launchers do well in this scenario but BO will still have difficulty reaching profitability against flight proven hardware.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/04/2017 10:55 am
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

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.
You 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.

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.

SpaceX should not get complacent. Blue will be a formidable competitor. But if things work out as we fans hope, there is room for both of them, and competition will be great for everyone, it will drive down costs faster. Which is what we fans want. "Millions living and working in space AND on Mars" :)

To me the entire question this thread poses is kind of moot. We don't know which is better, and as long as both prosper, it almost doesn't matter. But I love the discussion anyway!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/04/2017 11:14 am
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.

Amazon has brought down competitors by leveraging its 800 pound gorilla status.  That is formidable in retail, but it doesn't help Bezos at all in the launch business against SpaceX.

And it's important to note that Bezos is not the only shareholder of Amazon.  None of those other shareholders have an interest in Blue Origin.  So things that could be done with Amazon's resources against a competitor to Amazon can't be done to SpaceX.  Bezos has to pull money entirely out of Amazon to funnel it to Blue Origin, which isn't really the same as Amazon going up against a competitor.

I used to work at a communications chip company.  Intel kept trying to compete in communication chips.  They were extremely successful in processors, and they had a huge amount of money.  But after throwing enormous sums after the communications chip market, they eventually admitted defeat and retreated from most of it.  The lesson is that even a company that absolutely dominates its field and has vastly superior resources can't always dominate another market.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/04/2017 12:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 04/04/2017 01:51 pm
...
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.

I think Blue Origins is in an ideal strategic position, and if they chose to get support from investors, they would have an easy time of it.  No one in the world is ahead of them in the pursuit of a second reusable rocket in the race to grab market share of what appears to be an expanding space market -- they lead by as many as ten years in fact.  Ariane is talking 2030 for introduction of its reusable vehicle -- they are in third place.  China is a wild card.

Of course, it could be the 1990s hype all over again as Jim and Ed routinely point out... or it could be more akin to personal computers, internet, or smart phones.  By the time we know for certain, it will be waaaaaay too late.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AdAstraInc on 04/04/2017 05:06 pm
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

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.
You 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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/04/2017 05:11 pm
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.

I am not sure demand for a colony will turn up....i dont see many people moving to antartica and its a lot more hospitable than Mars. But there are many uses ITS could be put to
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 04/04/2017 07:38 pm
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

...
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.

..
You 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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/04/2017 10:15 pm
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

...
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.

..
You 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.

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.

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.

I never called into doubt his ability to finance BO for as long as it he wants to, just the results given he is so far behind SX. Also the effect on the launch market of a win at any cost competitor. It could destroy or delay ITS development and new Armstrong for that matter
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AlexP on 04/04/2017 11:22 pm
They seem to be scheduling for 12 launches a year from the early 2020s. It seems doubtful that they're going to steal all of SpaceX's business through undercutting, or that they're going to wither from a lack of custom due to SpaceX dominance. Bezos says he wants to put in place the infrastructure to allow the next generation of entrepreneurs to have opportunities to grow in space, and he also wants Blue Origin to profitable in the end, whilst significantly expanding the launch market. This is long term, gradual, and hopefully sustainable.

Also worth mentioning that, back in 2012 over in the discussion thread, a hardy SpaceX fan said that by 2015 Musk's net worth would be equal to Bezos'. Back then Bezos' net worth was about $20bn, and it has since grown to about $70bn. But also since then, Musk and SpaceX have been achieving the previously incredible, and well as announcing the most exciting plan for space travel that I've seen in my time on this good Earth. This suggests that even if Musk doesn't achieve the world dominance that some hope, great advances can still happen.

Both logically and idealistically, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think the two will settle into a competitive but mutually beneficial pattern. Pushing the technological boundaries and each other because "it can't be done" is a meaningless term to two ultra-determined space amazing peoples with masses of engineering talent working for them. If they have their way then space will cease to be a zero-sum game, in which case we all win.

I mean really, does anyone remember the Augustine commission and how vaguely depressing the future of space travel looked back then? Nothing was really affordable and the funding outlook was still grimmer, STS was winding down and CxP was a black hole, with the findings suggesting that rejigged Shuttle parts with the objective of a flexible going-various-places-without-really-going-anywhere plan was about the best option (I even forced myself to be excited about this. "We might orbit Mars in my lifetime!"). Now we have new reusable and powerful rocket engines being announced, first stages landing propulsively ON BOATS and getting relaunched, several new orbital spacecraft within years of being launched, and objectives like Mars colonies! Permanent Moon bases! Everything reusable! Maybe it's all too optimistic, but to be honest I'm enjoying being excited about the future again.

My two cents anyway, apologies that it turned out longer and slightly more ranty than intended...!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/06/2017 04:20 am
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

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.
You 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.

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 04/06/2017 04:51 am
Moved from another thread...this place more approriate

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.
You 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.

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

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/06/2017 05:17 am
He has not and won't reveal how much he has spent on BlueOrigin so far.

There were a few offhand questions and answers.
The "business case" is to sell $1B of Amazon stock each year and invest that into BlueOrigin. Cue a joke that this happens to be quite sustainable. The real goal is different. BlueOrigin has to be self sustaining, not a non profit organization. - At some point in time.

Oh, and NG? Call that a $2.5B project.


Other than a few sound glitches the video of the presser is quite good. Not too many triplicate questions either. Quite a few Approach / Business Strategy answers through it. The billion dollar question should be in the last third.
 [Facebook video (https://www.facebook.com/geekwire/videos/1498700776820330)]
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/06/2017 07:58 am
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).

That's pretty clear. 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) ?

I know SpaceX's focus is Mars, but if a significant human spaceflight market emerges (be it 'tourism' or commercial, e.g. Bigelow stations) then I have no doubt they'll move to support it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: IRobot on 04/06/2017 09:53 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: savuporo on 04/06/2017 03:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: WmThomas on 04/06/2017 03:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tuts36 on 04/06/2017 03:41 pm
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.


The moment they start manufacturing & selling their engines, that will change.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AlexP on 04/06/2017 04:41 pm
How are we defining "vanity project", here? Because they haven't sold anything yet? I mean, they could've started taking deposits on seats before there was functioning hardware ready, but I'm not sure you can criticise them for not doing so.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/06/2017 04:53 pm
I'm having some trouble with "Blue isn't Amazon so therefore can't execute second mover/fast follower".. Blue has Amazon DNA. Bezos knows how to do fast follower. The Intel example isn't that relevant, I can trot out myriad examples where IBM tried and failed too. Neither Intel nor IBM is as nimble as Amazon. And the point isn't that AMAZON does this, it's that Blue does. Blue has Amazon DNA. Repeat that.

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.

With 99% + of all the resources and economic potential of this solar system off earth, there's plenty of pie for everyone. It's not like grocery delivery.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 04/06/2017 05:02 pm
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.

Both Bezos and Musk want to expand humanity beyond Earth. Sure their companies will compete, but they're not out to dominate the market and crush their opposition. This is more about social responsibility by creating opportunities in space than making money.

Assuming Bezos and Musk succeed, then a generation from now when they are no longer running their companies, the battle for the space economic dominance will begin.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 04/06/2017 05:56 pm
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.
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.

What is it with this first mover second mover silliness? This isn't a phone or a laptop, it's a rocket. Do people really think that if Blue provides a price competitive launch service that customers won't use it? Customers actively support multiple launch services already. SES and Orbicom didn't use SpaceX in the early days because they love Elon. They did it because it's in their best interest to have options in case a provider has a prolonged stand down, goes out of business and also they want competition. It will be in their best interest to include Blue in the mix.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: kendalla59 on 04/06/2017 07:47 pm
In my opinion, the interesting competition here is rocket design philosophy. Both SpaceX and Blue are developing powerful MethaLOX engines. There is a very compelling technical argument that methane is superior to hydrogen when it comes to reusable and durable engines. The design philosophy, though, is very different. The SpaceX Raptor will have chamber pressures higher than any rocket in history, using multi-stage turbine pumps and super-cooled cryogenics. This pushes the envelop like never before, there are many unknowns, and it is requiring development of numerical techniques for simulation that are as revolutionary as the rocket technology. Meanwhile, Blue is developing an engine that has half the chamber pressure, has a simpler pre-burner and turbopump design, and uses decades-old cryogenic technology. It's an interesting thought experiment: which rocket do you want to sit on top of, waiting for launch? I'm a huge SpaceX fan so I like the awesomeness of Raptor. But it makes for a very interesting discussion.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Arb on 04/06/2017 08:00 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: IRobot on 04/06/2017 08:19 pm

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.

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.

Still, I am curious to know if this would be a scheme different than just giving away "free" launches...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/06/2017 08:45 pm
Hiring away key personnel is sometimes an effective method used in Silicon Valley.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/06/2017 10:38 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/06/2017 11:47 pm
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.

Both of them could.
I don't really get that vibe from either of em. The sandbox is certainly big enough.

One of my favorite reveals is Jeff as an silent investor in SpaceX. Just for the amount of speechlessness that would cause.


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/07/2017 12:06 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: savuporo on 04/07/2017 02:13 am
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.

And none of those were operational vehicles in commercial service.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/07/2017 02:28 pm
Entirely possible that I got it wrong.

Now that Blue is much more open it's time to do a documentary on their first years. Something to show during the 20 year anniversary party. September 2020 is not that far off but far enough to put such a project together.


Good point about operational vs. development.
With ongoing development how and when things fail is becoming more important and complex. The customer won't care too much as long as their payload arrives in the right place, in working condition, not exceeding environmental limits on the way. Loosing reusable stages before they are written off is "just" a financial problem.
I still hope that Blue is a bit more obvious about tests that carry customer payloads than others seemed to be. Jeff has the money, why not sell that risk to the customer. Something like this should shift expectations nicely: "Announcing a development launch opportunity on our x vehicle in the y quarter of 202z. Not guaranteed to arrive in any orbit. As cheap as you dare. Reverse auction, no minimum."
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 04/10/2017 11:03 pm
It's gradatim ferocitor on one side, and "Dude, hold my beer," on the other.

I don't know that either is better in the long term, but from my armchair space enthusiast's seat SpaceX is more entertaining.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/11/2017 12:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DanielW on 04/11/2017 12:39 pm
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.

It isn't on Blue Origin's public schedule, but it wasn't on SpaceX's either until the past few weeks. Also 2018 is aspirational like all Musk timelines.

That being said. Bezos likes to say that you get really good at what you practice. He advocates launching at a high of a cadence as possible to build up that base of expertise. However, SpaceX is the one doing all the launching and pushing for higher cadence on actual flights. I think the fact that they are working on real paying flights as they develop their tech will serve them well in the long run, even if fraught with risk now.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/11/2017 01:18 pm
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.

We know for a fact that Blue Origin intends for New Glenn to eventually have reusable upper stages. How they intend to accomplish that, and what the timeline may be, is unknown but it is on their schedule. If SpaceX is able to rapidly implement second stage reusability as planned, I would expect Blue Origin would accelerate their timeline. That said, in many ways, operational second stage reusability is a more difficult problem than first stage reusability and, even though I am rooting for SpaceX to succeed, I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX's timeline gets pushed back by a couple of years.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 04/12/2017 05:26 pm
I think it's important to note that I don't think either company would be as successful if the places were reversed. SpaceX doesn't have the resources to follow Blue's path, and without someone in front pushing the envelope I think Blue's ferocitor would be a lot more gradatim.

At least for the moment, I see a lot of synergy between the two approaches and that means everyone wins.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/12/2017 07:03 pm
Here's Jeff Bezos latest (2016) annual letter to Amazon shareholders:

https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/z6o9g6sysxur57t (https://www.amazon.com/p/feature/z6o9g6sysxur57t)

I'm posting here as it's really about his approach to business and staying ahead of the game. May give some insights to future developments at Blue Origin?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: savuporo on 04/13/2017 02:19 am
.. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable saying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
Quick check
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/13/2017 04:22 am
"Building orbital class rockets, landing them, then reusing them" isn't mere "saying." Bezos is just "saying" things about New Glenn by the same measure...

But anyway I disagree with the quote. It's not Bezos catching up with Musk, it's Musk catching up with Bezos and now far exceeding him. Although Blue Origin will be absolutely fine, as they have almost the richest person in the world bankrolling them.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AlexP on 04/13/2017 12:58 pm
SpaceX is now providing the dual benefit of advancing through its own activities in addition to dragging Blue along with it. I think ideally, Blue would have liked to start their orbital operation with the smaller BE-3 powered booster, but Falcon 9 growing increasingly dominant forced them to skip straight ahead to the Falcon Heavy class.

I'd love to know whether ITS had a similar effect on the New Armstrong plans!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 04/13/2017 01:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 04/13/2017 02:58 pm
.. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable saying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
Quick check

More than 91 metric tons of working hardware in orbit. Actual reused orbital booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/13/2017 03:07 pm
SpaceX's biggest risk is the ITS.

I agree that as presented in September ITS is a huge step to take with no clear market for any flights. However, I think Elon is very aware of that. My guess is that's why Elon said after the SES-10 launch that the updated ITS plan makes much more sense economically. So we'll have to wait a few weeks to see it and then re-assess.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Proponent on 04/13/2017 03:12 pm
Forbes puts Bezos' net worth a little over $75 billion (https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/).  I have more confidence in his ability to finance BO's space efforts than in NASA's ability to finance its own program.

EDIT:  "about over" -> "a little over"
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/13/2017 03:41 pm
SpaceX doesn't need to wait for someone else to develop a hab. It has about 2000 cubic meters of internal volume, so even with 20 individuals (pretty dang high for initial missions, probably closer to 10), you're still talking over 100m^3 per person, which is more voluminous than the already spacious ISS and far greater volume than NASA is considering for a Mars hab.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 04/13/2017 04:55 pm
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 ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AlexP on 04/13/2017 05:03 pm
I think just as important as Bezos' wealth is that they look to be doing things sensibly and with a keen eye on scalability. A billionaire can get you big hardware straightforwardly enough, look at Stratolaunch for example, but they don't guarantee you the infrastructure needed to push out into space. But by the looks of Clayton Mowry's recent presentation, the investment into the engine development and test facilities has been vast and that as much as anything makes you all the more hopeful that they'll succeed long-term. If the BE-4 tests go as well as we all hope, that'll be a huge validation of their method so far and a statement that they aren't just here for joyrides up and down (as fun and exciting as those are).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: notsorandom on 04/13/2017 05:15 pm
.. Musk is moving the boundaries of what is achievable saying things faster than Bezos is catching up...
Quick check

More than 91 metric tons of working hardware in orbit. Actual reused orbital booster.
For a second there I though you were talking about what just one Space Shuttle launch could do.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 04/13/2017 05:30 pm
It's zero for Blue. And ~23 for single shuttle mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 04/13/2017 05:44 pm
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 ;)

BO has a single focus, is agile, can dispense overhead when not needed, can use whatever they deem the most efficient supply chain, and use all of NASA's R&D efforts as well. Whatever they want to achieve, they can do it much more efficiently than NASA.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/14/2017 07:35 am
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:

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/14/2017 08:58 am
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:

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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/14/2017 09:14 am
Nice graphic. Diameter is a bit harder to visualize than height.
I found that for the Saturn V comparison interesting. 10m vs 7m, NG has roughly half the volume.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/14/2017 11:01 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/14/2017 05:17 pm
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.

Okay, but Bezos in his all-too-rare talks says that he's just putting in place the fundamental infrastructure to let others attempt things in space. Just as he himself didn't build the postal service, courier companies or telecom infrastructure that allowed Amazon to get off the ground, likewise he expects his fundamental transportation infrastructure to enable others to build those smelting factories and fabs in space. 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. That reasoning may have stemmed from past bitter experience with the capriciousness of politicians controlling purse strings, but but the underlying need for adapting your path to unforeseen circumstances, problems, and opportunities as they arise still applies, even for the private sector (especially for the private sector).

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 04/14/2017 05:53 pm

Musk wants people living on Mars - Bezos wants people working there (or in space, generally).
Is this a chicken-and-egg distinction?


This is a huge deal - the viability of the element that's at the top of the ecosystem.  The whole food-chain collapses if nothing is feeding it from the top.  (Or bottom rather, depending how you use the metaphor)

Bezos is banking on the hope that there's enough dough in the cis-lunar system for supporting the transportation expenses.  zero-g manufacturing, tourism.   The enterprise is Earth-centric.  It has to export goods to earth, or provide entertainment to terrestrials, at a profit.

Musk is banking on the ability to grow a Mars-centric economy and civilization.  It doesn't need to export or cater to Earthlings, it just has to grow in value as its own entity (Like Earth did)

Those are absolutely different goals.

The irony is that right now, SpaceX is sitting pretty with respect to intermediate goals (CommX, round-the-moon flights) that are the most realistic manifestations of Bezos's vision.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/14/2017 05:55 pm
His goal is to reduce the access barrier, and allow others with more specific application goals to attempt them.

Bezos and Musk have identified the same "barrier to entry" for expanding humanity out into space, which is that the cost to access space has to drop dramatically.  And they have both proposed the same solution, which is low cost transportation services.

Where they differ is in what comes AFTER the cost to space is lowered enough so that humans will start to expand out into space.

Quote
Musk wants people living on Mars - Bezos wants people working there (or in space, generally).
Is this a chicken-and-egg distinction?

Yes, because people won't be commuting to space to work, they will be living there.  So the goal of having people living in space is the same, and if you're living there you're obviously working there to (in the physical sense).

Quote
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?

By announcing his goal of colonizing Mars, Musk is already getting people around the world to start preparing for leaving Earth.  No one can start doing that yet for Bezos, because there isn't an announced destination/location goal that allows people to decide if they want to go.

I support the general effort of Bezos, but Musk has momentum, whereas Bezos does not yet.

Quote
When the Augustine Commission specifically emphasized "Flexible Path", it seemed to be for a reason.

The Augustine Commission was talking about government efforts in space, and how to spend U.S. Taxpayer money more wisely.  It's not related at all to what the private sector is doing.

Quote
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?

Competition is good.  We should never forget that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 04/14/2017 05:58 pm
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.

Note, these are assumptions that haven't exactly been proven in practice yet. I personally think there are inefficiencies of scale that people aren't properly accounting for. But time will tell.

~Jon
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/15/2017 08:56 pm
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.

  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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/15/2017 09:23 pm
I am not sure all competition is good.

Depends if you are the disrupted, or the disruptor.

The obverse of your statement though we be that not all monopolies are bad, and I would agree with that.  Not all, but certainly many are not good for their customers.

Quote
What about US steel makers facing dumping from China.

Let's stick with services, and not products, and specifically transportation services.

Quote
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.

I don't think you are using "dumping" in the right way.  In economics, "dumping" is a kind of predatory pricing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)), and Bezos has only sold two launches for New Glenn, and if anything all he has been doing is investing in his own business.

Quote
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.

With their Mars effort, SpaceX is taking the profits from one marketplace and using to go after another marketplace.  That is their decision to do that, to not use their proceeds to protect their success in the commercial launch marketplace.  Maybe that will work out, and maybe it won't.  That's what CEO's get paid to do - make important decisions about their company.

But what Elon Musk decides about Mars has nothing to do with what Jeff Bezos is doing with New Glenn - i.e. it's not Jeff Bezos fault that Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars.

Quote
SX will fight back but the profitability in the industry will be reduced significantly possibly.

There is no law that says life must be fair.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AlexP on 04/15/2017 09:27 pm
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.

  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.
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.

Besides, isn't it generally thought that it's not the usual competed launch contracts that are going to be earning SpaceX the Mars money, but rather their own satellite constellation? Which you'd have to agree they're unlikely to subcontract out to Blue Origin. And to be quite honest, I'd be slightly concerned if the only company that were putting significant effort into reuse were also the ones putting everything into colonising Mars at considerable technological and financial risk. Elon wants an Earth backup, I'm glad there's a reusable booster backup too.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Eric Hedman on 04/15/2017 09:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/16/2017 12:42 pm
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.

Yes I expect customer profitability goes up, but at the probable cost of ITS development expenditure. Which personally is not something I would like to see. Bezos as is said above has won a couple of customers, I would be prepared to bet with predatory pricing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 04/16/2017 05:25 pm
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."

While I think there are huge possible synergies between the two approaches, I really find it hard to to look at Blue's New Glenn as competing with SpaceX at the moment. New Glenn is definitely a stronger design than Falcon 9, and has advantages over Falcon Heavy, but I can't get over the fact that the BE-4 hasn't had its first fire yet. Falcon 9 is flying, Falcon Heavy is set to fly this year and we've already seen the hardware. Once both companies are flying roughly comparable hardware, then they can be said to be competing.

When it flies, New Glenn is going to be entering the 2020 launch market and I don't think it's going to be able to leverage its advantages enough to transform the market. A better Falcon 9, or even a better Falcon Heavy is going to be able to compete but I think it's going to be stuck within existing market confines.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 04/17/2017 05:30 am
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.

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. 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.

Any reusable upper stage will be have similar limitations as the ITS spacecraft. A fully reusable NG or NA will not be that different - with the exception of scale.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 04/17/2017 06:46 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MattMason on 04/17/2017 07:42 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/17/2017 08:33 am
Remember that the Saturn V would've been the largest non-nuclear explosion on a Bad Day...and New Glenn is a bit bigger

New Glenn at 7 m diameter is smaller than Saturn V at 10 m diameter.

The lesson from the past is "Don't give up the ship." Beal Aerospace thought that NASA's Space Launch Initiative would eat his lunch. He couldn't have been more wrong. Who knows what the future will bring. Having Blue in the mix gives a greater chance that prices per kg into orbit will go down.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/17/2017 08:50 am
Quote
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

https://qz.com/956607/jeff-bezos-the-worlds-second-wealthiest-human-isnt-spending-billions-on-his-space-venture-blue-origin/ (https://qz.com/956607/jeff-bezos-the-worlds-second-wealthiest-human-isnt-spending-billions-on-his-space-venture-blue-origin/)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/17/2017 08:56 am
[...]
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.
[...]

NG is -roughly- half the volume of Saturn 5. Just going by diameter, ignoring details like height.


As discussed above most of the Blue Origin employees are not exactly new in the business. With their reputation of being slow and methodical and all that influence from across the competition ...industry I wonder how much procedure and technology Blue has (re)created in the past years.


There are a lot of concepts floating around, both ancient and current. Papers galore everywhere, prototypes that got canned seemingly in the last second before full scale or flight testing in the past decades. What if someone with a bit of patience set out to work the more interesting and relevant ones up to a prototype stage.

After all building and launching rockets is more than just sticking tanks and engines together. There is a huge list of other more and less obvious things that have to work as well.


Which in turn ties back into the patent discussion. SpaceX is not the only player in the field. Are there existing patents that you want or have to to work around. Are there technologies that may get patented in the future and where having some prior art helps. Not everything is as obvious as it seems, even with the (defeated) landing patent most people are now thinking that landing NG on a moving ship is such a daft idea. I think it is great if they do that. That is using the patent thing for real,not just using it as a blocker for others.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MP99 on 04/17/2017 10:29 am


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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 04/17/2017 01:19 pm
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.

New Glenn is only twice as big as Delta IV Heavy, at most 50% bigger than Falcon Heavy, and substantially smaller than Saturn V and the Shuttle stack, by gross liftoff mass.

Also, everyone involved (BO, USAF, FAA) has certainly thought about the certifications required to fly New Glenn, since they are basically the same as needed to fly Falcon Heavy and Vulcan.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 04/17/2017 01:29 pm
New Glenn may be able to cost less to operate than Falcon Heavy.  Only one booster to refurbish and only 7 engines vs. 27.  Yes FH is smaller, but even with automobiles.  A small car with a small engine still takes as much time to work on a similar problem as a big car.   NG will also have a larger payload volume.   Once it gets operational, SpaceX might have to reconsider a mini-BFR launcher to replace FH.  Also, Musk said the three core heavy version was "hard". 

Also, NG is oversized for the payload capability.  This could be because it is being made more robust for even less refurbishment costs. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/17/2017 02:15 pm
They still have all kinds of engineering reserves in the released NG payload numbers. We'll have to wait end see where the real numbers come out.

The different fairings sizes could be a huge deal, if someone decides to build so large.
Going with the same ratios as on Atlas V or F9 gives NG a 10m fairing. So designing their Blue Moon landers for launch on NG or SLS is more than just a word game.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/17/2017 02:25 pm
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.
Quote from: Lars-J
"To make a Mars colony possible." Yes. But for any applications in LEO?

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.
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.
I'm sure no doubts it will be versatile.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 04/17/2017 02:57 pm
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.
Quote from: Lars-J
"To make a Mars colony possible." Yes. But for any applications in LEO?

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.
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.
I'm sure no doubts it will be versatile.

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.

Getting more payloads to rideshare could be easier in a lot of ways. Ariane payloads are essentially a matched set, and if one is late they can't launch profitably. With larger mass and volume margins there's a lot more flexibility in who can ride where. And each passenger is a much smaller part of the launch revenue, so it's not completely impractical to launch anyway even if one misses the boat. The problem is really making everything cheap enough that there are that many payloads.

ITS targets $10/lb to LEO. F9 is already close to $1000/lb. NG is goiing to have to beat $1000/lb and NA, if a ITS competitor, will have to be much, much cheaper.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/17/2017 06:29 pm
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.
Quote from: Lars-J
"To make a Mars colony possible." Yes. But for any applications in LEO?

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.
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.
I'm sure no doubts it will be versatile.

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.

So if they get within a factor of 10 of that goal per launch and the useful payload is just right 10% of the total, then you're still looking at $400/lb.

ITS tanker has a goal of a per-launch cost less than Rocketlab's Electron. If they magically achieve that, then it doesn't even matter if the rocket is carrying 99% ballast, it'll still make sense.

If you're going to argue about ITS nomaking sense economically, then at least use the figures we know about it.
 Not pickup truck analogies that are irrelevant.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/18/2017 05:44 am
The ITS could destroy Bezos orbital tourism effort in one blow. If ITS can take 100 people to Mars surely it can be fitted to take 200-300 round the earth 3/4 times before relanding. Tickets could be sold for $30,000 each. That's $60-$90 mill a flight. That's not to mention possible cruises around moon, or lunar landings for tourists, lets say at $150,000 for 100 people. I think at first these sort of businesses are likely to draw much more cash to SX than colonising Mars.

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 04/18/2017 11:07 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/18/2017 06:37 pm
Unlike Mars those two places don't have the potential to ever become completely independent.

Leaving aside the whole Mars terraforming thing, which would require millennia, the Moon probably has same or better prospects of achieving independence as Mars - because the Moon is more easily reachable and thus more colonizable. The Moon's closeness to Earth is like an insurance policy that would entice more people - if anything went wrong, if serious illness resulted, Norovirus/etc, it's easier to rotate people back to Earth. If the lunar colony faced serious peril, colonists could be evacuated back to Earth more readily.

Musk has said that a prerequisite for going to Mars is being ready to die - perhaps Bezos' slogan for colonizing the Moon would be that you don't have to be quite as ready to die, given the Moon's greater safety margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 04/18/2017 10:02 pm
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."

Remind me how the colony on Mars makes money to survive long enough to achieve self-sustainability? (including producing all that technology required to stay alive and expand the base). Because that's the part I'm having trouble visualizing. Colonies that don't make money, fail. Check all of history.

Providing transportation to microgravity factories in LEO seems to be the only source of income that might eventually be capable of generating enough income to sustain a colony on Mars, if that company wants to continue to use all of their profits to that end.

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.

If there are people willing to live on a planet that is more dangerous than any place on earth, just for the sake of independence, there should be people who want to do so on Earth. Where are the completely self sufficient villages on Earth? (completely as in: not freeloading or otherwise tapping into the goods and services produced by the rest of the economy). Where are the ships floating on international waters, providing everything for themselves? That would be vastly easier than setting up shop on Mars. Where are the islands that have been bought up by these groups to set up shop on dry, independent land? Because that would be much cheaper than hauling everything to Mars.

So to get back on topic: while I think Bezos has the most achievable end goal, his latest 'going suborbital allows us to launch much more, much cheaper and learn faster' launch has been over six months ago again. That's longer than what SpaceX needs to recover from their rockets blowing up. Not showing signs of catching up. On the contrary, SpaceX caught up with them if you ignore the orbital vs suborbital part. Furthermore, SpaceX seems to be quite adept at providing new services that are not quite as useful for Mars, as long as they expect to make a profit from it. So eventually, they will cater to whatever industry in space. As it looks now, SpaceX will go further along the path towards 'millions working in space'. So even if their permanent settlement of Mars plans don't work out, the bubble of human activity will have grown, in a sustainable way. No renewed mission accomplished - btdt budget cut when humans land on Mars will change that. That is the approach/business strategy that I think is best.

As before, I'll review my opinion when new hardware starts flying, be it suborbital, orbital, heavy, or tantalizingly insane.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/18/2017 11:22 pm
Musk has said he doesn't want to allow outsiders to own much stock in the beginning period, because he doesn't trust the instincts of the business community and their short-term profit-oriented thinking. So obviously he wants to take greater risks and push farther out from conventional revenue streams than ordinary investors might accept.

Likewise Bezos is spending billions of his own money - notice he's not going to the external capital markets for funds - even while his whole "Gradatim Ferociter" approach is relatively more risk-averse.
What's Bezos' excuse for not taking Blue Origin public sooner rather than later?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/19/2017 12:14 am
Blue Origin is Bezos' sandbox.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/19/2017 01:04 am
That's an expensive sandbox with some very tall goals. I think Bezos intends to use Blue to carve a path to space, and not just make some temporary tracks in the sand.

Why not defray the risk onto others, as well as the high capital costs by bringing in outside investment?
Is it again due to concerns similar to those Musk has voiced, about the short-term profit-focus of traditional investors? Is there a dearth of sufficiently visionary investors?

Notice how for Hyperloop, Musk has immediately brought in outside teams of innovators from the start, using X-Prize style competitions. Since Musk has no formal Hyperloop business to focus efforts, he's willing to cultivate a broader community to solicit their free labor and help give the idea legs. Meanwhile, Musk and Bezos keep their space efforts under tighter reins, as commercial enterprises. Maybe both men don't like having to report to others when it comes to the personal vision thing.

And yet is it really absolutely true that traditional investors and their priorities would only constrain the development of space enterprises like SpaceX or Blue Origin? What's wrong with profitability? Doesn't it help to drive progress?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/19/2017 01:23 am
Why? Because a billion in strings-free capital a year is more than enough when added to non-diluting income from launch and engine customers. If he sought outside investment, he'd be diluting his control. Dumb. No reason to do that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/19/2017 01:42 am
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?

What about when Bezos wants to develop New Armstrong? That could cost a hefty chunk of cash.
Or what if he wants to deepen his Blue Moon lunar delivery service by establishing a Moon base?

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/19/2017 01:51 am
Bezos is worth over $70 billion. It's completely unnecessary to seek outside capital, even to develop New Armstrong.

Bezos seems to prefer building business through seeking customers for suborbital flights, orbital flights, and engines. I'm sure that will continue. No dilution required, ever.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 04/19/2017 02:31 am
...
What's Bezos' excuse for not taking Blue Origin public sooner rather than later?
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/19/2017 06:55 pm
Via reddit stock options are not part of the payment at Blue. [source (https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/6600yl/blue_origin_employment_working_environment_and/dgepo3s/)]

As discussed at length Jeff has enough money to fund Blue out of pocket for a long time to come. It's not like he is burning the money in a bonfire either, is see it more as redirecting the growth of this wealth into another company.
Other than Blue and some usual stuff he also puts some small part of his money into projects that are interesting but cash starved like the 10000 year clock and occasionally into other investments are way out there. Sticking some money into an idea that maybe, theoretically, in better world, could work and be a game changer like General Fusion. It's interesting to to hear some of the long Wendelstein 7X interviews, when they are talking about the commercial and oddball projects and why they are not that relevant. Boils down to that at the end of the day there only one important number in fusion, the product of temperature, density and confinement time. [See Lawson criterion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion)] Get that number high enough by any means and the fusion energy problem should be solved. For Lockheed Martin and their compact system that number was so low they were not able to fill vacancies when they they presented it at a conferere.


Elon on the other hand has multiple ventures filled with all kinds of investors. Stock options are the carrot of choice to sweeten wages and long working hours. We can see some tension with the investors and through their complaints about what looks to be increasingly complicated constructions to keep him in control.
Fueling projects with other peoples money is not without drawbacks. Not exactly a new insight.

One of the bigger complaints was Ponzi scheme. Make customers prepay at contract signage, and not just a little bit. Always sell the future and don't ever forget to regularly add something even more far out.
Have the accusations been substantiated? No. Has SpaceX collapsed yet? No. Does it even matter? Not really. Still we see more wavering across the companies. Solar City, the fix that got put in and the waves that were caused by said fix being a prominent example.



So there are much more differences between the two than Moon vs. Mars.
What is hard to tell from the outside but seems quite funny is this: The Jeff at Amazon has the reputation to be thrifty, esp. in some of the stories from the early days. Building office furniture out of shipping crates and so on and so forth. The Jeff at Blue seems to be much more generous. Much less complaints about work conditions too, apparently no revolving door for engineers either.

Painting with a very broad brush Elons companies seem to be closer to the Amazon system. Spend less, work smarter, squeeze all work out of everyone. I wonder how a company founded by him in a decade will look.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/19/2017 07:21 pm
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?

Once Blue Origin is profitable, why should Bezos take it public?

The reason you give up ownership of a company you are building is so that you can have access to capital, but Bezos will have not only his own wealth that he can contribute (i.e. owner equity), but future profits.  Why go public?

Quote
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.

Let's not forget that Elon Musk ran out of money in 2008 trying to keep both SpaceX and Tesla afloat (he had to ask personal friends for short-term loans), so early on while SpaceX was still figuring out how to build and launch rockets he had to rely on outside investors.  By the time of the Tesla IPO in 2010 (when Musk became a billionaire), SpaceX had successfully launched the first Falcon 9, and SpaceX was making money on profit from the NASA COTS program and taking in customer deposits for future launch services.

Elon Musk could not have built SpaceX without outside investors.  Jeff Bezos doesn't have that problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ludus on 04/20/2017 03:32 pm
So far, I'd say SpaceX, because they have more of the discipline of engaging with real customers. One of the major lessons in Silicon Valley startup culture is that there are risks to investing too much in ideas that aren't grounded in real sales. Because Bezos has plenty of capital, Blue Origin is free to do almost anything which may be a disadvantage.

SpaceX initial F1 ran into the classic startup issue that lots of people said they'd want launch services from a small rocket like that when asked, but when it came time to actually place orders and put up money not so much. The concept of a Minimum Viable Product is a response to that. Trying to get real orders ASAP to get early reality checks before investing too much in a product that won't really sell. Getting real customer feedback to influence development.

Amazon is extremely grounded in real markets. Everything it does has that empirical data driven quality. With Blue Origin though, Bezos is treating it differently.

It's not clear how much of a real market even exists for suborbital space tourism. It doesn't matter much to Virgin Galactic because it's more of a promotional vehicle for Virgin brands than a stand alone business. Similarly Bezos doesn't really care how much money can ultimately be made by New Shepard, it's just a convenient arbitrary goal for building rockets. Neither approach is as grounded as SpaceX's.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 04/21/2017 01:40 pm
I'd say everything of SpaceX's is grounded up to Falcon Heavy. Gwynne Shotwell, who is the more grounded face of the company, has spoken in very sober conventional terms about the market advantages of everything up to FH. But is ITS as well-grounded as the rest of SpaceX's family of rockets? 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".

Unless SpaceX is able to convince NASA to underwrite ITS missions, then it would seem SpaceX is headed towards shakier ground - especially when you see Blue moving to close the gap by readying New Glenn to take on Falcon in a few years. Once New Glenn is up and running, SpaceX may have its hands full fending off the competition, so that ITS goes on the back-burner.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 04/21/2017 05:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Eerie on 04/21/2017 08:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 04/21/2017 08:42 pm
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.

You managed to miss my point, which has nothing to do with what is more state of the art.

SpaceX has an existing orbital launch system. Blue Origin does not. It is about comparing the leap from each of their own organization point of view. Blue Origin so far only has New Shepard. SpaceX has accomplished more.

But there is no reason to get antsy about such a statement, since past performance is no guarantee of future success.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 04/21/2017 09:33 pm
On the cooperate side switching to orbital, and more importantly to operational is more complex. On the SpaceX side Elon is supplying the pressure, they don't have forever to develop ITS.
There is also pressure on the Blue side. It does not matter too much if NG the is best thing since sliced bread, just that it works and flies orbital. They have to get with the program and do things for real.

Technology wise the problems are squarely with ITS. There is no real question if NG will work, just if Jeffs anti ship missile is more effective than Elons until it does.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/22/2017 12:32 am
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.

It's /orbital/, which means a lot more energy for BOTH stages.

Yeah, I'd say FH to ITS is a smaller step, proportionally.

Remember that FH will ALSO feature a reusable second stage now. And SpaceX has a bunch of reentry experience with Dragon.

The reason you're confused is because you're not really appreciating the scale of capability that SpaceX will have achieved with FH. This is a seriously big and sophisticated rocket. ITS will actually be significantly simpler, though bigger & with slightly more engines (42 vs 27, much smaller than the 7:1 for NG:NS). And a 5.5x thrust ratio is much, much smaller than the 35x ratio for NG:NS.

SpaceX has been making HUNDREDS of very high performance (WRT thrust to weight ratio) engines for a while now. Blue Origin has made a handful of BE-3/4s.

So ITS will use a new engine, will have more thrust, and will use more carbon fiber than the interstate, COPV, legs, and fairing that SpaceX now makes out of composite, but it's largely a scale up of what SpaceX will already be doing operationally with Falcon Heavy. New Glenn is an entire different kind of vehicle from the small New Shepard.

So the step is relatively smaller for SpaceX, unquestionably.

And I think SpaceX will take a relatively gradual approach to ITS. ITS may not start out at full thrust, for instance. A lot of the parts may be tested in subscale first, maybe even pressed into money-making service before full scale is reached. Musk tends to modify his plans to accomplish the end goal if things aren't working with the original plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 04/22/2017 01:06 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/22/2017 01:43 am
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.
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.

Please, we cannot have a discussion when the goal posts keep moving.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 04/22/2017 02:55 pm


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

We are seeing the technology for vital surface systems (0):

Solar electric collection and storage facilities, 100-300MW range (1)
Electric/autonomous vehicles (2)
Autonomous charging facilities (3)
Space-based, all surface (wide band) communications (4)
High speed ground transportation to operate in low atmospheric density environment (5)
ISRU fuel production prototypes/demos (Red Dragon payloads)
Large-scale, cutting edge ECLSS systems as part of the BFS
Additive (versatile) manufacturing
Tunnels...
AI.

If you are seeking an inflatable hab, then maybe that is a piece that will be purchased open market or have as a technical contribution from another company.  One BFS could land about 20 BA-330s.

The SpaceX/Musk business approach: become a general industrial powerhouse; balanced make or buy options for everything needed
The Blue/Bezos business approach: build the rocket and lander, and they will come; no surface facility/capability development

(0) Take a step back and consider the scale of what EM is planning -- he's not taking a minimalist approach, so don't look for small scale surface facilities/infrastructure.  Think BIG...
(1) https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/03/elon-musk-on-batteries-for-australia-installed-in-100-days-or-it-is-free/
(2) https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-is-now-testing-autonomous-vehicles-on-public-california-roads/
(3) http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/06/tesla-unveils-new-charger-that-can-plug-itself-in.html
(4) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/elon-musk-satellites-internet-spacex
(5) https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/spacexs-second-hyperloop-pod-competition-will-focus-on-top-speed/
(6) you get the idea

Note: One giant missing piece is on-orbit refueling; expect leaps forward on that within 1-2 years.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Patchouli on 04/30/2017 05:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Hyperion5 on 05/03/2017 03:06 am
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.

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. 

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/03/2017 03:25 am

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. 
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/03/2017 05:40 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 05/03/2017 05:58 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/03/2017 06:04 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/03/2017 06:24 am
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 may not make sense to us as a potential business, but then again there are plenty of startups that don't make sense before they launch or scale up.  And if we're going to expand humanity out into space, we need rich people to spend their money on many things, including technology development of all kinds.  So you won't see me complaining about him spending his money in aerospace...

Quote
Bezos is smart, making shrewd choices so far.

Agreed.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 05/03/2017 06:37 am
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

Of course. I'm not making a value judgement, he can spend his money the way 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.

By squandering I just mean the return of his investment. He might as well dump his cash in the ocean, it will be just as effective of a launch vehicle carrier. But of course it is his money.... However, should he engage in more hobbies with the same level of return, he will find the truth of the old saying: "the fastest way to get a small fortune in aerospace is to start with a large fortune".

Elon Musk seems to be the only one who has bucked that trend recently. Other big names (Bezos, Allen, Branson) went into it with lots of funding, but have yet to see any return.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/03/2017 12:58 pm
Blue is very very conservative.
We know from recent talks that they only sell what they are certain to deliver. That they still have engineering reserves in just about every aspect of the vehicle.
- Or in other words the polar opposite of Elon.  ;)

It is also the first iteration of NG. Easy to forget that the first F9 was not that much to write home about, neither were the first Merlins.


I joked that it is "just payload" to make a big stage like NG work without boostback, adding strakes, TPS and hover landing.
That is true to a point, but obviously not quite the end goal.
My take is this: Blue came to the conclusion that they need experience with large rockets, and soon.
So they are building one with all kinds of ideas to make it work out of the box, going for reuse from day one. Thanks to ULA now with 25% more thrust. Larger than planned, so what is a bit of payload loss as long as they can hit still the original goal.
They have been expanding staff constantly and are now ramping up production capacity. Small details of that were interesting. The gear to produce domes is already installed in Florida. That part is particularly large and difficult to transport.

If they can repeat New Sheppard and stand their 2nd landing the pressure is back on Elon. Even if it takes longer to make landing work Blue can afford to sink a few stages each year at the stated $1B funding level. With paying customers or without them.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 05/13/2017 12:23 am
New Sheppard is like the old Redstone rocket, only suborbital for humans.   New Sheppard gives no pressure to Musk.  He is already landing orbital rockets.  Until Bezos can launch and land the New Glenn, no real pressure is on Musk.  By then, Musk should have launched and landed Falcon Heavy which is more in the New Glenn range of capacity.  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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/13/2017 07:09 am
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.

Sorry, you've slipped an extra zero in there - it's $400 - $600 million profit per annum in your scenario. That's why SpaceX needs a major additional source of funding (such as the proposed satellite constellation) to finance ITS.

Currently Bezos (and thus Blue) have the advantage over SpaceX in terms of funding but SpaceX are years ahead in experience and proven capability. That's what makes this interesting! (although I think SpaceX have the edge)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/13/2017 08:22 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/13/2017 03:16 pm
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)
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)

(mod)
Maybe try not quibbling? It will make your posts better.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/14/2017 10:09 pm
(fan)
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)
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.  :)

I was responding to the OP's statement about how SX has landed an orbital rocket. That implies from orbit. It is simply wrong. That is not a "quibble," it's an error. Since this is a specialist site it should have a better grasp of the facts.

The thread title makes a good point. There are 2 parallel issues here, the technical approach and the business strategy. 

Blue is designing both a vehicle and an architecture to be easy to reuse, while SX designed a fairly conventional ELV and hoped they could turn it into an RLV. So far that have recovered and reflown the booster stage. In practice it seems like Blue should have the easier task, but SX have made the more visible progress.

Quote from: Lar

(mod)
Maybe try not quibbling? It will make your posts better.
Thank you for that advice. Rest assured I will treat it with every bit of the consideration it deserves.

Edit/Lar:  You better give it serious consideration. I wasn't kidding.  Your snark is noted, and isn't the right approach.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/14/2017 10:30 pm
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

The point is that a first stage of an orbital rocket, even though it is not orbital in and of itself, is very different from a suborbital vehicle like NS.  That's the distinction that matters, and by labeling it "suborbital" you're creating more confusion than clarity.

That's why Grasshopper flights were a bigger deal than NS flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 05/15/2017 09:57 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/15/2017 10:19 am
Huh?
There is no word yet that Blue killed one of the two test cells, let alone the whole test stand. They are talking about the part under test, of which they have more.

If push comes to shove they don't really need ULA as customer. Blue however does need a working engine for their next vehicle, no reason to get complacent.

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.
Certainly more expensive and the added drama doesn't help either but getting the engine choice wrong is no option for ULA.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/15/2017 12:05 pm
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?
At the moment it's looking like it's Blue's race to lose.  :(
Quote from: Chasm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 05/15/2017 01:17 pm
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. 

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. 

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.   
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/15/2017 02:14 pm
AR-1 had a full scale pre burner test and is now at CDR level. (BE-4 had the CDR ~18 months earlier)
Question is of course how long it takes them to develop the rest of the engine.

Blue can not really cut off the the BE-4 from ULA.
We know that ULA has the right of first refusal to buy everything and the kitchensink related to BE-4 in case Blue wants out of the deal.

By all accounts and rumors the BE-4 contract is very comprehensive and everything but the usual rocket engine contract.
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.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: racerx on 05/15/2017 07:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 05/15/2017 09:41 pm
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.

True no one knows the future but what I have written regards SpaceX an BO is also true. I don't think its to much of a stretch to say that BO are going to have a hard time catching up. Remember BO where ahead of SX in early 2000's Musk caught up and left them for dead when his resources where much more limited than now.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/16/2017 12:24 am
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.

Quote from: spacenut
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.
Quote from: spacenut
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.

That "evolutionary pressure" has shaped the industries and the companies in those industries in various ways.

It is what it is and it would take a lot of determined work by the USG to change it.  :(
By all accounts and rumors the BE-4 contract is very comprehensive and everything but the usual rocket engine contract.
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.)
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.   
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.
It's a fair point. 

Blue appears behind but they are so secretive in fact no one really knows if they are. OK senior management inside Blue know but "Those who know do not speak, and those who speak do not know."  :(

Given both Blue and SX don't have a stock price to worry about and have key investors who seem comfortable with a long term view both seem unlikely to be going away anytime soon.

In the broader market I don't think things are so certain but that's a topic for another thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/16/2017 06:06 am
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.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/16/2017 07:52 am
Wow. So even if Bezos get's bored and pulls out of the rocket business tomorrow ULA still get their engine?

If they can cough up the money to buy the assets.
We have that part from a podium discussion where for all practical purposes the AR guy managed to goat the Blue guy. Touted the benefits of the AR-1 hard (as he had to) and did not like the responses too much. That is also where "flightweight engine on the stand, not a prototype" and governmental access to the development process comes from.

Who knows, maybe ULA still has some space for rent in Decatur and they'll decide build the engines there. Shipping service to test stand at the Cape service by ULA.  ;D

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.   

We really don't know if that is price level true and neither Jeff nor Tory are talking.
That said I don't find it too hard to believe that a price got locked down early, esp. if there is a mechanism how pricing gets adjusted over time. (Say on order size per year, cost of materials and labor.)

Blue is not really in the rocket engine sale business per se but they have no reason to leave money on the table either. The way I understand it they get intangibles out of the deal.
Blue develops the engine anyway, because of the partnership/agreement ULA has full insight and a say in the development, because of preexisting contacts USAF happens to have insight and a say (via requirements) through ULA.
Blue does not have to deal with the full brunt of bureaucrazy directly while ULA has the experience and staff to do so. I'm sure that the relationship to NASA is similar, both for their probes but more importantly for HSF since Starliner will switch to Vulcan sooner or later.

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"


Different from the current "no distractions" mindset at SpaceX but limited to a specific part of the business. BE-3 has also the option to fly on other peoples rockets.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/16/2017 09:16 am
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.

Becoming ULA's booster engine supplier is a very good way to begin this process.

It would seem that Blues near term plans are engine sales to ULA and moving to sub orbital flights for paying passengers, then moving toward orbital payload launch.

This seems very sensible as  a)Blue's approach is (by DoD/USAF standards) very different to all existing LV mfg b)DOD/USAF is highly risk averse. c) Different --> very risky.

Blue seems a long way from getting on the on ramp for approved NSS LV status but that looks like the way they are headed. Time will tell if DoD has been overly cautious or Blue is recklessly optimistic in their plans. They seem in no hurry to get to a full LV.

But then again, who knows? We could wake up tomorrow to hear "Internet Entrepreneur Jeff Bezos company Blue Origin has announced......"

Exciting times.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 05/16/2017 09:28 am
BO have not attained orbit, have not Evan built a new Glenn, have never Evan tested a full scale BE 4. They are many years behind. You can argue that BO are a superior operation and will catch SX. However as it stands they are behind could be as much as 5 years. They have to test and optimise their engine, they have to build and test their rocket, then they got to make it reusable. Plenty to be getting on with to get where SpaceX are right now, never mind where they will be in 5 years.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: gospacex on 05/16/2017 10:22 am
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.

This is a VERY extended definition of the word "have". In my Universe, Vulcan does not exist yet and ULA does not belong to Bezos (yet?).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/17/2017 12:58 pm
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.

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?)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Dante80 on 05/17/2017 02:01 pm

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?

If Mueller can make the Merlin for $600k, I'm pretty sure that Bezos can sell profitably the BE-4 for a lot less than what AJR is comfortable to sell the AR-1 to ULA.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 05/17/2017 02:20 pm
Why?
Is there any indication that Bezos is using the SpaceX hardware development model?
In fact, isn't there much contrary evidence?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/18/2017 11:09 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 05/18/2017 11:30 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 05/19/2017 12:27 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2017 01:47 am
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.
Correct.
Quote
I also suspect given Blue's tendency to underpromise and overdeliver...
Wait, wasn't Blue supposed to have tested BE-4 back in 2016?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2017 01:49 am
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?
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2017 01:58 am
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.

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?)
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.)

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 05/19/2017 02:21 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2017 02:39 am
Bezos has the money, the will, some VTVL and liquid rocket experience, a basically-completed engine for the rocket, and is finishing up the rocket factory. It's beyond "notional," at this point. Bezos would have to be hit by a bus for it not to happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 05/19/2017 02:40 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2017 02:42 am
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.
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??
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/19/2017 03:10 am
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.

Um? This is a thread specifically set up to discuss this very question. Whether any particular vehicle is notional or not, or under development or not? Not relevant. Just use your estimate of their likelihood of completing their plans in your overall assessment. Or don't post, just put the thread on ignore (in your mental model.. I have some threads I ignore too, believe it or not)...


This is nothing like D&D. Well, I mean, it does have Dragons, but still.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 05/19/2017 03:49 am
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?
They are sandbagging both numbers, and have clearly stated such. Because GTO requires so much more delta v, it's exponentially sandbagged.

Also, FH is a 2.5 stage rocket, while NG has only 2 stages. Makes a bigger difference to GTO than LEO
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 05/19/2017 04:43 am
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??

Once they get flying, the tortoise will turn into Gamera  ;)


(Actually, Gamera should be the code- name for whatever they build after New Armstrong)  8)

Blue's people have stated that when they achieve targeted specs, they then dial back the performance deliberately, in the interest of furthering reusability. So it sounds like they'll always keep a higher safety margin than SpaceX.

Will that have any effect on their competitiveness? Perhaps it will again come down to who has fewer RUDs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2017 04:44 am
NG is 3 stages.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 05/19/2017 05:39 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/19/2017 06:10 am
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.

Personally I don't think that's what matters, to me what matters is what's the likelihood that it will exist?

In my mind that likelihood is very high, albeit with more uncertainty about how close it gets to its paper specs. Jeff Bezos is clearly very serious about this and has the resources to make it happen. For me the biggest unknown is whether Blue Origin have the people capable of fully achieving the vision. NS shows they know what they're doing. Yes of course they'll have issues and failures. So did SpaceX and so would anyone being this ambitious.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 05/19/2017 07:43 am
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.

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?)
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.)

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.

Well, well. Seems that both sides of the comparison are quickly losing touch with reality. NG starting to fly makes BO the new champion of spaceflight? When FH has been working out the kinks, literally on the fly, for a few years? Not likely at all. It'll all come down to the lowest failure rate and prices, and it'll probably be a hard fought battle. Let's hope so at least, cause that's what brings prices down.

And ITS flying at about the same time as NG? When do you expect NG to fly? Agreed that it will likely be delayed, but SpaceX isn't exactly immune to that either.

It will indeed be interesting to see how those other agencies react. Get their governments to keep their workforce employed by investing in new launcher designs, pressure their governments to not purchase launch services commercially (although governments don't have much of a say in most of the launches).

I'm wondering what will hapen to all the engineers going out of a job. Hopefully, they'll get a job in designing more payloads to send uphill.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2017 01:32 pm
It should be noted that SpaceX is already much larger in employment than ULA, and Blue Origin will likely employ nearly as many people. And both will grow a lot.

Also, what stands in the way of NG eventually flying? SpaceX's problem was technical and financial. No one had done first stage VTVL recovery like that, and running out of money was always possible especially in the F1 days. Well, neither of those things are a problem for Blue Origin.

The fact that something hasnt happened yet doesn't mean we can assume it probably won't happen. Assuming it won't happen is what a lot of SpaceX's competitors thought, and it's really a guaranteed way to be caught flat footed when disruptive innovation occurs.

I'm saying that Blue Origin and SpaceX are going to have the competitive medium and heavy lift markets nearly entirely to themselves within 7 years unless something dramatically changes with the course of their competitors, which I find unlikely right now.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/19/2017 06:14 pm
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.
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 07/20/2017 12:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/20/2017 12:47 pm
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.

Oh great. I wasn't worried enough already that if BO would decide to skip NS for NG, they are likely to drop NG for the next best thing before it flies commercially as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 07/20/2017 03:36 pm
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.

Huh? Why?  nonsense.  NG will likely fly before Spacex version.  Also, what the Spacex version better? 

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.

NG can do all that too
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 07/20/2017 03:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/20/2017 04:11 pm
I think there are two major factors at play regarding the mini-BFS:

1. SpaceX may have determined that they don't have the money, capabilities and/or time to jump straight into a full-sized BFS for Mars, so the mini-BFS is their intermediate pathfinder.

2. SpaceX may be thinking that a mini-BFS can provide significant profits if used for Earth-local launch needs, which would ultimately speed up the development of the full-sized BFS for Mars.

Could be both, but might be just one of those.

Since we don't know the targeted capabilities of a notional mini-BFS, or whether SpaceX plans for it to be just for testing purposes vs offering it for external customer use, it's hard to say if it would compete with the Blue Origin New Glenn. I suspect not, since I think initially the New Glenn will compete with existing launchers, including Falcon 9.

And I don't see a head-to-head competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin (i.e. Musk vs Bezos) since both of them have different goals. Sure there is overlap, but I'm not sure we're seeing direct competition between the two yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/20/2017 05:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: abaddon on 07/20/2017 05:44 pm
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.

That all said, saying that NG is "DOA" or other such nonsense is really silly.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 07/20/2017 06:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 07/20/2017 06:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/20/2017 07:11 pm
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.

Blue has only tested subscale power packs. SpaceX has tested subscale powerpacks and an all-up engine almost a year ago. It's a bit early to say that BE-4 will be qualified first, though it does seem likely.

I think SpaceX can build a much bigger rocket in Hawthorne than you are allowing, at least up to 8 meter diameter and perhaps 10 meters. The 10 meter S-II was built not that far away, and as it happens, launched from a current SpaceX pad.

NG is a lot more competitive with FH than any next-gen rocket, though. And it's way behind FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 07/20/2017 07:30 pm
An ITS-Lite could potentially built at Hawthorne, but you would have to then teleport it to the launch site! There is no convenient way to transport a stage that large from Hawthorne to a waterway. Individual subcomponents such as engines will possibly be built at Hawthorne but its incredibly unlikely entire 7 Metre+ stages will be assembled there.

As for New Armstrong, Blue Origin has yet to give any specifications or timelines for that vehicle. It is probably far off in the future competing with the next-gen version of ITS. For at least the next decade or more, it probably makes far greater sense to fly a smaller reusable vehicle more frequently than flying a larger vehicle less often. I'm expecting SpaceX and Blue Origin to both just fly ITS-Lite and New Glenn at a higher rate: Using cloud computing as a metaphor, scaling out rather than scaling up.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: abaddon on 07/20/2017 08:51 pm
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 :).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 07/21/2017 01:24 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2017 02:39 am
NG and ITSy (that's its name now) are nearly the same rocket. VTVL reuse (both stages eventually). Staged combustion methane oxygen engines. NG may be 40t and ITSy 100t, but still close to the same kind of rocket, and since all payloads are less than that, the distinction between 40 and 100 tons isn't too important yet.

Closer than almost any other two rockets.

They're both reasonable designs and will compete with one another. At this point, I'm confident to say both will be built in some incarnation.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 07/21/2017 02:40 am
ITSy (that's its name now)

:D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ludus on 07/21/2017 02:41 am
Blue has the advantage over SpaceX of not having to pay for R&D out of what it earns since Jeff Bezos business plan is just to sell a billion dollars or so of Amazon stock every year to fund it. Any earnings are a bonus. No competition will interfere with developing NG.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: 2552 on 07/21/2017 03:58 am
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.

Just speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX's plans to reuse F9/FH upper stages after all, likely because of their internet constellation plans, causes Blue Origin to accelerate development of upper stage reuse for New Glenn in order to better compete with F9/FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/21/2017 05:47 am
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.

It can't be moved by road all the way, but it can be transported to the nearby port. Attached is a possible path, part of which was used to move ET-94. If you zoom in with Google, you will see that the path does not go under any bridges.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/21/2017 05:54 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 07/21/2017 06:09 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ictogan on 07/21/2017 06:45 am
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.
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 07/21/2017 12:40 pm
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.

Too many wrong things to point out.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/21/2017 01:20 pm
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.

Rockets don't tend to get as much taller as they do wider, in these sizes, so the exponent should be more like 2.5 to 2.8. However, Raptor has greater thrust density, uses denser subcooled propellant, and is shorter, so a similarly sized Raptor rocket will have greater payload compared to a BE-4 power one.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/21/2017 01:24 pm
<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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/21/2017 08:01 pm
<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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ictogan on 07/21/2017 08:10 pm
<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.
It wasn't as much as a statement of intent as it was something that he had already been doing for years:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/11/06/jeff-bezos-sells-1-million-amazon-shares-pocketing-over-250-million-after-washington-post-splurge/#6e51515e25ae
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morning_call/2015/08/jeff-bezos-just-sold-534-million-worth-of-amazon.html
http://fortune.com/2016/05/06/jeff-bezos-millions-amazon-stock/
http://www.wmfe.org/bezos-sells-nearly-1-billion-of-amazon-stock-to-fund-rocket-company/73094
He had sold about a million Amazon stocks per year for the last few years. Currently a million Amazon stocks are worth very close to $1b.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 07/22/2017 05:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/22/2017 05:19 pm
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.
Nod.

And this may be the problem with having almost limitless resources.  Gradualism....

Musk is focused but shifts rapidly when circumstances dictate. Being resource constrained forces a kind of efficiency, though. And perhaps a mania. Oldspace would deride this but...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 07/23/2017 01:10 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 07/23/2017 09:45 am
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.

There's no reason to guestimate. The cost to develop New Glenn has been estimated by Blue Origin to be $2.5 Billion. For a launch vehicle of its scale and technology base, that's roughly comparable to the cost of Falcon9 1.2 ($1 Billion+).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 07/23/2017 10:30 am
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.

Fair enuf - it's not a guarantee for success, but it's quite likely that New Glenn will make it from development into the marketplace, and once that happens, market competition forces will take over.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 07/23/2017 12:56 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/23/2017 04:50 pm
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.

Yes, agreed.  To a certain extent, although Amazon is part of "FANG" (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google... 4 new companies that together have a LOT of market cap and influence in financials, and collectively up more than 40% so far this year) it's not exactly the same as other dotcoms. Amazon has more physical plant (DCs all over the world) than many dotcoms. And it doesn't in my view, move as fast or pivot as quickly.

SpaceX is better than Blue because it's launching things and growing.
Blue is better than SpaceX because it has more money behind it and once it gets going it will pass.

Those are the main theses here I think. They are both kind of right.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/23/2017 07:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: gospacex on 07/23/2017 07:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/24/2017 05:03 am
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.

The problem with BO is that they have it "too easy"....

Old Space was "ready to do it as soon as someone writes us a check".  And the government did, and OS delivered, but the cost was a mindset that proved disastrous when faced with a new company like SpaceX.

In a way, BO is in a similar place. Unlimited money, no pressure.  I think it affects them in a similar way, which is highly ironic.

SpaceX is still unique in that they never had it easy, and had to balance ground breaking development with the realities of being a real launch provider. I think they are stronger and tougher because of that.

It's also indicative that with NG, BO is aiming to where SpaceX kinda was at the time, but since then SpaceX has revealed it has much larger plans - to which BO basically responded with the NA moniker.

When you ask SpaceX "how come all the delays" they can legitimately say "well we've been doing a BUNCH of things you know.  Commercial launches.  ISS launches. Development of S1 reuse. Work on S2 and fairing reuse. Work on D2 and manned launch.  CommX.  So excuse us for ITS being behind schedule, but we're kinda multi-tasking here".

What can BO say?  What else have they been doing?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 07/25/2017 06:35 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/25/2017 12:39 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/25/2017 09:27 pm
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.

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.
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. 

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/26/2017 12:48 am
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.

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.
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. 

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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/27/2017 06:28 am
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.

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.

A business model is something like:

I intend to launch at a loss of XXX, but make YYY operating the launched payloads.
or
I intend to build expendable rockets at $XXX, and sell launch services at $YYY
or
...

What we have from Bezos for BO is: I plan to spend my money on my hobby, and something cis-lunar industry.

For a while there, with suborbital, there was a business model, but that has clearly been relegated since it's irrelevant when talking about orbital launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/27/2017 01:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/27/2017 01:24 pm
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.
Of course he knows.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 07/31/2017 08:28 pm
Looks like BO may have a better design strategy than SpaceX when it comes to designing future heavy lift vehicles. There is a rumor at http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/07/huntsville_oks_deal_confident.html that BO plans to dev. another deep space engine after BE-4. This engine is likely to be larger than BE-4 and Raptor and will allow BO to keep engine no. on NA booster to maybe the same as NG booster which is around the optimum no. on a booster and will likely use a dedicated US engine for the NA US. SpaceX OTOH are looking at putting a ludicrous no. of smaller engines on their planned ITS system and are trying to use a single engine design throughout the LV system. This is not optimal as you need high thrust engines on the booster to keep engine no. optimal and high ISP engines for the US. 7-9 large engines on a HLV booster are better than 20+ smaller engines as there are fewer parts to go wrong resulting in a lower risk of LOV.

NA may have a high performance Lox/LH2 upper stage which the ITS will lack allowing it to use large lower ISP engines for the booster. This is the optimal stage configuration for a LV unlike what SpaceX are trying to do.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/31/2017 08:39 pm
No one has yet built a large low cost launch vehicle, so I don't know that we can say what's an "optimal" design for such a vehicle.

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.

Also, there are strong arguments to be made that cost and quality can be better at higher production rates.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 07/31/2017 08:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/31/2017 09:04 pm
Single catastrophic engine failure is a lot higher with 42 engines than 7 which brings increased risk of bringing down the LV.

The odds are higher that a single engine will fail, but as the CRS-1 missions showed the Falcon 9 can suffer an engine failure and still complete it's primary mission. I would expect the same capability for the ITS.

Quote
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.

I would not assume that more powerful engines have less catastrophic failure modes. They might even have worse ones that would make it MORE likely for a loss of vehicle situation.

Quote
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.

Blue Origin has different goals for their vehicles than what SpaceX has, which can also affect the design differences. As to funding, SpaceX has a pretty big head start on actual usage of rocket engines, and reuse of engines, so Blue Origin has a lot they have to catch up to.

I admire both, and we have to remember that we are not comparing apples-to-apples. Both founders and companies have different goals for their launch vehicles, even though they appear to be using the same general approach. And we have to hope there is more than one way to solve the challenges they both face...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/31/2017 09:31 pm
DJPLedger: Didn't you try to make this "ludicrous number of engines" critique elsewhere? It might be valid, might not be, but doesn't seem like a business critique, more of a technical one.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/01/2017 01:33 am
The article said " another deep space engine after BE-4"  not booster engine. So more likely US engine which could be BE4U or larger BE3 or even smaller engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 08/01/2017 05:59 pm
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. ...

It's a bit more complicated than that. There are a great range of engine failures, from those that only cause negligible under-performance to those that completely shred the engine and everything around it. SpaceX builds each Merlin into an armored cell in the octaweb, so that even the catastrophic failure of a high pressure component has a very low probability of damaging any other engines (demonstrated on CRS-1).

So the probability of a catastrophic engine failure having any effect on other hardware is the product of the number of engines, the probability of an engine failure, AND the probability of containment failure.

However, the effect of even a catastrophic failure that escapes containment can vary greatly.

In some cases, it could damage only one nearby engine and cause that other engine to under-perform or shutdown. In this case, having many engines is a significant advantage: New Glenn will not be able to survive 2 engines out for most of it's flight, while a 42-engine vehicle could still launch with 3 or 4 engines out.

In very rare cases, the engine failure could cause the loss of enough other engines to cause a full booster shutdown, or eve cause a full booster RUD. This probability is higher with more engines and higher pressure engines, but for very low probabilities of containment failure, the improved performance with a more likely single engine-out makes up for this risk.

Also, having many engines allows redundancy at landing - a relatively minor concern at the moment, but much more so when the booster is worth hundreds of millions and can fly dozens more flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 08/01/2017 08:35 pm
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.

What "book of business"?

Assuming sales margin of F9 launch is 20 millions, and they launch 25 commerial satelites a year, this gives only 500 million/year for fixed costs including R&D.

And if in addition to this they have 5 NASA lauches with 30 million sales margin, this makes 150 millions more, total of 650 million/year.

This is not very much for developing new rockets and world's most advances rocket engines
 
Quote
And its investors are even more deep-pocketed than Bezos.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2017/07/27/jeff-bezos-overtakes-bill-gates-to-become-worlds-richest-man/

Who are more deep-pocketed than Jeff Bezos?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/01/2017 08:42 pm
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.

Quote
Who are more deep-pocketed than Jeff Bezos?

Alphabet, which has more cash on hand than Bezos has in total assets.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/01/2017 08:48 pm
"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.

I mean it strictly in the accounting term of art way.  Replace with "backlog," if you prefer.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 08/01/2017 09:03 pm
Who are more deep-pocketed than Jeff Bezos?

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/01/2017 09:10 pm
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.

Alphabet's investment went for "general corporate purposes," not specifically to the satellite project.  Ref. Gwynne Shotwell.

Regarding claims on Alphabet's cash, those claims certainly must not be very great.  It is accumulating more than $10 billion a year.

Quote
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.

Not a concern.  He has 78% voting control.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: jongoff on 08/02/2017 04:44 am
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.

Progress payments can also get you in trouble though, if your margin isn't very high. A lot of time the payments get ahead of the work you've actually done, and if you're not careful you can end up running out of money to finish the contract. For example, if your margin on a launch is say $10M (more realistic IMO than $20M), and you prespend more than $10M from the progress payments on R&D, that means you later have to come up with replacement money to finish the existing mission that you've pre-spent progress payments for, or find a way to lower your costs enough to pay back the R&D. 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. The good news is I don't think he'll have trouble raising money to make it through the tough times with how much people are in love with him and SpaceX. But progress payments aren't a free-lunch--you still have to deliver on the contract, and that still costs real time and money.

~Jon
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 08/02/2017 11:22 am
...

This is not very much for developing new rockets and world's most advances rocket engines
...

And yet it moves...

'Not very much' is quite subjective -- apparently it depends on how you use it. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/02/2017 07:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/03/2017 12:31 pm
Raising more money doesn't have to be indicative of a mistake. It may just be that they want to expand (i.e. ITSy and constellation) faster than they can with just profit from launches (that is a pretty slow way of expansion in a world with a lot of capital sloshing around).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: launchwatcher on 08/04/2017 08:29 pm
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.
Not a concern.  He has 78% voting control.
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:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/russells-line-in-the-sand-against-snap-could-give-investors-more-control-2017-07-28

One more reason why SpaceX is unlikely to go public any time soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/04/2017 10:06 pm
FWIW: the ONION - Jeff Bezos: My Advice To Anyone Starting A Business Is To Remember That Someday I Will Crush You  (http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/my-advice-anyone-starting-business-remember-someda-56539)
Sometimes humor/parody does play a role here ...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ludus on 08/17/2017 03:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/17/2017 04:20 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/17/2017 04:25 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/17/2017 04:58 pm
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... )
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 08/17/2017 05:08 pm
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... )

According to comments on Glassdoor, they do not appear to have stock grants at Blue, but they do have a 3% 401(k) company match (not horrendous, but not terribly generous).  SpaceX has stock grants, but no 401(k) match.

I would guess that SpaceX would tend to attract those with a higher risk tolerance (young, ambitious people) and that Blue would tend to attract those with a lower risk tolerance (older, established people).  But I don't know the magnitude of those tendencies.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 08/18/2017 09:48 pm
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"?  ;)

The reality that all competition has to recognize is that reusable rockets with minimal cost for refurbishment (at least for a batch of launches) is now the benchmark.  The recent comments by Russian leadership, and the much more public post-Ariane 6, reusable rocket development effort attest to this reality.

The recent 'gradual' -- or pause -- might be a reappraisal* of end goals that would only be 'good enough' for the market that was -- and never again will be.

* A test of this hypothesis would be one or more major programs realigning their development goals, attesting to this reality (e.g., Ariane dropping Ariane 6, instead continuing Ariane 5 and shifting the $5B to a reusable rocket program, or Russia dropping Soyuz 5/Angara for something reusable, or ULA scrapping Vulcan completely or going to something smarter than SMART reuse).

Edit: Added a wiki reference block of text... below.  Shows the hypothesis might have support.

Quote
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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_6
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 08/18/2017 10:50 pm
Quote
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.

AG?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 08/18/2017 10:53 pm
...

Still think your 'gradual' (aka, pause) is an ah-shit moment... but appreciate your well-informed perspective of the field of play.  In all this, BO seems to have the best (second best) hand to play, since they are not battling history, heritage, hubris.  ...but of course, they haven't launched an orbital rocket yet...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 08/18/2017 11:04 pm
Quote
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.

They will encounter great competition in the small/cheap/high-tech spacecraft market, being late to the game and having zero 'pivot' potential.  Recall Boeing saying they wouldn't be flying a small sat constellation until SIX YEARS after getting FCC approval...

New Glenn is signing up small sat constellation vendors already.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 08/19/2017 03:28 am
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/19/2017 06:57 pm
Quote
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.

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...

That was also tried in Silicon Valley. The problem was fighting corporate culture(s). And when Boeing tried to do it, they had and even worse case.

In M&A, there's lots of failures and few successes in tech and aerospace. How we made this work was a hybrid solution - you'd spin out a strong small self sufficient group from Bigco, they'd acquire talent/startups, get a key market win, get a second round,  acquire/win more leveraging the acquisition value, possible go public, then be reacquired by Bigco.

The benefit is that the startups are acculturated to Bigco (otherwise they die - Google's garden of dying unicorns is a good example of this, and it's much worse for aerospace).

Most aerospace firms have no idea what to do with acquisitions of any sort. As we saw with ULA's dealings with XCOR and others (not to mention their own internal problems with corporate culture, being all chiefs fewer indians - they are in dire need of fresh blood).

Quote
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.

The newer players haven't "happened" yet. True, they are looming, but both SX/BO have high turnover rates, and both lack a certain aspect of stability that makes them vulnerable in down turns, one of which is in the offing this fall.

You're right - there are aspects of the SV experience. (I jumped out of avionics/Shuttle/CELV into semiconductors, then software, then systems, then internet, then web startups, then databases, then medical, then managed service, financial services, stint as a venture consultant, stint with supporting senate staffers,  then big data/datascience, and now a matchmaker for aerospace startups/primes/other. Not bad a career for an mathematician that tamed GNC/Kalman filters to allow spacecraft/other landings.) Note that aerospace has been traditionally resistant to SV ideas/mindset.

Musk changed that in an unstable way. (Ironically, SX, BO, ULA, ... others have a acute "smell test" of what they like and don't - very chimerical, like petting a cat that likes it for a while then suddenly doesn't - scratch!) Have a lot of claw marks ...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/23/2017 12:50 am
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".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/23/2017 02:34 am
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".

Which to me means Blue has no aim to be profitable for some years? Or at least building capability is far more important to them at this point. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rebel44 on 08/23/2017 07:22 am
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".

Any info, how many people are they "stealing" from SpaceX and how many from ULA, Boeing etc.?

ULA layoffs likely provided quite a few opportunities for BO to hire experienced people
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/23/2017 01:24 pm
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!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 08/23/2017 04:57 pm
Quote
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.

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.

Big and unlikely If
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 08/24/2017 01:04 pm
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/24/2017 05:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 08/25/2017 02:57 pm
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?   ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/25/2017 03:48 pm
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?   ;)
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/25/2017 03:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yokem55 on 08/25/2017 07:58 pm
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.
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/25/2017 10:31 pm
Yes public hardware interface standards are nearly non-existent. But there are many many custom private interface documents.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 08/26/2017 01:13 am
... --- 8< lots of nested trimming for mme's ADHD addled brain 8< --- ...

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.
...
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.
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...)

The issue isn't vertical integration vs. using commodity parts. The issue is a focus on lowering manufacturing costs and taking a risk on the market being willing to accept the product (PCs in the workplace/fly on reusable hardware.) IBM used commodity parts to get to the market quickly and relatively inexpensively.  SpaceX uses vertical integration for the same reason. Suppliers not meeting SpaceX's price points or requirements is the only reason SpaceX is as vertically integrated as it is.

The "secret sauce" of SpaceX is a desire and focus on lowering prices and a willingness to build a good-enough rocket rather than design a perfect one. (After all, perfect rockets have hydrolox upper stages, as few engines as possible and are "right sized" for the mission with strap on boosters.)  If SpaceX legitimizes good-enough, reusable rockets then it becomes easier for competitors to justify investing in developing their own good-enough, reusable rocket. Payloads are way more "hardware agnostic" than off the shelf software.

There are no technological or legal barriers preventing competent engineers at other companies from figuring out how to create competitive reusable rockets. Just like no technological or legal barriers prevented clone makers from reverse engineering the IBM PC BIOS. (Don't get me started on the DMCA...)

All the existing providers and Blue (especially Blue) have boatloads of money or access to boatloads of money so needing a pad and supporting infrastructure isn't really a gating factor.  If Block 5 lives up to it's goals, SpaceX is likely to create many "fast (in launch provider adjusted timeframe) followers".

New Glenn is suppose to start flying by 2020.  Just in time for everyone to be use to the idea of "flight proven" hardware.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 08/26/2017 02:41 am
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.

IBM's Open Architecture approach helped to leverage the wider supply chain market, and brought in all kinds of 3rd-party hardware providers to hugely boost the platform and its capabilities. But that same approach allowed all kinds of knock-off artists to imitate the platform itself with their own knock-off brands.

Quote
TL, DR: PC's are LEGO's, rockets are not.

Rockets aren't LEGOs, but surely they can similarly cultivate interoperability with 3rd-party vendors (eg. ACES, etc) to expand the options available through their launch vehicle platform. Look at that Sherpa payload carrier - that's a nice novel idea to help deliver spacecraft flexibly. The more 3rd-party stuff that works with your launcher, the better your service offering.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/26/2017 05:49 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 10/01/2017 08:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 10/02/2017 12:45 am
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.

Vertical integration is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 10/02/2017 04:21 am
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.

I find this highly unlikely unless there is some kind of tragedy taking Jeff or Elon away from us.. Both leaders are very driven
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 10/02/2017 11:16 am
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: J-V on 10/02/2017 11:20 am
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.

Could BO build their own version of BFS and use it with NG first stage? Maybe using BE-3s as engines? Much smaller that BFR/BFS combo, but still pretty substantial compared to any third option available in the forseeable future.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 10/02/2017 11:27 am
It seems to me that the BFR/BFS design at making NG DOA or soon after. It fulfills the NG market with full reusability.

Assuming SpaceX (continue to) outpace BO, are able to achieve their cost estimate and build enough BFR's or refly them fast enough to supply the entire market, which should be considerably larger than today at such lower costs per kg. Waaaay too early to call any of that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 10/03/2017 07:11 am
After the IAC speech, I'm feeling like Musk's answer to "Gradatim Ferociter" is "Qui Audet, Vincit" (Who Dares, Wins)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 10/03/2017 12:16 pm
After the IAC speech, I'm feeling like Musk's answer to "Gradatim Ferociter" is "Qui Audet, Vincit" (Who Dares, Wins)

Actually, by scaling back from ITS, Musk is the one doing "Gradatim Ferociter", the new BFR is just 3x the size of FH, and it uses many technologies SpaceX either already have or actively working on. Blue on the other hand is taking a huge step by going to orbit for the first time in a FH class vehicle, and if they want to counter BFR they'll need to take another huge step by developing reusable 2nd stage without experience of operating a re-entry vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/03/2017 02:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 10/03/2017 02:23 pm
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.

The move to New Glenn is definetly a huge jump in scale and the recovery method for NG appears to be somewhat different to New Sheppard. It will almost certainly face its own delays. However, BFR simultaneously incorporates a whole list of new technologies SpaceX has little or no experience with. I already expect their proposal is going to be descoped again and each of those proposed technogies will be introduced more gradually in sequence than all at once.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 10/03/2017 04:05 pm
You can't descope BFR too far or you end up with something that is too far away from BFR to learn from and too compromised to make the numbers work.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 10/03/2017 05:58 pm
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.

This is a key aspect of this development program.  They have zero customers waiting on Raptor and/or BFR availability.  They have more than sufficient capacity with Falcon family to continue growing market share while deploying their big money maker.

A failure during Raptor development or a flight failure of a BFR/BFS won't even cause a hesitation in Falcon flights (assuming no GSE is involved).  Other development programs don't have this luxury...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 10/03/2017 07:29 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 10/03/2017 07:48 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 10/03/2017 07:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 10/03/2017 08:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 10/03/2017 08:12 pm
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 and will hopefully successfully compete with SpX. ULA is much more likely to pack up being unable to compete with BO and SpX.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 10/03/2017 09:19 pm
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.

They're already at home... eating Cheetos and drinking Dr Pepper... the question is, will they ever get out of Jeff's basement?

Quote from: DJPledger
BO will make revenue

Why so sure? They've been around for longer than SpaceX and haven't made revenue yet...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 10/04/2017 04:57 am
... 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.

"Likely"?  Do you have any inside information here?  Or do you mean "Hopefully"?

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.

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>

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 10/04/2017 08:34 am
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.

Let's hope they don't. JB has the money to keep BO developing the next revolutionary launch system without ever delivering for the rest of his life. Adding more problems to solve will only exacerbate this problem. I could imagine this is all he actually wants from BO: the idea that he's working on making the dream come alive, and the recognition of that in the form of media attention and prizes. Whether that actually is true doesn't really matter. Psychology 101.

So I'm (im)patiently waiting for NS to resume test flights and prove this is not the case. Had BO kept the koolaid to a minimum in their first webcast, I wouldn't even be critical of the long delay between launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 10/04/2017 05:15 pm
I I thought the smaller fairing on New Glenn was a place holder for a reusable upper stage, there being no reason to show their hand while trying to sell to ULA. Blue is not tied to any specifics yet.

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



Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/04/2017 08:48 pm
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

Landing ship a long lead item? Are you assuming a new build vessel?
I expect BO will buy old Panamax tankers. Since the new panama log is operational, lots of these vessels are available for scrap prices. Converting one will take some time. But developing the rocket when the BE-4 engine specs are fully known takes a lot longer. I won't expect a launch of NG before 2020. Also construction of the launch site takes a lot longer than acquisition and conversion of a old Panamax tanker.
The launch site is most likely the long lead item of the NG development.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/04/2017 11:36 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 10/05/2017 04:29 am
Landing ships go with item 2 or item 5 ?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 10/05/2017 04:34 am
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

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 10/05/2017 05:22 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Patchouli on 10/05/2017 06:14 am


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.


Agreed the spaceship is going to be a lot harder then booster as there's a lot of non trivial engineering problems to be tackled.
It's a low cross range shuttle crossed with what amounts to a methane version of a Saturn S-II stage and it's built like a 787.



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.

Even the smaller BFR is very risky for Spacex.

Blue's plan to fly a reusable booster first with an expendable upper stage is a lot less risky.
They certainly could replace the expendable upper stage with some sort of reusable orbital vehicle later on but it's not a pacing item.
Though Bezos probably could afford to build a Sea Dragon sized RLV.

Spacex might get a completely reusable system out sooner but BFR/BFS could end up having many compromises to meet time and budget constraints.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/05/2017 08:36 am
The NG is versatile with expendable 2nd stage and 3rd stage. A combined 45t 3rd stage and payload should be able to deliver crew vehicle to DSG or 5t cargo to moon surface in single launch. A reusable 2nd stage should be good for 30t to LEO, enough for large passenger vehicle.



Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 10/05/2017 08:41 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 10/05/2017 10:32 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 10/05/2017 11:56 am
Quote
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.
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>
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 10/05/2017 12:56 pm
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.

All really good points, however BO have the advantage of knowing it can be done and with no need for new technology, Musk is pushing the boundaries in a few areas although with excellent operational experience.

I think the true differentiator between them are two fold

1) Resources. Musk has a team of 6500 and a business turning over probably between  $2-$4 billion a year over next 2-3 years. Bezos whilst richest man on earth, depending on stock price.  Has a team of about 1200 working on NG which is much closer to falcon heavy in capability than to BFR/S. 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. Also Evan to achieve that is going to require more resources than Bezos has already committed for NG partially reusable version. Bezos has to wish that Musk has bit of more than he can chew, if he hasn't Bezos $1 billion probably never allows him to catch up in fact as SpaceX pivots the vast Engineering manpower at SpaceX probably means he starts to pull further ahead.

2) Musk whilst CEO is the chief engineer and driving force, Bezos has this as a very expensive hobby he can't be as intimately involved as Musk.

My money is on Musk but with a few hiccups along the way, he has just to much of a head start. But Bezos won't give in easily he is not used to failure. Interesting 5-6 years ahead
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 10/05/2017 01:30 pm
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.

Biggest fully commerial LEO satellites have weighted, what, maybe 2 tonnes?
Biggest "bundle launches of multiple LEO satellites" have been, what, 10 tonnes?

Biggest DoD LEO payloads have been... 25-tonne spy satellites?

Biggest NASA LEO payloads have been.. ISS trusses, 16 tonnes? and Apollo spacecrafts (21 tonnes)

So, when competing for commercial LEO payloads, losing "way down" of the payload is not a problem for NG.


NG is much better sized for most commercial payloads than BFR/BFS, which is oversized.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 10/05/2017 01:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/05/2017 03:17 pm
Blue may have zero orbital LV experience but lot of their engineers do.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 10/05/2017 06:35 pm
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.

Yeah as corneliussulla says it would be an error to overlook BFR's scale and the technological challenges it comes with, and ULA sure has experience and infrastructure. I agree that Vulcan will fly before the full BFR, but with Gwynne Shotwell reiterating today that they intend to test the ship suborbitally from the beginning I think the timeline will be BFS > Vulcan > BFR+BFS > NG. With BFR+BFS and NG really close to each other. Interesting times ahead, for sure.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 10/05/2017 08:16 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 10/05/2017 11:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 10/06/2017 01:14 am
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!

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 10/06/2017 11:23 am

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.

Well it's true that the other rockets still exist, they just don't fly as often as they used to. Most of them are subsidised by states wether it be ULA, arianne, Long March or Soyuz. Bezos going to sell loads more AMZN shares if Musks rockets mets his specs, big if I agree. However NG still has a long way to go to match capabilities which SX already have.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 10/06/2017 11:29 am
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!

I agree. Also, Musk doesnt need anyone else to develop the Mars Surface concept. I am pretty sure SpaceX can develop and build a Mars surface station for ISRU. Even if it means SpaceX fades into the long dark because the colonization plan fails for some reason. I hope not though.

For Blue Origin, its quite different. I dont think Bezos is betting the existence of his company to achieve his goal. Blue Origin will not do things like "Moon or bust".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/06/2017 11:48 am
Customers don't like the idea of being solely reliant on one provider, so even if BFR works, there will be plenty of customers for NG.

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.

The only real advantage BFR has is the return to launch cradle concept and reusable fairing. But NG is also about a third the size and can do down range landings, so has a bunch of advantages on a per-launch basis that even out the disparity. So BFR and NG should be fairly competitive with each other on a per-launch basis.

On the other hand, SpaceX seems to be out-executing Blue Origin, having already basically proven Raptor enough to start building a prototype. However, I suspect Blue Origin has also ordered tooling for New Glenn, and it is possible they've already built some pathfinder articles as well (I seem to recall a blurred out picture of their Washington factory with a large carbon fiber cylinder in the background).

The only worry I have is that Blue doesn't have any real operational experience. They've done a handful of New Shepard flights, but that's it. Maybe a deeper partnership with ULA could address this?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 10/06/2017 01:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 10/06/2017 01:59 pm
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.

NS is their F1. No upper stage, but it does have a human-rated capsule which is arguable much harder.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DreamyPickle on 10/06/2017 02:04 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 10/06/2017 02:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/06/2017 02:22 pm
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.

It is more likely Blue will let ULA die than pick over what's left. Especially after Northrop-Grumman merge with OrbitATK. There is not too many other entities that can acquire ULA.

....

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 10/06/2017 02:49 pm
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...

And Jeff Bezos has an infinite supply of money, but not an infinite supply of time.  ULA will represent a shortcut, name recognition, access to government...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/06/2017 03:14 pm
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?

Bezos does know how to buy companies, and he does have the luxury of time on his side. Market conditions have also changed since the last offer Boeing & LM had, and they now have years more information about future U.S. Government potential demand. Maybe none of that changes the likelihood that Boeing & LM would sell ULA, but it could.

Quote
If he needs experienced people, he'll just poach them.

A good point, and a strategy that can be quicker and cost less. So the question would be whether there would be other assets that Blue Origin wants that ULA has. And ULA does have a lot of valuable assets.

Quote
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.

A guess would be that it didn't make economic sense, since it's not the upper stage that is the reason why ULA can't compete with SpaceX for commercial launches, it's the ULA 1st stages.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 10/06/2017 03:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/06/2017 03:37 pm
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?
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.

An expendable 2nd is easier to develop and allows for heavier payloads ie 45t compared to something around 30t (my guess) for reusable 2nd stage. For 3stage BLEO missions they will need that extra lift of expendable 2nd stage.

In regards to ULA relationship, these companies working in partnership could provides some serious BLEO lift.  ULA distributed launch system would benefit from NG delivering fuel, 20% more fuel with closer launch windows as NG and Vulcan will use different pads. With NG tanker ACES should be able to deliver around 25t to DSG.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Patchouli on 10/06/2017 07:04 pm
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.
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.

Though I can see ULA and BO eventually having a merger or some sort of partnership.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 10/06/2017 07:36 pm
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.
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.

Though I can see ULA and BO eventually having a merger or some sort of partnership.
Sorry - current largest rocket...

Still though.

And Vulcan, sure, for the engine only, and only if it ever flies.  Not quite the same as building and operating a smaller rocket in-house...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 10/06/2017 08:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 10/06/2017 08:45 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rebel44 on 10/07/2017 12:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/10/2017 05:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rabidpanda on 10/10/2017 08:20 pm
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.

Based on what data? By my reckoning Raptor design/development (of the subscale development engine currently being tested) began in the 2012-2013 timeframe. Whereas the current version of BE-4 design/development began in 2014, although Blue had been working on a smaller version for years before that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 10/10/2017 08:45 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/11/2017 12:57 am
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?
AR-1 is much further behind on development than BE-4. And there is no certainty of schedule with either engine.

But there is certainty that the "fast path" to an engine for ULA might not arrive as was expected as the reason to attempt the path through a less qualified engine source. SX, BO, and AJR are far from identical.

It was always possible that BO might not be able to source an engine in the necessary time frame. And, it's not simply the race to the test stand - there are many additional "follow-on" commitments that would have to also be met timely - if the "newbie" misses on the test stand, how can you believe that the rest ... also might be missed? Also, at some point you need to ramp up the other program for it to have any chance of meeting its timeline/deliverables.

Quote
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.

Perhaps time is running out for BE-4 to be used by ULA?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 10/11/2017 05:11 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 10/11/2017 01:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 10/12/2017 03:51 pm
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.

Yep cost is important but AR is a business with revenues and BO is not.  I expect there must be some guarantees with BO if Bezos stops chasing the dream they must have options to acquire the BE-4 production or something. Bit of a risk though and BO schedule has slipped quite a lot
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 10/12/2017 07:39 pm
According to one of the talks ULA has the right of first refusal to buy all of the BE-4 (IP, tooling, factory, ...) if Blue ever decides to not produce it any longer.
I guess that option requires BE-4 to be delivered and selected by ULA in the first place...
I wonder if there is a hard date in the contract at wich ULA can get out and perhaps even exercise a penalty clause in case Blue does not deliver.

ULA needs to make a choice but "Blew up so far. No working engine." vs. "Did not blew up, because they have not even tried yet. No working engine." is not a great set of options.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/12/2017 08:47 pm
You're describing continuity. As required by all government providers.

(Note that's rather deeply "textured" with other requirements as well. So not as easily complied with as your mention of it might seem.)

There's nothing wrong with having "Mr Moneybags" of any stripe, do businesses that national security depends upon. As long as they "follow through". Remember Howard Hughes? And Hughes Aerospace, later bought up by Boeing? Same deal.

Here's the part that concerns: BO was supposed to have a business by now in "space tourism", where is it? Next, engine sales (BE-3, BE-4) to other providers, where is it? There are others too, but you get the point.

If BO merely threatens business, no matter the collateral displayed, ... can we tell that they will commit to a business, such that continuity/"follow through" matters?

People have the same concerns for SX for HSF, vehicle reuse, reuse economics. Those who aren't professionals don't see these as significant. But they are.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 10/13/2017 06:41 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/14/2017 07:01 pm
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.

That is still a revolutionary price for access to space.

If in 10 years they can improve to get even just 20 flights that reduces the Price to $60M/flight and $400/kg and $151/lb. Increase to 100 flights would get to a possible price of $40M/flight and $267/kg and $121/lb.

So the key here is that getting to 1000 is not a significant item in the reduction of prices. That the most significance in the reduction of prices occurs in acheiving just 20 flights of gas-n-go.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 10/17/2017 07:26 pm
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.

Ok, a backlog of RD-180s[1] is ... kinda ironic.

1 - even a conceptual one.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 10/20/2017 08:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 10/22/2017 07:18 am
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.

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.

However I am sure Musk is aware of this risk hence the satellite network to bring in a different revenue source and with BFR/BFS they are trying to leap frog BO capabilities. If they can pull the BFR/S development off by 2022 I think Bezos will find himself with a partially reusable rocket versus a fully reusable one. If so he may find himself with his hands in his pockets for many years to come.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 10/23/2017 06:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/24/2017 08:06 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 10/25/2017 12:40 am
If the lessons learned from F9R are incorporated into BFR and help get it up and running faster, then the R&D investment on F9R will continue to provide returns via BFR.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 10/25/2017 07:24 am
Well, the OP specified that (suborbital) space tourism would bring in more money than a few pesky satellite launches (parafrased). Since then, the thread has covered many other aspects and compared both companies in many other ways, but the original intent of the poster was to compare commercial suborbital tourism revenue with revenue from sending stuff to orbit.

Let's do a little count: there have officially been 7 tourists to space. They paid between 20 and 40 milion each. It's safe to say that the revenue of SpaceX launches for this year alone (with several months to go) dwarfs the total amount ever paid by space tourists. Suborbital tourism has a lot of catching up to do to be considered a 'better approach/business strategy' than orbital launches.

Unfortunately, almost two decades in, we haven't seen a single commercial suborbital tourist flight, which was supposed to be cheaper and simpler than orbital flights. The first paid surborbital tourist flight will be no earlier then 2018, the same year SpaceX would like to send people around the moon. Although I would not be surprised if 2018 comes and goes without a single tourist launch.

I'd love for commercial space to make the space tourism market explode, even though I sincerely doubt it will. Today, SpaceX is a fighter brand, outflanking the usual suppliers for an existing, well established demand. And lower prices will allow more demand to enter the market. But it's still the same mature market. That is a powerful business strategy, one that JB himself used quite effectively with Amazon. Opening up new markets to answer to needs people didn't know they had can be pretty powerful as well, but that still has to be proven in this case.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/05/2017 06:01 pm
In short - SX is entrepreneurial, BO is still stuck in "hobbyist" mode (world class hobbyist, but still hobby).

Both Bezos and Musk are entrepreneurs (Tory Bruno attempts to apply some of that too). But Musk's organizations have more entrepreneurs ... than Bezos does. And it shows.

Why call it "hobbyist"? A working business does an activity, at least for for net profit. In many ways this acts as a governor on the activity, if you will "keeping it real", because it is no longer an aspiration or a theory, it's got consequences for you and your customer. When you don't have this, you lose a lot of connection with what you do.

When you start up a business, there is an indeterminate time before you have a stable set of customers/vendors/partners/regulators/product/services/expectation of operation. While 90% of new businesses die in the first year, close to 100% of the success of a business occurs after they leave this "hobbyist" mode. Your so called "series A" round of finance is meant to carry you through this (series B is supposed to leverage growth/valuation step-up before IPO/acquisition).

There have been many high profile firms that have sucked in as much as a good portion of a trillion dollars without leaving "hobbyist" mode. (At one fortune 500 company, the board members would quaintly, disdainfully refer to the CEO's adventures in "intraprenuering" as his "hobby shop".)

One of the tell tale signs that these will not transition into full up businesses (note, they can sell some product but still not of the scope/scale of the business funded) is that they have utter disregard for other businesses that have left the hobby shop and are reliably doing business. That's because the standards for what they consider the means to do  a business activity ... are constantly "evolving" and can never close because they need to actually do business to appreciate the entire cycle "end to end".

Sometimes when things do finally close for them (which can be a while), they have to do yet another respin because in the interim time the business/technology/use changes and one has to adapt to the "new normal".

(They've also built up a large amount of negativity during that time, and have to shed it to attract customers/partners, who they also abuse.)

Now, without survival in the sense of net cash positive as a motivator, one can postpone all the various kinds of bad news that inevitably must be endured while you put the business into action. You serve a few number of big customers, who aren't dependent on your success because they can go with a "backup" plan if things don't work out.

So even in the casual case of slowly moving the business into some kind of operation, you can never accumulate significant market share because others that hold the majority, more quickly move to adapt to market need, whereby the extravagant hobbyist deals with such distractions just by buying off the customers that they need in the moment, so long as they'll wait for you (most won't).

You want "gradatim" alongside a business that repeatedly serves customer need. Both work together. As ULA knows.

ULA for a long time saw SX as being insincere at serving customer need. Alongside empty entrepreneurship.

(BTW, some at BO also have not the best view of ULA.)

Sometimes all can be their own worst enemy. Why you have a clear eye of your rival's weaknesses and strengths, is so you can be genuine about your own, so as to adapt quickly and converge on your own strengths/weaknesses optimally.

Hard to do this if all you can utter is sarcasm as a virtue.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: woods170 on 11/06/2017 07:13 am
The SpaceX approach is better IMO.

Up until the first time SpaceX put something into orbit successfully (Falcon 1, flight 4) it had invested less than $200M to achieve that.
Up until the first time Blue Origin put something into orbit (which is yet to happen) it has invested in excess of $1.5B to achieve that.

To offer an even more extreme perspective:
- For an investment of slightly less than $500M SpaceX fielded TWO different orbital launch vehicles (Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 v1.0)
- For an investment of more than $500M Blue Origin fielded TWO sub-orbital launch vehicles (Goddard & New Shepard)

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/06/2017 09:55 am
But SpaceX had rocket engine heritage to work off from. Blue Origin didn't have this luxury.
SpaceX had the fortune to buy facilities at bargain prices (at economical down term) Blue builds new facilities.
I wonder why Blue didn't pursued their first orbital rocket plan with BE-2 engines. There BE-3 reusable engine wasn't chosen at CCiCap. Now New Glenn is plan three, but I think it's to large.

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.
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.
Sorry I did a little bit to much self redaction, I removed the punch line. (I agree F9 1th reuse is way harder than NS)
I'm very doubtful any company will be able to industrialize a affordable reusable launcher. It all depends on higher launch cadence, and very minimal recovery and refurbishment operations. Without; re-usability will make a reusable launcher more expansive than a expendible launch service. I think the lack of a discount for a second or third use first stage is a sign.
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: woods170 on 11/06/2017 11:56 am
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.
Blue existed BEFORE SpaceX and just as well had the opportunity to buy that empty factory in Hawthorne. But Bezos didn't.


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.
Blue achieved 4x reuse on there 2th New Shepard vehicle, while spending <500mln on development.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
The booster stage of Falcon 9 is coming back down from an orbital-insertion trajectory.
The New Shepard vehicle is going straight up and is coming back straight down, basically a very narrow hyperbole
The energy involved in reentry is much (as in MUCH) greater for Falcon 9 booster stage than it is for New Shepard.
The result is that the wear-and-tear on the Falcon 9 booster stage is much greater.


They are now doing the investments for there first orbital launcher, that will be capable to orbit all satellites currently planned, while being reusable.
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. 
Emphasis mine.
IMO, not a whole lot unless Bezos dumps the "gradatim"-part from the Blue Origin motto.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DreamyPickle on 11/06/2017 12:15 pm
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.

If SpaceX and BlueOrigin find themselves in a price war then it will be amazing for the space sector. Right now SpaceX doesn't have much incentive to decrease prices.

I don't think Blue would win, the New Glenn is oversized for most payloads and will only fly in the 2020s. By that time the marginal cost of an F9 launch will be very low and BFR won't be far off.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 11/06/2017 12:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AAPSkylab on 11/06/2017 02:52 pm
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.

Completely agree with guckyfan and Space Ghost.

Has anything BO done generated significant income besides the BE-4 contract with ULA?  I find it unlikely that the current income from BE-4 (do we have any info on this?) makes even a small dent in their operational expenses. 

For me this is the crux of the question that this thread poses.  To be a viable business model they must have a realistic timeline to achieve at least operational profitability where current income balances current expenses.  What is that timeline now?  The mid 2020's?  That will be more than 20 years from its founding.  What is the timeline to make any significant dent in the billions of dollars invested by that time?  Will it be the 2030's or the 2040's or when?  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?

From any available external information BO is still a rich man's hobby similar to 19th century astronomy pursued by wealthy amateurs.  BO exists as a "business" only because its founder continues to be its patron with an open ended funding stream.  It may achieve many things and be very interesting to follow but will it ever reach a level of being a viable business?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 11/06/2017 03:33 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 11/06/2017 04:07 pm
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?

TB has stated that they need ten flights per year to stay in business -- so 20 engines per year... after the stockpile of RD-180s is exhausted and Vulcan is their only vehicle.  This RD-180 stockpile and Atlas transition appears to stretch out to the mid-2020s, so Blue won't sell nearly that many(20/yr) for a long time, IMO.

Will have to wait a while to see if Blue can streamline a production process.  Not all companies can, especially when quantities are low (See AJR).  Profitability per engine will largely depend on success of this effort -- losing money on each engine is also a possible outcome for quite a while.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/06/2017 08:15 pm
Mind that BE4 production is being greatly assisted by ULA, in various ways.

Best way to look about BE4 is that there is a great deal of common interest/activity that both BO/ULA put into it. ULA will also flight qualify the engine for Vulcan, as well as use it under AF scrutiny eventually with NSS launches. And BO will be subject to the extreme needs in support of all of that.

So its more of a "cooperative" than a typical product vendor/customer relationship, and certainly does not contain the corporate product cost loading that is found with AJR's engines (RL10, RS68, and possibly AR1).

So be careful in viewing it as a major source of revenue, because it won't be. In fact, it's in BO's interest (unlike AJR) to keep BE-4 costs to ULA low - they need to up volumes as much as possible because they need significant flight history on the engine well in advance of use in a vehicle such as NG, as they don't plan on other, smaller vehicles using it ahead of time.

(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.)

And if you really wanted to beat RD-180 performance, relentless improvement of BE4 during early ELV use would be the best way to achieve that goal.

Hobbyist ventures can really obsess over such details; this is one way you could get an extreme benefit out of something so intensely focused. Because, again from above, ... they keep "evolving" the means to meet even higher standards.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: IRobot on 11/06/2017 09:48 pm
  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?
It doesn't have to be profitable. In fact, it could just run in the red until it all opponents give up.

Or it could run in the red for 20 more years, as a hobby. The business strategy could be just a self-convincing argument or to give it some credibility.

Or it is a very long term bet on the "next big thing", which in their mind (Bezos, Musk),  lies in space exploration (asteroid mining, manufacturing, tourism, whatever).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 11/06/2017 11:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 11/07/2017 01:54 am
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.

Depends, can also hold you back.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: IRobot on 11/07/2017 06:24 pm
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.

Bottom line: Bezos could finance a Mars program or an asteroid mining industry even if they are clearly non profitable. Musk can't.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 11/07/2017 08:45 pm
(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.
Sorry for confusing many people by:
 using the tweet to spread my idea for a expendable 1xBE-4 - 1x BE-3U launcher. That could later be developed into a first stage reusable rocket.
This was pure speculation. I hope that's clear now.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: whatever11235 on 11/07/2017 08:51 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: IRobot on 11/08/2017 11:45 am
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.

Musk cannot do that. If he sells more than a few percent, Tesla collapses. So I doubt he could cash out more than $5-8B in a short time frame. And I guess the bulk would come from SpaceX, as it is in much better shape than Tesla.

Besides Bezos, only a few others could afford something like that, and except for Paul Allen, none of them are interested in space exploration.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/08/2017 12:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 11/08/2017 01:13 pm
Elon Musk's wealth has gone from basically zero to twenty billion in eight years. Who knows what it will be eight years from now.

Matthew
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: IRobot on 11/08/2017 01:23 pm
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.
Net worth is very different from cash availability.

In 10 years, yes, perhaps he is even richer than Bezos, but the point is that at the moment only Bezos can support a "business strategy" where it continues to go on the red for 20 more years.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/08/2017 02:25 pm
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, though

Quote
"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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 11/08/2017 02:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: IRobot on 11/08/2017 04:02 pm
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.
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.
This is to highlight the difference between net worth and liquidity.

Does not matter if he spends the $2B in 1 or 3 years, the point of comparison is how much money each could raise to make a business strategy where they always run on red for a long time. It is clear that Musk must keep his companies profitable (not the current case of Tesla, anyway) to get to Mars, while Bezos doesn't.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/08/2017 04:32 pm
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, though

Quote
"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

Very fair point. I think I did get a little fast and loose with interchanging "cost" and "price" ;D I separate the two in my brain, conceptually, but should have translated that better into the article. I later implicitly acknowledged that I meant "costs to the customer" in the quote you mention by discussing profit margins and internal price concerns. But should have made it clearer :D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/08/2017 04:35 pm
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"
Pretty good article. Typo in "extendability" where he meant "expendability".

Quote
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, though

Quote
"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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/08/2017 05:34 pm
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"
Pretty good article. Typo in "extendability" where he meant "expendability".

Quote
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, though

Quote
"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. 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/09/2017 05:55 am
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.

Many wish for a second SX "look alike", where they think they'll duke it out like "Rock-em Sock-em Robots":
(https://competera.net/img/articles/giphy.gif)
But that wasn't ULA,  nor BO.

ULA has done comparably few unspecialized launches, unlike Ariane. Suspect that NG will steal launches from Ariane 5/6 predominately (I think Ariane 6 will be later than promised). (Ironically, Ariane next sails directly into a storm here, as it intersects with a smaller LV at potentially a higher launch cost, "eyeball-to-eyeball" with NG's larger capacity and likely lower costs. They appeal to the same intended market. Possibly a launcher glut?)

Quote
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.

NS suborbital reusable launch vehicle came into brief service with one failure in six flights.

They work relentlessly to build vehicles that achieve the mission all in the first go. Then they work up a launch rate to prove the qualities of the vehicles flight, to insure its function works as designed. Then they work to qualify vehicles for use, and then enter them into service. They have still not entered suborbital service of any kind.

Likely NG's sequencing will be like NS just described. So expect a slow entry to service, likely considerably slower than SX and even Vulcan. Nor a rapid sequence of missions nor similar qualification for HSF. Frankly, its entirely possible that BFS and BFR might beat them to the first ten flights.

A good question is if NS will enter service in a way that accelerates or retards NG. Accelerates as in a business expansion, where suborbital unmanned or HSF missions/flights occur that carries over into orbital missions, or retards in that "gradatim" forces a "crawl walk run" for both NS/NG (this would likely cause manifest defections).

So here's the issue with flight frequency - if you command global market share (where SX is already in striking distance), waiting for a "cheap" flight might delay you too long from competition that launches on a more rapid fire launcher.

And looking at the early manifest for NG, am struck by how much it resembles other early manifests of past providers. It leads me to believe that this manifest will be quite "gradatim", as the new provider will be more concerned with the way the mission will be performed, than performing successive missions.

Quote
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.

They are working as I see it to a "no loss" expectation, so much so that they'll consider Atlas and Ariane 5 records  as chancy. They consider Falcon not much better than Proton. Yet they are not nearly accumulating the flight history and launch systems experience necessary for that conceit. So there's a gap yet to be filled/appreciated.

After reading your article and this back and forth, I don't think SX and BO are on a collision course, but that BO and Ariane Group are on a collision course.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 11/11/2017 07:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 11/12/2017 01:04 pm
Maybe Blue will find a way to make itself profitable. That could substantially ease Bezos' cash drain requirements. Why shouldn't he even spend on anciliary space technology businesses instead, to further the overall goals of having people living and working space?

For example, what about his latest investment in that Indoor Vertical Farming startup?

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/jeff-bezos-backed-indoor-farming-startup-plenty-opens-100k-square-foot-facility-seattle-region/

Maybe something like that could have some future benefits for space colonization.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 11/12/2017 04:43 pm
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.

I don't think there's any solid evidence that Blue needs $1B per year to operate, all we have is an offhand suggestion by Bezos. By head count Blue shouldn't need anywhere near $1B per year, unless they pay their employee significantly more than industry average (as in 3 to 4 times more).

Quote
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's high performance may be the real reason Bezos is cashing out billions of dollars right now, it's just sound finance management, probably has nothing to do with Blue's current expenditure. It's possible with the multiple liquidation Bezos is doing he can accumulate enough cash to support Blue until NG flies regularly.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/12/2017 05:10 pm
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.

Amazon is well positioned to be the winner during the next recession, since they offer both price and convenience without the burden of brick & mortar locations. As to not making a profit, that is because Bezos has always plowed profits back into growth, which drives competitors out of business and drives even more growth.

Even if Bezos lost half his wealth, he could still fund Blue Origin at $1B per year without endangering his portfolio.

I'm more concerned about Blue Origin's pace of progress, because as of today SpaceX is on a path that appears to be advancing faster. Still, Blue Origin is well positioned when compared to every other launch provider on Earth, so it's not like they aren't doing well - just that since the topic is "SpaceX vs Blue Origin" I have to compare the two...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/12/2017 08:03 pm
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?

Some level of rough verification would be great here, agreed. However, it seems that expendability can be ruled out simply as a logical continuation of what Blue executives have stated in the past. They are aggressively promoting their version of "operational reusability" and reiterating that New Glenn S1 is designed for 100 reuses and that the Cape factory is intended to mainly manufacture S2/S3.

I've judged their rationale to be similar to SpaceX's with BFR, where expendable launches are effectively out of the question and a symptom of old-paradigm thinking.

Could well be that Blue is simply being deceptive with their payload advertisements and trying to one-up Falcon Heavy's reusable numbers.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nomic on 11/13/2017 10:28 am
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"

Good article, I would suggest the genius part of SpaceX was to "slap some legs on to" very simple and cheap stage, initially might only be reusable once or twice, but once it is being reliably landed can add more expensive parts (Ti grid fins, inconel heat shields etc), to make to reusable more times.

Its worth remembering just how simple the Falcon is, think there was a Bill Sweetman article in Aviation week, where he called the Falcon a really good V2, think about it, room temperature liquid fuel, aluminium structure, gas generator engines and road transportable. New Glenn has none of these advantages (BFR has the same problem on an even bigger scale). So I don't think Blue are going to be doing any expendable flights, are going to have a very low tolerance of LOV with a "gradatim" development, probably with a bunch of self funded flights.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/13/2017 10:53 am

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.

People keep trotting this  "reuseable flights have to be at a certain frequency" thing out. I don't buy it. Yes, your fixed costs are spread over fewer flights but I suspect that F9 reuse costs are so low that even once every 3 months would make money. That's not the SpaceX plan, but it could.

As for the launcher glut? Starlink is going to soak up a LOT of capacity. So I don't think I see that one either. There is room for Blue. IF they can get to operational status before a new entrant comes along and blows past them.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Raptor 42 on 11/13/2017 12:27 pm
While both of these companies have contributed tremendously to reusable rockets,SpaceX is more set in creating reusable rockets and seems like they have quite a better plan for the future compared to Blue Origin. However, on the other hand Blue Origin has more money especially with help from the ULA, NASA (SpaceX also gets some) and Bezos's own pocket. 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/13/2017 05:30 pm
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
- Thrust
- Thrust to weight ratio
- Isp
- development cost
- manufacturing cost
- (possibly) refurbishment cost
- number of possible lifetime cycles
- Fuel/oxidizer cost
- likely failure rate

and stuff that I'm forgetting

also I think BE4 has higher thrust per engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/13/2017 10:05 pm
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.

Remember though that one of the measures of success for reusable transportation systems is that because of their lower cost they should be EXPANDING demand for launches, not just servicing an existing set amount.

Quote
Reusable 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.

Quote
...while India and China are bringing new lower cost systems to market.

Unless they are reusable transportation systems then they are just adding to the list of launch providers that will be #3 on the list of preferred launch providers - with SpaceX already #1, and in the early 2020's Blue Origin could be #2.

Quote
Clearly lowering the price to orbit will spur demand, but that takes time.

Which is one of the reasons it makes sense to create your own demand, like with the commsat business SpaceX is starting by manufacturing and launching their own smallsats.

Quote
Ariane and maybe ILS look to have the most to lose, Ariane against lower costs, while ILS face a more reliable competitor.

Currently the expendable Ariane 5 and Proton round out the top three preferred launch providers, so those are the providers that will likely lose business against new expendable launch systems. But I do think the race is on to see who will be the LAST launch service provider to build their own expendable rocket...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 11/14/2017 03:39 am
Quote
Reusable 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.

Personally I think that number is somewhat lower for SpaceX because Falcon can fly in expendable and reusable mode, serving different markets.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/14/2017 02:43 pm
Quote
Reusable 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.
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.

 - Ed Kyle
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/14/2017 04:42 pm
~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.

If "everybody" includes ULA's numbers, and "the guys who analyzed the economics of the Shuttle", then I'm not going to believe what they say.

And I have similar questions to what AbuSimbel asked, since comparing 1960's era government reusability assumptions (like what edkyle99 suggests) to the realities of a commercial company today don't make sense as a starting point.

Drawing on my manufacturing background I would say it also depends on what else the company is spreading their overhead on, since if a reusable Falcon 9 was the only revenue stream then maybe a higher number of reusable launches would be needed. But we know there are other SpaceX products and services that could use the same workforce, so the number of reusable flights required to break even would be less.

Quote
Personally I think that number is somewhat lower for SpaceX because Falcon can fly in expendable and reusable mode, serving different markets.

Block 5 Falcon 9 is not meant to be expendable. If more performance is needed payloads will be shifted to a Falcon Heavy, which will always be able to recover all three 1st stages.

Ignoring the overhead costs of the entire SpaceX organization, and only looking at the manufacturing costs, I'd say the breakeven point is closer to 3-4 launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2017 04:50 pm
SpaceX knows what their "flights per year needed" number is for F9. If there was a way to know for sure what it is, I'd bet on very long odds that it is a LOT lower than 50... ... for F9, 50 is a **laughable** number. I would be surprised if it was higher than 10, frankly. [1]...

- F9 isn't Shuttle. It also isn't Saturn. FAR less refurb needed than Shuttle, already, and they are nowhere near done with changes, we haven't seen Block 5 yet.
- SpaceX isn't ULA.  SpaceX is 4x as efficient (wild guess but I bet it's on the low side) so costs are lower.

Recipe for me to instantly not take you seriously? Trot out Shuttle reuse numbers in any way that suggests you think they are at all applicable to this.

1 - I like Ron's 3-4 number

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2017 06:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LM13 on 11/14/2017 07:53 pm
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

But some of the Falcon 9 payloads even now require it to be expendable--that is, Falcon 7 would be unable to lift Echostar 23, Inmarsat, or Intelsat.  They'd want to standardize production on the launcher that can handle the entire GTO market in some fashion, so they'd end up flying Falcon 9 even on missions that don't require its full payload (as they do now). 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 11/14/2017 07:59 pm
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.

The 'standard' size of F9 FT is actually more cost competitive against its toughest competition in USG market, Atlas V 531/541/551, and in the commercial market, Ariane 5, because of its 'wasted capacity'.  The high end of the launch market would have been given away for last few years to these competitors if F7 or F9 v1.0 was the SpaceX top offering.  FH will make reuse practical on the heaviest payloads that these competitors can fly, but that reuse is a byproduct of F9 (especially Ft) being reusable.  BFR only can be built affordably because it is following the development trail-breaking reusability of F9.

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! ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DreamyPickle on 11/14/2017 08:34 pm
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.

Quote
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.

While public prices are not currently different it should be clear that the F9-RTLS, F9-ASDS and F9-Expendable profiles vary in both capability and internal cost to SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 11/14/2017 08:38 pm
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

They will likely refly 5-7 stages in 19-20 flights this year (the very first year of reuse), so I'm not sure why you seem to consider 5/year a high bar. Even 50% reuse is only 2 flights per core, which is very low compared to most accountings of the number of reflights required to break even on reuse.

SpaceX is moving rapidly towards a future where 90-95% of flights are on used boosters with each being flown 10 to 20 times. Based on the current rapid acceptance of used boosters, I think they can reach this level in 3-4 years if the Block 5 turnaround is even a few weeks. Probably even sooner if they can really do a 24h refurb.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hplan on 11/14/2017 08:43 pm
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

This analysis seems to assume that the total cost of a first stage is in the engines. If a first stage launch costs $62 million but the engines only cost $1 million each, it may be that the cost of those extra 40 Merlins a year is covered by only one launch.

In reality, the economics of reuse are much more complex than simply counting the retail price of the bits reused. Reuse enables SpaceX to do more launches in a year. The profit from each launch together with the SpaceX launch costs and fixed costs probably add up to more than the cost of the rocket itself. So you have to look at the total financial picture.

For example, suppose SpaceX is able to manage 10 more launches next year than they would have been capable of without reuse. That's at least $620 million added revenue, getting through their backlog faster, and gaining further advantage over competitors by securing more of the market. The cost to them is 10 upper stages, 10 fairings, 10 first stages refurbished, and handling 10 extra launches. I'd be surprised if that ends up costing them more than $200 million beyond fixed costs.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2017 08:52 pm
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.

Starlink! I win.  (and so does everyone else)
Luna! I win.  (and so does everyone else)
Mars! I win. (and so does everyone else)

This is (surprise!) not the right thread for generic reusability arguments. Blue and SpaceX both are committed to reusability. At this point everyone else is now an also-ran... forever doomed to playing catchup. Or fading away into history.  They may not be willing to admit it. They may not even realise it, but that ship sailed. Expendables are a dead end.

That said and I blame myself here too, maybe draw a line under general reusability arguments?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2017 08:59 pm
This is probably the right thread to continue the general yes it is/no it isn't

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40377 (Reusability effect on costs)

More specifically w/r/t SpaceX and Blue, are their number of flights flown per year/ number of times a stage is flown, etc
- to recover investment in reuse
- to decrease non amortized costs
similar? different?  Why or why not?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/14/2017 09:53 pm
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
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.

So we have ruled out every annual cost difference between an RLV and a comparable ELV, it's really negligible.
We only have two factors left: the added manufacturing cost for every 'overbuilt' reusable vehicle and refurbishment costs. Hence, to judge the economical viability of a RLV, annual costs and launch rate do not really matter. The only thing that matters is calculated for each vehicle produced: how many reflights should your RLV be capable of doing  to recoup the 'overbuilding fee', factoring in refurbishment costs? 

Let's actually do the math:
For SpaceX we know that  current F9 boosters can do 1 reflight and with refurbishments costs of ~40% of a new one (very conservative estimate). So let's say a booster costs 30M$, ref costs are 12M$ (again current worst case) and cost per flight is (30+12)/2=21M$. On each mission you save 9M$. In this case the hypothetical expendable booster shouldn't cost less than 21M$ for reuse to make sense. So the 'overbuilding tax' shouldn't be more than 9M$ or 42% of the expendable booster cost.

Now could SX build an expendable boosters shaving of at least 30% of the cost of the current reusable one? I don't think so but maybe there's possibility and you're right: right now reuse might not make economical sense for SpaceX. But that's incredibly short sighted.
They claim Block V will be able to achieve 10 reuses with little to no refurbishment, let's say 3% of the cost of the booster or 1M$. Impossible you say? So let's try and be pessimistic, for a change, and do de math for just 4 reuses with 20% ref cost, or 6M$ for the 30M$ booster. (30+6*4)/5 is the per mission cost: 10,8M$. That's 19,2M$ of per mission savings, so the expendable booster should cost 10,8M$ or less for reuse NOT to make sense, or the tax for 'overbuilding' the booster for reuse should be almost 200% of the expendable one.
And what if SpaceX achieves their goal? 10 reuses with 1M$ re costs: cost per mission is 3,63M$, the 'overbuilding tax' would be 26,37M$ or 726% of the expendable booster, that should cost 3,63 millions or less and launch the same payload as the 30M$ reusable one. Impossible.

That's the thing, the 'overbuild tax' works for plastic, reusable table spoons and forks vs steel ones, not for rockets.
When discussing this, I think people forget how expensive and complex rockets really are, even expendable. In a real market an expendable model makes sense if it is so simple and inexpensive to produce compared to the reusable counterpart to be a viable product. An expendable rocket is already immensely complex, expensive and state of the art tech that 'overbuilding for reuse' isn't a thing; the per vehicle difference is relatively low. Heck, if any we are 'underbuilding' them to make them expendable.  An expendable rocket that has to put into orbit the same payload as the reusable one isn't gonna cost much less. So even if it only gets reused once with refurbishment costs accounting for 40% of the manufacturing cost, it's still worth it. There's no such thing as a dumb plastic expendable rocket vs expensive steel reusable rocket.

For rockets reusability is inherently worth it, at any flight rate, versus an expendable system at the same flight rate.

TL:DR: Yes, tossing away something each time costs more than reusing it. Especially if what you are tossing away is carefully manufactured, state of the art tech.

Edit: sorry Lar, hadn't read your post, please move this if necessary.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2017 10:55 pm
Do the same analysis for Blue, will you? Thanks!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 11/15/2017 12:34 am
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 11/15/2017 01:18 am
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).

Economy of scale kicks in slowly. A standard rule of thumb in manufacturing is a 10% reduction in per part cost for every doubling of volume. So at 10x volumes per year you still pay 65% of the cost per rocket (ignoring the other ways expendables save costs). Even at 1000x volumes you're still paying 35% or so of the cost.

If the demand exists for many flights, you are almost always better off spending more upfront for a system with lower recurring costs. This was a major economic failure of the STS system - too much labor and hardware was expended per flight. The billion dollar orbiter would have paid off if they could operate it for $20M per flight, but couldn't pay for itself at $400M per flight.

Both SpaceX and Blue realize this, which is why they are going towards streamlined ground operations to put as little money and labor as possible into getting the booster back up and flying, even though it means each booster is more expensive. Blue apparently plans to have fewer than a dozen boosters at any one time, and is setting up for very low volume serial production of boosters - with higher volume production of second and third stages.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/

SpaceX is moving towards even lower volume serial production of BFR, aimed at turnarounds in only a few hours and hundreds of uses. This is typical of other very large vehicles like cruise ships and airliners: they are produced in very low volumes and are very expensive, but are almost constantly in use with little maintenance downtime, pulling in almost constant revenue.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 11/15/2017 10:52 am
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.'
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: woods170 on 11/15/2017 12:23 pm
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.'
Exactly. Ed needs to let go of the notion that rockets only exist to make money.
Because clearly that is not the ultimate goal of SpaceX or Blue Origin.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 11/15/2017 06:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 11/16/2017 01:26 am
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.

From what I've heard Atlas V has, but Delta IV will retire before it ever pays back its development cost.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/16/2017 05:00 am
Atlas V paid off because almost all of it came from the past or Russia.

Delta IV had too much that was new or derived from Shuttle, part of the wonderful hydrogen future. No Shuttle, no cost sharing, no way to afford.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 11/16/2017 11:34 am
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).

While 'economies of scale' is not exactly expendable rockets strength, given how we are still thinking about a 'scale' of tens in the current best case, not thousands or millions per year as happens with computer chips or cars, let's try and include it in the 'reuse tax', or the increased cost to manufacture the RLV vs the expendable vehicle. (Even if it's pretty ironic to me that this is used as the ultimate argument against RLVs: 'Are you mad? With RLVs we won't be able to preserve our 6 units per year economy of scale!')

On a more serious note:
You talk about 10 launches in 10 years, so 1 RLV manufactured in 10 years vs 10 ELV. Based on my math, a conservative RLV capable of 10 reuses with 20% refurbishment costs would not be cost effective if the expendable vehicle it substitutes costed at least 3 times less. So your reduced economies of scale (+ added cost because the RLV also needs more capability) should result in a RLV that costs 200% more to manufacture for reusability not to be viable. In other words, making 10 vehicles in 10 years vs 1 in 10 years should result in 70% savings for reuse not to make economic sense. Would that really be the case? envy887 says that 10X volumes brings you 35% savings, and that's forgetting that New Glenn and F9 are only partially reusable: manufacturing facilities would still produce second stages and engines for every mission flown, so for many parts 'economies of scale' would still apply. The overall savings would probably be even less than 35%.

In conclusion I think that even in your impossible worst case scenario of 1 flight per year, reusability would still make sense. Even if you fall for the irrational 'market won't change, there will never be much more demand for orbital flights than now, which is totally not this low because they cost 100M$ each' mantra, reuse still makes sense.

But would you really bet that when BO has a fully RLV New Armstrong and can offer missions for only a fraction of the price they could offer with an ELV (and a fraction is conservative, reality will probably be orders of magnitude cheaper, as with airplanes) nobody would take advantage of that? It's overwhelmingly probable that the '6 per year economy of scale' will be preserved, but with those six vehicles you'll be able to offer tens if not hundreds of flight at 1/10 if not less than 1/100 price. Do you really think demand would be the same at <10M$ per flight or even <1M$ per flight vs >100M$ per flight?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 11/16/2017 12:22 pm
New Glenn has already booked seven flights starting sometime after 2020; they'll start booking more, as SpaceX did, after they successfully run the BE-4 full power, full duration, and start flying orbital.
There is demand for large, reusable rockets -- if the price is market competitive.  We'll have to see how pricing shakes out after they start flying, since these early flights probably had a risk premium/reduction.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nathan2go on 11/17/2017 04:07 am
Another interesting angle for comparing the two is their respective manned Beyond-LEO strategies.

SpaceX has chosen to lay a specific plan on the table, effectively becoming a thought leader.  Perhaps the openness is needed to start building support for the audacious idea of Mars colonization.  To make the jump from com-sat scale to exploration scale payloads, SpaceX will build a whole new rocket, but will use the same new rocket for both markets.  Heavy BLEO flights always used LEO propellant refilling, based on methalox.

Blue Origin is secretive, and perhaps undecided, but with a preference for cis-lunar destinations.  As late arrivals in the marketplace, they have less need to announce their plans beyond the initial com-sat capabilities.  It is fair to assume they will also move towards full re-use. 

One possibility is that Blue's New Armstrong exploration class rocket is really a 3-core variant of New Glenn (NG-Heavy?).  Compared to a larger single-core implementation of the same gross mass, the 3-core system is actually better for sending a re-usable 2nd stage to escape velocity without LEO refilling (there is a performance benefit because the side-boosters separate at lower velocity).  One could imagine a reusable hydralox 2nd stage, using 7 of their BE-3 engines, which would reach Lagrangia without refilling, or refill at L2 before landing on the Moon and returning directly to Earth.

The factory for building the 9m diameter SpaceX BFR is larger and therefore more expensive than the factory that builds the 7m NG, but it is better suited to larger payloads.  The business built around the 3 core NG-heavy is likely more cost effective when most launches are com-sat class, which can use a single core.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 11/17/2017 04:55 pm
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.
The 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 ;).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 11/19/2017 02:23 pm
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 ;).

The price per rocket will decrease with quantity, but it's a very slow function..  Logarithmic almost.  Increase production by an order of magnitude, get some decrease, etc.  iPhones are cheap because they are made by the tens of millions.

OTOH, with reusable rockets, fly 10 times, and you can amortize the fixed costs by 10x.  That's a MUCH larger reduction.

Hence the unequal ratios
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nilof on 11/20/2017 02:20 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/20/2017 02:36 am
And you people should read my posts better ;).

If most people understood you, and one person didn't? It's that person. If many people don't understand you? It's you. (old technical writing principle)...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/20/2017 04:48 am
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.

No, it won't. Not if you use the same workforce and manufacturing capabilities that you are already using for other products.

Quote
Imagine what a car or a computer chip would cost if only one were produced every 10 years.

Wrong analogies.

We know that SpaceX WON'T being flying only once per year, since they already have a healthy backlog of customer orders, AND they plan to start launching their own massive satellite constellation - some of which will likely go to space on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.

So SpaceX will likely have continuous demand for building Falcon 9 1st stages, and they will ALWAYS have demand for 2nd stages as long as Falcon 9/H are in use - and 2nd stages use the same production line as the 1st stages.

I've coordinated a lot of product transitions in my time, and I don't see a big problem with this one. 2nd stage production will keep the manufacturing line ready for any 1st stages that need to be built.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 11/20/2017 11:37 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 11/20/2017 01:32 pm
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.

Probably true, or nearly so, if one is viewing the market from a historical perspective. 
'Why throw a billion dollars at reuse when an expendable Falcon 7 would be cheaper (per copy)?'

But... change happens.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 11/20/2017 04:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: e of pi on 11/20/2017 04:37 pm
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.
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Norm38 on 12/27/2017 09:01 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/27/2017 10:05 pm
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?

If you can convince both Musk & Bezos that they are not losing face. Then maybe a separate service to operate the recovery assets might be possible.

However the idea to have one maritime recovery service is not practical currently. SpaceX have small coastal recovery units that are not very fast. While Blue will be using converted VLCC (aka supertanker) or AOE  (aka Fleet Replenishment ship) as Oceanic recovery units that can go at least 20 knots in speed.

Also both Musk and Bezos have heavily vertical integrated companies. Inserting a third party to the mix might not be as efficient and smooth running.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 12/27/2017 10:22 pm
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?
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 12/27/2017 11:56 pm
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 difficulty, which SpaceX encountered from day one, was the the existing aerospace component suppliers are high cost, low responsiveness (take what we have or forget it).  Cannot do business the old way with the old cost structure and compete in the new market.  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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/28/2017 12:08 am
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.

My background is in manufacturing, and I was very happy about the approach that Orbital Sciences took at the time when they pursued the Commercial Cargo contract. There is synergy when you use suppliers/partners that are already building what you need.

However that disposable rocket strategy has been superseded by the advent of reusable rockets, where it behooves owner/operators to be more vertically operated.

Quote
Although no company has directly tried it for RLVs, new entrants to the launch market are mostly developing small mass produced RLVs.

I'm not sure about the long-term prospects of these new smallsat launch services companies, mainly because I'm not sure how much demand there will be. Robust demand can allow for multiple business models, but low demand does not.

Quote
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.

Companies use vertical integration when they have enough demand to merit doing it in-house. But when you're doing development it may make sense to use outside providers, especially when you don't have the expertise in-house already.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/28/2017 03:54 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 12/28/2017 02:50 pm
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)?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 12/28/2017 03:02 pm
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)?

Cost and capability. Orbital's rockets are very expensive, and can't lift much - especially from Wallops.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/28/2017 03:50 pm
They can do more.
Antares to SSO (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35492.0)
But they haven't sold on in three years ...

And yes even with Russian/Ukrainian/Italian content/labor ... still not cheap enough.

Back to BO please ...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 12/29/2017 02:14 pm
I understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: tater on 12/29/2017 02:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 12/29/2017 02:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: tater on 12/29/2017 02:55 pm
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 agree, I'm just saying that the rest of the world is not this forum, so I imagine this might be a losing battle for them, particularly when they are as well known as SpaceX outside the industry and the haunts of space nerds.

Regardless, I look forward to seeing Blue Origin move forward, and I hope their model works for them.




Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 12/29/2017 05:59 pm
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.
It's not our fault they didn't think through their brand name. It's branding 101 really. Disappointing they didn't.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: slavvy on 12/29/2017 06:02 pm
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.
It's not our fault they didn't think through their brand name. It's branding 101 really. Disappointing they didn't.
And there is nothing wrong with Body Odour. Glad I have a body and that it is not odourless.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 12/30/2017 12:33 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ludus on 01/05/2018 03:11 am
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.

That’s also a real bargain currently since Panamax ships are selling at deep discounts after the opening of the new bigger Panama Canal.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 01/05/2018 03:34 pm
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?
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?

The idea of outsourcing is that with fixed costs spread over several customers, there will be fewer resource conflicts for each of them. Totally not viable if any mishap may destroy essential hardware that does not have backups. The whole idea is to spread the cost of those backups over multiple customers, rather than each one having to support a fleet of ships of which a few are in port for most of the time.

Probably not viable with only two customers with considerably different hardware, future designs, still trying to change stuff to improve efficiency, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hektor on 01/05/2018 04:23 pm
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 ?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 01/05/2018 05:06 pm
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 ?
Total guesswork
- cost
- easier to convert to having a landing platform since the deck extends all the way across (a container ship has a cavernous hole that goes several containers down into the hull)
- easier to refit to allow taking on ballast water if desired to lower or increase mass
- double hull is more resistant to sinking than a single hull
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 01/06/2018 07:49 am
Another plus are systems to flood the tanks with inert gas. (AKA exhaust)
OTOH you have to deal with nasty residue during the conversion.

My thought was a general cargo ship. Something already designed to carry deck cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/06/2018 06:16 pm
Different than the barge. It's a ship underway, achieving stability by forward thrust.

Although in increases drag (no so much of a problem), you flood compartments to bring the CG lower in the water while underway.

This creates the effect of like a moving sea anchor, which is rock solid and can accept the transient load of landing with the least wear/tear on booster and ship.

After load is safed and secured, pump out to lessen drag and increase speed to return to port.

Geometry also important here of cross section against CG of landing/landed booster, so it won't topple in cross winds.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 01/06/2018 07:56 pm
Lightly loaded ships handle horribly in any swell at all... wallowing in any cross swell.  They'll need to keep this vessel at least half loaded or comparably ballasted for stability purposes.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 01/10/2018 03:49 pm
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 ?
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.
Container ships typically have their bridge placed more to the center of the ship. This way the containers can be stacked higher at the front, before the front view is distorted to much.
Bulk carriers and oil tankers have their bridge at the rear or at the front.
(http://panamaadvisoryinternationalgroup.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/container-ship.jpg)
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*QkUg38rm0AQ2pIazTbQasg.jpeg)
(http://maritime-connector.com/images/panamacanal-16-wiki-18893.jpg)
(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/images/2017/03/blue-origin-drone-ship.jpg?itok=6pSrc6Yj&fc=50,50)

I think this could also be a interesting solution. A lowered center section that can be submerged a couple about a feet. This eleviates cooling requirements for the landing deck, but you risk exposing the rockets engines to salt water. (Really good corrosion environment; salt water)
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*dQ68YCjqDWeAs_r99MWs3g.jpeg)

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)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BisAXWZKQws/UisK4hCaACI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/jZys23WD2TU/s1600/med_1_Arberia_Stabilizer_in_Perama_Drydock_11-06-09.JPG)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 02/13/2018 11:53 am
What opportunities are there for Blue Origin to draw lessons from SpaceX's successes and failures, to modify its strategies accordingly?

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Don S on 03/13/2018 05:07 am
Since it is a Tanker it could haul fresh water for deck cooling streams during landings.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Aurora on 03/21/2018 06:27 pm
Has Blue Origin started on the conversion / construction of the Landing Ship?   Where will the landing ship be retrofitted?     
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rpapo on 03/22/2018 09:28 am
What opportunities are there for Blue Origin to draw lessons from SpaceX's successes and failures, to modify its strategies accordingly?

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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 03/22/2018 09:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 03/22/2018 10:04 pm
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.

Actually heavy launches on many light commsats, not "heavy commsats".

New Glenn only has 2 announced launches of large GTO commsats (JSAT and Eutelsat). I highly doubt the size of the fairing had anything to do with those contracts. GTO commsats are generally mass-constrained due to the high energy orbit, and operators don't buy satellites that can't go on more than one launch provider - if that provider has problems then the operator is SOL. The 7 meter fairing might allow stacked launches, though AFAIK Blue has not mentioned this (and Ariane does dual launch in a 5 meter fairing anyway).

The bulk of NG's current manifest is the 5 OneWeb launches. LEO constellation operators will happily fill up a fairing with a larger dispenser and more satellites. They don't have to worry about provider redundancy since fewer birds can easily ride on a smaller vehicle (OneWeb also has contracts with Soyuz through Ariane and with Virgin Orbit).

This is clearly a part of the market for which FH is not optimal - however this thread is Blue v. SpaceX, not FH v. NG. It's not at all clear that NG will be cheaper per small LEO sat than F9 is... and even if it is, the countering SpaceX strategy clearly is going to be to one-up NG with BFR.

Edit: SpaceX has "offered" a longer fairing, which would increase volume available for dual launch or for LEO constellations. It would also help them compete for some NSS launches. But AIFIK they have not seen enough market demand to develop a longer fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ugordan on 03/23/2018 09:06 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/24/2018 06:06 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Archibald on 03/24/2018 08:14 am
Blue Origin wants to use Panamax tankers as landing ships ?  :o
Amazing. Although probably far more expensive that SpaceX plain simple barges.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Archibald on 03/24/2018 08:21 am
What opportunities are there for Blue Origin to draw lessons from SpaceX's successes and failures, to modify its strategies accordingly?

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?
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.

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.

Very interesting, too. Well, it's a bit like the Boeing 247. It set new standards for airliners in 1932, and then many look alikes were legally created by others aircraft manufacturers. DC-2, DC-3, Lockheed Electra, Bloch MB-220, Convair 240, Martin 404, Lisunov Li-2, and many, many others.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Boeing%2C_247.jpg/789px-Boeing%2C_247.jpg)

(https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/attachment.php?attachmentid=176220&d=1423582301)

What I mean is that for the last six decades Space Transportation has been searching for a space DC-3 / 707 / 747 to drop prices drastically and open the last frontier to the masses.
then, once such vehicle will be created, there is no patent standing: everybody will create clones of it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/24/2018 11:53 am
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)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BisAXWZKQws/UisK4hCaACI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/jZys23WD2TU/s1600/med_1_Arberia_Stabilizer_in_Perama_Drydock_11-06-09.JPG)
Crazy idea and completely OT but....

Those fins. They look like they could operate in 2 axes.

Has anyone considered making them grid fins as well?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 03/24/2018 12:39 pm
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

There is a difference between 'standard vehicle widths' and 'wide loads'.

SpaceX rocket cores would qualify as 'wide loads' and be required to operate with 'chase' and 'tail' cars, amber warning lights, (and probably) white wig-wags, and 'corner' flags.  There may also be restrictions on time of day and day of week that they are allowed on the highway.

There would be extra permitting required for the driver and company as well.

Pretty standard stuff on the US highways really, where one's daily commute will likely encounter wider construction equipment on low-boy flats than a SpaceX core.  Or even a 14' wide double wide mobile/modular home or office being moved in two pieces down the Interstate.

Edit:  Many US States do not require the lead and chase cars for widths 12 feet and under.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Archibald on 03/25/2018 09:38 am
Quote
For railways its 10'8" (3.25 m).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge

When they ferried large solid rocket motors by rail, the maximum diameter was 156 inch, that is, 3.96 m.

Everything bigger, such as Aerojet monster 260 inch, had to be manufactured not too far from The Cape.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Eerie on 03/25/2018 01:50 pm
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)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BisAXWZKQws/UisK4hCaACI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/jZys23WD2TU/s1600/med_1_Arberia_Stabilizer_in_Perama_Drydock_11-06-09.JPG)
Crazy idea and completely OT but....

Those fins. They look like they could operate in 2 axes.

Has anyone considered making them grid fins as well?

Unless you want a supersonic water vehicle (speed of sound in water is 1531 m/s, so just imagine going through water at that speed - you'd need a ship made of Vibranium) there doesn't seem to be an advantage.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 03/25/2018 03:23 pm
Exemptions can be made for road transport.  Mobile homes in America are up to 16' wide (about 5.5 meters).  They can travel on roads with escort vehicles usually front and rear warning other drivers with "wide load" signs and flashing yellow lights.  Height may not exceed the 12' or about 3.8 meters due to overhead bridges.  Thus the size of Falcon 9.  So SpaceX didn't have to get any special exemption, just escort vehicles.  Also traveling at night via the Interstate system, they can avoid heavy traffic especially around large cities during rush hours. 

Railroads are older and have more curves, bridges and tunnels that a large diameter or a very long cargo cannot get by.  The solid boosters of the shuttle were 12' in diameter (maximum railroad limit), but they had to be broken down by segments in order to navigate railroad turns.  Turns for a very long load are easier to navigate on the interstate system with two lanes, and emergency lanes allowing longer turns when necessary.

Rockets such as NOVA in the 1960's were 12m wide and could only be transported via river and inland waterway barge.  12m may possibly be the limit of barges in America, thus NOVA and the 2016 ITS rocket. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 03/26/2018 04:42 pm
Gridfins, road transport etc? Off topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 04/03/2018 08:08 pm
So, with both a NS and an Electron launch due no sooner than this month, shouldn't we include Rocket Lab in this comparison? Three different goals, three different market segments, three different strategies, two different financing approaches.

I'd love to see all of them succeed, regardless of whether the more exotic goals are achieved during my lifetime. But some will probably be more successful than others, especially in the short run.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 04/03/2018 10:38 pm
One could start another thread that was a three way comparo. But that is not this thread. RL is off topic for this thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GWH on 04/04/2018 12:35 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 04/04/2018 08:54 am
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?

Isn't Starlink also entering the same market as SpaceX' launch service customers?

For that matter, the planned jump from NS to NG isn't quite as 'gradatim' as BO has been moving up to this point. Most commercial companies will probably end up abandoning paths that don't seem to go anywhere or are no longer suitable given changing circumstances, and mimic the successes of others. That's what commercial space is supposed to be all about, right? Flexibility and whatnot.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 05/27/2018 05:23 pm
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 05/27/2018 06:15 pm
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 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.

Not to sound like a broken record but Blue's business strategy is "have one of the richest men in the world as a permanent benefactor" which is great but not really easy to duplicate.  Blue has the "all the time in the world" path covered. I'm glad to have SX for the "maybe, just maybe, someone will walk on Mars before I die" path.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 05/27/2018 07:18 pm
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.

It is 'ridiculous' to be launching a 6 ton satellite on a 150 ton vehicle.
However, it is not clear that the cost of reuse scales particularly with size.

The massive margin means various things failing do not doom BFR.
If the engines are no better than F9 or the heatshield is no better than F9S1, or the structure weighs twice as much as it should, it can still launch that 6 ton satellite just fine, for a similar cost as if it had no defect.
For many of this sort of failure, it can complete the initial Mars mission too, just with more tanker launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 05/27/2018 10:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/27/2018 11:31 pm
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.

Saturn V was not reusable. Reusability changes a lot of the ways we think about transportation systems. Imagine if the Boeing 747 was only good for one flight?

Quote
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.

Maybe from a commercial standpoint. But making a 9m diameter version means they don't have to evolve the design in order to reach Mars. And it's cheaper overall.

Plus the physics and economics of the larger diameter are probably better than the 6.5m one. And remember Musk originally wanted a 12m diameter BFR, so they must have done a trades study to find a sweet spot for the smallest version to build first.

Quote
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.

SpaceX and Blue Origin will be competing for the same customers, so it will likely boil down to who has the best pricing. Bezos can afford to lose money initially, but I don't think he will be willing to eat too much of a loss. And we really don't know how much launch business there will be to compete for, because if reusability doesn't spur the creation of new business models, then everyone will be hurting for launch business (expendables too). Lots of assumptions being made about future user demand.

Quote
I don't have the confidence in EM to pull this off without a serious bailout.

Musk keeps pulling off audacious plans, but that doesn't mean he is infallible...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/28/2018 12:34 am
The BFR and NG not being built for existing market but to create whole new markets. Whether that is space tourism, space colonies or markets that nobody has thought of.
Servicing existing missions in near term is still important but is not their end goal.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 05/28/2018 02:14 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 05/28/2018 02:45 am
SpaceX and Tesla are completely different.  With cars he must mass produce at a low cost.  He has learned with Tesla that robotics can sometimes be slower than humans in mass assembly.  Reusable rockets do not have to be mass produced quickly and can take a little more time to get into production.  Automobiles are a huge turn over.  There are only so many launch opportunities to make money.  Millions of cars are made worldwide, and only hundreds of rockets. 

Same with airliners.  747's are used for 40 years, so not as many are made.   
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/28/2018 03:34 am
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 05/28/2018 03:58 am
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.

FH is 50% of the size of a Saturn V, and they already have satellite customers for it. Size doesn't matter as much as you think, one size fits all has always been SpaceX's strategy, it's true for Falcon 9 too.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/28/2018 05:10 am
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/28/2018 03:15 pm
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.
 
 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 05/28/2018 03:37 pm
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.

SpaceX is trying to sell BFR not as "a satellite launcher", but as "the cheapest satellite launcher ever, period". Cheaper than Falcon 1. Cheaper per launch than Electron, for that matter, despite 1000x more capacity. That is BFR's "single purpose", even more so that flying people to Mars, because the largest and cheapest (to operate) launch vehicle ever is a necessary prerequisite to flying people to Mars.

New Glenn is just a larger Falcon 9. SpaceX has been there and done that. If they need to evolve F9/FH into full reuse they can, but they clearly think BFR represents a better opportunity.

Blue thinks the same way, as they have said that New Glenn will be the smallest orbital rocket they will ever build.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/29/2018 07:53 pm
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.

Yes, for customers that require certifications for contractor services SpaceX and NASA/USAF would need time to certify the BFS before using it. SpaceX would understand that the need for that.

Quote
Since SpaceX makes its own prices, I doubt Falcon 9 would be used much once BFR comes online.

That seems to be the plan according to Elon Musk - only operate one transportation system at a time.

Quote
Assuming BFR is a successful development, SpaceX would have to price it lower than Falcon 9/Heavy - otherwise it would be a failed development.

A transportation system to move cargo and people between Earth and Mars is the primary goal for the BFR/BFS. Musk started SpaceX to make humanity multi-planetary, not to develop cheap lift, so I think Musk will be OK with high launch costs assuming the BFR/BFS work as planned.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 05/30/2018 11:59 pm
The fundamental problem with this question is that we have no idea what Blue Origin's business strategy is. They don't owe us that information, but it certainly makes discussing it difficult.

SpaceX's business model works as long as you don't assume SpaceX has been losing money on every launch as some do. Falcon 9 can fly almost any commercial payload available right now with Falcon Heavy likely being used to avoid expending cores in addition to flying the rare heavy load. They make some profit on first flight vehicles and much higher margin on "flight proven" vehicles, which means they are poised to lower costs if they determine there is some need to and in the meantime they make great margins. Their forward looking vision is BFR and they just have to field it before something can compete well enough against Falcon to kill margin and flight rate. Oh, and mars. But that's not really a business plan at the moment.

Blue Origin should start making some revenue from New Shepard before long, though even with good margin it doesn't seem enough to finance other larger endeavors. New Glenn is a rocket that will essentially come to market with no obligation to recoup development costs, but it can't realistically operate at a loss for very long either. We have no insight into how much NG will cost to develop, or fly, or refurbish, or even how much they are charging for flights. At the moment there don't seem to be enough larger satellites for it to be competitive based on capability alone, so it has to be cheaper or have some other benefit. It may be the launch vehicle for a moon lander, but Blue seems to want it to be economically viable on its own, much like BFS. As far as I see it, if they both come to market as currently planned, NG will have a hard time competing with BFS even with a reusable second stage. Competing with Falcon is really just about cost except for corner cases.

SpaceX builds a commercially viable product with reusability in mind and gets it to market first and then works on perfecting reusability. They have reached the point where they have a solid revenue stream so they are focusing almost entirely on reusability. Seems to be working for them so far. There are people who dislike or belittle them, but they are flying paying customers almost twice a month and are about to overtake the Atlas V for most experienced American rocket.

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 many 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.

Blue has been around longer than SpaceX and have yet to deliver a product. Going from that to having the most advanced orbital rocket system in the world in two years seems ludicrous to me (especially since they just went clean slate on stage two), but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 05/31/2018 01:51 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 05/31/2018 03:05 am
Considering the history of paper/PowerPoint and fortunes that have been incinerated in the history of rockets/space exploration, I struggle to understand how so many people believe everything that Bezos/Musk/NASA/ULA/whoever say, shall be done. Just because the stated goal of SpaceX is Mars doesn't mean they'll pull it off on-time or at all. The thing I most struggle with is the notion that the goal of Mars doesn't have to be subservient to revenue. There's no money to be made from Mars on a time scale that works for anyone to finance up front and expect to recoup anything. So it is necessary to actually make money with a launch vehicle, and right now the only way that's done is by putting satellites in LEO/GEO. So a viable launcher had better be well optimized for making money first and foremost, exploration dreams second. I don't know how closely those two goals align. I suppose Bezos actually has the war chest to sustain an operation that isn't single mindedly focused on competing for typical sat launch, but how much would he really be willing to burn? Musk certainly doesn't single handedly have enough at the moment unless he only cares about a one-off Mars program with no sustainability.

Things that cost money with no guarantee of becoming operational or make money: BFR/BFS, NG, NS, Starlink, DreamChaser, etc


I really hope all these things work out. I suppose what I feel is well founded "realism" is overblown skepticism to many.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 05/31/2018 03:18 am
I don't know how closely those two goals align.

Launching satellites to LEO aligns very nicely with interplanetary travel.  Orbital fuel transfer aligns very nicely with launching satellites to higher orbits.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 05/31/2018 04:24 am
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 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.

EDIT: fixed quotes.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/31/2018 01:34 pm
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

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 05/31/2018 02:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 05/31/2018 02:32 pm
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.
Having access to a $19B/$134B of the money doesn't mean proportionately less useful output. (Ratio of net worths).


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 05/31/2018 02:42 pm
I didn't mean to imply that I think either SpaceX or Blue's success is inevitable.

My intent was not to say you exhibited the tendency.  I just feel that many people think this way and it's related to what you were saying.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2018 03:09 pm
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.

Quote
It's engines are being tested on already-operational test stands.

So far only up to 70% thrust as far as we know. SpaceX has been firing Raptor too.

Quote
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.

And SpaceX has an army of "been there, done that" rocket engineers and production people that are ready to work on the next phase of the SpaceX plan. Having people and systems in place that already work is a HUGE time saver for new projects.

Quote
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?   

Luckily there is no race, and no real competition either - the BFR/BFS and New Glenn have little market overlap.

No doubt lots of money will be needed, but we in the peanut galley will have the fun of watching two completely different business models and methods of operation work on not one, but TWO world-class rocket systems.

Folks, these are great times we live in...  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 05/31/2018 03:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 05/31/2018 04:20 pm
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

No, that logic doesn't work for SpaceX or Blue. Money solves things if you are outsourcing, but when you are vertically integrated most of your cost is people, so money either buys you more time or more people. People are a limited commodity. SpaceX has all the time in the world because they have a revenue source that can pay for their overhead for the foreseeable future. Blue gets all the money it wants from Prime subscriptions.

Along with time though is leadership and talent. Blue, with more time than any modern competitor, has never produced an operational product. That doesn't mean they can't, but it is the biggest red flag I see. We don't see inside the company so it isn't really fair to judge too hard externally, but until we see them start actually delivering finished products on shorter than decade scales I'll remain skeptical. However, skepticism from any of us really has no impact on reality, only on our discussions.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 05/31/2018 07:45 pm
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 don't think Elon Musk has ever met a deadline he couldn't miss, but the presence of those deadlines keeps SpaceX moving forward.

Blue on the other hand appears to have out-gradatim'd its ferocitor to a significant degree.

I am sure they can produce New Glenn eventually, I'm just not sure how much longer it will take. It took almost 15 years for Blue to conduct its first New Shepard flight, SpaceX took four years for Falcon 1. Admittedly, the first New Shepard (as opposed to PM2) flight was a success while Falcon 1's first three flights were failures and it didn't achieve orbit until 2008.

From my perspective, SpaceX is much better at building production flight hardware and lifting mass into space. On the other hand, I think Blue is doing exactly what Jeff Bezos wants it to do.

There's also the fact that neither company's actually focused on a direct business strategy. Musk wants to go to Mars and Bezos wants to industrialize space. If you measure them against those yardsticks I think SpaceX comes out ahead at the moment and will likely come closer to its much simpler goal sooner.

I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX starts launching BFS to Mars by the 2024 synod, but I don't know that New Glenn will be flying by its suggested 2020 date, and wouldn't be surprised if it slips to 2022 or even 2024 if they have issues with an early test flight. Blue took four years to launch New Shepard after the PM2 failure so I would expect any New Glenn failures to lead to a significant delay while Blue resolves it.

They really have very different goals and thus different approaches.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: deruch on 05/31/2018 08:08 pm
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

Some amount of BFR is going to be manufactured in Hawthorne not San Pedro (the port).  So, you could make an argument that SpaceX has just as much of a factory built, in that they both have at least a building where work will eventually be done.  But the real factory is the tooling.  Not sure how NG and BFR compare on that score.  It probably depends on how much reuse of F9/FH systems is going to take.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 05/31/2018 08:30 pm
I have little doubt that Blue Origin will eventually build BE-4 and New Glenn. But at what time will BE-4 available? Any significant delay may hurt ULA a lot. At what time will availability of BE-4 be essential for ULA?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 05/31/2018 08:42 pm
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

'Factory' building is a trivial exercise -- filling it with tooling, and then learning how to use that tooling is the challenge.  Not obvious that the Blue crew is much ahead in this category, if at all.

Engine development and flight qualification is a horse race -- not apparent which team has the lead.  Both have made lots of progress and have lots of work to finish.  One team has scheduled flights (BFS sub-orbital hops) in the next year...

Dealing with the inevitable development hiccups involves a couple factors: 1. how many hiccups do you encounter, and 2. how experienced is your crew with dealing with such things on the fly.  Building their first orbital rocket, flying a multi-engine configuration, conducting a staging event, controlling an orbital insertion burn, dispensing a payload, controlling orbital attitude, guiding a hypervelocity vehicle with precision to a surface target, operating a landing platform, rigging a 7m rocket off that platform, and refurbishing a flight-proven booster (or building a new one) are all new to the Blue team.  They will need by far the most billions(to which they have access) to fund these hiccups, as well as by far the most time.  Thus, Blue Origin has little chance of getting New Glenn operational before the BFR booster is flying. 

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 05/31/2018 09:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 06/01/2018 02:46 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/01/2018 03:01 am
Well the bigger stage will have 7 raptor engines, which is considerably more expensive then the 1 merlin engine on the current 2nd stage.  It will also require expensive, specialized equipment and labor to fabricate and those costs need to be spread out among all the launches.

I dont think throwing away the 2nd stage would necessarily be unaffordable if they streamlined production, skipped the heatshield and reduced the number of engines.  It would probably be a cost comparable to many launches today but with 30 times the payload.  The business model would need to be radically altered to bundling dozens of launches and boosters into one rocket but it could be done.  However it's certainly not as good a long term strategy as reuse so it's no wonder they dont plan to go down that route.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: docmordrid on 06/01/2018 05:52 am
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 risk is Model 3 profits. A report yesterday in Germany's WirtschaftsWoche quotes  German engineering groups tearown and analysis of Model 3, and their take is that competitors need to worry.

German.... (https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/mobilitaet/elektroauto-zerlegt-tesla-model-3-kann-gewinn-abwerfen/22625806.html)

English story,

Link.. (https://www.electrive.com/2018/05/31/tesla-model-3-found-profitable/)

Also; they're prepping to announce a factory in Shanghai to serve the Asian market.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 06/01/2018 06:13 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 06/01/2018 06:41 am
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. ;-)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/01/2018 11:04 am
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. ;-)
It is definitely Blue's plan. We'll see how it changes as they try to work it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/01/2018 01:18 pm
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.

Understand your point... that damn reusability paradigm seems to be catching on. ;)

Please Note: Having a reusable booster and classical second stage that can put possibly 200+ tonnes into LEO for the cost of the second stage isn't nothing.  Some (we taxpayers) are spending $4B/year for ten years to make a 'Boeing Rocket' that can launch once per year for $1-2B with half the payload capability and no reusable bits.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/01/2018 02:07 pm
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.
Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit.  BFR only has a tent.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dlapine on 06/01/2018 03:50 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 06/01/2018 04:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/01/2018 04:21 pm
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.

Blue Origin started as a company earlier than SpaceX, and with a whole lot more money.  Their approach/business strategy hasn't reached Earth orbit yet, though they have launched 8-9 times sub-orbitally.  SpaceX has over fifty successful orbital flights and a $12B manifest.  They also started earlier on the BE-4, before SpaceX started building Raptor (a much more sophisticated engine design), but are at best neck-and-neck in the engine competition.

It is obvious that proven performance-to-date and pace of development are in SpaceX's favor. 
Arguments can be made that Blue has a better 'strategy' or 'game plan', but they need to show us some results*.


* Building a big box building in Florida is not 'results.'
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 06/01/2018 04:48 pm
When did BE-4 development start? Raptor had hardware tests in April 2014.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: chipguy on 06/01/2018 04:50 pm
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.
Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit.  BFR only has a tent.

 - Ed Kyle

So the hard part of getting to orbit is constructing a large building?

Huh.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/01/2018 04:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/01/2018 05:13 pm
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.
Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit.  BFR only has a tent.

 - Ed Kyle

So the hard part of getting to orbit is constructing a large building?

Huh.
Who said it was the "hard part"?

Infrastructure is a big part of the development effort for any launch vehicle.  That includes buildings, yes, for engineering and manufacturing and testing and assembly and telemetry and flight control.  It includes the tooling and equipment in the buildings.  It includes test stands for engines and maybe for entire stages.  It includes launch site facilities and, for these biggies, landing facilities (in New Glenn's case that means a ship and dockside facilities).

All of this before anyone goes flying. 

 - Ed Kyle
 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dlapine on 06/01/2018 05:22 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/01/2018 05:34 pm
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.
Not quite yet, but at least New Glenn has a building to outfit.  BFR only has a tent.

 - Ed Kyle

So the hard part of getting to orbit is constructing a large building?

Huh.

Hard? Not really.

Time consuming and expensive? Yes.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 06/01/2018 05:36 pm
How much time is remaining on factory construction? On launch pad construction?
How much more time will it take to do the first launch after that?

The building is cheap and quick. The hard part are the innards. Both stuff and people.
I think a big indication is if Blue will empty out a warehouse or two. Shipping NG tooling, some machinery and perhaps even prefabricated parts to Florida.

Stick some parts together and find out if it is a rocket or quarter stick. 8)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 06/01/2018 05:59 pm

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 06/01/2018 06:07 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Stan-1967 on 06/01/2018 06:22 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/01/2018 06:33 pm

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.

Yes, it will have plenty of margin. You don't get (a likely sandbagged)  45 tonnes to LEO with a small rocket. New Glenn is somewhat like taking 5 Atlas boosters and 10 Centaurs and melding them into one giant super rocket. It's enormous. IMO with the new LH2 second stage it will be capable of around 20.5 tonnes to GTO with booster landing.

As for the shallow entry, it's the downrange velocity that really adds the heat. Just look at F9 entries: the toastiest boosters have a lower apogee with downrange landing, while the RTLS booster go higher but return mostly unscathed.

Initial NG launches will probably have the same conops as they are planning for operation, just lesser in degree: a lower, slower staging point, an easier reentry, and much more fuel for landing. Let that huge upper stage do most of the work to orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/01/2018 07:25 pm
BFS might lift off from ground before NG, but not reach orbit.

Aren't they both scheduled for 2020?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/01/2018 08:00 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/01/2018 08:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/01/2018 08:46 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/01/2018 09:41 pm
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?

Late 2020.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/01/2018 09:42 pm
Isn't New Glenn first flight slated for 2021?

I thought it was Q4 2020.  Either way, I dont see how they are going to be launching a second flight with a payload in 2020.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/01/2018 09:50 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/01/2018 10:58 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/01/2018 11:25 pm
What strikes me as so different between these two companies is the order in which they are solving problems. If Blue really can go from sub orbital to giant orbital in 2 years then it will be really interesting data point on how long each problem takes to solve. It is actually really hard to tell who is moving faster toward the goal of reusable HLV since they've taken such totally different paths.

Blue:
1. Hover (6 years)
2. Engine 1, Human Space Flight (ish), vertical landing (+12, 18 years)
3. Engine 2, orbit, stage separation, payload faring, HLV, orbital landing (+2, 20 years)

SpaceX:
1. Engine 1, Engine 2, payload fairing, stage separation, orbital (6 years)
2. Cargo capsule, medium lift (+2, 8 years)
3. Orbital landing (+5, 13 years)
4. Human spaceflight (+4, 17 years)
5. Engine 3, HLV (+1, 18 years)

These milestones overlap and I'm sure there are some others want to be included, but it gives an idea of what engineering hurdles have been solved already and what they have to solve to get to the next step. By this measure, HLV means large composite bodies for both vendors and applying human rating to their large vehicles is a step beyond these for both.

I or someone should put together a gantt chart with best guesses for development of each of these major systems and milestones. Other off topic manufacturers who have started from scratch in the 21st century might be interesting to include as well. We might determine roughly how long each of these systems appears to take in general and who has done it faster. Perhaps that is a new thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/01/2018 11:30 pm
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
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.

So I consider the engines basically at the same point, but I do consider New Glenn's factory in a much better state (although SpaceX will undoubtedly build much of BFR at Hawthorne). We don't know if New Glenn has tooling, yet, but I'd bet it does. We know that much of the tooling is available for BFS.

I'd say BFS will do test hops before NG, but NG will beat BFR to orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dlapine on 06/02/2018 12:36 am

<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.

You're probably right to cast Blue's time frame as improbable, but I think we can all appreciate how nice it is to have hope at the moment that both Blue and SpaceX might deliver on their time frames, and give us two affordable, working examples of of heavy launchers by 2020. (unlike the lack of hope I get about launches in 2020 from a certain government-designed jobs program)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/02/2018 02:49 am

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.

Blue took the more traditional route of not tweeting pictures of tooling before they built the factory. Doesn't mean it's not being worked on.

They have been working on New Glenn for much longer than two years, and on BE-4 since 2011. And they can start building the booster before the engine finishes qual testing, but that should be done soon anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/02/2018 03:00 am
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.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/02/2018 04:00 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/02/2018 10:12 am
Excellent post John.
As rightly pointed out its not company's experience that counts but its employee's combined knowledge. There is no shortage of experienced aerospace experts working for Blue.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2018 10:51 am
SpaceX already has a test stand for Raptor.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/02/2018 12:18 pm
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.  They'll also need significantly larger (at least 3x) cryo tanks because the test version engine was limited to 100s runs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2018 01:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/02/2018 02:22 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/02/2018 02:31 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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.

I agree 100% that spaceX is more advanced at production than Blue Origin. Merlin production rate is insane! :). Yes, SpaceX is quicker whilst Blue are more ahead in certain technical areas when comparing New Glenn to BFR/BFS.

Thank you for the warm welcome! NSF has definitely been of great value to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2018 03:04 pm
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/02/2018 03:49 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/02/2018 05:31 pm

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:

Quote
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.”

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-ceo-says-next-gen-4-rocket-engine-meets-technical-requirements/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/02/2018 05:38 pm

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:

Quote
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.”

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/02/2018 05:47 pm
It is tough to tell who is ahead on engine development because the two companies are taking different approaches and they don't give regular progress updates.

It appears that Raptor has thousands more seconds of test fires than does BE-4.  So ordinarily I would say that Raptor is at least six months ahead.  But the Raptor is an exotic creature being asked to perform exotic tasks.  So it is anybody's guess.

And anyway, six months or a year won't matter in the end analysis.  Which is the better, cheaper engine for its task?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 06/02/2018 05:55 pm
Trick question.  :) The best engine is the engine that you actually have access to.

Doesn't matter if Raptor is better in any and all aspects if Elon ain't selling it to Jeff.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/02/2018 07:13 pm

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:

Quote
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.”

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.
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".   

So yes, they've demonstrated enough so ULA (who is quite backed into a corner) is willing to sign a contract.   But doubtless, the contract is full of contingencies, and means little or nothing until BE-4 meets the requirements needed to fly the rocket.  And these have not yet been demonstrated, so the signing is basically a formality in service of marketing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/02/2018 07:36 pm
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.

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.
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.

I acknowledged that the first test stand exists, i also wrote about the limitations of its tanks. I was asking in regards to your statement that "The first stand can still test the full Raptor". But you've changed it to "probably can handle", so i guess we are in agreement. In regards to strategy, do you think selling the BE-4 to ULA(if chosen), provides Blue with a strategic advantage over spaceX?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/02/2018 07:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 06/02/2018 07:54 pm
I don't see it as an advantage either.  The New Glenn and the Vulcan will use the same engines.  If there is a failure during a launch, BOTH companies would have to shut down while it is investigated.  To me not a good idea.  Now if ULA used the AR-1, and something happened to the AR-1, Blue could still launch. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 06/02/2018 08:15 pm
The advantage for Blue? Finally a deadline! ;D

That said if push comes to shove a 70% power BE-4 should be enough for NG, for now.
Launch some of the contracts and learn how to land the first stage.

ULA of course has a problem if BE-4 gets delayed. AR-1 is not exactly ready.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: testguy on 06/02/2018 09:22 pm
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 lbf.  Can that possibly be true, launching from the Florida coast?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/02/2018 10:25 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/02/2018 10:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hplan on 06/02/2018 10:51 pm

 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.

He also clearly mentioned the possibility of launching rockets 100 feet wide...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hplan on 06/02/2018 10:54 pm
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.

The speaker also mentioned that Blue has about 1400 employees, to SpaceX's what, 7000?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/02/2018 11:26 pm
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.

I didn't say there was a way. I was just checking to see if anyone could see any strategic business advantage, like increased revenue, increased flight rate for BE-4 Engines(More data on flown engines, if ULA do proceed with mid-air capture) or higher rate of BE-4 production, which would mean they can build their engine facility in Huntsville(More engines they produce leads will lead to process improvements & productivity gains which could lead to significant cost reduction per engine). But i see your point.
Business landscape is littered with examples of competitors also selling/buying components of the products they compete against, to each other. I hope in this situation its the case that although this supply deal seems disadvantages now, it may yield unexpected advantages in the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/02/2018 11:27 pm

 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.

He also clearly mentioned the possibility of launching rockets 100 feet wide...
Yep, thats where i got the 30m(rounded) diameter from.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 06/02/2018 11:49 pm
Nope, not really.

From the closed caption.
Quote
[...] 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

Just an example for "scales really well".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/03/2018 01:09 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MaxTeranous on 06/03/2018 08:16 am
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?

Actually building and launching rockets in reasonable numbers takes people. It’s not a reasonable comparison. A better comparison would be the relative numbers in their respective design teams, but even then that’s not great as these things aren’t discrete separate teams like in the past.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 06/03/2018 08:58 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/03/2018 12:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: testguy on 06/03/2018 01:55 pm
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.

Jeff wants millions of people working in space, at 30 meter diameter he could do it with one launch! Ha,Ha
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/03/2018 02:31 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 06/03/2018 04:38 pm

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/03/2018 04:41 pm
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 is building a manufacturing organization, but it takes time to build an experiemced launch operations organization (and no, NS doesn't count)

The obvious shortcut there is to drain ULA, with whom they have a certain relationship already, or to outright buy them. (The later, the cheaper)

---

The other thing BO needs os a set of concrete goals.

SpaceX has StarLink and Mars.  So even now, we know what the rockets will be doing once they're flying.

BO needs a statement of purpose that's more detailed then "millions of people working in space".

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 06/03/2018 04:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/03/2018 05:12 pm
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.

Most likely a Biconic capsule as normal capsules eg orion, starliner, appollo,   don't scale well.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/03/2018 05:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 06/03/2018 06:27 pm
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.
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?

To quote Bezos, the BE-4 is a "medium-performing version of a high- performance architecture". They are not aiming at the improbable. They are aiming at the doable.

SX and Blue have totally different philosophies borne out the personalities of their founders and the necessities of their situations. 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 and then saying "look how hard it was for them!" is a false equivalence.

OrbitalATK and Sealaunch are completely irrelevant to this conversation and the N1 was underfunded, used engines that could not be test fired and was under insane schedule pressure.

There is nothing unsolvable in NG and the only (I think weak) argument that can be made is that the economic case won't close. And talking about the economic case is sort of silly when the company never has to recover it's investments and can run at a loss for the next 100 years.

The hand wringing over Blue seems just like the hand wringing over SX a couple years ago. If Blue looses the Vulcan bid, they'll be fine.  If NG launches 2 years late, they'll be fine.  If NG looses a couple of boosters, they'll be fine. They'll probably build multiple boosters anyway, because they can and they like to be "hardware rich."
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/03/2018 07:19 pm

... 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 ....

If I didn't know otherwise, and if I knew Latin, I might have summarized your description above as "Gradatim Ferociter"...

Otherwise tho, while funding sure is nice to have, it's not a solution to many of the obstacles listed above, and in some ways can also have a detrimental effect.  Difficult times and having to perform or die forge strong teams. BO has yet to pass any significant test.

I hope they do, but it is far from guaranteed.  Their situation is different from SpaceX of earlier years, since SpaceX was focused from a very early stage on commercial orbital flight and on performing for real, which set them apart and gained them the following of many observers.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/03/2018 07:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 06/03/2018 07:37 pm
i might write a post on Blue Origins 200 most accomplished(fact based opinion) employees(with factually information on the previous rockets, planes, engines & software that they have previously worked on etc), how that links to their overall strategy and the hardware they are building. I think this will show just how much of an All Star team they have - could help dispel some of the unwarranted pessimism in the thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 06/03/2018 09:17 pm

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.

I bet NG will undercut FHs price because they can (regardless of the actual cost to fly.) But even if NG is not less expensive than FH, it just need to be less expensive than other competitors. No one in the industry wants a monopoly. If NG proves reliable and undercuts non-SX competitors, they will get payloads. From there they get the real-world experience to develop NA.

I'm an unabashed fan of SX but until there is a vibrant space based economy, Bezos will be trying to bring one about by his own force of will. If there ever is a vibrant space based economy in Bezos lifetime that comes about primarily because no non-Blue actors, Bezos will probably still try to dominate it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 06/03/2018 10:43 pm

Sure, but even if NG is ready in 2020, FH will have been flying for 2 years, while NG still has to prove itself. First orbital rocket they've built and all that. If they validate NG at the rate they've been doing test missions on NS, that's another couple of years. And NS is a much simpler rocket, which is the reason they built it in the first place. By the time they would start to seriously undercut FH, BFR will only be a few short years away. (BFR in 2020 still makes me laugh) While little work on NA would have been possible by that time, considering they'd probably want to max out on lessons learned from an orbital vehicle.

I'm all for a vibrant market with as many suppliers as possible. So I cheer them all on. I just don't see the part where Blue and SpaceX are vying for first place... Blue has been solidly overtaken. If SpaceX fails to deliver, it's because BFR doesn't work out. Not because of competition from Blue.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 06/04/2018 12:37 am

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rpapo on 06/04/2018 10:14 am
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/04/2018 11:17 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/04/2018 01:00 pm
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.

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.
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.
And even more so, of course the same could be said of SpaceX...

If a start-up can't adapt, it doesn't have much going for it.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/04/2018 01:28 pm

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.
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.

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 gradual approach is probably fine when almost all the competition is moving much slower or making no tangible progress at all. Right now, it doesn't look like anyone besides Blue and SpaceX will field a partially reusable vehicle before 2030.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 06/04/2018 02:15 pm
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 one God SpaceX" vibe gets so old so quick.

For reuse, "Millions living and working in space", Elons retirement on Mars, Moonbase Alpha ESA 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Patchouli on 06/04/2018 03:34 pm
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.

At that size a spaceplane along the lines of the HL-42 or Soviet LKS starts making sense maybe subcontract it to SNC or Boeing since they already have been working on them.
One of the biggest tragedies of the shuttle program is many people learned the wrong lessons from it.
The accidents were due to vehicle stack interaction and the orbiter was fairly safe on orbit and during landing so long as nothing happed to it during launch.

That is the important part and why the constant "There is only one God SpaceX" vibe gets so old so quick.

For reuse, "Millions living and working in space", Elons retirement on Mars, Moonbase Alpha ESA 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.

OT but that is true things like Elon's Mars city or the ESA moon village are going to require the work of many companies and nation state entities.
In fact you want as many players as possible as that way you get redundancy and a vehicle getting grounded doesn't shut down all operations.

Though on other players offering a RLV I can see JAXA doing a quick and dirty RLV along the lines of F9 or a smaller BFS if they're given the funding as they had a VTOL demonstrator.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 06/04/2018 04:54 pm

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.
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.

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.
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.

This whole "winner takes all" assumption of this discussion is based on tribalism IMO. As is the strange belief that any group of well funded, highly competent aerospace engineers is not capable of developing a reusable rocket. The secret sauce is a desire to do it and a willingness and ability to fund the effort. The sad fact is most LV producers are not willing or able to fund the development.

P.S. Some may argue there is a "coolness factor" to SX at the moment. There is no way that SES or Iridium or anyone else is flying SX because they are "cool." They are flying on them because they get the job done (most of the time) for a competitive price.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 06/04/2018 05:04 pm

The obvious shortcut there is to drain ULA,


You mean Spacex, which is happening.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/04/2018 05:59 pm

The obvious shortcut there is to drain ULA,


You mean Spacex, which is happening.
Well if they want the people most recently experienced with setting up a high launch rate operation, yes, definitely.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/04/2018 07:59 pm
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/04/2018 08:12 pm
It's beyond the work-life balance of individual employees.  When projects have deadlines, there's a sense of urgency that affects how the projects progress.  It's not always 100% for the best since too much urgency on small sub-goals can be very detrimental to the overall project, but you have to have urgency at the top level.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/04/2018 08:14 pm
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.

They have contracts for 2021 launches and are entering EELV bids. Those represent a lot of business and money on the line with fixed deadlines and should be pretty good motivation.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kabloona on 06/04/2018 08:16 pm

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.

Let's not assume that a deliberate, incremental business plan says anything about the quality or drive of the employees executing the plan. Bezos' other enterprise, Amazon, is known for being  a demanding work environment in which employees are expected to either produce or find other employment. Yes, it's a for-profit venture, which Blue is not (yet), but it probably will be at some point.

Meanwhile, Blue just built a $200 million factory in Florida. I doubt they'll have any problem attracting highly-qualified, motivated employees who would donate a major organ for the opportunity to work there 50-60 hours per week on a regular basis.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/04/2018 11:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 06/05/2018 12:08 am
3. Blue Origin is a hobby company and he's simply not involved in the day-to-day. (also known as a "fact")

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/05/2018 01:09 am
3. Blue Origin is a hobby company and he's simply not involved in the day-to-day. (also known as a "fact")

This seems theoretically possible, but most CEOs I have known would slide-tackle their grandmother from behind if she threatened to score in the Thanksgiving family soccer game.  They hate to lose at anything, be it hobby, business, or politics.  Hard to imagine Bezos being laid back about competing with SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 06/05/2018 02:24 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rabidpanda on 06/05/2018 03:09 am
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.

Any engineer who chooses to work at a company like SpaceX or Blue Origin for >40 hrs/wk, could probably easily find a less intense job at a different company if they wanted to. Chill out.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/05/2018 03:10 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 06/05/2018 03:12 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 06/05/2018 03:37 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 06/05/2018 03:39 am
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 one God SpaceX" vibe gets so old so quick.

For reuse, "Millions living and working in space", Elons retirement on Mars, Moonbase Alpha ESA 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.

No that's not how it works. To borrow the narrative from Bezos, there're companies who build and run the infrastructure, and there're  companies which are built upon the infrastructure. There will only be a few infrastructure companies because of economy of scale, just count the number of credit card companies, package delivery companies, desktop OS companies, desktop CPU companies, etc. There're very few, but the companies who use the credit card/package delivery/desktop OS/CPU are numerous.

So it's perfectly ok if only SpaceX and Blue was able to provide fully reusable space transport to LEO/Moon/Mars, in fact it is to be expected. The millions living and working in space are not going to work in transportation, their work will depend on the cheap transportation SpaceX and Blue provides.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 06/05/2018 03:41 am
3. Blue Origin is a hobby company and he's simply not involved in the day-to-day. (also known as a "fact")

Well Elon Musk is not involved in the day-to-day of SpaceX either, he has Gwynne Shotwell to do that
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kabloona on 06/05/2018 03:44 am
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.

Probably there's truth in both conjectures. Bezos must know there's no way Blue Origin will ever be the cash cow that Amazon is, so he's probably willing to cut his Blue employees some slack that Amazonians won't get.

But, like you say, when Blue customers start paying to get their deliverables on time, the tune might change. And as an Amazon Prime customer, I have to give Bezos credit for getting tons of stuff delivered on, or ahead of, schedule...while simultaneously feeling somewhat guilty about the working conditions I'm subsidizing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 06/05/2018 03:46 am
Well Elon Musk is not involved in the day-to-day of SpaceX either, he has Gwynne Shotwell to do that

Nope. Elon walks the factory floor of SpaceX three days a week. People directly report to him. Bezos doesn't do anything like that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 06/05/2018 04:04 am
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.

I've seen people worked like dogs until they simply had enough and left. Guess what, that left a huge hole in productivity and sent the employer scrambling. Now those people aren't getting killed with work and that employer is more careful to not run people into the ground. Seems that's the way it ought to work, IMO.

SX & BO employees are free to leave and I'm sure they have plenty soft places they can land. The idea that people can decide to work less and will remain competitive is not really up to them on an individual basis in this globalized economy, if there are others with similar talent & willingness to out hustle, then one must do what it takes to keep up or be happy with less.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/05/2018 10:56 am
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 one God SpaceX" vibe gets so old so quick.

For reuse, "Millions living and working in space", Elons retirement on Mars, Moonbase Alpha ESA 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.

What is critically important to all of these endeavours is to have at least one low cost, high volume launch system.  We are having the discussion because there is one now... without it, we'd still be longing for Apollo days (when there was only one capable BEO system), or depending on SLS/Orion which is less than one.

Most here who are SpaceX huggers support free and open competition, Blue's reusable rocket development efforts, and the nascent National efforts from Europe, Japan, Russia(?), and all comers. 

Two or three reusable launch vehicles and we are on our way BEO!!!  One can still be killed by entrenched interests, so is a fragile foothold.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/05/2018 02:32 pm
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.

SpaceX only lists prices to GTO. There's no "sneaky trick" here. 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)
Ariane 5 lower berth: $65? for 4? t to GTO-1500
Ariane 62: $87 (75 euro) for 5 t to GTO-1500
Atlas V 501: $109 for 4.5 t to GTO-1800


Single heavy sats:
Ariane 64 upper berth: $65? for 7? t to GTO-1500
FH: $90 for 8 t to GTO-1800
Vulcan 50x: $99? for 8? t to GTO-1800
Ariane 5 upper berth: $110? for 7? t to GTO-1500
Atlas V 551: $175 for 8.3 t to GTO-1800

Dual-berth: 2 medium or 1 heavy, 1 light:
Ariane 64: $105 (90 euro) for 11,500 kg to GTO-1500
Vulcan 56x: $120? for 16,000? kg to GTO-1800
Ariane 5: $175? for 11 t to GTO-1500

The real question is where New Glenn fits in. All we know is that their prices are "very competitive", which suggests Ariane 64-level pricing with double berthing, as the GTO payload with booster recovery is likely well over 15 t.

Ariane 62 and Atlas V are not competitive at all. A64 is only competitive with double berthing but it does very well there - assuming they can hit the 90 million euro price, which is not yet certain. Vulcan is on the higher end, even with double berthing on a medium 52x or 53x series launch.

One other thing to note is that these are all speculative prices for 2020-2021 launches, except for A5, Atlas V, F9, and FH, which are solid prices for 2019 launches. F9/FH might change price (up or down) by 2020-2021, or A6x, Vulcan, or New Glenn might not come in at the predicted cost. Only New Glenn has commercial launch contracts on the books.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 06/05/2018 03:22 pm
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?
 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/05/2018 05:28 pm
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?

Stationkeeping for a GEO sat is about 50 m/s per year, so in theory 300 m/s less translates into 6 potential more years of service.  However these extra years accrue at the end of nominal life, when something else may have failed, and the satellite is no longer state of the art.

For most satellites F9 can do quite a bit better than GTO-1800.  For example, the latest SES-12 launch was 5.4t to GTO-1640.   So the deficit is about 1/2 of what the table above implies.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/05/2018 06:06 pm
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?

The economics of orbit circularization gets complicated, depending on the propulsion capability of the satellite, whether it's chemical or electric or hybrid, and what orbit it gets dropped off in. Generally, it takes about 10% more GTO mass to get the same GEO mass from 1800 than 1500. Depending on the capability available from the LV, this may not cost anything. A closer transfer can also increase fuel available for stationkeeping, yielding longer operating life on the back end. But lighter satellites might be able to get supersync insertion and/or inclination reduction for the same price, closing the gap from a near-equatorial insertion.

I'm not sure how long the average delay for coordinating a double-berthed launch is, but that would have to be compared to the average delay for a dedicated launch, if any. ULA and Ariane launch pretty much on schedule. SpaceX has been running several months late, but that should change by the end of this year and they may be able to launch on short notice (for "several months" values of short) next year.

New Glenn obviously has an unknown schedule at this point, and Blue has a long way to go to prove they can launch regularly on schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 06/05/2018 09:38 pm
Some of the work life balance stuff is a bit far afield.  Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/05/2018 11:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/06/2018 04:31 am
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.
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.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/06/2018 04:51 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 06/06/2018 06:59 am
The main reason we have not seen this is not technical limits, but that there are no 20t LEO payloads looking for a ride.

Which is exactly the reason why this metric is discussed in the first place. Who cares how much you can put in LEO when your target is GTO?

If you want to compare launchers and want just one number for that comparison, you need some kind of artificial metric. Like launcher_performance = sum_{all orbits} (orbit_performance * orbit_frequency) which would produce a number nobody could understand. 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/06/2018 10:35 am
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.

LEO is a reasonable rough guess of GTO performance but maximum payload mass to GTO is a better metric of GTO performance.  Hence why I called it a sneaky trick.

For the record, I approve of this trick.  It's the focus on pushing the limits even when there isn't a return that has allowed SpaceX to disrupt the market.  However we need to realize that these theoretical maximums aren't the things that customers pay for.  I am extremely hopeful that LEO launches are going to grow very important in the next decade.  That doesn't mean that GTO launches are going to disappear.

It's also the metric most often used to compare crewed Mars mission architectures (among other things). IMLEO = "initial mass in LEO"

Yes, it is an important metric for that.  However customers aren't paying for that yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/06/2018 06:28 pm

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.
Propellant in LEO for a GTO mission is not payload, it is just propellant needed to perform the mission.

Falcon 9's heaviest GTO payload to date was 6.76 tonnes on an expendable mission (Intelsat 35e to 296 x 42,742 km x 25.6 deg) and 5.271 tonnes on a mission that used first stage downrange recovery (SES 9 to 290 x 40,600 km x ~28 deg).  These compare very well against the advertised 8.3 tonnes and 5.5 tonnes for 185 x 35,788 km x 27 deg on the SpaceX web site.  Meanwhile, Falcon 9 has only demonstrated maybe 38% of its advertised LEO capability.  This is why GTO is the better, more realistic metric for comparison, by far.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ZachS09 on 06/06/2018 08:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/06/2018 09:02 pm
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.
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.

 - Ed Kyle

I think Dragon missions are nearer 10,000 kg separable payload than 8,600.

If you include dedicated payload mounting systems (which many people do) than Iridium launches are 9,600.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: deruch on 06/06/2018 09:04 pm
The whole debate on what to compare to is sort of pointless.  Customers don't really care what the total performance is, so long as there's enough to lift them to their required orbit.  Given the prevalence of the GEO market, comparing GTO performance would be nice except differences in launch site latitude skews them.  This is less a concern with LEO performance where it is unusual for payloads to be launched without having to do a significant inclination change from the launch site latitude anyways.  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?

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.
Propellant in LEO for a GTO mission is not payload, it is just propellant needed to perform the mission.

Meanwhile, Falcon 9 has only demonstrated maybe 38% of its advertised LEO capability. 

Not sure how exactly you can argue that in good faith, unless you're talking about determining demonstrated capability to a really high precision.  Really, it smacks of pure obtuseness.  The physics of rocket launch works the same whether you're discussing a 20t payload to LEO or calculating backwards from the demonstrated performance when delivering to LEO parking orbit a 5.4t payload + the fuel needed to deliver it to GTO.  The only difference is that there are some losses when accounting for changes to Mass Ratio along the entire trajectory (higher mass payload).  That might not be good enough for determining the actual capability with less than 5% error.  But certainly it should be for 15% and very probably less.

If you want to make an argument that SpaceX has only demonstrated less than ~75-85% of its advertised LEO capability, that would only be within the realm of reasonable based on using different dry mass for the upper stage than Lou, etc.  But then you should bring your numbers to support it.  Otherwise, you're insisting on a definition of "demonstrated capability" that is so literal that it becomes ridiculous.  As Lou already pointed out, not many 22t payloads on the market.  Further, that you also base your argument on the revenue generating mass delivered to LEO in that mission (i.e. 8.6t) and thereby discount the added mass of the adapter is, frankly, starting to cross over into the asinine.

edit: Removed the line about LEO vs GTO benchmarking which I accidentally left in Ed's comment.  My criticism of his isn't about whether LEO performance or GTO performance is better.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 06/06/2018 09:32 pm
... I think it is fair to bring up the point about the validity of the metric.

Those technical metrics are of dubious interest, utility or validity to anyone except possibly the nerds on this forum.  Reminds me of gear heads arguing 0-60, 1/4 mile times or dynamometer tests--as if those were indicative of anything related to real world cost, performance or competitiveness.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/07/2018 02:24 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/07/2018 03:13 am
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.

 - Ed Kyle   
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/07/2018 04:03 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 06/07/2018 04:22 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/07/2018 04:37 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 06/07/2018 04:58 am
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?

1) Because Dragon development started over 10 years ago, and 10 years ago Falcon 9 was supposed to have capacity of about 10 tonnes to LEO.

And they had a plan of upgrading engine thrust something like 15-20% from the initial Merlin 1C thrust. Back then they did not  yet know that they can eventually about DOUBLE that thrust of their engines and double the payload capacity of F9.

2) And also because Dragon was designed to have same diameter as road-transportable F9 cores, which makes many things much easier.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: noogie on 06/07/2018 05:20 am
We've been hearing stories of both companies starting to fight for human capital - qualified staff.
Human capital will always be a major input that needs to be managed - especially as the pool to recruit from is finite in technical and engineering roles with ITAR.
The ability to attract and retain qualified staff may loom as a limiting issue in the future for both companies.
In the end it will come down to the American college (and school) system to ensure that they have the talent pool to draw from.
How active are both firms in promoting STEM education? Maybe sponsoring scholarships is something they would/are consider? 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rabidpanda on 06/07/2018 06:06 am
We've been hearing stories of both companies starting to fight for human capital - qualified staff.

What stories are you referring to?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/07/2018 09:10 am
How active are both firms in promoting STEM education? Maybe sponsoring scholarships is something they would/are consider?

Landing humans on the Moon should generate lots of engineers and scientists, just like it did with Apollo. :-)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 06/07/2018 09:56 am
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

This is a terrible argument.  Why isn't Dragon or D2 bigger/heavier/more capable?  Because SpaceX has winning bids and contracts with NASA for very specific requirements.  They don't get paid any more if they double or triple their volume or mass after winning the bid.  If they were going to increase either capability, they would have put in a different bid.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 06/07/2018 11:26 am
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.

The writing on the wall is the projected low cost of BFR/New Glenn, not their performance. F9/FH can spell doom for Ariane, Vulcan, Soyuz too if they are made to be fully reusable. Cost is the metric we're discussing, not lift capability.

Quote
We've got these figures about BFR and New Glenn, 150 tons, 45 tons.  They're important figures but not to the GTO market. 

BFR and New Glenn's GTO capability is well known and well above the competition, see  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43073.msg1807767#msg1807767 for a conservative estimate.

Quote
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.

They would only be substantial competition if BFR and New Glenn fail at reuse.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 06/07/2018 11:29 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/07/2018 11:55 am
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.

Normally I can see Ed's side of the argument even though I may not agree.  This, however, is completely ridiculous.   Falcon has demonstrated more than 20 times (more than many rockets have flown, period) that if can put a 20t object into LEO.  The physics does not care one whit whether that is fuel, payload, or what it intends to do after being placed in orbit.

The common sense definition of capacity (the heaviest thing put into LEO)  is used by everyone, including NASA.  The LEO payload record is held by the Saturn V, even though the mass put into LEO on Apollo 17 included fuel for further journey.  For example, NASA states about the Saturn V (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-was-the-saturn-v-58.html)
Quote
It could launch about 118,000 kilograms (130 tons) into Earth orbit.
Wikipedia states:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 06/07/2018 12:40 pm
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.

The upper stage must be strong enough to take the load of a 20t payload at several Gs. I imagine adding such capability would require significant modifications, so I don't think its irrelevant whether it has been demonstrated or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/07/2018 12:58 pm
Not necessarily. Calculate the internal force on the upper stage from pressurization. At 50psi, that’s at least 40 tons of force. Even at 5 gees, that’s 80kg of mass equivalent. The internal pressure still dominates. This is the same internal pressure for the booster. The booster DOES have to be beefed up relative to the upper stage because the upper stage weighs more than 80 tons. (The booster doesn’t have to be beefed up extra for a large payload, tho, because the upper stage mass dominates and the slight mass increase can be handled with just a small decrease in max acceleration at the very end of the second stage burn where gravity losses are low.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: deruch on 06/07/2018 01:05 pm
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
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. 


Things wrong with your analysis or other questions:
1.  In addition to just launching CRS-8 to orbit, on that launch SpaceX also demonstrated significant additional capability by recovering the booster (first successful ASDS landing; IIRC 3 burns for a shortened downrange landing).  So, while the payload mass may be more limited they clearly and explicitly demonstrated a performance capability beyond just that.  Yet this gets no consideration.

2.  What's your source for the fully loaded wet mass of Dragon on CRS-8?  I've seen the cargo manifests but have never found a good source for updated Dragon wet masses. 

3.  At the time of CRS-8 launch, SpaceX wasn't claiming so much performance for the F9FT as they do now for whatever spin they're calling them this week.  Not sure that its fair to consider these the same rockets when it comes to claimed and demonstrated performance.  According to SpaceX's Capabilities webpage from then (https://web.archive.org/web/20160406050051/http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities) via Archive.org, they were only claiming 13,150 kg to LEO.  Though that was widely canvassed as a sandbagged number to allow for booster recovery with the actual capability somewhere between 16,500 kg to 19,000 kg.  Still, what's obvious is that they did in fact launch payloads much closer to their claimed LEO capability before they started to so radically increase the F9's performance.  And since they stopped sandbagging to reserve performance to allow recovery, this increase has become much more dramatic.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/07/2018 01:42 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/07/2018 01:50 pm
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?
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".

I have discussed SLS performance many times on these forums, pointing out that LEO is not a proper point of comparison for that launch system, just as it is not for these commercial launchers.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hopalong on 06/07/2018 02:20 pm

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/07/2018 02:40 pm

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? 

Here is your table with a few more entries.  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.

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]
===================================================
Quote
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/07/2018 03:10 pm
Hasn't the volume been the primary limit with most Dragon missions?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ulm_atms on 06/07/2018 03:42 pm
^^ Yes...it is volume limited.

Ed.....  In your chart, you really need to change the Falcon Heavy to 0 demonstrated as that was most certainly not a LEO mission so the numbers are just plain wrong.  If you want to show demonstrated however for FH, you have to add the entire mass left in the second stage(fuel too), as that is what was parked in LEO before the launch out to helio orbit. (And even that was not exactly a normal LEO orbit)

Isn't the whole point of all the engine performance numbers and total stage masses so you can calculate what the system "should" be able to put in a certain orbit?  If so....why does "demonstrated" seem to matter more for some people??  Just confused about the reason for the.....discussion.....which is quite off-topic for the thread.

EDIT:  Also, those FH numbers are for the B5 version....the flight on the chart was the B4 version...so that number need to be lowered also to match correctly.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/07/2018 05:55 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 06/07/2018 06:06 pm
SpaceX, of course, talks about Mars, not LEO, for BFR.

You are aware that missions to Mars will require tankers to deliver propellant to LEO?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zucal on 06/07/2018 06:22 pm
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

Mmm. New Glenn is currently contracted for eight launches, five of which are LEO flights for OneWeb.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/07/2018 07:44 pm
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

How long has SpaceX claimed 22.8 t to LEO?

Less than 2 years.

How long does it typically take to design and build a payload, book a launch, and actually fly?

More than 2 years.


So the answer to why SpaceX hasn't exceeded 50% of that capacity to LEO is simple and obvious: they haven't had time for customers to catch up and use that capacity.

Every other rocket you listed have been flying for around 10x longer than F9 v1.2 (especially B5) and FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 06/07/2018 08:35 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/07/2018 09:46 pm
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.

You can play with semantics all you want, but you're not convincing anyone but yourself.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/07/2018 10:05 pm
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 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/07/2018 10:33 pm
So, why is Blue building New Glenn?  Will it actually fly LEO missions?

If it turns out all of their customers are for higher orbits, who cares? Or if it turns out all of their customers are for LEO orbits, who cares?

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.

Quote
SpaceX, of course, talks about Mars, not LEO, for BFR.

Likely all fueling operations for the BFS prior to leaving for Mars will be done in LEO. So it's not like SpaceX will have an aversion to LEO for the BFS...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/07/2018 10:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 06/07/2018 11:10 pm
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.

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...

Otherwise it just looks like your are grinding axes, instead of counting the number of 20t payloads in the last 5 years that they must have gone to some competitor.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/07/2018 11:15 pm
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
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.

And yes, you've hinted exactly that, since why would the distinction matter?

Here, for example:
....
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



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/08/2018 12:10 am
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.
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.

They will choose New Glenn if the price and launch services are competitive.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/08/2018 01:07 am

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?
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 06/08/2018 01:49 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/08/2018 02:44 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/08/2018 12:07 pm
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.
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.

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.
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.

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

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/08/2018 01:22 pm
Next generation expendables are really what last generation launch services providers should have developed instead of steadily raising their prices to unsustainable levels.  Thus they are not really NGLVs, they are LGNVs.

To compete for next generation launch services, must compete* with Falcon, New Glenn and BFR... and then New Armstrong.


* Hunkering down as a niche provider or jobs program is not 'competing'.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/08/2018 03:38 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dlapine on 06/08/2018 04:18 pm
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, while we can compare the LEO performance of various rockets, you should focus on the idea that SpaceX optimizes for cost. If the LEO capability is more than needed and includes recovery, but the cost is still acceptable than any excess performance is a bonus, not a waste.

I would note that many vehicles (air & land) were/are built with excess capacity past the nominal design goals, if that's doable within a rational budget.

It's certainly possible to set design goals that preclude excess performance (e.g. modern aircraft wing loading is targeted at 1.5 x the normal load), but that's a choice left to the designer.  It's certainly unusual in rocketry that "excess" performance is possible, but SpaceX has pushed the engineering boundaries during the F9 development.

It will be interesting to see where and how Blue helps to redefine the norms. I don't think that they are planning to stay within the current modes of operation for "old space", and I don't think that they will succeed if they don't expand the boundaries of what is possible.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 06/08/2018 04:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/08/2018 05:33 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 06/08/2018 05:40 pm

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.  Then purely as s a side effect, this gives the capacity to put 20t into LEO.  But they've never used it to put a massiive payload in LEO since no-one has ever asked them to.   And this is not just SpaceX - the Atlas 5X1 series, for X>= 1, have about a 20t LEO capacity, but have never launched an explicit LEO payload, ever.

So why do people quote LEO capacity if no-one uses it? One reason is that it's a common denominator - if you want to compare vendors on (for example) $/kg, you need some common orbit.   And the only orbit everyone can do (including the current Pegasus, RocketLab, Orbital, LauncherOne, etc and the historical Apollo, Shuttle, etc.) is LEO.  Second, it's important to know when contemplating new ventures such as LEO constellations and orbital depots.  And for SpaceX it's good for bragging rights, as their high-thrust second stage helps reduce gravity losses for heavy payloads and hence gives good performance on this metric.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/08/2018 06:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/08/2018 06:21 pm


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

There is no "out-of-the ordinary divergence between actual and claimed performance" except inside your post.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 06/08/2018 11:29 pm
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.

Can we (second request) stay on topic here? SpaceX performance numbers are not on topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/09/2018 01:19 am
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2018 02:57 am
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

It's funny. This very forum is filled with recent arguments from those still in denial about reuse.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 06/09/2018 03:11 am
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/09/2018 04:10 am
Competition could also open up other uses for space and potentially allow increased launch rates overall.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/09/2018 02:24 pm
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 these rockets certainly aren't being built for the existing market.  The only way that BFR would undersell block 5 in existing markets is if they made production extremely low, like one ship a year and one booster every few years.  Such low production would be extremely out of character.  So the existing markets are definitely not the goal, just the means to the end.

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.

They have copied the more important part of the SpaceX formula and streamlined production.  Up until the block 5, the benefits from better manufacturing and higher launch rates were much bigger factors in SpaceX's success then reuse.  Reuse was the investment for the future, not the thing that paid the bills.  And reuse isn't practical without investing in a new generation of engines.

You do reuse first and try to streamline costs later and you end up with the Space Shuttle.  You do streamlining first and try to reuse later and you get the Falcon 9.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/09/2018 04:53 pm
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 06/09/2018 05:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/09/2018 06:41 pm
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 hilarious. Blue is little more than a hobby to Bezos. If you think he's more focused on Blue than Musk is on SpaceX, than you clearly aren't very familiar with either.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/09/2018 07:25 pm
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

I do know that because of the physics of ISRU, the plan to a Mars colony is pretty straight forward and starts right away with BFS flights within several years.

The plan for a persistent presence in orbit or on the moon has some major pieces missing. Even when NA flies (when?) It is not clear what the first steps would be.

Business plan wise, SpaceX is aiming at three "sub-Mars" revenue generating goals: StarLink, p2p, and cis-lunar tourism. With all the talk of millions of people - what are BO's plans?

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rabidpanda on 06/09/2018 07:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/09/2018 08:05 pm
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

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 06/09/2018 08:20 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rabidpanda on 06/09/2018 08:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/09/2018 08:42 pm
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.
Well we can only comment on what we know, or else we can post in the fantasy section...

It's odd tho that you're willing to trust in a never-mentioned business plan by BO, but not in a pretty specific one by SpaceX.

I am curious - do you have a guess as to what BO plans to do after NA is flying?

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/09/2018 08:45 pm
I don't see this as a competition between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, since they don't really have overlapping goals.

For Elon Musk his goal of making humanity multi-planetary is pretty much a humanitarian effort, and I would not be surprised if he starts a non-profit entity to fund the effort. Certainly Starlink is one of the ways he wants to fund the start of Mars colonization, by funding the BFR/BFS development, but he expects colonists to pay their way.

For Jeff Bezos it's true we don't really know any specific or near-term details about how we'll move heavy industry off of Earth and into space. I'd say that is a longer-term goal assuming there are no outside forces that change that (i.e. killer asteroid is found to be approaching). And Bezos can fund Blue Origin at the rate of $1B per year ad infinitum, which means that he doesn't have to hurry, but that is he wants he could do everything himself if need be.

Lots of missing pieces on both of their plans, but I believe they will both be dependable forms of initiative for getting humanity out into space...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 06/09/2018 09:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/10/2018 10:06 pm
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.

Blue Origin is competing to take away business from ULA's Vulcan for USG payloads, and to become one of the top four launch providers the commercial market will want to rely upon. Neither really affects SpaceX much in the near-term.

As for egos, luckily the opportunities in space are so vast that right now the goals of Musk and Bezos don't really overlap much - and are more complementary than competitive.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/11/2018 01:12 pm
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

There are several scenarios where competition is much better:

1) SpaceX's approach to some technical aspect of launch or reuse turns out to be inferior, and Blue actually has a better method for allowing cheap access to space.

2) SpaceX experiences a catastrophic business collapse, perhaps from a loss of key personnel or long series of failures.

3) The launch market is sufficiently elastic that a price competition between SpaceX and Blue actually increases the total revenue and profit for both.

I think the latter is actually probable, though it will take some time. The first two are unlikely but certainly possible, and having an alternate (and a competition) greatly reduces the risk of stagnation or even reversion to the ELV era.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/13/2018 08:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/13/2018 08:41 pm
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.
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.

That's one of the benefits of aiming high and moving fast.

However, other than round-the-moon flights, I don't think they're planning any lunar or LEO bases. Besos is more than welcome to go for it once he has a spaceship.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GreenShrike on 06/13/2018 09:55 pm
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.

Operating in cislunar space requires vehicles to get there and to lunar surface and back again.  This is within BFS' capabilities with no lunar-specific modifications needed, so if someone wants to build space stations or Moon bases, I'm sure SpaceX would be pleased to provide transport.

In addition, I don't see Blue currently developing anything more than transport themselves. I'm pretty certain if they were building a hub-and-spoke space station prototype in Texas, we'd have seen it. ;-) As with Starlink, any in-space development will be known years in advance, and not spring with no warning from within a New Armstrong fairing.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/14/2018 09:09 am
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/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 06/14/2018 04:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/14/2018 05:09 pm
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, there is nobody out there that will finance a lunar base, and the Mars effort is being financed by SpaceX.

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.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/14/2018 06:49 pm
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?

Everything in space that isn't Mars colonization or Amazon deliveries. :)

In all seriousness,

- Blue is expected to bid against SpaceX, ULA and OATK next month for the Air Force's US-vehicle development grants.
- They're also expected to bid for other defense payloads and contracts. 
- They've already said they were using their SAA to learn how to work on future NASA contracts.
- They've already got commercial contracts that obviously won't be launching on Falcon/BFR if they're launching on NG.
- They've talked about some various pieces of their orbital infrastructure and lunar plans. 
- Bezos has talked specifically about building O'Neill colonies. He's basically made it HIS life's goal to populate cislunar space with humans.

The markets are mostly where the humans are, and humans live on Earth. Mars is a hobby, not a market.

So that's pretty much it - really, everything in space that isn't Mars colonization or Amazon deliveries. Bezos isn't interested in colonizing Mars, but he is interested in orbital colonization, and as I've said orbital colonization could begin by 2020 if someone wanted to take a stab at a first bolo.

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.

Sorry, but no, and that's precisely my point. No competent person ignores his competitors, especially not when billions of dollars and the fate of your company is riding on it.

SpaceX isn't ignoring Jeff Bezos.

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.

Blue is already bidding in all of SpaceX's current markets.  SpaceX has to be evaluating all of their competition in the next five (at least) years in terms of who will be bidding against them for their bread and butter and what their capabilities will be. That means building models of each of their competitors that include their financing, vehicles, announced plans, personnel, facilities, available restrooms and anything else they can scavenge up to figure out what Blue (and everyone else) can do to them.

Because you can absolutely bet that Blue is doing exactly that. Bezos doesn't go through life with his pants undone.

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?

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?

Life is different with a competent, potentially vicious competitor, and SpaceX is even now required to dedicate resources toward competing with Blue that they would otherwise feel more relaxed about throwing at their Mars hobby.

As for their returns, that's not something I'd know.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/14/2018 06:52 pm
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 money is going to be near where the humans are.

Jeff Bezos' hobby is likely far more profitable than Elon Musk's hobby.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/14/2018 06:56 pm
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.   :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/14/2018 07:53 pm
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.   :)
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.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 06/14/2018 08:53 pm
...
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.
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.

Case in point.  SpaceX was founded to get humans to Mars but in the meantime dominate the US commercial launch market.  I'm sure Blue will be an aggressive competitor but SX won't ignore sources of funding and experience.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/15/2018 04:14 am
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.
"cislunar."

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 06/15/2018 10:47 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 06/15/2018 11:35 am
- They've already got commercial contracts that obviously won't be launching on Falcon/BFR if they're launching on NG.

Assuming NG is delivered on time. Otherwise, these contracts will quite easily be nullified. Goes both ways if BFR gets delayed.

Quote
- Bezos has talked specifically about building O'Neill colonies. He's basically made it HIS life's goal to populate cislunar space with humans.

Yes, he has been talking for quite a while. Coming up on 18 years. And he's still testing his human-rated suborbital vehicle, which was supposed to be much easier, cheaper and with a faster turnaround than an orbital vehicle. I'm holding my tongue until Falcon starts to carry people, but at that point I'll start comparing launch rates, regardless of whether the human-rated launcher actually carried humans.

Point of the rant: after claiming for 18 years that the suborbital detour is the best way to open up space, while being overtaken by others who are actually opening up space, I'm not expecting to deliver fast on that O'Neill cilinder.

On the other hand, there's a lot of good stuff that Bezos could invest in, which will help space exploration expand rapidly. But that would mean there will be plenty of cargo to ship for both companies, and more.

Quote
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.

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 first NS webcast goes on and on how suborbital tourist vehicles are cheaper to launch, have a higher demand, are quicker to turn around and are a good testing ground for orbital vehicles, so you learn much faster. A handful of NS test launches and dozens of F9 launches later, the commercial department is selling NS as a vehicle for microgravity research, and the orbital rocket will be the game changer. If anyone's keeping an eye on their competitors to learn from their failures and emulate their successes, it's Bezos.

But I do agree that it's the copycats competitors that will make SpaceX's profit margin dwindle, so they won't be able to sustain a Mars base on their own dime. If they could make it cheap enough for NASA to send missions to Mars though, and with a TRL to do it within a single administration, this might become as self-sustaining as ISS or SLS. By which I mean: get enough support to get missions funded every synod.

Quote
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?

No, I haven't noticed SpaceX becoming any more secretive. I have noticed SpaceX growing considerably more silent as unrealistic deadlines near, but that started long before anything Bezos has done. I have noticed both Musk and Bezos make ridiculous statements about what they could be doing in the future. In Musk's case, that is usually followed up with starting a company/initiative to make it real. With Bezos, there's a distinct lack of doing this publically. This isn't a problem in itself. He has the money to do this in secret. On the other hand he's been quite quick to equate his suborbital achievements (still considerable) to SpaceX's orbital ones. So one could assume he's not quite that secretive.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/15/2018 01:15 pm
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 - but he can't go there until he has confidence in NG's schedule.

The fact that BO is not talking about NGs future projects (but certainly talking a lot about NG itself) is telling.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/15/2018 02:45 pm
...
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.
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.

Yep.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/15/2018 03:07 pm
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.
"cislunar."

There's no actual money there, unless you mean to include Earth orbit.

I think what Bezos has in mind is feeding Earth orbital development with lunar resources. Obviously there's a chicken-and-egg problem with shipping resources to people who aren't yet there.

Incidentally, is there a term like "cislunar" for "between LEO and cislunar, inclusive"? I can't think of one.  Cisterra?

Quote
Also, Blue Origin hasn't really done anything with ferocity except spend money. I hope that changes, but not holding my breath.

The topic gives Blue the benefit of the doubt.  They are doing engine tests, building big buildings, and winning contracts, so hopefully Bezos won't pull a Beal and disappear.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/15/2018 03:13 pm
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.

Hm. It's hard to imagine Blue more being any more gradatim.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/15/2018 03:20 pm
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.

Quote
SpaceX 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.

Quote
I'm reasonably sure Besos will copycat a constellation - it's how he does...

?????

Quote
The fact that BO is not talking about NGs future projects (but certainly talking a lot about NG itself) is telling.

Telling what?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/15/2018 03:34 pm
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.

Quote
SpaceX 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.

Quote
I'm reasonably sure Besos will copycat a constellation - it's how he does...

?????

Quote
The fact that BO is not talking about NGs future projects (but certainly talking a lot about NG itself) is telling.

Telling what?

Telling that NG is not as mature as some people would like to think.

At this point, (original patent date notwithstanding) JB is fashioning himself as a "fast follower". He is also heavily into global IT infrastructure.  I can't see him missing out on the satellite party.

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)


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/15/2018 04:02 pm
...

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/15/2018 07:55 pm
Question about the Bezos constellation:

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/15/2018 08:07 pm
...

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...
That makes perfect sense.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/15/2018 08:09 pm
Question about the Bezos constellation:

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.
They do, don't they..

I'm with you on all of that, but I also don't think Besos will resist the temptation to also have a constellation.

The conjecture above seems to solve all...

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 06/15/2018 09:01 pm
Buy the first constellation that makes it to bankruptcy?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/16/2018 01:59 am
Buy the first constellation that makes it to bankruptcy?

"Certamen Gratia Certamenis" isn't as catchy as "Gradatim Ferociter".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 06/16/2018 02:42 am
My wife ran a computer business for 18 years.  She did installation and programming.  We have several Alexa's around the house.  She said if Jeff Bezos ran his rocket company like he does his Alexa's and Echo's he will never catch up with Elon Musk.  We bought an Echo Show, and it doesn't live up to it's hype, neither does the other two products.  Google has a much better search engine.  She thinks all he does anything for is to make money, and doesn't follow through with improvements or backwards compatibility.  She thinks he is all hype and no action with some of his products, while Musk works 18 hours a day. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/16/2018 06:08 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 06/16/2018 11:47 am
Buy the first constellation that makes it to bankruptcy?

Buy them whenever... that purchase gets you lots of spectrum and technology (especially if you add in the Boeing piece that is requested for transfer to Greg Wyler's company*).  Bezos could own them today, but his rockets aren't ready.  Their future price with competition may be much more affordable.

* Article:
Quote
There’s something strange going on amid the satellite Internet rush
Greg Wyler, the founder of OneWeb, starts a second company to compete with himself.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/theres-something-strange-going-on-amid-the-satellite-internet-rush/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 06/16/2018 12:53 pm
Makes me want to know James Hamilton (Vice President and Distinguished Engineer, Amazon Web Services) better (= at all). Not that he would let something like that slip.

Living on a boat (https://mvdirona.com/), traveling around the world still working as AWS VP he is not very impressed with the cost (https://mvdirona.com/2018/03/kvh-v7-hts-twice-the-speed-more-coverage/) of high speed satellite data. He likes it though, no mobile broadband at all times would mean no travel before retirement.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/16/2018 06:37 pm
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.
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.
So true.

"Manufacture in space" has no reduction to practice, not in any kind of predictable time frame, even with BFS-scale transport available.

"Establish a colony on Mars" does, because the goal is so different. Whether they start first flights in 2024 or 2026 doesn't matter. It's a near term thing.

In the long term there will be a huge ROI, but nobody invests in such extended timelines just to make money.

Meanwhile what exactly is the plan to build in LEO or on the moon? Factories that do what?

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/16/2018 07:36 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/16/2018 07:50 pm


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?



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 06/16/2018 08:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/16/2018 11:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/16/2018 11:26 pm
On competitions's affect on SpaceX, it could be argued that the threat of Blue undercutting them and driving prices down is what has them developing the constellation to begin with. If you create your own demand then you just have to have lower costs then your competition has prices and you make money. If Blue sells their rockets at a loss just to use Bezo's wealth to put Musk out of business as so many keep implying, then they could just launch on Blue rockets instead and come out further ahead.

So competition is still a good thing. It forces SpaceX to make more useful things to keep making money along its path to mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 06/16/2018 11:56 pm
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.

It does sound silly.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/17/2018 12:21 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/17/2018 12:26 am
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.
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.

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.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 06/17/2018 12:59 am

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.

Bezos has the long view. I think he knows that earth will run out of various resources in a 100+ year time frame. We will certainly be past peak oil, and may well past peak various other mined resources on earth.

That means for further expansion it will  be needed to do asteroid mining.

For heavy industry it makes sense to put the factories near where the resources are produced. This may well be far beyond LEO.

I don't think he really expects to start all of this directly, but given his analogy how the postal service helped start amazon he wants to build the needed transport infrastructure now, so that once it is needed it can be done quickly.

Petrochemical industry may well be obsolete. Not sure about concrete (although some parts of the world apparently already have a sand shortage because of it) If most industry is in space it may well be needed much less. But it still makes sense to do it locally, so that will likely stay on Earth.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 06/17/2018 01:37 am
Petrochemicals will not go out of business anytime soon.  They will convert to algae oil, which is renewable.  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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/17/2018 02:26 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Once 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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/17/2018 02:48 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Once 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...

Depending where you get it, the metals might not be in ores but in metallic state.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/17/2018 02:40 pm
A major difference is that a Mars colony grows organically. The demand to manufacture steel is only what the colony needs, enough for 1000, 10,000 people, and growing slowly.

In Bezos's plan, you're trying to compete with an existing terrestrial industrial base and supply 10 Billion people.  If the idea is to artificially support this industrial complex until it becomes competitive, that's OOMs more money than Bezos has.

Someone above mentioned "sources of cold". Industry relies on having heat sinks, and the only place where you have industrial level heat sinks in cis-lunar space is cryogenic lunar craters.

That's not a cheap way to make anything.

It's a sci-fi level goal without a reasonable path to achieving it.

The SpaceX plan OTOH is not just a goal, it's an effort that can start and make sense starting in the present.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/17/2018 04:06 pm


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/17/2018 05:48 pm


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.

How would the data centers reject GWatts of low-temperature waste heat?

For kicks, if you had a prefect radiator, and were rejecting heat at 100C, you'd need 1000 m2 for a single lonely MWatt.  (Space Station radiators are 6.5 m2 each)  (This would mean you'd be running your electronics at >>100C, which is inefficient, per GFlop)

If you wanted to keep your electronics near room temperature, you'd need at least double if not triple that area.

A large data center uses >100 MWatt.

Also, data centers are labor intensive.  Equipment is continuously maintained, replaced, upgraded.  On Earth, supporting the workforce is "free".  In orbit, you'd either need a manned data-center/space-station, or you'd need to come up with a data center that operates robotically, and this includes replacing broken bus connections, broken cooling connections, broken robotic manipulators, all the way down to the mechanical infrastructure.  It is crazy complicated.

----

There isn't any proposal I've seen yet about what to do in near-earth space that would make a dent on Earth industrial markets.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 06/17/2018 11:17 pm
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.
One ton of fuel in LEO may cost $10K (if you believe P2P), $300K if you assume $50M per BFR launch.

Given that this is a small cost for even 50 tons of fuel for all current GEO satellites, and given that the actual incremental cost may be close to $0, where is your funding coming for making this lunar fuel?
Lunar fuel is also annoyingly far away from LEO - something like 2.5km/s if you're able to do aerocapture, 6km/s if you're not.

(Above numbers are broadly similar for new armstrong)

I'm not saying ISRU is a bad plan, but if you're planning on developing a billion dollar ISRU plant, that buys a _lot_ of fuel.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/18/2018 03:50 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/18/2018 04:03 am
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.
Not so fast...  When your array is that big, its easy (relatively) to conduct electricity inwards...  But much harder to pump heat outwards.

At the end of the day, everything is possible, but complexity and scale makes it expensive.



-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/18/2018 04:25 am
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.

They aren't my assumptions.  The question was asked what their plan was.  I explained what their plan was.  Their plan is based around the belief that $500/kg will be a competitive price for fuel in LEO.

I am hopeful that the price for fuel in LEO will be lower then $500/kg.  I am optimistic that the usefulness of lunar fuel wont be in LEO to GEO but in orbits much closer to the moon, such as earth-moon transfer to lunar surface and back.  I think it's inevitable that the next generation rockets will lead to a return to the moon to stay with the government as a customer.  That's what my assumptions are.

However I dont think your numbers are logically sound.  Mass to orbit and fuel to orbit aren't the same thing.  You need a vessel to store the liquid hydrogen and transfer it to where it's going to be used.  While this is certainly technically feasible, technically feasible is not the same thing as saying something will happen.  The BFS SSTO is feasible but it will never happen.  We know this because they aren't working on it and have expressed no interest in working on it.  The BFS as a hydrolox fuel transport is not as far fetched as the BFS SSTO because there is possibly a market for it (ULA's president has expressed openness to the idea) but there are still no plans in motion to make such hardware.  Afterall, why would they be making such hardware when it's only use is for a space tug and there aren't any space tugs being built yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/18/2018 04:49 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/18/2018 06:26 am
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.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/18/2018 11:57 am
My bad....  Reading too fast on the phone.  Leaving orig intact as a lesson to my future self.  :)

Okay, thanks.  I was starting to feel a bit paranoid there.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/18/2018 01:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/18/2018 01:33 pm
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.
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.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 06/18/2018 01:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 06/18/2018 02:21 pm
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.
Fair enough.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/18/2018 02:27 pm
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.

The organic growth would be satellite internet.  Even if no more then a tiny percentage of the internet is using ISPs that route to LEO satellites, that's plenty of infrastructure for orbital datacenters.  To a limited extent, we already have satellite ISPs because of planes and ships, that just needs to grow bigger.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 06/18/2018 04:29 pm
Orbital data centers are something that I think will happen very quickly after orbital internet becomes a reality. Putting data within the distribution structure is done regularly in terrestrial systems. In orbit you have free power and you cut your latency in half. They will need radiators, but if the whole thing is built to be liquid cooled then that is a pretty simple problem. They would be very expensive and service would be a problem, but as last mile buffer systems I think the economics work 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/18/2018 05:04 pm
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.

Totally (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAHLwAxS7FI).  If it costs 200 million to replace a satellite but 100 million to buy newer more efficient server hardware, it saves 100 million to send up an astronaut up there to do maintenance.  And if you can launch a spaceship that can spend a month visiting 10 satellites and upgrading them, that spaceship is saving a billion bucks per mission.  Even at space shuttle prices that would be a viable industry.  The space shuttle just existed before there was nearly enough demand for data to justify putting that much expensive hardware in space.  It's been observed that if the space shuttle had turned lead into gold by taking it to LEO that still would have been too expensive.  But magnetic tapes and silicon wafers are worth a lot more then gold by the ounce.  And if it's worthwhile to be sending manned spacecraft up there, pretty quickly it's viable to start putting space stations up there to act as service depots and living space for the crews.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: octavo on 06/22/2018 08:37 pm



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.

Microsoft have been working on maintenance free, sealed data centers for a few years. I could see this being a good starting point for your proposal.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/6/17433206/microsoft-underwater-data-center-project-natick

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/03/2018 09:18 pm
Incidentally, is there a term like "cislunar" for "between LEO and cislunar, inclusive"? I can't think of one.  Cisterra?

In the absence of a better answer, I've decided to dub the volume between LEO through cislunar orbit, inclusive, "tellurian" space, after Tellus Mater. I can't believe there isn't already a term for this, and I expect now someone more informed than I will tell me what it is.

But if there isn't, perhaps this is my contribution to my species.  If I do nothing else in my lifetime, I can tell people I coined the term "tellurian space", and people will instantly congratulate me. 

What a great time to take a nap. I've earned it.  :)

(Blue Origin is concentrating on tellurian space infrastructure. I believe that's a better use of resources than founding the city of New Donner on Mars.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/04/2018 12:47 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 07/04/2018 01:17 am
Two points. The advantage of Mars or the moon is an abundance of resources which will go a long way to make then self-sustainable.  A Gerard K. O'Neill space city concept still needs raw resources.

However, having a 1G environment is significant. We know nothing about multi-generational breeding in 1/3 or 1/6th environments to start planning permanent bases on less than 1G worlds. This needs to be vigerously investigated. A centrifuge on the ISS and mice living and breeding in a 1/3 gravity would be a good start. 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 07/04/2018 01:25 am
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.
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/04/2018 02:54 am
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.

They are talking about two year stints.  People could stay more then two but it's not a life exile.  It's much easier to go Mars->Earth then Earth->Mars.  And I highly suspect anyone who wants to have kids and go to Mars is going to take care of the kids part before the Mars part.  Look up the ages of the crew of the ISS sometime.  I expect the first retirement home will get built before the first preschool and I do not expect a retirement home anytime soon.

The whole idea of immediately setting up shop and raising families is something that makes fun storytelling but isn't very plausible.  The effects of low gravity on babies is as economically important as the quality of elementary schools available near a deep water oil rig.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/04/2018 03:31 am
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
And that will make SpaceX a lot more competitive with Blue and whatever up-and-comers exist by then.

I think our solar system is big enough for both of them, especially if they have different end goals...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/04/2018 05:33 am
Tellurian has already been taken. :-)

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tellurian
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 07/05/2018 12:37 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Mark K on 07/05/2018 01:06 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/05/2018 01:52 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/05/2018 03:25 pm
I don't want to go too far off-topic here.

The advantage of Mars or the moon is an abundance of resources which will go a long way to make then self-sustainable.

There's an absurd amount of resources coming through tellurian space in the form of NEOs, and resources on the Moon are basically available once ISRU is developed (and doubly so once somebody builds a mass driver).

Quote from: mme
You 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.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.

Ahem. I do carefully make that distinction. I think a lot of people unconsciously juxtapose exploration with colonization.

Quote
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.

Yep. A reconfigured B330 would be cramped for a small family, but something the size of a BA 2100 would be quite spacious for one or two families. Hang a couple of these from a bolo in equatorial LEO, and you have the capability for people to have children in orbit at 1G at Earth-normal radiation levels.  Add more units as required - you could have hundreds hanging from the same hub until you got tired of doing it that way and built a cylinder.

900 meters of cable, choose whatever type you want, is a commonly available item, and Bigelow isn't the only company working on hab modules. Bigelow's already support themselves in 1G, so the idea's not radical.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.

Quote from: Mark K
I am guessing [a big train] will be a lot cheaper to build on the Moon or Mars than a free floating rotating station.

Quote
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. 

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. "All we have to do is build densely-populated civilizations with huge industrial capability on Mars and then it will all be much easier than doing X near the Earth in orbit."

All of that aside, the next decade (at least) will involve mining and tourism companies attempting to figure out how to get something to sell and how to get somebody to buy it. Barring the discovery of alien civilizations, any markets that materialize will be where the humans are, and the humans will be on Earth or near it. 

And that means that SpaceX will be competing with Blue where the money is, in tellurian space, with everything they're developing right now for Mars. The SpaceX approach/business strategy will end up being very similar to that of Blue's, with the caveat that as long as Jeff Bezos is willing to throw a lot of money at Blue they'll have that advantage.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/05/2018 03:35 pm
Tellurian has already been taken. :-)

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tellurian

Hee hee hee. I didn't think to check the Dr. Who wikis.

So aliens are already referring to us as Tellurians.  I'll stick with it, then, although terran space means the same thing and feels a bit more familiar. 

We could hold a vote...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/05/2018 03:58 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 07/05/2018 04:32 pm
I don't want to go too far off-topic here.
...
Quote from: mme
You 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.

...
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.

Sure, SpaceX will take business where it comes. If they get paid to bring cargo and people to the space stations and the Moon, they'll do it. 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/05/2018 04:52 pm
I don't see that goal changing.

What about that goal still being there but an alternative use of the same hardware being seen as more important?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/06/2018 12:25 am
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?

I'm surprised, not confused.  :)

You said:

Quote
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"?  A few hundred thousand dollars' worth of fuel and oxidizer, or a larger number that includes operations costs, presumably somehow cheaper on Mars?  Are we talking methane-lox rocket launches or something else?  Are you saying that stations will be built on Mars and then launched into Martian orbit? By this time, have launch costs from Earth or the Moon somehow bottomed out to the point where still-dropping launch costs from Mars could catch up?

Or was the above statement tongue in cheek?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/06/2018 12:34 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/06/2018 12:37 am
I don't want to go too far off-topic here.
...
Quote from: mme
You 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.

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.

Quote
I see Musk's and Bezos' goals as complimentary and hopefully Bezos can resist his monopolistic tendencies try not to kill healthy competition.

Rightly or wrongly, I see the game of chess in everything that Jeff Bezos does (he is an avid and excellent chess player).  Thus far Bezos doesn't seem to play to draw.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/06/2018 12:59 am
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.
2. It's easier to imagine payloads being launched from orbital habs in the near future than it is to imagine payloads being launched from Mars in the near future.
3. Launch costs from the Martian surface will never be comparable to launch costs from an orbiting station until Mars has a rotorvator or a beanstalk.
4. Therefore, building out cislunar infrastructure is a better approach/business strategy versus colonizing Mars.
5. Therefore Blue's approach/business strategy is, for now, better than SpaceX's, until such time as SpaceX scratches their collective scalps and has a severe moment of reflection.

I'm not worried for SpaceX, because I believe the aforementioned moment of reflection will come as soon as someone builds a bolo. It's bound to happen soon. There are lots of billionaires.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/06/2018 01:09 am
1. Launches imply payloads.

An saying it's possible to launch habs without vehicles kinda makes it clear what the payloads are.  It appears we are now talking in circles.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/06/2018 01:18 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/06/2018 01:39 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/06/2018 01:42 am
The best macroscopic graphene and nanotube materials are still significantly inferior to the best carbon fiber... and orders of magnitude more expensive.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HMXHMX on 07/06/2018 02:06 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 07/06/2018 02:33 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 07/06/2018 02:35 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/06/2018 02:50 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 07/06/2018 04:07 am
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.

But then you won't have people living in orbit.

You seem to have the cart before the horse... you *start* with putting people in orbit and *then* you say "okay, what useful things can they do?" The answer is inevitable: they're capable human beings, there will be lots for them to do.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/06/2018 04:53 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: QuantumG on 07/06/2018 04:58 am
Shielding can be lot lower especially if living and working quarters have some radiation shielding.

Stick your station in an equatorial orbit below the van Allen belts and you don't need any (http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf) shielding.

Quote from: Al Globus
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/06/2018 07:56 am
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.

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? Further more, the hard part of of launching from a different planet is not fuel (in the long run, as economic sense becomes a factor), but making sure the rocket is launched reliably. How many launches have we seen on earth that need last-minute interventions? How many hidden supply chains are being tapped to do these last-minute fixes? Building all of that up from scratch on a different planet is going to be a massive challenge. Especially if you're talking 'cheaper than Earth'.

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.

Depending on 'how long you need it', this might not be that much simpler than the 'simplest' design of a free floating rotating (section of a) space station. Either way, there's a lot of engineering issues and required maintenance that is hard to plan for.

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.

So... your motivation to go to space is because you assume they will have good urban planning? I doubt that business case will close (as in: still cheaper to do this on Earth) and human cities tend to get noisy no matter what. Most of the irritating, inescapable and not economically mitigatable sounds in the city come from all the activities to provide for the people in those cities, and there'll be a lot more of that going on in space. Isn't the usual idea that space stations are never really quiet, with ECLSS humming all the time, and volume being very restricted so there's always people nearby?

Eventually, space stations might grow and this might become less of a problem. But that will just make it feel more like cities on earth, not less.


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.

Having people around to do maintenance, emergency repairs and 'I could get it to work perfectly if I could only go in there and do this one little thing' activities will always be useful. Developing systems to run completely independent (as in: direct manual intervention) rather than 99.9% independent increases costs spectacularly.

At first, this will not be enough to provide millions of jobs, but enough to keep a skeleton crew that grows along with orbital activities. The marginal cost of sending more people to space, or keeping more of them there for longer, falls quickly. And as that marginal cost falls, more activities will become possible which added value used to be too small to invest in developing extensive independent systems or using expensive astronauts.

So yeah, it'll be a while to get to millions of people working in space. On the other hand, this is the only way forward. If this fails, and barring finding an equivalent of pre-packaged drugs on another planet, humans are stuck to being a one-world species, bound to die out.

In other words, SpaceX and Blue will eventually have very similar business strategies that don't involve Mars.

Eventually? I think they're already quite a lot more similar than they seemed a few years ago, and it's speeding up. At the start, they were an orbital small satellite launcher versus a suborbital tourist experience. SpaceX ditched the (then) premature small sat market in favor of supplying the government, and Blue is now promoting their vehicle as a science platform with the added benefit of having the scientist along for the ride. Something SpaceX tried to do as well with DragonLab (just the science platform part). Both of them are developing a massive launcher which prime goal is to reduce terrestrial launch costs, and which secondary goal is to open up Mars and/or the moon for business.

Both of these companies have demonstrated to be willing to shift away from their original plans if the market fails to materialize. Both of them have demonstrated to be willing to do whatever people want to pay them for. This is exactly the approach required to make any new activity in space make economic sense. Be it in earth orbit, the moon, Mars, or anything else.

So let's hope they continue to exist side by side, continue to one-up each other, and continue to look for market niches the other missed. Much better than having a less motivated monopoly with stunted creativity.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/06/2018 01:45 pm
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 gave a pretty darn specific use case and you are omitting a major factor.  I'm not going to answer your questions if you do this.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/06/2018 11:15 pm
K guys let's not squabble. And if you were tempted to send me a PM saying you weren't squabbling? Maybe you were.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/06/2018 11:51 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/07/2018 03:43 am
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?

Ah.  Now I see. You had an idea, you threw it out, and it was misunderstood.  I confess I really didn't understand why you were throwing it out, but if I understand you correctly now, you wanted to talk about launch of large structures from the lunar and Martian surfaces in the context of lower gravity and atmospheric drag.

I do think that's an interesting idea, but in the interest of remaining on topic I will apologize for frustrating you further 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.  In orbit, they'll probably be deployed by ion-powered tugs like the Sherpa rather than the rocket-powered tugs you're talking about, if I'm understanding you correctly.

I also believe that if Offworld or Planetary Resources or Kleos or Deep Space Industries or someone else succeeds in  the next fifteen years, it's plausible that we'll see orbital manufacturing developing when Mars is still in the early exploration stages.  There may be a race between the lunar mining people and the asteroid mining people to see who can mine and refine and fabricate first. The rockheads will have to wait for their asteroids to arrive, but the lunies will have to deal with distance and a gravity well. Bezos may nudge the lunies along with money.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/07/2018 03:50 am
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.

I think the #1 argument falls apart pretty easily in the face of a little bit of video of someone walking in 1G off-planet.

The #2 argument doesn't pay any bills, and the thought of walking on another planet can still be inspirational as exploration, not colonization.

Short-term government support basically comes with a "All For Mars!" label no matter what is getting funded, current Senate Space Program included.  Leaving it up to the billionaires, it's cheaper and easier to build space habitats in orbit than on Mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/07/2018 04:12 am
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.

Or even better (IMO), build a 1G hab with an elevator up to the 1/6G Moon level and another one up to the Mars level. Then people can "go home" when they're done walking on the Moon one day (in the merry merry month of May).

I'm a bit fixated on building a bolo with a couple of B330-type habs and a hub in the middle, much easier than building a high-speed rail system on another planet, incidentally.

I concur with High Road that things will start small (which I suppose is where we are now). I do think there will be a great deal of robotics pushing its way into colonization, and robotics may indeed turn out to be the ingredient missing from O'Neill's plan that makes human orbital colonization work. After all, Tethers Unlimited says their SpiderFab can make a 7-kilometer x 10cm first-order truss from one ESPA payload volume, or a 1.75-km x 1.75m second-order truss.

http://www.tethers.com/SpiderFab.html

A TU OrbWeaver might be able to make a pretty sweet O'Neill cylinder, or at least a good start on one that might perhaps be finished by humans and other robots. I guess Bezos would either buy up TU or someone like them, or else have Blue build a trusselator in-house (more his style). SpaceX would be more likely to wait for someone to give TU some money to buy a launch, at least until they demonstrate an interest in building orbital structures.

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)

Regarding Bezos and O'Neill and the use of lunar materials, I agree that what Bezos has said and seems to be doing may indicate that he's following an O'Neill blueprint. But that lunar material isn't necessary for first-order habs or even big cylinders in equatorial LEO, until somebody wants to grow trees a forest.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/07/2018 06:20 am
...
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)
...
Irrelevant.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 07/07/2018 08:14 pm
Tellurian has already been taken. :-)

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Tellurian

It's actually quite a bit older than that; "Doc" Smith was using the term as far back as 1930 in "Skylark Three."
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/07/2018 08:47 pm
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.

I think the reason the surface->orbit habs seems more immediate to me is because I can work backwards and see who is going to pay for it.

For martian orbital habs you need people to live there and you need the equipment to build them.  Well NASA would pay for people on Mars if the price were low enough.  And if the price were low enough then somebody is going to pay to ship over some construction equipment.  So in both cases, the question is will somebody willing to make the investments for cheap cargo to Mars.  Well somebody is already doing that.

For asteroid capture, who is the customer that will pay to develop this technology?  NASA could be a customer but they had a plan to do that and it got shelved.  Such a plan might get reborn but it doesn't have the obvious appeal of people on Mars.  Jeff Bezos could bankroll it but he hasn't put any money into that yet.  And what's worse, I have the creeping suspicion that if someone else worked it out he could try to swoop in and compete with them.  ULA would probably pay for some water mining rights in orbit but only to a few hundred million a year max, not enough to bankroll this.  SpaceX has expressed no interest.  So who is going to pay?  In the long run I think there is going to be a customer.  I just have no clue when the long run is.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 07/08/2018 05:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 07/08/2018 07:54 pm
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."

SpaceX and Blue are philosophically very different and that's a good thing. IMHO.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/09/2018 06:41 am
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.

Oh yes, imagine if SpaceX would still be waiting for the BE4 engine to be completed in order to design BFR around it, rather than being able to push Raptor design somewhat towards what would be optimal for BFR. Or having to continue to postpone FH's debut in order to put a BE3 vac on the second stage, which requires a redesign. Or having to be careful not to thrash their drone ship too much while trying to land a rocket on it for the first time. Hell, it even saved them time arguing whether it would be better to have an (I assume) more stable, more expensive moving ship rather than a 'dumb' floating platform. Never even mind the difference in guidance systems related to landing on a moving ship rather than a stationary platform out on the ocean or on land.

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.

Have both of them, and a few dozen others as well, try and open up markets in space. It's their differences that are important, not their similarities. Different goals, different ways to get there, and all of it mutually beneficial.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/09/2018 12:44 pm
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.

We learned this the hard way with the ISS.  It boggles the mind that after that happened NASA is still trying to make the halfway to the moon station an international project as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/09/2018 03:44 pm
Competition creates more than collaboration, see ULA.

Matthew
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 07/10/2018 01:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/10/2018 02:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/10/2018 02:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/10/2018 02:58 pm
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.
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.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/12/2018 11:12 pm
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 point One advantage to putting 1G stations in LEO is to obviate the need for radiation shielding, so by definition you could have a physically-large (by volume) station with comparatively low mass. Once they go to higher orbits, they need a lot of shielding, and that's where the Moon comes in handy. 

Of course, the shielding could theoretically come from NEOs as well, but the Moon's much easier if Mr. Bezos is willing to pay for a lunar base (and, I hope and dream, a mass driver).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rpapo on 07/12/2018 11:43 pm
If we already have some issues with near misses by orbital debris with the ISS, the problem would be far worse with something so much larger. 

That said, methinks this is not at all the stated topic of this thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/13/2018 01:35 am
The point One 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). Although I could see the use of a 1G space station in Mars orbit to provide a place of R&R for Mars colonists, but that would be pretty far into the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/13/2018 02:14 am
That said, methinks this is not at all the stated topic of this thread.

it is not. Please do better everyone
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/14/2018 08:31 pm
The point One 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.

In the end, in order to fund the Martian colony dream, SpaceX will need to base themselves where the humans are, and they'll need to compete against Blue, but Blue won't be spending resources outside of cislunar space.  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.

The result will be that when Blue gets around to building space colonies, so will SpaceX.  Orbital colonies will be nearer to Earth for quite a long time, and they'll be 1G, with no requirement for genetically engineering ourselves into a new species.

Mars will eventually get exploration, but probably not colonization. Ever. The sooner SpaceX realizes that their R&D is actually for orbital colonization, the sooner they'll stop wasting resources and focus completely on where colonization will actually take place.

Quote
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.

Products from zero-G manufacturing will most likely be meant for humans. There are no humans far away from Earth.  A time when humans do exist far away from Earth will not arrive for a long time. Therefore LEO makes sense.

Quote
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).

Well...I think you mean "attempts to replace Planet Earth" as opposed to "Earth replacements", which are a virtually impossible and unnecessary task. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 07/14/2018 08:42 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 07/14/2018 09:03 pm
The point One 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.

Delta-v-wise, for a "stepping stone station", LEO makes MUCH more sense for these than some higher orbit. Circulazing orbit to some higher orbit than LEO is wasted delta-v.

And if the high orbit is not circular but elliptical, it is elliptical pointing to one specirfic destination at one specific time, practically almost always pointing to wrong direction. Again considerable amount of extra delta-V needed to go to any reasonable destinations.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 07/14/2018 10:21 pm
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?

Yes.

I suppose there's the possibility that Mr. Musk prefers talking about Mars colonies instead of orbital colonies because he thinks that humanity needs a highly difficult and inspirational goal, and that he carries a book that appears to be The Case For Mars but which is, in fact, The High Frontier with a new cover.  I think if that were the case he'd have founded a company to produce graphene displays (for which I can't offhand think of a clever name) instead of The Boring Company.

Some day, what I call "the 2x4 of Life" will hit them in the form of vicious competition from Blue, and then what I'll dub "the BFR of Life" will hit Blue back, and we'll quietly transition to both companies selling condos in order to pay the bills.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/14/2018 10:27 pm
Both SpaceX and BO have the same exact near term (10-15 year) goal...make their launchers commercially viable and successful. 

past that it is anyones guess where either goes next. 

in the end its all about how much money you make :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/15/2018 01:42 am
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.


We have a pretty decent picture of what the next five years of competition is going to be.  As of 2 days ago, Blue Origin's plans are for three 3 ton LEO satellites and 5 OneWeb launches followed by offering 13 ton GTO services at a pace of 8 launches a year with dual payloads.  The first of those LEO launches is supposed to be at the end of 2020 and the GTO tech is supposed to be ready around flight 6.  So sometime in 2022 they are becoming a GTO operator.

This isn't going to "tax" SpaceX's resources to compete with.  They have already completed development of the Falcon Heavy as a GTO launch vehicle.  And Blue is only dipping it's toes in the market being targeted by the Falcon 9.  They're going for 5 OneWeb launches while the Falcon 9 will need hundreds of launches just for the first phase of starweb.

Specifics  > generalities.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 07/15/2018 12:48 pm
...

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.

...

Also available at the bottom of the Mars gravity well are abundant water and most of the resources needed for a colony.  Flawed premises are that lofting resources to cis-lunar space is easy and construction of massive structures on orbit is even possible.  It is a huge advantage to not require delivery of most of the colony mass by spaceship (mostly out of Earth's gravity well) to the chosen location of the colony.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/15/2018 01:12 pm
The point One 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

we wont go anywhere in the solar system until there is a functioning space economy involving humans...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/15/2018 04:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 07/15/2018 05:29 pm
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.  (I believe they've stated that they'd like to partner with NASA, but their plans are 'very different'.)  Starlink revenues will pay for Mars, and BFR/BFS will bootstrap off of Earth orbit launches until Starlink is up and running.  Tens of billions per year will be needed for SpaceX scale Mars plans -- much more than NASA can afford or justify.  Blue Origins faces a similar fate -- NASA cannot afford nor justify helping millions of people live and work in space. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/15/2018 07:17 pm
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.

However this isn't really a matter of plans.  The hardware store that sells the $7 hammer isn't planning for an airforce review panel to agree that they will remove the approved vendor rule that allows the $7 hammer to replace the $400 hammer.  They are just offering the product because they know that customers are out there.  Obviously we aren't talking about a situation that is nearly as "off the shelf" as that but it's still very much in the SpaceX worldview to put the offer in the table and see if people bite.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/15/2018 08:45 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Please be careful when saying "NASA wants this, or NASA wants that". NASA is a government agency that is run by a political appointee, and that appointee has no say over NASA's budget or priorities. And neither do NASA employees. NASA is not a democratically run independent agency, it is an arm of the U.S. Government that works for the President and is funded by Congress.

So unless a future President and Congress decide that it would be in the best interests of the U.S. Government to send government employees to Mars on a SpaceX expedition, they won't - regardless how much NASA employees would wish otherwise.

That said, what Elon Musk is doing though is focusing on making a trip to Mars so inexpensive that a future President and Congress WOULD want to spend a little taxpayer money to send government employees there - especially if SpaceX is offering up the same opportunity to other governments around the world. Elon Musk knows how to create demand for something that doesn't exist yet, and he will use those powers for creating demand for trips to Mars.

Quote
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.

There are no constitutional limits on how much money NASA can spend. And in fact NASA is not mentioned in the constitution, so it could even go away.

When it's not clear what our governments needs are in space Congress tends to fall back on a flat budget profile for NASA, but if there was a future "National Imperative" that had specific goals, Congress would not hesitate to fund NASA at whatever levels were needed.

So get a recognized goal that is shared by the President and Congress, and the money will take care of itself...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/15/2018 09:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 07/15/2018 09:13 pm
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.

...

This is a good point.  If SpaceX depended on NASA's support for Mars, they would be hand-in-hand with them in the design phase.  Quite the opposite, with NASA balking at such simple technology as landing a friggin' capsule on land, they are building a reusable spaceship for 100 without a launch abort capability and planning a lifting body entry to a propulsive landing.  Nothing could be further from NASA's comfort zone.

Nope, not depending on NASA!

That said, I have repeatedly said that this will be NASA's best chance to catch a ride to Mars that they can afford.  NASA leading a scientific exploration of the planet, searching for life, climatological and geological history, etc. would be grand.  If they aren't interested enough to overcome bureaucratic inertia, others will gladly fill in for them.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/15/2018 09:26 pm
Okay so the sticking point is on the word "depend"?  Cool.  Yeah, SpaceX isn't depending on NASA for contracts to underwrite development anymore.  100% agree.

This thing they aren't depending on could be billions of annual revenues.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 07/15/2018 09:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/15/2018 10:35 pm
Expect SLS and Orion to be around for the long haul.

Yikes.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steve G on 07/15/2018 11:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/16/2018 12:15 am
I dont think they are going to destroy the SLS with a pow-wow.  You'd need a lot more then that to destroy a rocket.  You need access to the roof of the SMART, a sniper rifle, an alibi...

... sorry, lost my train of thought there.

But every rocket from the next generation is based on a short term prediction... except the SLS.  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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2018 12:51 am
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.

I based my comment on your comment:
Quote
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.

NASA can't make decisions to go to our Moon or Mars - only the President and Congress can. Hence my comment. And even if they decide to go they could mandate, like they are doing today, to use government transportation services even though "NASA" may prefer something else.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2018 01:27 am
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.

Quote
Thus I dont expect huge delays.  I expect the typical aerospace delays.

To keep this on topic, both SpaceX and Blue Origin are taking on the construction of very large, complex transportation systems. Equal to, and possibly even more complex than, the SLS. They have hundreds, if not thousands of aerospace and rocket engineers contributing to the definition of those transportation systems BEFORE they commit to building them.

However the SLS was defined by Congress, not aerospace and rocket engineers. NASA had limited abilities to influence the overall design of the SLS, which means that delays are not really NASA's fault, but Congress.

That also means that additional delays should not be a source of surprise, since poor specifications means a poor ability to control the ultimate completion date.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/16/2018 01:27 am
As far as I know, Congress and the President aren't actually supposed to decide who wins what openly bid contract. Certainly robotic missions are bid in this manner.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/16/2018 02:19 am
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.

SpaceX and Blue are both perfectly capable of building their own individual BLEO architectures. The competition will only make each better.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/16/2018 03:11 am
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.

For NASA failure is not an option, they are stuck completing their mission come hell or high water.  In the private sector they are free to seek the path of least resistance.  Overall I'd much prefer the path of least resistance but sciencing the shit out of a problem does produce some good work.  It's a pretty savage irony however, the work that NASA put into the SLS is the very work that is making the SLS look bad.  If Congress had just pulled the plug on heavy rocket research back in 2012 there is no way that the next generation of rockets would get built as quickly as they are going to get built.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 07/16/2018 08:10 am
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.

Citation needed, please provide a trade study that confirms your assertion.

From https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt6.html#EST, it is estimated that it would take $190B in 1975 dollars to build a L5 colony of 10,000 people, that's about $900B in today's dollars.

From https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAECourses/aae450/2017/spring/docs/AAE%20450-Project%20Destiny.pdf, it is estimated it would take $2T to build a Mars colony of 1 million people using ITS.

Seems to me a Mars colony would be more than an order of magnitude cheaper than an orbital colony.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 07/16/2018 09:59 am
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.

BFR is made of carbon composite, no welding involved; Falcon was flying in 2012.

Quote
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.

Dragon was flying with PicaX heat shield in 2012; Orion first flew with Apollo's heat shield material.

Quote
Engines: The RL-10C was started for SLS and will soon be flying on the Centaur.

RL-10 was developed in the 1950s and first flew in 1961; Centaur first flew in 1962 IIRC.

Quote
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.

Merlin engines are flying with 3D printed parts.  SuperDracos are fully 3D printed.  Raptor engines use this tech extensively.  SpaceX is way ahead of NASA on use of this tech on engines by any measure.  There were not even 3D printers when RS-25 was developed in 1970s -- technology is 21st century.  They are planning to use 3D printed parts on RS-25Es as they are produced to support SLS flights after mid-2020s (POGO and Main Combustion Chamber is what I hear); none of these engines have made it to the test stand...

In Jim's words(some paraphrasing, sorry), "SLS is doing nothing to advance the state of the art in rocketry.'
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/16/2018 10:56 am
Remember to stay on topic. Do so from this point onwards and we won't have to delete any posts.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/16/2018 01:53 pm
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.

Sound very Gradatim...

Neighborhood's got nothing to do with it.  Most people don't expect SLS to survive even its own weight, but hey a guy's entitled to his opinion.

But to think SLS is "more real" than BFR is odd - both systems are in full development, propulsion and structures. NG is too for that matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/16/2018 03:14 pm
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.

I guess I would respond with three comment points.

First I think that in the short term, ie the next 10-15 years BO And SpaceX have the same business plan...sell launches to comsat providers and non NASA US government launches.  this market is well established and with significant lowering of cost by launch providers has "serious" expansion margins.

these are without a doubt all "uncrewed" and put both BO and SpaceX in the role of "launch service providers" not really much else. 

Second there is some vector that the launch service providers will change the market to IF the cost of access to  lowers and rapidity of access increases  but where that vector is, is anyones guess right now.

 As an example (although I dont expect this to be the vector) what was surprising about the Boeing 707s success was not that the airplane lead to the B747 eventually and very very cheap (comparatively) international travel...but that it went the other way first...ie that the B707 evolved to the B727 and B737 providing short haul flying that essentially replaced the bus and the train and now the family car for domestic "travel"

One POSSIBLE vector is that low earth orbit constellations of various types (like Iridium) become economically successful.  SpaceX and Musk clearly think that this might be the direction with their notion of Starlink.    But there are others (including the US government) that are working on massive low altitude constellations which require low cost and rapid access...but the key thing to keep in mind...is that all of this is "freight" IE not crew.

third point..as for crew.  In my view significant changes to the launch equation for people rest on finding something that people do on orbit or at some place, that has value beyond their cost.  As the cost come down that of course gets easier.  BUT we are long long way from the cost equation getting so low that spaceflight for people is "whimsical" like airline travel.

SLS and Orion and all the NASA stuff is not about doing things in space, it is about keeping ground based infrastructure that would not exist without federal spending intact.  what is done in space by the tiny amount of humans that go there is not all that important compared to the dollars being spent on earth in congressional districts.

Until and when there is something found for humans to do that has value beyond their cost...or someone comes into federal policy making that has other ideas, then nothing in my view will change.  In otherwords the 400 dollar hammers will be tolerated, because that is what spending on human spaceflight is there to do.

there has to be a space economy that humans participate in, before there will be significant numbers of humans in space in my view.

I think that is possible, but I am not very clear what that economy looks like.   

a small PS on this (edit) my own personal view is that the most risky of the approaches is SpaceX.  in my own "humble" view BFR is like trying to go from the DC 3 to say the Convair XC99 without the DC4, B377/Super Constellation etc steps in between and without the technonlogy multiplier of the turbo jet engine...and we are not even at the DC 3 stage, just barely hobbling to it. and without an established or near term market....  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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/16/2018 04:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/16/2018 04:28 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/16/2018 04:59 pm
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
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/16/2018 08:20 pm
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).

 - Ed Kyle   
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/16/2018 09:04 pm
I hadn't considered polar orbits.  It does seem pretty likely they'll break 10 tons on one of those.

I think that they are the same market actually but curious what you think

New Glenn has announced these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn#Launch_service_customers
but the capabilities they have announced align with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)#Future_launches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches_(2010%E2%80%9319)#Future_launches

The capabilities of Ariane 6 align with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)#Future_launches

The capabilities of Vulcan align with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches_(2010%E2%80%9319)#Future_launches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100_Starliner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser#Status

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Stan-1967 on 07/16/2018 10:32 pm

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)

Furthermore you say Block 5 doesn't align to the Ariane 6 manifest list with the likes of Eutelstat, Immarsat, SES, Intelsat, etc.?

Seems pretty flawed unless I am missing something.  On what basis do you state block 5 gave no consideration to all the customers who are part of the success of F9 to date?  How do you know the design considerations of SpaceX?

http://www.spacex.com/missions

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/16/2018 11:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2018 11:54 pm
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.

I'm not sure I understand your perspective, so let me describe how I see Falcon 9/H.

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.

Falcon Heavy Block 5 is for all payloads that Falcon 9 cannot lift without expending 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.

Quote
And they have developed the Falcon Heavy so that they dont need to throw away rockets on higher mass customers.

While a true statement, in reality there are no payloads that we know of today that would require an expendable Falcon Heavy. Maybe that will change, but maybe customers will wait until BFS becomes available with even better pricing and capabilities...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/17/2018 03:08 am
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.

Yes.  This was in fact one of the pieces of information that I was using in my assessment of why they went from the block 5 to the block 3.

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.

Great News for New Glenn.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nathan2go on 07/17/2018 03:15 am
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.

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.
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. 

This would be fine for cases where too many first stage engines shut-down prematurely, but not great for an explosion.  The other problem is that it means the booster's tanks must be around 22% bigger.  But note that the two stages already are plumbed into the same propellant fill system.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/17/2018 04:21 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/17/2018 09:35 am


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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: tyrred on 07/17/2018 10:17 am


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.

Immaterial.  Completely different 2nd stages.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/17/2018 08:12 pm


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/17/2018 08:16 pm


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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/18/2018 12:07 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AncientU on 07/18/2018 12:25 am


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/18/2018 02:15 am
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.

my experience is on the B777 when it was first born and the B737NG...but thats about right in terms of hours

two points...1) there is a lot more simulation in modern devices beyond that...and 2) the issue is "sectors" ie going from "walk into the airplane" to After take off Checklist...when it all settles down to "cruise"

I disregard Russian/Soviet experience, but I would suggest that in a month of the B777 certification the airplane did more "sectors" than all US spaceflight so far...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/18/2018 02:16 am


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.

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)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nathan2go on 07/18/2018 03:16 am


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.
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/18/2018 02:04 pm


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".

The other failure was a case of "keep flying controllably while the stage disintigrates behind you". Even more so, in a manned configuration boosterⁿ propulsion would be cut on abort.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 07/18/2018 03:17 pm
<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)

If it costs $5M (internal cost) to SpaceX to launch a BFR, they can support somewhere in the realm of 50 flights a year wholly unrevenue-making.
To equal the whole of human spaceflight would cost of the order of $1.6B, or $200M if you are using the passenger flight numbers.

It is sort-of-plausible that with moderate cost reduction over $5M, SpaceX might be able to get that number of flights in the first couple of years, paid for entirely out of current launch revenue.
If they can reuse, then flying ten times with no payload, if it encourages one holdout for F9 to switch may be worth it as it encourages other holdouts.

Never mind what else they could do on these unpaid flights - even if it's only commercially available cryogenic tanks or water.

Similar arguments could be made on rapid reuse of F9 S2s, though there is probably more limited scope for cost reduction, so that driver for reflight is not there.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/18/2018 07:44 pm


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
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/18/2018 08:08 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 07/18/2018 09:14 pm
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.

Planes do indeed sometimes explode mid flight when not hit by a missile or anything else.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mulp on 07/18/2018 10:02 pm
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.

My dad grew up when the aircraft industry model was selling airmail services to the government. The law Congress wrote made it profitable for an air carrier to send a few hundred airmail letters to itself between the cities it served. That made carrying passengers and freight between those cities pure profit. Once congress heard about ghis, they changed the formula for subsidizing regular passenger travel by way of the Post Office, which thanks to RFD and Parcel Post at the Amazon's of the 20s and 30s was very profitable for the first time ever.

Later, ICC regulations cross subsidized passenger air service, along with government funded airports, plus the massive government subsidizes to engineering aircraft and to aircraft factory and manufacturing capacity. Commercial jet planes would not have existed in the 80s if not for government paying for development of jet engines that could be manufactured in volume. Competition in jet planes was between nations, ie, which nation could subsidize to maturity the best jet planes. To compete with the unified 50 sovereign States, UK and several European governments joined  together on what became Airbus. The only commercial supersonic jet plane was from massive subsidies from an early leader in jet engines, the UK.

ULA follows in large degree the model for what became Airbus.

Before government subsidies, there were zero $7 hammers for air travel.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 07/18/2018 10:55 pm
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...

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)

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. Improving launch vehicle safety even by one order or magnitude would be a enormous breakthrough! Given vastly safer alternatives, I can't imagine a commercial aviation industry would exist today if 1 in every 50 planes crashed or exploded during flight. It would probably be relegated to some niche application subsidized by the military.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/18/2018 11:07 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 07/19/2018 12:09 am
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?

At best, that's wishful thinking. It's not a given that reuse alone will result in a five order of magnitude leap in safety of chemical rockets. And not in the near future, in which SpaceX intends to compete with vastly safer transport systems. 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.

Although it is very possible reuse of vertically landed boosters leads to vastly more flight experience and safer designs for future rockets, it is also possible we discover from experience the safety of staged chemical launch vehicles really cannot be improved much beyond the current state of the art due to the unique constraints and flight regime they endure. Obviously it would be preferable if reuse does lead to orders of magnitude improvements in safety, but reality tends to be very indifferent to our preferences.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 07/19/2018 01:53 am
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)

They're struggling to meet 1 in 270 because the high MMOD risk during the 6 months stay at ISS, this doesn't apply to point-to-point travel. Removing the 6 months stay, CCtCAP LoC just for ascend and re-entry phase is 1 in 500.

Other differences between BFR and existing launch system: Very high margins and redundancy. During ITS reddit Q&A, Musk implied the booster would have margin of safety between 1.5 and 2.0, and the spaceship/upper stage would have margin of safety between 2.0 to 3.0, much higher than aircraft's margin of safety which is 1.5. They'll also have engine out redundancy in both booster and upper stage. This is one thing people tends to miss when they're arguing for SFR: big gives you tons of margins, and lack of margin is one of the biggest reason I have read for low reliability in LV.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/19/2018 02:55 am
At best, that's wishful thinking.

Yes, it was wishful thinking to hope you would be willing to consider the second order effects given your previous statement.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/19/2018 03:11 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/19/2018 03:45 am
c
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2018 04:15 am


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
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%.

So if you demonstrate launching and landing your BFS over 1000 times in a row without major failure, you've already beaten current LAS and state of the art rocket reliability. If they use BFR for launching their constellation and other stuff, I can see them getting 1000 flights fairly quickly.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2018 05:05 am
c
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.
Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/19/2018 06:40 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/19/2018 09:38 am
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
Aloha 243 doesn't really count as airframe failure due to lack of maintenance much like a lot of other aircraft crashes.

TWA is about it for exploding fuel tanks, one out of how many millions of flights since.

I still don't see NASA allowing its crew on a LV without LAS.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 07/19/2018 11:28 am
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.
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%).

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/19/2018 12:45 pm
The loss of Columbia seems rather intimately tied to it's reusable hardware.
Proximate cause, maybe. But root cause was the expendable external tank.
[/quote]

The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2018 01:09 pm
Quote
The 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dror on 07/19/2018 01:11 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 07/19/2018 01:16 pm
c
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.

No, not true. Any heatshield would have had trouble dealing with the impact.  Reusable or one time only.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Jim on 07/19/2018 01:18 pm

The external tank would have been extremely safe if there wasn't an orbiter attached to the side of it.

And that has nothing to with reusability of the orbiter.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2018 01:37 pm
Expendability can give us at most about 1/100 reliability, maybe a bit better, due to high costs that constrain flight rate. Shuttle never exceeded that, but reusability is the only real way to do much better as it *potentially* allows much higher flight rates at reasonable costs (and by allowing flight testing of all hardware).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/19/2018 02:40 pm
The orbiter was on the side because they wanted to reuse the SSME. The foam was made necessary by the orbiter design.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/19/2018 03:14 pm
The orbiter was on the side because they wanted to reuse the SSME.

There is a lot of documented history about the design of the Shuttle here on NSF, and this is not the proper thread to be debating it.

How are you tying lessons learned from the Shuttle into the business strategy of SpaceX or Blue Origin?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/19/2018 04:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/19/2018 06:38 pm
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?

BTW, I don't think anyone assumes 0% failures for any transportation system, especially new ones. And customers have shown a tolerance for less than 100% success rates, and really customers are the only opinions that matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/19/2018 06:54 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/19/2018 07:52 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/19/2018 09:01 pm
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...
I think because SpaceX is aiming at much higher flights rates, full reusability, and also applications such as p2p that require higher reliability.

The question was whether the first two items can help with the third.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/19/2018 10:45 pm
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 argument was put forward that large numbers of passengers isn't realistic because rockets are dangerous.  The reply was made that reusable vehicles could allow for more safety.  This was met with a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.  In that particular case it was that Falcon 9 and Space Shuttle haven't achieved a 1 in 270 LOC safety rate so it's wishful thinking to say reusable vehicles could be significantly more safe.  This fallacious argument was met by the statement that the reusable hardware on both the Falcon 9 and the Space Shuttle was safe.  This led to a disagreement over whether the reusable hardware on the Shuttle was safe.

So, in discussing whether the SpaceX strategy of large number of passengers is wise, the Space Shuttle was held up as an analogous case, both to argue against the safety and for the safety.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/19/2018 10:54 pm
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...
I think because SpaceX is aiming at much higher flights rates, full reusability, and also applications such as p2p that require higher reliability.

The question was whether the first two items can help with the third.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down
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.

As an answer to your question is that higher flight rates and full reusability can lead to higher reliability but that is not guaranteed. If the "life" estimates and risk levels as the units go through the flights during it's life there will be gotcha's that occur. It is generally understood that a vehicle starts with a slightly greater risk level for first flight than the second. But how many re-flights is the risk less than that first flight? Unfortunately until you have a failure you do not know just how accurate the risk estimates are. If you have a lot of flights and no failures then your estimates of risk are probably higher than they really are. In that case you would see a slow increase in the "life" (number of flights per unit) until issues show up. SpaceX believes for BLK5 the crossover point for risk End Of Life of the booster where the next flight risk is greater than the first flight is somewhere around 10 total flights. BO has demonstrated with NS a life of at least 5. So they would likely be able to get to that level with NG but that is not a guaranteed either. "Life" is a matter of actual experience with flying the hardware and a vigorous inspection and monitoring program during a statistically significant number of flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/19/2018 11:14 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/20/2018 12:16 am
We need to settle this issue of whether or not NS reuse equates to NG reuse.  I suggest pistols at dawn.

What issue? Nobody said it "equates". New Shepard is a testbed and learning platform. Some of what they need for New Glenn will be (has been) learned there. Some of it hasn't.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 10/24/2018 01:52 pm
c
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.

No, not true. Any heatshield would have had trouble dealing with the impact.  Reusable or one time only.

A heatshield on a rapidly reusable vehicle fleet has different systemic properties.

If  STS114 had been readily launchable with little cost and no scheduling issues, the heatshield problems would have lead to loss of vehicle, not loss of crew.

As it was, it would have cost around a billion dollars, and had serious risks of losing the crew of that vehicle due to the compressed timeline and improvised equipment. It was entirely reasonable not to attempt a rescue.

A similar incident with a BFS class vehicle would result in loss of mission perhaps, but the crew is transferred easily in a routine manner.

The vehicle is recoverable if the tanks have no holes - even if the fins are uncontrollable, for example.

After a full retanking, you can do a landing never exceeding a max-Q equivalent to some 100MPH @ sea-level, with no meaningful heating at all. (delta-v is some 2km/s over LEO, allowing lots of gravity losses)




Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 11/28/2018 04:55 pm
Reuse will definitely create a more reliable vehicle eventually in the same way that it has for aircraft. But this will take a long time and will involve uncovering many problems the hard way that the designers hadn't considered. Space craft might not reach the levels of safety that we see in aircraft but it should be possible to improve safety by several orders of magnitude over the years.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 11/28/2018 05:04 pm
Quote
The 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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 11/28/2018 05:12 pm
Quote
The 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.

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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 11/28/2018 05:24 pm
Quote
The 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.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/28/2018 06:11 pm
Quote
The 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.

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?
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 11/28/2018 08:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HMXHMX on 11/29/2018 12:01 am
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.

By the way, I still have the original MDAC Shuttle proposal document which included a nichrome wire "burn through sensor" between the dual O-rings of the SRB.  Coupled to the also-proposed SRB thrust termination ports and a tail mounted solid escape rocket on the Orbiter, it would have made Challenger survivable.  Off topic for this thread, though.  ;(
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 11/29/2018 12:15 am
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.

:)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 11/29/2018 01:09 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 11/29/2018 02:15 am
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.

But as I said its not worth discussing in the context of whatever point is trying to be made.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 11/29/2018 12:30 pm
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mgeagon on 12/31/2018 08:36 am
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.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 12/31/2018 08:59 am
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.

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?
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 12/31/2018 10:02 am
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.

I don't think Elon Musk would be petty enough to build a big model rocket just to piss off USAF and NASA, besides while that thing is big, it is still just a hopper, not a real orbital vehicle.

They started working on the foundation for the BC sprung structure in late October, about a month before we heard of the safety culture probe and Bridenstine's comment about DM-1 launch date.

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.

So you're suggesting Blue jump directly from no orbital launch experience to a super heavy? That's a bit excessive, I don't see how that can help things. Blue is behind, there's not much else they can do about it, might as well just follow their plan through, it's not like they're in danger of folding if they couldn't keep up.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/31/2018 10:43 am
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.

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?
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.

There are advantages to being follower. By time NG has flown,  SpaceX F9 will have created market acceptance of RLVs.
If NG had been first it might have struggled to find payloads for its USED boosters.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DistantTemple on 12/31/2018 01:05 pm
ISTM that the USGov will actively support having two (or more) reusable providers in the marketplace. That includes boosting ( :-) ) both at different points. Down the line EM and Mars may have political differences with the USG, and a tamer provider may be needed. Also EM never seems keen to eliminate competition. BO claims to be aiming to commercialise earth orbit, EM claims to want to get beyond it asap! Two viable launchers will create reliable services for customers, and a new market.
There will be others... ISRO etc...   
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/31/2018 04:17 pm
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.

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?
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. 

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/31/2018 05:10 pm



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

ULA has choosen BE4, so they must be comfortable with its development.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/31/2018 05:36 pm
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 Starship hopper presages the Starship vehicle, not the combo of both the Starship and the Super Heavy booster. Elon Musk has been clear about that. And using Falcon 9 analogies for the Starship/Super Heavy development may not provide an accurate forecast of where the Starship/Super Heavy are really going.
 
Quote
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.

I don't take a lack of public information about the BE-4 to be indicative of anything negative. Historically engine development has been far less public than later booster testing, since engines can be tested in relative obscurity.

However ULA choosing the BE-4 IS indicative of positive progress of the BE-4, and I think we just have to trust the ULA and Blue Origin organizations at this point.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 12/31/2018 08:56 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 12/31/2018 09:03 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 12/31/2018 10:03 pm
... 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.

Yeah, once they have the Starship flying, Super Heavy development becomes much easier. The engines are more of the same, and while the dynamics are going to be different they will have already proved propulsive landing of Raptors with Starship and they have already proven it for boosters with Falcon 9.

Starship is proving a whole range of new to them technologies-- Super Heavy will be combining existing ones. The only truly new aspect is cradle landing and that may not be 100% necessary at first.

I just can't see where Ed's getting his numbers from with regard to Super Heavy.

At that point, SpaceX may actually find themselves further ahead on Starship/Super Heavy than Blue is with New Glenn. We're currently looking at a scenario where Raptor is going to have flight hours in 2019 with the potential of the full stack flying by 2020 while New Glenn may not fly before 2021.

The one thing I keep coming back to though is that what we've really been comparing are less the business strategies than the development approaches of the two companies, and when it comes to that I prefer SpaceX's approach because it produces greater results in a shorter time.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/31/2018 10:46 pm
... 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.  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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 12/31/2018 11:07 pm
... 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.

 - Ed Kyle

Will the program as a whole cost billions? Like Ancient Astronaut theorists, I would say yes. Will the majority of that cost be directly attributable to Super Heavy? I'm not so sure.

The way I look at it, we can basically divide the program costs into three buckets:
1) Common elements.
2) Starship-specific elements.
3) Super Heavy-specific elements.

I would argue that given the commonality between the two elements, the majority of infrastructure costs including the factory and test sites will be shared ones that they're going to incur during Starship development, and therefore shouldn't be directly attributed to Super Heavy.

Elon and SpaceX are on record that Starship is the much more difficult development challenge, and I would expect that to carry over into costing. Yes, Super Heavy is going to be big, but it's also going to be relatively simple in comparison to Starship. Its design and construction will be expensive, but I would expect its costs to end up being the smallest of the three buckets.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 12/31/2018 11:08 pm
... 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.  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.

Starship is the hard part. It will cost far more. So, no, SuperHeavy won't be the major part of the development effort.

I think Musk was high-siding his estimate, as I've said before.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: guckyfan on 12/31/2018 11:21 pm
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 $10 billion included building the base on Mars, the infrastructure to produce propellant, as part of the interplanetary transport system.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 12/31/2018 11:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 01/01/2019 04:14 am
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. 

In 2018 SpaceX raised at least $714M by selling stocks, borrowed $250M, plus MZ's money, they probably got $1.25B this year alone. 3 more years like this one, they'll be at the $5B estimate you gave. And this doesn't include the profit they put back into R&D, and the manpower (5% of the employees) they put into the project, which will only increase from this point onward.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 01/01/2019 04:59 am
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.

Agreed.  Elon basically said (paraphrasing) that they pretty much know how to build a reusable booster that survives reentry and lands, so they'll tackle the hard part first with Starship.  If they've completed the initial work on Starship before moving on to Super-Heavy, then that means they've retired a good portion of the technical risk associated with both SS and SH:
* New FFSC Raptor engines at least work and don't RUD in flight
* Autogenous pressurization proven before SH takes flight
* They can hop and control lift-off and landing
* They've come in at orbital or near-orbital velocities/heating and survived

There's really not a whole lot left in terms of technical risks for SH at that point:

* Relighting the engines, post staging?
* Sheer size of the booster with new structural risks?
* TPS requirements differing from F9 S1?
* Clean-sheet rewrite of the guidance and landing software?

I can't see what's left costing even a single billion, let alone several (if we attribute SH-specific costs and don't throw it in the same bucket as the shared/common costs).  I assume they'll "hop" some variant of SH as well before making the real thing.  Also, if they've gone away from carbon fiber and will use stainless instead for SH, I presume that would vastly reduce the fabrication time and costs as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/01/2019 11:11 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 01/01/2019 02:09 pm
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?

There is a very, very long way to go before either of them achieves their end goal. Their approaches and markets will continue to adapt to what works commercially, as they both need as much revenue as they can get to achieve their end goal. They will become direct competitors down the road. This is already happening: Blue Origin is working towards launching payloads on New Glenn while New Shepard still hasn't launched a single person. SpaceX on the other hand is offering tourist rides around the moon for those able to pay for it... The first post in this thread still has SpaceX focused on launching payloads to Earth orbit, and Blue Origin focusing on the 'mass market' for space tourism. A lot has changed since then.

As for comparing business strategies: Meanwhile, SpaceX are the biggest commercial launch provider, have several Falcon Heavy launches lined up, and are working on their next rocket. Blue Origin has proven little more than that Bezos has a lot of money to spend, so they can continue to work on their designs indefinitely, even without commercial success. A year ago, it seemed all but certain that they would beat Virgin Galactic to market. Now, I'm not so sure. It'll be very interesting to see what the eventual ticket price will be for both of them, and whether that 'mass market for space tourism' is actually that big. And afterwards, what the price is to launch payloads on New Glenn.

Competition is what is going to drive down launch prices more than technology alone. And that is what is going to open up space more than vague, commercially unviable (for now) ideas about 'build X and they will come' decades down the road. And I wouldn't discount companies like RocketLabs either. Their impact may be even bigger, as lower investment costs allow more ideas to be tested on a small scale. Blue Origin may yet turn out to be completely inconsequential, while their goals are achieved by others.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/02/2019 02:07 am
Jeff Foust adds some color to this race in an article published in IEEE...

 https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/musk-vs-bezos-the-battle-of-the-space-billionaires-heats-up
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 01/02/2019 03:43 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 01/02/2019 04:12 am
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

I think you're unduly harsh on the article.  I assume the factual errors you're referring to are the origins and timeline of the ITS/BFR?  You should probably point out what those errors are so we're all more informed.

It's a good article with background on both Elon and Jeff and their companies.  Probably not intended for space geeks who know the minutia, but a good read for the general public and enthusiasts.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 01/05/2019 05:21 pm
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

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 01/05/2019 08:08 pm
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
Well, Space X and Blue need money, so yeah, without large amount of money, nothing really happens.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/05/2019 10:38 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DistantTemple on 01/05/2019 11:07 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 01/05/2019 11:18 pm
...
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 [edit] not 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 01/05/2019 11:24 pm
...
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.
"Being cash strapped is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success."  Something like that?

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 01/05/2019 11:31 pm
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.

Part of that is undoubtedly Musk's inveterate showmanship and nerd coming out; or "showing a little leg" as he once put it.  When he has something he thinks is cool, I don't think he can resist.  And that I count as a plus.  It gets people interested and excited.  Even when there are failures, which SpaceX has been pretty open about, unless there are constraints which limit disclosure (e.g., customers).

IMHO differences is Musk-SpaceX is someone you might have a conversation with; Bezos-Blue is someone you have a press conference with.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 01/05/2019 11:38 pm
"Being cash strapped is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success."  Something like that?

Or, being cash strapped tends to focus one's efforts...
Quote from: Samuel Johnson
Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/06/2019 12:23 am
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!

No, SpaceX is working out of tents because it doesn't need a permanent factory yet for the SS/SH testing phase. And building where you launch is not really an issue with reusable rockets, since you only have to ship them to the launch site once, and from then on they are always returning to a launch site. Kind of like how Boeing doesn't build airliners at busy passenger airports...  ;)

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DistantTemple on 01/06/2019 12:38 am
Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 01/06/2019 01:24 am
Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.
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.
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.

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.

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/06/2019 02:45 am
Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/06/2019 06:00 am
Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/07/2019 10:08 pm
Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.
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.
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.

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.

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...

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/07/2019 10:22 pm
Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/07/2019 10:54 pm
Quote from: Coastal Ron
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/07/2019 11:25 pm
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.

Quote
Now 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...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 01/07/2019 11:42 pm
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.

Quote
Now 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...  ;)
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.

What there was was denial, or disbelief. Competitors didn't take reusability seriously until it was too late, and then they didn't take BFR seriously, also until their design was fixed.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/08/2019 04:31 am
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.

Quote
Now 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/08/2019 05:07 am
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.

Quote
Now 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/08/2019 05:16 am
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.

Quote
Now 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.

The original discussion was about the BE-4 and Raptor engines, not the vehicles they will power. It's important to remember that the engines are only a component of the final product - the rockets and spacecraft.

Meaning it's possible the engine development has been proceeding as planned, but the end product schedules have changed.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 01/08/2019 02:04 pm
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.

Quote
Now 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 &lt; 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.
I don't remember a prediction of early 2020 for orbit. I remember just "in 2020", which to me means "beat 2021".

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 01/08/2019 02:44 pm

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. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 01/08/2019 03:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 01/08/2019 04:08 pm
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.

The issue here is that we only see glimpses of what is happening. SpaceX is not equally open about all things. I suspect that the full-scale raptor has seen much more and earlier development than most people think.

The only reason SpaceX made the subscale raptor was that they needed to individually test the parts of the engine, and for a FFSC that was only possible at NASA Stennis, and the facilities there placed size limits on the engine. It's not like they designed the engine at that size, and now need to upscale it -- it's more likely they designed the engine at specific size, then cut scale until it fit into Stennis, while also continuing the testing and development on the full-size engine.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 01/08/2019 05:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 01/08/2019 06:28 pm
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/08/2019 07:55 pm

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. :)

Musk tweeted that a redesigned raptor engine is going to be fired this month. And then presumably months of testing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/08/2019 09:35 pm
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/09/2019 07:11 am
NG was sized to deliver a useful payload to moon.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 01/09/2019 08:43 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/09/2019 12:24 pm



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.



Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 01/09/2019 12:42 pm



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.

All that matters is whether it's too expensive for the current launch market. Not even that, whether it's too expensive for the launch market that might emerge as more affordable launchers become operational.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/09/2019 05:37 pm
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.
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.

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.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 01/09/2019 05:50 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/09/2019 06:31 pm

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.
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.

Launch cadence is another issue with these large LVs. They share airspace with lots of busy airline and shipping routes.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Dao Angkan on 01/09/2019 08:32 pm
Surely this divorce is a bit off topic for this thread?

Maybe we need a new thread for it.

Anyway, it's possibly relevant to some Blue Origin thread, please move if there is another more appropriate one.

I saw this on CNBC today, they suggest that he may have to give up half of his Amazon shares (currently ~16%). As he doesn't have controlling shares this shouldn't result in too much difference for Amazon (unless his wife decides to divest from Amazon, which they think is unlikely.).

Even if he is reduced to half of his current Amazon shares, I don't think that there should be a noticeable difference to his current $1B/year investment ... but who knows?

Obviously a difficult time for the pair of them, so I think we should try to keep any discussion purely to the financial aspects of this (as Bezos has already stated that he funds Blue Origin through selling $1B of shares in Amazon each year, then I think that anything that reduces his potential investment is worthy of discussion).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 01/09/2019 09:36 pm
That was a line drawn. No more posts about the divorce after this one. We just said all that needs saying., Thanks.

And no, we don't at this time need a thread about the divorce. We don't have threads about Elon's finances either.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 01/09/2019 10:42 pm
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.
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.

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.

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.

Agreed in general.  I'm as big of a SpaceX fan as others on this site, but we're being a bit premature to claim that SpaceX's SS/SH has the edge over Blue's NG or that the business approach is "better."  Neither is flying or hopping  their next gen rocket yet (though we're hopeful that we'll see BFH/Flying Water Tank hop soon.)  Neither has flown their new engines; we've only seen public videos of test-firing of sub-scale Raptor and full-scale-but-not-full-thrust BE-4.  And of course Elon's tweets on the radically-redesigned Raptor (RRR).

But even if SS gets hopping, there's no guarantee that they'll be able to retire all of the risks.  Can SS survive even LEO orbital return?  To be a real game-changer, SS needs to be fully reusable with little-to-no refurbishment and demonstrate quick relaunch turn-around and in-orbit refueling.

Blue can't skip NG as they have a contract to develop it for Air Force launches.  It's unlikely that Bezos will leave that kind of money/prestige on the table and jump straight to some mythical, undefined New Armstrong rocket that's not even really a paper rocket at this point.  They need to walk (hop, land the booster on a moving ship, get to orbit, survive reentry, refurb and relaunch NG) before they run a marathon (fully reusable second stage, surviving lunar return velocities.)

We really won't have to declare a winner; the market will declare one for us.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/10/2019 02:38 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 01/10/2019 03:52 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 01/10/2019 07:32 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 01/10/2019 01:30 pm
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.

I do think that NG vs SS capability is a bit of a red herring. In the first few years of NG, SpaceX might respond to Blue's pricing but they're not going give away revenue needlessly.  They can't afford to until Starlink is a significant revenue stream.

For Blue's part, what markets let them scale up operations once they have full reuse capability? They obviously don't need funds to get to reuse.  They do need additional funds to go from raw capability to hundred/thousands/millions of people in space. More satellites + Moon COTS + a few homespun missions doesn't get you there.

SpaceX's pursuit of P2P, if successful, is a market that scales their Mars launch capacity as a side effect. 

Blue haven't show off any equivalent plan for growing a profitable customer base.  I'm sure Blue have some ideas, even if it's not directly entering the P2P market.

(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)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 01/10/2019 02:33 pm
(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)

 It's one pathway but there are others, I think. Tankers and giant constellation launches are both approaches that can move the needle quite a bit, and are open to Blue as well as SpaceX. Once the needle is moved that much, high volume space industrialization can move it again.... also open to Blue as well as SpaceX... Virtuous cycle, each improvement opens up opportunities that then move the needle again as they blossom.

Let's take further to the right thread. I'll mod this post once I find it again if no one else posts a link.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/11/2019 01:44 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 01/11/2019 12:27 pm
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 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2019 04:56 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 01/15/2019 05:56 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/15/2019 06:12 am
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.
Even if reuseable US is long term plan having a expendable US for BLEO or heavy payloads is useful option.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 01/15/2019 12:40 pm
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.

I think the market response to cheaper launches will take just as long, if not longer, than full reuse. The only way it might not is if LEO constellations take off really fast, but even those take years of planning and building.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 01/15/2019 03:41 pm
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 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.

SpaceX is demonstrating that it can make its own market.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/20/2019 09:37 pm
Soyuz will launch 10 OneWeb seats at a time. NG will launch 80 at a time. One web must get ~ 450 launched by ~ end of year 2023 to keep the full constellation license valid. If NG starts launching twice a year in 2022 for total of 4 or 320 sats Soyuz must launch 3 times a year starting this year. To get to full deployment by EOY 2026 another total of 6 NG launches is needed. 2 per year. After that for replacement and expansion the launches just for OneWeb will continue at 2 every year.

Now Starlink and it's affect on SpaceX launches is more significant. A conservative number for Starship launch of sats is ~165 (3 orbit planes). After Apr 2024 SS would have to launch 12 times in 3 years or at least 4 times a year just to put up and do replacements on the first 4400 constellation. For the larger 12000, launch rate would end being at least 12 per year.

If these broadband constellation business cases are successful then launch rates for both will likely increase a lot. This would likely be at the 7 to 10 year after first One Web launch or ~ after 2026. With NG or NA launching 10 or more times per year with LEO constellation sats and SS launching 25 or more times for similar sats.

This will be the initial main market for these large launchers in the 2020s. In the 2030s something else may overtake this market as the main driver.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: calapine on 01/20/2019 10:20 pm
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/20/2019 10:38 pm
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).
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.

But you are also probably correct that the number is likely significantly more than 10. More like 20.

How this would affect NG is that to replace 1 NG flight is 4 Soyuz. Soyuz production may not support an added increase of this amount. Much less a total of 10 flights in 1 year.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/21/2019 09:11 pm
Soyuz once launched dozens of times per year.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 01/29/2019 12:28 pm
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.

On the other hand, to the extent the new approach SpaceX is taking with Starship on reusable second stages/space ships is successful (Austenitic stainless steel, transpiration cooling of high-temp reentry surfaces, belly-flop (large area reentry cross sections), spaceshipyard test article construction methodologies, etc.), ...

... then SpaceX is essentially doing "AdTech" development work that will point the way to cheaper/better/faster reusable second stages that Blue, and other entrants into the space, can choose to follow.

Same phenomenon as the Wright Brothers success with three-axis control and powered flight.  Once it was demonstrated, the early Whitehead approaches and the approach of Langley were discarded.  All can learn and copy (and then improve) new innovations of human technology once the existence proof has been provided.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/29/2019 07:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 01/29/2019 09:50 pm
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.

Are you referring to the "initially expendable" upper stage slide? That's not exactly the same as showing full reuse.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Eric Hedman on 01/30/2019 02:44 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 01/30/2019 04:19 am
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?)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 01/31/2019 02:50 pm
New Glenn's Telesat LEO launch win is interesting.  SpaceX have of course put themselves in the position of competing with their own potential customers.  Blue now have business from two of Starlink's competitors.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 01/31/2019 03:21 pm
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?)
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.

And unlike ULA, Blue believes in reusable rockets, can afford the development and does not need to convince 2 boards of director to spend the money.

Clearly that's no guarantee whether or when they will develop it, but I think it makes it more likely.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/02/2019 06:51 am
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?

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/02/2019 08:27 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HeartofGold2030 on 02/02/2019 09:18 am
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.

Telesat were never going to launch with SpaceX in the first place due to Starlink, just like OneWeb aren't. It's pretty easy to comprehend why those two wouldn't want to rely on their satellite-internet competition for launch services, it's Arianespace and ULA who are the real losers here.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/02/2019 10:39 am
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.
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.

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/02/2019 06:54 pm
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?

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.
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/02/2019 10:12 pm
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/03/2019 12:43 am
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.

Quote
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 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 02/03/2019 01:00 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/03/2019 03:13 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 02/03/2019 05:22 am
Blue Origin has to get payloads into orbit. That and nothing else is the next step for them.

Or to say it in a different way: The only real way for Blue Origin to fail near term is to blow up a string of payloads. First customer payloads and after that their own.
As long as they can reliably deliver customer payloads they can afford a lot of first stages. NG has unique capabilities hey can charge for. At the same time this takes money from the competition. I'd say if push comes to shove they only need to make first stage landing and consequently reuse work mid term.

But first they have to get to orbit. Or in agile development speak MVP, minimum viable product.

What is the status of the pad construction? Do we have any recent news about it?
Rather hard to launch a rocket without a pad.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/03/2019 08:13 am


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.
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.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/03/2019 09:07 am

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 09:19 am

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?

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?

Once optimised, Starship can launch for something like an Electron launch price (in the region of $5m), but with two hundred times the payload capacity. How does that leave New Glenn as a viable option for any likely payload?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/03/2019 09:26 am


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.
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.

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.
I'll repeat...  BFR is fully and rapidly reusable.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 09:34 am
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 02/03/2019 10:58 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/03/2019 11:37 am
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. 

You're contradicting yourself. Once a single launch service provider 'gobbles up' all of the launch contracts, they have little incentive to reduce prices further, and rather keep the prices high and the money flowing in to keep a Martian settlement alive that does not necessarily contribute anything to human expansion in space beyond the single outpost itself.

What's inhibiting the advance of spaceflight (or at least a major factor at the moment), is the high cost, time and complex procedures to get anything to space. So governments investing in multiple companies that are working on promising technologies (like SpaceX and Blue Origin, who both have received money, both before they had proven they could deliver, and ULA, who at the least had already proven to be capable of launching rockets to orbit) is the best way to cover the fund gap leap between the current situation and full commercial expansion into space.

Hanging everything on a single launch system gets you in real trouble when that rocket blows up, which is inevitable in the long run. Especially if it's not the rocket itself blowing up, but the company going bankrupt because it's side business fails (Mars or Starlink). Supporting multiple systems gives you redundancy. And with Starship being quite a leap in rocket technology, and quite unlikely to take humans to Mars while still resembling the current design, it's likely to turn out to be Space Shuttle all over again: amazing to look at, but not quite capable of doing what it was intended to do.

Using the entire launch market revenue towards going to Mars is repeating the same mistake as going to the moon on 5% of GDP. Sure, success comes in a very short amount of time. And then everything stalls for 50 years.

We are currently seeing the advent of several revolutionary launch companies. The jury's still out on who will have the biggest impact on human expansion in space, and what kind of activity will turn out to be the most successful. IT could be roasting coffee in microgravity for all I care. Let governments support oldspace while newspace still flexes its wings. There will be failures along the way, so abandoning oldspace is not a good idea yet. But the genie is out of the bottle. Newspace companies are launching. If (yes, IF) prices continue to come down and newspace proves to be reliable, oldspace companies will have to adapt or disappear soon enough. Which will be a sad thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 11:39 am
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.

Starship will make all of that possible even sooner than BO’s gradatim approach would allow - even while striving for Mars at the same time. An operational Starship brings space elevator equivalent costs per kg to orbit. Even lower than a space elevator, in fact. And with that comes the vision of millions of people in space sooner than any other company or program would achieve.

It really is in all space enthusiasts’ interest that Starship becomes reality as soon as possible, whether you dream about Mars, the Moon or LEO.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 02/03/2019 12:41 pm
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.

I get the sentiment, but you're overly harsh towards Blue Origin, at least they're pushing reusability and big heavy lift, New Glenn is a step up comparing to FH, so they're definitely advancing the current state of art here. It's the others that are the hindrance, it's not Blue's fault that USAF is stupid enough to fund two new expendables instead of funding paradigm changers like Starship.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 02/03/2019 01:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/03/2019 01:22 pm


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.
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.

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.
I'll repeat...  BFR is fully and rapidly reusable.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 01:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/03/2019 01:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 01:28 pm


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.
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.

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.
I'll repeat...  BFR is fully and rapidly reusable.

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.

On what basis do you reach that conclusion? How would NG "smash SH/SS out of the park?"
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: kevinof on 02/03/2019 01:29 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 02/03/2019 01:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 01:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/03/2019 02:01 pm
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 02:10 pm
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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: kevinof on 02/03/2019 02:25 pm
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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 02/03/2019 02:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 02:38 pm
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 02:48 pm
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.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly didn't intend to antagonize you. So apologies if I did.

I think it would be great if BFR and New Armstrong are both flying in 10 years time. My concern, however, is that if launch revenues are needed to make that a reality, there might not be room to develop both. So in that respect, I don't see the benefit of what BO is doing now, given the limited revenues available from the launch market, especially if it results in BFR not getting off the ground, or being delayed by a decade.

I don't really know how else to put that. And I don't know why that point of view should be disparaged or viewed as controversial in any way. I look at it from a financial perspective, which is the lens I tend to view everything through. Economics will make or break the development of reusable rockets. Not technical challenges.

EDIT

I forgot to address your other question, which was how BFR would make space industries possible. The answer is in the same way that a Space Elevator would. Because $100/kg cost to LEO changes the paradigm completely. Any space enthusiast would surely agree with that, and be eager to see that day arrive.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/03/2019 03:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DistantTemple on 02/03/2019 03:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/03/2019 03:13 pm
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.

Appreciate that, Distant Temple.

SpaceX's approach has been quite simple, as Meekgee pointed out above. Develop a product that outperforms the competition from a cost point of view, use that to gain market share and revenue with which to fund further R&D and revolutionize the industry even more.

The limitation on this business model, is the large portion (probably 75% at a guess) of the worldwide launch market which is impervious to competition, thanks to political reasons. Thus, launch revenue with which to fund further development is capped at a much lower point than it would have been in a more competitive market.

SpaceX seems to have run into that brick wall now. And as a result they are being forced to find more creative ways of generating the funds needed to reach the holy grail of full reusability. And it is that limitation which I am lamenting, because it means no matter how innovative or competitive a company may be, ultimately, it is impossible to advance any faster without outside sources of revenue.

Once we get over the hurdle of full reusability, then everything changes. But to get there needs one more boost of maybe $5bn or so, in my view.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Patchouli on 02/03/2019 03:18 pm
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.

I always found it odd that Blue is so conservative with the development and testing even though Bezos could easily afford to have some expensive failures during testing and take the throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks approach to development.
Even after his divorce Bezos probably could afford to fund the entire ISRO budget for 50 years or afford the budget of Spacex up to the point of Falcon 9 1.0 over 70 times.

While Spacex desipte having a much smaller budget takes risks almost on the edge of being reckless.
Though that said Raptor is not tied to Star Ship and could be used on a more conventional vehicle if development hits a snag.
Something similar to New Glenn could be their plan B if they need an interim vehicle between it and F9.
The biggest reason for the difference is probably the mindset of their founders more than anything else.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/03/2019 03:29 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/03/2019 03:54 pm
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.

You guys are all missing the point that SpaceX is struggling only because they are trying to do 2 massive investments at once: Starlink and Spaceship. If they would not be developing Starlink, their current income, combined with the passed investment rounds, would be quite enough to develop Spaceship. However, by publically working on Starlink, they have

1) (further) reduced interest in launching current generation satellites, that might otherwise have launched on F9.
2) made other LEO constellation/satellite companies look for launch providers who are not going to use their own money to compete with them.

The current slump in their own launch rate is by their own design. As far as comparing their approaches go, this is the one thing where Blue Origin is doing much better than SpaceX, IMO. Working together with other companies to really get things off the ground, rather than trying to take on your customers in their own game...

I hope Starlink's potential demise doesn't cause SpaceX to collapse, because that would be a huge loss. On the other hand, SpaceX being 'forced' to go to the moon or whatever in order to make money, is a good thing. That means there are paying customers for going to the moon, which is the only way to sustain space exploration. No half-baked ideas of settling other planets without a clear way of paying for it when the company's founder dies.

Personally, I think companies like RocketLab and Spaceflight Industries will have a bigger impact in the short run. There is a LOT of work left to do to make any new economic activity viable, and smaller and more flexible platforms will make early investing much more affordable.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/03/2019 03:59 pm
Blue has the financial backing of JB to be able to build NA much larger than SH/SS.

Two things:

1. Jeff Bezos has always been funding Blue Origin, yet despite being older than SpaceX they are much further behind SpaceX in building an orbital-class rocket of any kind. In other words, DESPITE having lots of funding their velocity of accomplishment lags behind what SpaceX has been doing with less "free" money.

2. SpaceX (i.e. Elon Musk) is building the SH/SS for a specific reason - to colonize Mars. Why would Jeff Bezos have a need to build something bigger on their first try at building a fully-reusable transportation system? They could build one with the same capabilities and still be successful, just like how every other transportation market works.

Quote
SpaceX are struggling to fund the dev. of SH/SS...

You are assuming facts not in evidence. From the public view that we all have, it appears that SpaceX is building their next generation transportation system much faster than Blue Origin is.

Quote
...which is one of the reasons why they switched from CFC to Stainless steel.

You are conflating changing to a different design that has a bonus of lower costs, with the assumption that they only reason they changed to Stainless steel was because it offers lower cost. Musk has said that Stainless steel provides benefits far beyond just a reduced cost.

Quote
SpaceX had to lay off 10% of their workforce due to funding issues.

Right-sizing a company is necessary when you have a big change in direction, and that is apparently what drove the layoffs. And SpaceX has done big layoffs before, and likely will again. It's not a sign of financial weakness, it's a sign that they had too many people in certain positions. And if look on their website, they are still hiring, which is more evidence that they are right-sizing due to the new design choices.

Quote
Blue will likely have picked up a good number of those who left SpaceX.

That would be nice if it happened. But I doubt they will since Blue Origin may not be ready for such an influx at this time, and those laid off may not have the skills that Blue Origin needs at this time.

Quote
If 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.

Quote
In short Blue has much more secure funding for future projects than SpaceX.

They do, but what frustrates many of us is that despite all that funding they take far longer to do things than SpaceX. And while Blue Origin is well positioned to be the second reusable launch provider, they are have a long way to go before they will be in a position to over take the Falcon 9/H family, and by that time the SH/SS family may be flying.

Blue Origin needs to go faster...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/03/2019 04:17 pm
Quote
If 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.

Good points, all of them. Personally, I am talking about what would happen if SpaceX turns out to be less successful as a satellite network operator than a launch service provider. Ideas that bring in billions of dollars usually attract enough copycats to give the original company a run for their money. Especially if that company has had to do a lot of work to work out the kinks of a new product, and create the market for it. If such a thing would happen, the costs for launching the constellation would have been sunk (and probably several times more than that), while the money coming in might not be enough. That might be a threat to SpaceX' survival as a whole. Or at least, their revolutionary nature might not survive the transition, which would be a loss.

On the other hand. If New Glenn takes as long to develop as New Shepard is taking, SpaceX quite clearly has all the time in the world and there's no need to rush. My money's on Gwynne Shotwell.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/03/2019 05:20 pm
There's a truism that is echoed is several companies strategies... "If SpaceX fails at xxx then we can win".

Pardon me for not being enthusiastic about that train of thought.

First of all, it's a poor bet, which then proceeds to color you world view (e.g. SpaceX switched to stainless steel because they're struggling and it's cheaper...  Many companies would love to struggle the way SpaceX is...)

Second, it makes for incredibly slow progress since you're never under the gun. You have some some sources of funding (USG, JB, Bigellow) and you basically just hover.

Sadly, once you get into that mode, it's very difficult to make the company lean and hungryagaon...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/03/2019 05:43 pm
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.

Quote
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 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?
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. It has at least 50% more payload to LEO than FH with booster reuse, and that was before the update to LH2 upper stage which I suspect gets it close to double FHR.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 06:15 pm
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.

Come on, we have two big companies in the commercial aeronautic, like Boeing and Airbus, (and other too like Bombardiers, the Russian and Chinese companies, etc) and we can't have two companies for transport in space?


Who think like this, really underestimate the value of this market in the present and especially in the future...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 06:28 pm
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.

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.
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.

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.

And?

The wars and business are win with money...

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 02/03/2019 06:32 pm
...
Who think like this, really underestimate the value of this market in the present and especially in the future...

There is a leap of faith in the "value of this market" which not all are willing to take. The current global market for launch services and revenue is in the noise; you can make much more money selling any number of other things.

The future of the launch services market?  Who knows.  SpaceX has their own markets they are pursuing, e.g., Starlink; SpaceX will be its own best customer.  For others, the value is far from certain.

Significant launch price reductions might generate additional demand, a virtuous cycle, and those who plan accordingly will prosper.  Or maybe not.

If you have credible market research which helps provide visibility through the fog, please share.   (We have seen this movie before and it did not end well.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 06:45 pm
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.

I only go to put this one, here because is a little off topic, but I see a lot reference to the divorce of Bezos, and what that mean for his fortune...well her parents maybe are one of the biggest hidden fortune...is logical he will inherit this money too...and by the way the sons of Bezos, will inherit too, the fortune of him and hers mother too, in a future...if they have the same passion for BO....this company don't should have problem of finance for the next decades...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/a-hidden-amazon-fortune-bezos-parents-could-be-worth-billions
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 02/03/2019 06:47 pm
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The layoffs are mostly just SpaceX being SpaceX. They hire a lot of people fresh from schools, work them to the bone with really high workloads, and frequently fire the least performing. The layoffs might be used to judge SpaceX's business ethics, but not really their financial situation. This time the firing wave was larger than usual because they also let go almost all of their composites development people. Based on information publicly released by SpaceX, they have an order book worth >$12B. This is not compatible with them currently having "funding issues".

Personally, I really wish that BO would be able to build a rocket to compete with SpaceX. I don't think capitalism works when/because people (or companies) are ever altruistic, I think it works best when there is cutthroat competition driving the prices down. So I really hope that in the future both BFR and NA succeed, and launch prices are driven down close to the actual costs of using reusable vehicles, at which point I could go for a vacation cruise in orbit.

But the fact of the matter is that BO still has not launched anything into orbit. Despite BO starting first, and spending massively more on development, SpaceX has a huge lead. And looking at the publicly released roadmaps, BO isn't even really trying to beat SpaceX's timelines.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 02/03/2019 06:50 pm
...
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/03/2019 06:51 pm

...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.

How do you know this?

As of right now, there's absolutely no evidence available to indicate what New Armstrong definitely will be save for the statement that it's going to be larger than New Glenn. I personally think that it's going to be designed for lunar operations but that's a guess on my part based on Blue's naming scheme.

Until New Glenn flies and New Armstrong is announced I wouldn't make anything but the most general predictions for New Armstrong's capability. My own expectation is that it's probably going to be better suited for lunar operations than Starship/Super Heavy, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

As for it being flying and dominant by the end of the 2020s I'd definitely take that with a mine of salt. Blue has taken almost four years of test flights to get New Shepard to the point of having a human-rated (though not yet flown) suborbital booster in the hangar. Unless we see a significant shift in behavior, I would argue that New Armstrong is not going to follow quickly on the heels of New Glenn-- if anything I think it would be lucky to be beginning construction by the end of the 2020s, especially if it needs a new engine.


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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 07:08 pm
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.

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...

(I hope not)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 02/03/2019 07:39 pm
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.

I'm not sure it's that easy. Even a reusable rocket can be only used a finite number of times (iirc Musk mentioned a 100 re uses) and has deprecation for its initial purchase price. That has to be factored into the per flight cost. If we assume 100 reuses that would add 1/100s of the initial purchase price, which could be a substantial sum.

Also it likely needs much more launch infrastructure than a small rocket, which is also not free.

All things equal a hypothetical fully reusable small rocket would be more cost effective than a big reusable rocket for the "single cube sat" case.  But then re usability needs a certain minimum size to have enough margins, which is likely far above Electron class.  On the other hand it might be possible to produce something like Electron cheap enough that the production costs are below the marginal costs of the reusable big rocket.

I would suspect that full re usability with large rocket wins on most medium to large payloads, but it's not clear how it looks like for really small payloads.

Of course once large rocket reusability is established you would expect the sats to grown too. Perhaps the new
"simple cubesat" will be much heavier, if it's only adding more batteries and fuel.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/03/2019 07:47 pm
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.

I does not seem like New Glenn was designed to compete with Falcon heavy or anything else. Blue is following Bezos' road map for the industrialization of the solar system.  If Falcon Heavy did not exist, they may well have designed the same thing. The sea of wealth that buoys Blue means they don't have to worry about what others are doing.

As opportunities arise along the way, Blue will monetize the tech they are building. I am not sure if this will be the most fruitful approach, we will see. Blue talks a very very long game, SpaceX is in a finance driven hurry.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 07:59 pm
...
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 to make cleary than Elon don't start SpaceX, being poor...and this industries is necessary a lot of money to be successful (if not, ask to Rotary Rocket, Kistler Aerospace, Armadillo Aerospace, etc)...

And when we talk about the approach, that big pocket of Bezos, is something to have in the possible strategies for the future, and have in the equation...(For example JB, can finance the NA when they started the NG, without wait for the revenue of this rocket, etc)


And BO, all ready have revenue, from the DOD, with her contract, from ULA for the BE-4, and maybe this year from NS, it's start to fly...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 02/03/2019 08:17 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/03/2019 08:38 pm
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.

Limit what capabilities? Sure, it wouldn't be as good for colonizing Mars, but there are no paying customers for that at the moment. For anything that anyone wants to pay for right now (like 8 tonnes to GTO), a fully reusable NG should be similar to BFR.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 02/03/2019 09:03 pm
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.

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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/03/2019 09:10 pm
Anyone suggesting that a rich founder means inevitable success needs only to look at Stratolaunch.

Will this happen to Blue? I certainly hope not. But any of these could also happen:

- Bezos amazon stock tanks (or he loses half of it)
- Bezos is bored with it and decides to do something different with his hobby money
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/03/2019 09:46 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/03/2019 10:07 pm

Actually, we can start comparing as soon as Blue Origin starts to launch anything commercially. At full price, that is, not as another test flight. Plans and projections about prices and timeframes rarely make it to reality. What and how many times they launch is how we can truly identify whether their efforts contribute to the expansion of human activities in space. At the moment, Blue Origin has yet to prove they are commercially viable. No amount of hobby money will sustain human activities in space longer than Bezos' himself is around.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/03/2019 10:14 pm
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.

Quote
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...

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 02/03/2019 10:39 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 10:59 pm
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.

We don't know how profitable is SpaceX in the actuality...at the moment we know they spent a big quantity of money in the reusability of F9 (and we don't know her margin of benefit in reusability first stage of F9), and in the development of the FH, and the Raptor right now...we don't know is that money came organic,  via her business o via credit (loan) or capital increase...and in all that, the Valuation has influence...

In other words, maybe the valuation don't change her profitable, but change a lot the rhythm of how quickly they can growth, if for that they need use money inorganic (credits or capital increase*)

*Capital increase that have a limit in SpaceX, if Elon don't want lost the control of SpaceX...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 11:01 pm
... 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.

Nothing to do with tax credits, I talking about loan, like the last of Bank of America (or others before), for 500 million of dollars...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/03/2019 11:07 pm
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.

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/04/2019 12:38 am
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...

I've been part of the management team starting up a new factory for a military electronics product (ruggedized portable computers), and based on the size of these satellites I don't think they will need a very expensive factory. Small satellites are not like cars and rockets where they need large tooling, and the production lines are likely to be fairly short and uncomplicated.

They will spend far more on R&D and staffing than they will on the factory. And sure, if they get operational it will have been an expensive endeavor, but if it was easy everyone would be doing it...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/04/2019 03:24 am
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.

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.
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.

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.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves quite yet. The future is certainly exciting - just not certain...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: JH on 02/04/2019 04:13 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/04/2019 04:42 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/04/2019 06:10 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FinalFrontier on 02/04/2019 06:37 am
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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/04/2019 07:17 am
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.
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&amp;D and make significant return on investment.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/04/2019 07:29 am
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.

Ha, I look forward to quoting this back to you some day.   :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/04/2019 09:19 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/04/2019 09:33 am
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.
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?

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".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/04/2019 09:42 am
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.
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?

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".
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/04/2019 09:48 am
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?

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".
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.
What about all the other examples?

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/04/2019 10:46 am
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.

Quote
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/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 02/04/2019 11:05 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/04/2019 11:32 am
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.

Quote
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/

So if they had access to the same amount of money, how come their set of accomplishments is so different?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: johnlandish on 02/04/2019 11:49 am
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.

BO did not start with unlimited funds. This is just wrong. Jeff Bezos had a net worth of 6.1billion within the first months of founding Blue Origin. His wealth plummeted the following year, dropping 66.6% to $2.0 billion. He lost $500 million the following year, which brought his net worth down to $1.5 billion. His net worth was tied to Amazon. Around the same time that Jeff was worth 1.5billion in volatile amazon stock value(not cash), Elon had started Space x with a net worth of around 120 to 150million in cash. Cash that he could use as he pleased.

To match Elon, Jeff would have had to sell around 10% of his stock, at a time when people were predicting the death of amazon.

So this myth about Blue Origin, having unlimited money when they started is not correct.

Edit/Lar:soften
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/04/2019 11:49 am
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.

Quote
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/

So if they had access to the same amount of money, how come their set of accomplishments is so different?

Probably a few factors
1.)Blue Origin compensation is likely weighted cash, SpaceX is likely weighted stock (at least in the time frame previously mentioned)
2.)The similar amount of cash only applied when comparing one source (COTS) in short amount of time (2008-2012?) to Blue Origin's total lifetime amount.
3.)There was other sources of money other than the COTS NASA contribution- Musk himself, other investors, debt  and milestone payments for CRS. And forget about milestone payments, by the end of 2014, they had completed 4 CRS operational flights with revenue of $133 million each. Revenue from CRS alone in 2014 was likely about half of Blue Origin's lifetime cash flow up to that point as they completed 2 flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rokan2003 on 02/04/2019 12:58 pm


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.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 02/04/2019 01:31 pm


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rokan2003 on 02/04/2019 01:39 pm


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.
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.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/04/2019 01:55 pm

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.

Unless this trust is run by robots, it still isn't secure. Paul Allen's sister runs his trust, and is supposedly committed to his "vision", but 3 months after his death, Stratolaunch's engine and launch vehicles were cancelled. It is possible that this money will be reinvested in the space sector somewhere else with greater returns for the trust...or not. We will see. It would be most secure with 3 or more trustees with majority voting rather than unanimous consent.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/04/2019 02:21 pm
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?

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".
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.
What about all the other examples?

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...


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/04/2019 02:44 pm


20 years into it, there's a whole generation of engineers at BO that have never seen anything launch to orbit


Ok, it's a good point...but like a say in my message before, the New Shepard, exist and is a new market  (development) for BO...

But OK, They don't launch nothing to orbit yet, ok is true...but the NG, is not the Falcon 1....


In fact the New Glenn, will be the rocket more powerful, than ever maked by Russian in her history (not count Soviet era), than ever maked by Europe in all her 80 years of experience, than ever maked by Japan... than ever maked by China in her history, than ever maked by India in her history...etc...

That's is something for reflexing a moment...

I will say, nothing bad for this rookies of the orbital rockets...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/04/2019 02:53 pm
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.

Here in the U.S. it's known as a Living Trust. I have one, and I'm the trustee on another. I highly recommend them.

And no doubt Jeff Bezos and his wife have one - you don't want to put $100B+ worth of assets through probate court...  ;)

It's interesting that so many people are now concerned about the future of Blue Origin now that Jeff Bezos is getting divorced. No one was concerned about SpaceX in the same way when Elon Musk got divorced, but then again SpaceX is mainly funded by doing actual work and getting paid for it, so that is, I think, the model that Jeff Bezos should (and is) move to for Blue Origin - let it stand on it's own two feet without the need for Jeff Bezos to 100% fully fund it.

Which gets back to the velocity of progress perception - SpaceX HAD to scramble and find customers in order to survive, and that made the company into a very fast iterating entity. Blue Origin has never had to worry about their paycheck, and because of that they not be be progressing as fast as they could.

And I say that as a fan of Blue Origin. I WANT them to go faster, because as the 2nd reusable launch provider they will help to validate the reusable launch market, and that is NEEDED to lower the cost to access space for all of our future space dreams.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 02/04/2019 03:00 pm
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...



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:

NO ONE ever takes for granted that SH/SS will fly to orbit in 2020/2021. Almost every time someone talks about its launch date, the post comes with several caveats and reminders to expect slips. The fact that everyone repeats this mantra creates the false assumption of a general consensus that takes SpaceX's timelines for granted.
About the only times I see the words 'Starship will fly on time' is when they're preceded by 'don't take for granted that...'.

OTH, what the vast majority here and elsewhere actually seems to take for granted is New Glenn being almost certainly on time or thereabouts.
When people talk about NG it always seems like it's no big deal, while SS/SH is the most ambitious thing in the world. As if NG wasn't BO first attempt at an orbital rocket, as if they didn't choose to start trying with no less than essentially a Super Heavy class lifter, a gargantuan vehicle, as if they already had cost effective reusability figured out from the first flight while SX is still perfecting it on F9 after years of  real experience with the system.
As if SpaceX, on the other hand, wasn't developing its FOURTH (and that's without counting many major iterations) orbital LV.
As if their operational experience, their experience in design and actual LV development, launch site construction and operation, their experience in reusability of an orbital LV didn't count.
As if New Glenn timelines were somehow a lot more solid than SX's without any evidence nor historical data to support this assumption.
As if the fact that SX canceled some projects while BO didn't have projects to cancel was an indication  that only SpaceX's ambitions can fail to materialize.

We should try to remember this when discussing.

It seems to me that there's a general calibration error where Blue's experience and expectations about their timelines get overinflated while SX's get discounted. 

Money cannot buy everything.
For sure it cannot buy time nor perfection in execution, as we're constantly reminded by well funded yet constantly slipping govt space programs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/04/2019 03:13 pm
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.

FH can lift 30 tonnes to LEO with 3x booster reuse, according to the 2017 BFR presentation.

New Glenn in the 2-stage all-methalox configuration could lift 45 tonnes to LEO with booster reuse, according to Blue's website. That is already a 50% advantage over FH, and I suspect that 1) Blue was already reserving a considerable amount of margin; and 2) the switch to LH2 upper stage increased LEO payload by at least 20% and higher energy payloads considerably more.

By my calculations, Blue could put a 7 meter copy of Starship on NG and still beat FH performance to GTO or LEO with full stack reuse. The cost disadvantage of LH2 vs kerolox would be more than offset by the lower expended hardware costs and lower single stick handling and assembly costs. With full reuse, such a vehicle would be more expensive per kg than Starship/SuperHeavy, but probably quite a bit cheaper per flight.

Blue is easily in the best position of any LSP to compete with Starship, especially if Starship hits all its performance goals.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/04/2019 03:14 pm
F9 instead of developing 2nd stage reusable, developed Falcon Heavy and Dragon I, then Dragon II.

Red Dragon was cancelled due to NASA not wanting legs coming out of the heat shield on Dragon. 

Moon travel with Dragon II and Falcon Heavy was cancelled due to advanced development of Starship and Raptor engine.

Some of the delays were due to NASA requirments, timing, and approvals.  Not because of SpaceX.

This is why they are developing Starship/Superheavy on their own dime.  Anything NASA or the government wants has multiple strings attached and hinders quick development, like SLS. 

Starship/Raptor/and Superheavy are further along than you think.  Stainless steel is far cheaper than composite, and a few years cheaper to develop and build.  This is why this spring testing of the Hopper to test Starship charteristics.  The Superheavy booster will be easy in comparison because it will take off and land like F9.  It is just bigger.  Starship will probably begin testing this fall if all goes well. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 02/04/2019 03:24 pm
(As  a TL:DR of my post:
 When discussing New Glenn vs Starship keep in mind that the ambition delta between the two projects is far smaller than the difference in experience and capability between Blue Origin and SpaceX.

Also don't make the mistake of thinking no data points (in previous slips, failures, canceled projects by Blue) is the same as positive data points.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/04/2019 03:33 pm
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?

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".
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.
What about all the other examples?

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/04/2019 04:04 pm
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?

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".
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.
What about all the other examples?

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.

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/04/2019 04:12 pm
Then why is SpaceX so far ahead?

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".
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.
What about all the other examples?

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.

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...
Nope.  If I were I probably wouldn't be on these forums venting my frustrations...  I'd be designing rockets instead..
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: JH on 02/04/2019 04:22 pm
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.

If you think that an opinionated billionaire is likely to give up on his childhood dream because he decides that someone else is better at it than he is, I doubt there is any utility in arguing the point.

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&amp;D and make significant return on investment.

SpaceX is a private company. Musk owns 54% of it and 78% of the voting shares. SpaceX will accept his money if he decides it is needed to accomplish his goals.

-- typo
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 02/04/2019 05:40 pm
...
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&amp;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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/04/2019 10:24 pm
...
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&amp;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

Ummm, how much of Founders Fund's money is Peter Thiel's? Looks like less than a third given FF's balance sheet of $3 billion and most of his $2.5 billion is tied up in Palantir. I'm sure they are investing in Niantic because they truly believe in the goal of letting people catch pocket monsters in real life. Or is it because selling digital poke balls is crazy profitable.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/05/2019 07:52 am
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.

NB RLV are safer for marine traffic when flight goes to plan which should be most time.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tuna-Fish on 02/05/2019 12:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/05/2019 01:02 pm
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.
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'm guessing it IS in effect south of Vandy. What about east of Wallops? (this is probably off topic now, pointers to the right thread happily accepted)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 02/05/2019 04:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/05/2019 04:50 pm
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.
A more apropos comparision might be how many New Armstrong contracts have been let vs SS/SH.

If you want to compare New Glenn, maybe compare against F9/FH, either current, or at the same point in development cycles...  (I think NG still looks good, the initial F9 gestation period was slow to start gathering contracts IIRC)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intelati on 02/05/2019 04:55 pm
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.

Really though, New Glenn:Starship::orange:grapefruit (F9:FH:New Glenn:Starship::pear:apple:orange:grapefruit?)

AFAIK, yes Falcon Heavy is lagging behind in the number of launches scheduled. That being said as announced New Glenn is the more capable and flexible launcher.

I'm more of a spaceflight enthusiast, so my SpaceX amazing peopleism is because of their presence on social media, but New Glenn is an awesome design and I look forward to seeing the competition between the two companies.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/05/2019 05:12 pm
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.

Falcon Heavy currently has 5 launch contracts: Arabsat, Inmarsat, and Viasat, and STP-2 and AFSPC-52.

Only the Eutelsat and JSAT contracts on New Glenn are comparable; it's not entirely clear what MuSpace bought (could be a rideshare?) or if they even have funding for it, and OneWeb and Telesat seem to be actively avoiding SpaceX due to Starlink.

However, there is little doubt that New Glenn pricing is competitive, since that is Blue's stated purpose with it. It is likely particularly competitive for LEO constellations due to it's higher payload (with reuse) and much larger fairing volume.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/05/2019 05:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/05/2019 05:37 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/05/2019 05:48 pm

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.

That is something, I believe too...

For example BO, maybe skip the step, with the composites for the NA, and go directly to the stainless steel...the same maybe with the transpiration cooling...

We will see, when BO, show something about this NA...and if have her own spaceship...for space tourism...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/05/2019 05:55 pm
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.
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/05/2019 06:07 pm
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...

I believe that the Intelsat contract was converted to an expendable Falcon 9 for Intelsat 35e and is already on orbit. This contract was signed all the way back in 2012 and has previously shown up on the Spacex.com launch manifest as a Falcon Heavy flight, but said Falcon Heavy entry has since been deleted.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FinalFrontier on 02/05/2019 06:10 pm
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.
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.

Wrong. $/kg is driven in part by launch cost these are not two separate things but one inter-related thing.
Also wrong, no they won't both be flying "light". BFR is intended to replace the F9 vehicle family. ALL SpaceX payloads government and commercial will shift from flying on F9 to BFR. There will be fewer launches because of the capacity, but there will be more payloads on each launch. No need to "launch light" except for the development and test flights or specific mission profiles.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FinalFrontier on 02/05/2019 06:17 pm
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.
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&amp;D and make significant return on investment.

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.

Also wrong. Raptor is funded by USAF. VC money within SpaceX is a 0 sum game and has been for many years, like Tesla. If you invest in an Elon Musk company expecting return on investment you have a 50/50 chance at best nothing more. People would LIKE to get that return I am sure, but that is not driving development. And a substantial amount of Elon's private wealth is in fact funding BFR, as well as YM's wealth now.

Quote
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.

Tri-fecta of wrong. There were 21 flights in 2018, despite significant technical, customer, and other types of delays. Airspace restrictions will come into play if SpaceX attempts to seriously develop point to point hypersonic passenger travel around the planet using BFR, but such a system will require new regulations anyway since currently no such systems exist for mass transit of jon q public. Airspace restrictions will not limit the maximum number of flights, airspace restrictions can only drive temporary delays of a few days give or take, not cap maximum flights per year. That is simply not how the regulations work.

Additionally the FAA has done a semi-decent job the past few years of adapting the commercial launch vehicle expansion with the US. There is no reason to think they will not continue to streamline the rules, or that congress will not also do the same going forward if commercial spaceflight activity continues to increase and additional changes are needed.


All of this seemed very OT but seemed also like it was worth a short post. With that said in regards to the thread topic, it's very hard to say who has the "Better" business model. Certainly SpaceX has done alot more than Blue, but Blue is pursuing a different development path, preferring to focus on re-usability first before developing the orbital class LV, and rather than making a small orbital class LV first, simply making the big LV in one go. At this point in time neither approach is necessarily objectively better than the other, but SpaceX definitely has the manifest of payloads where-as blue has not reached orbit yet. Long term this may not mean anything. Too early to say, ideally both companies can and should succeed and a world in which they did would be great, especially since there would be no reason for certain PORk rockets if both companies did succeed ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/05/2019 06:18 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FinalFrontier on 02/05/2019 06:22 pm
... 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)."

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/05/2019 06:46 pm
... 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)."

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.

Most of the ride-sharing has been coordinated by a 3rd party, not by SpaceX. SpaceFlight for SSO-A, USAF for STP-2, Boeing for the electric commsat pair stacks, etc. SpaceX has only coordinated a few secondaries like the Orbcomm on CRS-1, and the GRACE-FO/Iridium rideshare.

But, even if Starship is "launching light" AND competing against a fully reusable New Glenn, I don't see it being at much if any operational cost disadvantage. LH2 is so expensive that fueling the upper stage of New Glenn will cost about as much as fueling the entire Starship/Superheavy stack. And while Starship/SuperHeavy might have higher initial capital costs, SpaceX is several iterations ahead in optimizing reuse costs. Blue is aiming for 25 flights of New Glenn's booster, while SpaceX is aiming for 1000 booster flights, and will get the booster back with less handling.

SpaceX's use of cheaper materials (stainless vs Al-Li and CFRP) and higher engine production rates will also reduce their capital costs. Since we are talking about 5+ years from now, it's hard to see a definitive advantage either way.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 02/05/2019 07:12 pm
SS/SH is still very much a moving target. A few more presentations by Elon and it might be NG sized. 8)


I think there are two fundamental questions when it come to New Armstrong.

What will it do? The only real hint so far is in the name, a Moon rocket/system/thingmabob.
Will it be the right New Armstrong, or a New Armstrong right now?

New Glenn is ever increasingly the rocket right now. I don't even think the reason for that is the LSA contract and the deadline that comes with it.
They learned from NS what they could about landing and reuse. (Maybe they'll return to it to answer some specific questions on a smaller scale.) The factory and launchpad are coming online. The increase of workforce is paying off. New people are getting integrated, adding a few hundred more will not double the numbers any longer. (Adding staff is a burden, esp. if you are doubling or tripling the staff. You pay more people and get less productivity than without them for a while.)
All those people and locations need something to do. Getting paid to twiddle thumbs only keeps highly qualified people interested for so long.


New Armstrong apparently requires a new launchpad. Other than that they should not need new things.
The factory is large enough and in the right location. The staff is there, will have experience and can work multiple systems. The BE-4 design has a lot of headroom to evolve. [*cough* Once they manage to hit 100%, as contracted to ULA. *cough*] I suppose Blue would prefer a new engine, FFSC is a thing and you got to satisfy the Internet pundits... More importantly they added an engine with each new vehicle so far.

I do wonder if they'll do a multi core design at some point. If in doubt just to tick that box. Yes, i know, they are verboten here at NSF. Too expensive, too complex and so on and so forth. Still, just about everyone so far has done one or has one in the pipeline. There are things to be learned.


As far as dual launch goes, there are a lot of dual launch options popping up. Apparently it is not quite as bad as everyone on NSF says.
Ariane as usual, New Glenn as announced and now also Vulcan Centaur. OTOH Proton is going away.

NG should have enough performance and volume to launch 2 of any. (Current sat designs.) I suppose there wont be price changes between slots, they are close enough in size. Depending on how Blue wants to spin it they might just sell the dual launch adapter to the customer and the customer can bring another sat. Or maybe they'll take rocketbuilder to the next level and sell fixed price fixed date pre paid launches for cheap. If there is no 2nd booking bad for Blue, if the sat is not there on time bad for the operator. No refunds! 8)

Vulcan Centaur will be a much more conventional business. ULA had the ability for a long time, AFAIK only used it once. The fairing is big and adding SRM if required is easy enough. I suppose the interesting part is Centaur performance. ULA might be able to deliver to dissimilar orbits, adding pairing options. More importantly customers can belief that ULA can deliver what they sell from day one.


But that is all in the future. Much more near term the only real remaining blocker for NG is the launch pad.
Can't launch without it. The stages turned out to be classic aluminium. Building them is a solved problem. They have the machine to wind the fairing installed. I guess if push comes to shove Blue can live for the moment with the 70% BE-4 engine they have right now.
At this point learning how to build the rockt structures is just time, money and the willingness to scrap parts during that process.
Learning to launch NG will be more of the same. Preferably without scrapping customer payloads.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/05/2019 07:38 pm
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+.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/06/2019 02:05 am
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.
Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.

Also, I notice you didn't put Starlink down there. That *much* larger than Telestar and OneWeb and the rest of that combined.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/06/2019 05:59 am
SpaceX has only coordinated a few secondaries like the Orbcomm on CRS-1, and the GRACE-FO/Iridium rideshare.

GRACE-FO/Iridium was coordinated by Iridium, not Space-X. From the GRACE-FO launch press kit:

"Launch services for GRACE-FO are contributed by Germany, which procured a rideshare for the two GRACE-FO satellites from Iridium Communications Inc."

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/grace-fo/download/grace-fo_launch_press_kit.pdf

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/06/2019 07:29 am
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.
Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.

Also, I notice you didn't put Starlink down there. That *much* larger than Telestar and OneWeb and the rest of that combined.

Actually, if Starship is cheaper per launch than falcon 9 as intended, you also need to take the whole F9 manifest into account.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/06/2019 07:49 am
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.

Updating plans for the New Armstrong while New Glenn is still a very long way away from launching, and New Shepard still has to launch with the first human on board would be a sign that Blue Origin is never going to catch up to SpaceX. Analysis paralysis. Thinking up the next revolutionary design is something else entirely to getting said design to launch before competitors do. Especially if there's no motivation like limited funding to make you work faster.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 02/06/2019 12:15 pm
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.
Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.

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.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/06/2019 01:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/06/2019 02:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/06/2019 03:21 pm

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.

Like in other message of Starlink, I read something like you say..., I think so a lot space enthusiasts, go to support the Starlink constellation like a way for help the goal of SpaceX...but maybe a lot do the same with Oneweb-Telesat for help BO...

And other case a lot people are tired of the monopoly of comcast-at&t and her abusive prices...and want something new...

Will see...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/06/2019 04:50 pm
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.
Falcon 9 can do most of the work that Falcon Heavy was supposed to since upgrading Falcon 9.

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.

There are exactly two choices:
- Count Starlink as a separate company from SS/SH, and then count the launches
- Count Starlink as the same company as SS/SH, and then count the StarLink revenue

Same with NG and BlueMoon.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/06/2019 05:50 pm
Once SpaceX gets everything finalized with Dragon II, they could launch paying passengers into orbit.  This for orbiting the earth vs 15 minutes in zero G.  Their capsule can hold 6 people, one pilot and 5 passengers.  The could charge enough for 5 passengers to turn a profit.  Say $20 million each for $100 million.  Launching in a used F9, what would the profit be, maybe $50 million.  They could do this for a couple of years until all the willing paying customers get a ride to earn some extra money until Starship becomes operational.  This might cut into Blue's New Sheppard rides, although at a much higher price. 

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ZachF on 02/06/2019 05:53 pm
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.

LH2 is closer to $6-7/kg nowadays when I looked last IIRC... Early 2000s was almost two decades ago now.

I remember figuring very rough fuel costs as such (both Ox and F)

>$1.00/kg Hydrolox
$0.35/kg Kerolox
$0.15/kg Methalox

Hypergolic fuels are tens to over a hundred dollars per kg.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 02/06/2019 06:16 pm
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.

Something doesn't seem right here.  Rather, didn't the 2017 BFR have probably roughly 800 metric tons of methane?  Your 4,000 metric tons appears to be propellant rather than fuel.  Isn't LOX basically free?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/06/2019 06:23 pm
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.


You are comparing the spot price at a hub compared to a trucked in services contract. Its like comparing bottled water vs filtered tap water.

Anyways, hydrogen prices are highly dependant on volume. You buy 5,000,000 kg over a year, you get $3.66/ kg. You buy 5 kg at a hydrogen filling station, you get $10-$16/kg. The only point where the fuel cost is going to matter is super high volumes, like one launch per hour. At that point, you are buying a lot more than 14,000 kg per day.

The price I used was the industrial price for Florida here: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf2004/naturalgas.htm
Quote
12 Florida   $8.46

...about $.42 / kg. Add in some processing like liquefaction and purification (they aren't using LNG are they?). This was compared to the NASA services contract (mostly Florida???).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/06/2019 06:28 pm

LH2 is closer to $6-7/kg nowadays when I looked last IIRC... Early 2000s was almost two decades ago now.


There is more recent information than what he cites:

Quote
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.

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.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2010/release-20101115.html

It is either ...
$7,000,000 / 4926013 kg =  $1.42 / kg
$18,000,000 / 4926013 kg =  $3.65 / kg

edit: Perhaps the most comparable situation to NASA's contract for trucked in hydrogen is LNG import (i.e. on a LNG tanker)

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9103us3m.htm
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 02/07/2019 12:19 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/08/2019 03:13 am
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?
Honestly, it's just as relevant as whenever (which is often) anyone claims a reusable rocket is "too big" for some payload...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 02/08/2019 06:14 am
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...

I agree, thats an other one. One more and we have a collection!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 02/08/2019 09:20 am
I'll stick my neck out and disagree on fuel costs not mattering.  It matters a whole lot for mass transit. Orbit as a destination doesn't change that. 

It's a very long way from being a challenge for either company.  Will check back on my post later, assuming they have internet access in my eventual nursing home.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/08/2019 01:17 pm
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?

The hypothesis I was rebutting was that because NG is smaller a fully reusable version could undercut Starship on operating costs. That fuel costs are very small relative to other operational costs only furthers my point.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/08/2019 09:48 pm
My own expectation is that with Blue relying on a landing ship and targeting roughly a dozen flights per year it may well incur higher operating costs than SpaceX with a higher flight rate and RTLS.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/09/2019 01:57 pm
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)
* 1000+ m³ for the Starship (https://www.spacex.com/mars)
* ?? 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/09/2019 02:13 pm
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?

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...


https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/making_life_multiplanetary_2016.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/09/2019 02:20 pm

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?

IF the first generation of Oneweb and Telesat,  they making a good revenue, I do not know why, they can not expand their constellation with her maximum number of satellite for both ...

And we need to see the response of the traditional satellite operators, if they expand their constellations with cheaper and bigger fleets ...and see what launcher provider they choose then...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/09/2019 02:34 pm
* ~ 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...

Sorry, I got fooled by some wrong date in Wikipedia. 1000+ m³ pressurized Starship volume is the current design according to https://www.spacex.com/mars, and there is some additional unpressurized volume. In the 2017 BFR presentation it was 825 pressurized.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/13/2019 03:48 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/13/2019 06:37 am
Good analysis but I would expect Blue (let's call them Blue not NG, that's the launcher) to do fairing recovery, it's "relatively" easy. That changes the numbers a bit but not much.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/13/2019 07:56 am
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.

Indeed! Many don’t grasp the sheer size of the NG upper stage - it is slightly larger than the S-IVB stage (See picture) - And they will be throwing one away every launch.

Could they make it affordable with modern manufacturing? Maybe. But it is a lot of hardware to chuck away every launch. Although if anyone can handle that, I suppose it is Bezos.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/13/2019 11:57 am
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.

I think that the statement by Blue Origin's vice sales president ...

    "reusing the second stage of New Glenn is not on our roadmap right now"

is overrated here. BO is known to be rather secretive about their development efforts, communicating more conservative than SpaceX. E.g. BE-4 was announced when it already was 3-4 years into development. They may as well be some years into development of a fully reusable New Armstrong. And 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.

Also, when comparing costs of New Glenn and the Falcons, there is the big unknown variable of first stage reusability. It may turn out that NG achieves twice the resuses per stage, or half - who knows? Methalox engines should have a reusability advantage over RP1-Lox. 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.

(Only trying to point out some missing arguments ... my bet is on SpaceX.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 02/13/2019 12:07 pm
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?)





Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/13/2019 12:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/13/2019 01:03 pm
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.

NS does not, however, have the same flight profile as New Glenn, which will reach about mach 10 vs. NS at mach 3.75.

I agree that Blue is probably looking at upper stage reuse - in fact, acknowledging that it is technically very challenging means they have looked at it. But they apparently aren't baselining it yet, unlike SpaceX.

Quote
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.

FH was delayed mainly for F9 upgrades that allowed them to ditch crossfeed and still improve performance. Starship will undoubtedly see some delays, but they seem to be trading off performance (e.g. single Raptor version) to hold the schedule announced in 2016, while with FH they delayed it to gain performance. Probably not the best comparison.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/13/2019 01:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 02/13/2019 01:22 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1095436342186647554

Quote from: Jeff Foust
Mowry: 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/13/2019 02:10 pm
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.

Of course those delayed it, because it had to wait for the higher priority of F9 tempo, and solving F9 tempo meant upgrades and perfecting reuse so they could launch out the backlog. Read the rest of the article:

Quote
SpaceX says the Falcon Heavy is a secondary priority behind maintaining the launch tempo for the smaller Falcon 9.

Starship isn't tied at the hip to F9 like FH was. SpaceX can and clearly is making performance/schedule trades with Starship that they couldn't and wouldn't with FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/13/2019 02:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/13/2019 02:38 pm
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.

That is one drawback of SpaceX's business model compared to Blue's (if you can even call the latter a business model).

However, Starlink doesn't have to be generating profits early. Just enough revenue to justify and enable raising more investment cash.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/13/2019 02:38 pm
Yeah. On the other hand, Starship/SH is be tied to Starlink - financially.

Starlink is ONE potential source of money to support the development of the SS/SH, but it's not a direct link. Remember Elon Musk is also a high-wealth individual, so he could step in if needed to fund SS/SH - but his preferred business model is to use customer revenues for development, and I think he'll stick with that here.

Quote
Revenues from commercial launches probably will collapse after 2020, and Starship may have to be postponed if Starlink does not generate cash by then.

Everyone in the commercial satellite industry knows what the future looks like, and it won't collapse. There are natural upgrade and improvement cycles, and that could indeed cause a reduction in flights needed per year, but that will affect launch providers that are not one of the top 3 or 4 preferred launch providers - and SpaceX is likely the top preferred launch provider right now, with Arianespace second. Everyone else, including Blue Origin, are competing for the last two spots.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/13/2019 03:19 pm
AFAIK the commercial order backlog of SpaceX shrunk by 10 launches within the past 12 months (excluding secondary payloads):

- 13 missions launched
- 1 customer lost (https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-backs-out-of-global-ip-satellite-project-financed-by-china-1544142484)
+ 4 launches contracted (WorldView 1+2 (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180314005049/en/), Ovzon (https://www.ovzon.com/en/ovzon-signs-agreement-with-spacex-for-first-satellite-launch/), Viasat (https://spacenews.com/viasat-books-falcon-heavy-for-viasat-3-launch/))

Remaining commercial backlog is ~20 launches, and orders for new large satellites - which need large launchers - are still scarce. And for those few upcoming launch contracts there will be more competition, i.e. launch prices will rather fall. If this market will not turn around soon and strong, it looks very likely to me that SpaceX commercial launch revenue will collapse in 2021.

But agree that Elon may sell Tesla shares to fill the gap.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/13/2019 05:23 pm
The GEO market is cyclical. The only reason to expect a long-term downturn in GEO launches is if LEO constellations really start taking off, which would suit SpaceX just fine. In the latter scenario Blue is also OK, and Ariane probably loses out more than anyone since they are highly optimized for GEO launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/13/2019 08:20 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/13/2019 10:17 pm

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.

Yes, NG stages higher and faster... the landing ship is going to be quite a bit out there in the ocean.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/13/2019 11:49 pm

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.

MECO is not the fastest the booster goes.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/14/2019 02:26 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1095436342186647554

Quote from: Jeff Foust
Mowry: 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 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/14/2019 02:46 am

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/14/2019 04:11 am

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...

Yup. SpaceX has been at BFR for about that amount of time, has completed engine development, is currently building SS using similar tank technology as SH, and actually has a reasonable chance to beat NG to the pad.  I'd say 2021 is not unreasonable for SH flights.

The rest is up to BO, but remember this is a false race - NG's race was with F9/FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/14/2019 06:52 am
The real question maybe for other thread, is after SH/SS, how much more can evolve a chemical rocket-spaceship...?


Maybe that is the real race...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/14/2019 07:44 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/14/2019 10:04 am
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.

Well, I have previously raised a question about that premise (and received some well reasoned criticism from some as a result, but I continue to ponder on it). How much room is there really? Clearly demand is not infinite. Is there room for all the small sat launchers? Consensus is no.

How about the Russians? Again, evidence seems to show that there is in fact not room for them and a low cost provider like SpaceX.

How about ULA once SS is fully operational? (In the absence of artificial protection by the government). Again, based on either price  or capability they could not compete with SS.

So the list seems to be shrinking. Why should it stop shrinking with both SpaceX and Blue still in the picture? I don’t think it is a given at all that the more innovative and cost effective of the two will not steal the other’s lunch.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/14/2019 01:14 pm
And IF really the reusability drop the cost of Kg in orbit...why new market like space tourism in LEO, with big constellation of hotels, don't go to start to happen...


If we really believe, we are at that moment, with a new price for cargo to the space...is impossible the market don't evolve to this new reality...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/14/2019 01:29 pm
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!

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".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/14/2019 01:32 pm
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!

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/14/2019 01:46 pm
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!

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.

Significant market-share.

A viable path towards its stated long-term goal.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 02/14/2019 02:32 pm
There will be room for two providers at the top because whoever has the lowest cost per kg will charge only slightly less than their closest competitor. There's no need to leave money on the table by charging significantly less. Therefore, it's the second place company that will set the price per kg.

While SpaceX and Blue have different strategies, both are building rockets with reusable stages. The other big launch providers are not. That similarity in business strategy is what will allow SpaceX and Blue to dominate the market.

It's not NG versus SS/SH, it's both of them against the world. Sure, SS/SH will cost less per kg than NG, but the price charged to customers will be about the same or close enough that Blue will still have plenty of business.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/14/2019 03:02 pm
In a marketplace where expendable launchers were acceptable, reusable launchers don't really make a big impact unless they inspire the creation of new marketplaces that require reusable launchers.

For instance, we've already seen that Falcon 9 is dominating the commercial launch market, and that can be attributed to its pricing (which is only possible due to reusability). Blue Origin is likely to also get good marketshare once they become operational.

What Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are betting on though is that NEW uses for reusable launchers will be found, and those new markets will INCREASE the total amount of demand for launching cargo (and later crew) to space.

For what could be many reasons, we have not seen these new markets emerge yet. But when they do emerge they likely will also want redundancy and competition in the launch services marketplace, and will want to spread their orders across two or more providers. And since Blue Origin and SpaceX are likely to be the only two providers for reusable launch services in the near future, I think both will find customers.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tulse on 02/14/2019 03:07 pm
I wonder how the comparison between New Glenn and SS/SH changes with the news that BO will not be (immediately) pursuing a reusable second stage for NG?  I would think that will significantly impact on the launch costs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/14/2019 04:16 pm
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!

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.

Significant market-share.

A viable path towards its stated long-term goal.

Why can't Blue just copy Starship if it works well enough to significantly hinder them from getting market share? The other things they can do regardless of Starship.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/14/2019 04:48 pm
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!

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/14/2019 05:41 pm
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 02/14/2019 05:55 pm
The risk for SpaceX related to SuperHeavy/Starship is all on the Starship side.

The test firing of the raptor engine at the desired thrust level indicates makes me confident that SpaceX will successfully develop SuperHeavy in the same time frame as BlueOrigin develop New Glenn. I'm actually more confident in SpaceX because of their past history with orbital rockets.

If Starship development is delayed for whatever reason (technological, funding, etc.), I do not think it would take Space too long to develop a non-reusable raptor second stage for SuperHeavy. Indeed, if SpaceX is prudent (and I think they are), this has already been/continues to be designed.

I would expect SuperHeavy with a non-reusable upper stage beats New Glenn on price, payload, and fairing size.

I'd rather be SpaceX. 

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/14/2019 06:30 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 02/14/2019 07:39 pm
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.

That is exactly my argument for this thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47205.0

Some people think here, the race and the competition finish, when SpaceX, have the SH/SS...and not...it's just the beginning of everything...

A lot, will change in space, in a few years...and by the way, is necessary count, the chinese always in the future equation of space...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Exastro on 02/14/2019 08:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/14/2019 09:41 pm
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.

250 t is the 2017 BFR, fully expended including the booster. It's in the 2017 presentation. The current Starship/Superheavy design is probably similar if fully expended.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 02/15/2019 12:27 am
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!

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".
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.

On top of that, the launch market fears having a single provider. So Blue can be "cheap enough" if they are the second least expensive option. For that reason, SpaceX will be fine too until there is a viable 3rd competitor to dethrone one of them.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/15/2019 05:41 am
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!

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.
"non-starter" as a competitive vehicle when SS/SH are flying, yes.

Definitely a starter as a learning platform, and my point is that they should immediately move on and not try to perfect it or make it reusable...

Which was the positive spin on their PR from a few days ago.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/15/2019 06:45 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/15/2019 07:32 am
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.

There might be new entrants to the market though. If the bigger launch market materialises, more companies will emerge to take advantage of market segments where SpaceX' and Blue Origin's launch services are not optimal for. Like RocketLab is currently doing with a rocket that is more expensive per kg, but can launch on shorter term and costs less per launch. Or ULA, with the current focus on respecting launch windows. And with ArianeSpace dropping prices considerably to compete with F9, there's probably a lot of room for expendable rocket prices to drop by restructuring the companies, rather than invest in developing new launchers.

And it wouldn't be unusual that oldspace companies buy up newspace companies that are developing new launchers with potential. That way, you get both the funding of oldspace, and the far more limited overhead costs of a startup.


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 long has New Shepard been in development so far? The far easier vehicle that would launch more often than an orbital rocket, and therefore would allow Blue Origin to learn faster how to operate an orbital rocket. How long has it been since that first live webcast of theirs? How many orbital rockets has SpaceX launched since then? Versus how many suborbital ones by Blue Origin?

Without a sense of urgency, like wanting to catch up to and beat the Russians in the space race, or launching successfully before the money runs out (or afterwards, appeasing a mercurial boss), it doesn't matter how much money you pour in.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 02/15/2019 07:41 pm

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...

When Saturn V was developed, modern CAD tools did not exist.
When Saturn V was developed, computers could not simulate the physics of burning fuel inside rocket engines
When Saturn V was developed, computers could not simulate supersonic aerodynamics
When Saturn V was developed, there were no 3d printers


Saturn V used three different engine types. (F-1, J-2 and the ullage engines). BFR/BFS uses only one
Saturn V used two different tank diameters, BFR/BFS only one.
Saturn V has three rocket stages,BFR/BFS only two.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/15/2019 08:06 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GreenShrike on 02/15/2019 09:23 pm
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.

That might be valid at max payloads, but how many flights are going to require the maximum payload of either vehicle?

It's not like its range of potential payloads will be severely curtailed if SpaceX is price noncompetitive at FH center core expendable missions. Worst case, SpaceX cedes those few missions, and simply competes for missions where it only has to expend its smaller (versus New Glenn's) upper stage -- carried by either a F9 or a FH.

Put another way, for most payloads, New Glenn will have to compete against a SpaceX system expending only a Falcon upper stage.

The obvious response from Blue would be to combine smaller payloads into a single flight, like Ariane and (hopefully) Vulcan -- especially as SpaceX apparently doesn't want to do dual-GTO comsat launches with FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/16/2019 02:36 am
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
...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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Star One on 02/16/2019 11:55 am
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!

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/16/2019 04:20 pm
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!

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Star One on 02/16/2019 05:59 pm
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!

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dror on 02/16/2019 06:25 pm
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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 02/16/2019 06:29 pm
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!

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.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/16/2019 06:47 pm
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!

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/16/2019 06:55 pm
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!

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.

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.
Yup.  Which is my take on their latest PR.  They won't do NG US reuse because they realize there's no point.

The longer they futz around with NG, the more time they're giving SpaceX to run away even further.

There is a certain size gap that's too wide for even JB scale money to close.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/16/2019 07:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/16/2019 08:00 pm
So BO should start serious NA dev. now...

Which needs to start with the engine first. Although if the BE-4 is planned to be the engine for the New Armstrong, then they already have a head start.

Also, while we space enthusiasts think it's a great idea to build the next greatest thing, for Blue Origin they need to figure out WHAT to build next. For instance, do they build:

- A bigger New Glenn?

- A Blue Origin version of the SpaceX Super Heavy & Starship?

- Something else?

They need to build something that will be in high demand, but obviously that is a big guess right now - and they do have the luxury of watching whether SpaceX gets it right with their Starship work.

Quote
...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.

It's worth remembering that Jeff Bezos is not trying to directly compete with Elon Musk, and vice versa. The both need lower cost space transportation to realize their own personal goals, which but otherwise they didn't start out to compete with each other.

And it looks like they will be the only to launch service providers that will be using reusable rockets, so between them they should dominate the worldwide launch services market. I don't think one will put the other out of business, and if they are successful they will actually expand the launch services market due to the lower costs they offer. Both will thrive I think...

Quote
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.

Jeff Bezos has to finishing building a company that can offer orbital launches, and Blue Origin is still a couple of years away from being able to do that for the commercial marketplace.

I think they will wait until then before they decide what should come after New Glenn. Just like SpaceX didn't devote a lot of resources for the Starship until they finished Falcon 9 Block 5.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/16/2019 08:31 pm
There is a rumor from Brickmack that NA will have a new 1st stage engine. Blue have said they are not stopping with the BE-4 which also indicates that NA will get a new main engine. Should not be too hard for Blue to dev. a FFSC methalox engine as the fuel rich circuit is easier to do than the ox rich one. A high Isp methalox engine for 1st stage + hydrolox US should allow NA to beat SH/SS payload performance by a wide margin even if NA's size is not much bigger than SH/SS. NA will likely be fully reusable in order to compete with SH/SS.

Perhaps we can answer this question in around 8-10 years time when both NA and SH/SS are launching with full reuse to see if Blue or SpaceX have got their approaches and business strategies right and which one or maybe even both are dominating the launch industry.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 02/16/2019 11:20 pm
So far every rocket from Blue came with its own engine. Saying the trend will continue with NA is not exactly swinging for the fences. :)

I think Blue needs to fly NG before doing much if any meaningful work on NA. Way too many things can will change when assumptions meet reality for the first time.

Given Bezos "Not Mars" goals and looking at the historical rockets their namesakes used my bet is on a 3 stage design. First one reusable as usual these days. Second S-II like to a parking orbit and back. (Low and slow as far as upper stages go, keeping things simpler.) Third one for in space use only, ACESish. Now that all the interesting parts of ACES are reported to be canceled once again the hiring should be good for such a project.

The good news is that the only thing really missing in order to fly NG is the launch pad.
Bending the metal is a solved problem, laminating fairings too. Even to the currently tested 70% BE-4 engine version would be big enough if push came to shove. (Getting something flying if the 100% engine needs even more time.)
That is why I would really like to know how long the pad will take...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/16/2019 11:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Bob Shaw on 02/16/2019 11:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/17/2019 12:08 am
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/17/2019 04:33 am
Okay, but I think there's quite some way before Starship gets to orbit fully reused.

1) SpaceX needs to figure out balloon-tank-*like* construction. We haven't seen them make flight hardware with load-bearing thin-gauge stainless steel tanks like Centaur or pre-V Atlas. There's a learning curve, there.
2) We haven't seen a full super heavy yet, either. 31 Raptors is a lot. Even if they reduce the number, it's a lot.
3) They exchanged PICA-X, which we KNOW works (at least if you use it just once and replace it), with transpiration cooled stainless, which has a lot of unknowns. It's probably not too tough to do the first stage reusable this way, but the second stage is a challenge. No one has really done it before. That means SpaceX is probably going to have to test it a lot before it works. It might not even work, and SpaceX will have to try something else (something potentially expensive).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/17/2019 05:14 am
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".  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/17/2019 05:48 am
NG is a player by definition as customers are signing with it to the exclusion of others.  They don't even have to launch anything to have a massive affect as they already are having said affect and haven't launched anything. Anyways, their commercial back log which is starting to rival SpaceX's commercial back log is going to be an issue if they don't get this thing up and running in ~24 months. Maybe they could secure backup on BE-4 powered Vulcan and Atlas if they both run into problems so as to ease this ramp and gain a solid track record (even if it isn't their rocket).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/17/2019 06:23 am
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".  ::)
NG was a player until the schedule of SS became apparent.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Bananas_on_Mars on 02/17/2019 06:37 am
Someone from Blue Origin said that he expects their BE-3U engine to live through several decades. Their stated plans revolve around earth-to-orbit and cislunar space, while SpaceX is aiming for planetary surfaces. I expect an architecture from Blue Origin that is a lot more diverse than what SpaceX is planning. Propellant depots in Space and "small" spacetugs. A reuse architecture where return into the athmosphere is only needed for small ferry ships.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 02/17/2019 09:01 am

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
...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.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/17/2019 12:10 pm
And yet SpaceX DOES have really low manufacturing costs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 02/17/2019 01:32 pm
I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing.

I couldn't disagree more. Bezos might be interested, but this is completely against Musk's DNA. He is interested in pushing the technological edge, not the profit and stasis that tends to occur in large companies with little competitive pressure.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/17/2019 04:25 pm
Merging BO and SpaceX does not make sense to me. The assets of the two companies are redundant, not complimentary.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Star One on 02/17/2019 04:29 pm
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 imagine NA development has been underway for sometime. Just because we don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Plenty of classified projects tell us this.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/17/2019 04:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/17/2019 05:24 pm
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.
Very rich middleman.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/17/2019 06:08 pm
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/17/2019 08:56 pm
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).
Comments like that won't help Amazon share price.

Given Amazon limited life, its good thing Bezos is setting up Blue to diversive his wealth.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/17/2019 10:54 pm

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
...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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/17/2019 11:39 pm

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
...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.

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.
Blue and fast in the same paragraph?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 02/18/2019 12:13 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/18/2019 12:26 am

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
...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.

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.
Blue and fast in the same paragraph?
Et velox nec mortui sunt
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2019 12:47 am
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.

We can't make that decision, only customers can. And since there are few customers that require an expendable Falcon Heavy I don't think that will be the typical competition between Falcon Heavy and New Glenn.

For instance, SpaceX has Falcon 9 for the light to medium heavy payloads, and Falcon Heavy for the heavier and heaviest payloads, of which only the heaviest would require an expendable mode.

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. And so it goes for medium, heavy, and the heaviest payloads, where there is a range where Blue Origin is competitive, but outside of that band they will have to resort to discounts to get orders - and discounts once a system is operational is an acknowledgement of being an uncompetitive system (and there are a number of those around today).

Quote
In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.

So far I haven't heard of any commercial payloads that would require an expendable Falcon Heavy, so let's make sure we don't assume that New Glenn will ONLY be competing with disposable Falcon Heavy missions. New Glenn will get commercial launch customers mainly at the expense of launch providers that only offer expendable launchers - which is everyone EXCEPT for SpaceX. And I think Blue Origin will do very well, so we don't need to make this a X vs Y competition, when it's really X & Y against everyone else.

Let's remember that the current commercial customers WANT redundancy and competition, so Starship won't eliminate competition, it will just drive down the average cost of launches. It will be new business models that will come to rely on fully reusable launch systems, and once those start to appear I think that is when Blue Origin will understand what should come AFTER New Glenn - regardless if it's called New Armstrong or whatever.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/18/2019 02:06 am
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.
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.

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.
Very well put.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 02/18/2019 09:41 am

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
...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.

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.

If the speed at which they're pivoting away from their current transient step is any indication, that's going to take quite some time.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 02/18/2019 10:50 am
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.

I'm a big proponent of Starship and SuperHeavy, but I dont take the heatshield of SS as a given. If it doesnt work, SpaceX is back to square 1 with their design. If it does work, it leaves everybody else in the dust. Until the design is copied. SpaceX is betting on a high risk, high reward design. Calling NG out because that design might work out good is premature. And if it DOES work, BO can still redesign the second stage of NG to copy the heatshield and be fine. It requires some walking on glass for some period but NG is still well sized for such a second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/18/2019 11:27 am
Must admit, at a gut feel level the fast follower approach feels fundamentally unjust. But then, fairness isn’t part of the equation, I guess.

EDIT

And by this I mean in general, not just in rocketry, in that it lessens the reward and incentive to be the risk taker and innovator.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/18/2019 02:36 pm
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.
Quote
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). 

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/18/2019 02:44 pm
Yes, New Glenn is larger from the start, giving it as a single stick more capabilities.  FH however is available now, but if Starship flys around the time New Glenn gets started, then Starship would win out. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/18/2019 02:50 pm
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.
Quote
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). 

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

I will say that I worry that SS might not work. Particularly the heat shield aspect. And if so, then Spacex would have lost many years of advantage, and likely fall behind Blue Origin.

But if SS works, well, then it opens up the heavens in ways that are exciting beyond measure.

Having noted that concern, I still don't think all will be lost if the SS heatshield doesn't work. I think Super Heavy is almost certain to work. It is just a very big booster, running on methane and powered by Raptors. So if the SS concept doesn't work, SpaceX doesn't have to start from scratch. They just need to come up with a new 2nd stage concept.

Perhaps a traditional fairing approach, only with such a huge margin that the fairings can afford some type of semi-powered descent. And then figure out what to do for 2nd stage recovery. That would of course be for orbital and lunar flights. Mars would need to go back to the drawing board.

But first prize is SS, and the amazing future it promises.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2019 03:40 pm
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.

As you know (you track these things), the most common configuration of Atlas V to fly has been the least capable, the Atlas V 401. And if that ratio of payloads for the U.S. Government were to continue that bodes better for the SpaceX Falcon 9 than it does the New Glenn or the Vulcan.

Quote
Quote
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.

I'm not as concerned about semi-expendable flights as you appear to be, especially since SpaceX can use previously flown Falcon 9 boosters on a Falcon Heavy flight - only the core booster is Falcon Heavy specific, so for those few flights where the USAF needs the full performance of Falcon Heavy, SpaceX won't be losing money on the flight.

And again, New Glenn is poorly positioned to compete on the lighter payloads, which historically has been most of the missions for the U.S. Government.

Quote
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.

This is more of a concern for Arianespace than it is for SpaceX, since the goal of SpaceX is to make it less expensive to launch two satellites on two launches, than it is to launch two satellites on one launch. And Arianespace historically has struggled to find perfect matches for dual launches, so doubling that capability doesn't seem like that would hurt SpaceX - and it's not likely to be a big part of the market for Blue Origin either.

Quote
They each should have their niches.  It should be interesting competition.

Agreed. Even the semi-reusable launch market will far outstrip the expendable-only market, so both Blue Origin and SpaceX should thrive.

Quote
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.

The EELV-2 situation is still unsettled, and in the whole scheme of things one customer who is OK with expendable launchers won't determine the outcome of the fully reusable launch market...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/18/2019 05:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2019 06:24 pm
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...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 02/18/2019 06:29 pm
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.

Blue have said that if one payload drops out they'll still launch.  Cost to the non-tardy payload won't change. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/18/2019 08:25 pm
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...  ;)

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2019 08:41 pm
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

That is actually a good sign, since it shows that there is enough upside in the market to risk dedicating a product to a new launcher. For the reusable rocket industry to succeed there needs to be more of this!

However unless everyone switched over to this satellite it's just more of a niche that New Glenn best addresses (like Delta IV Heavy and NRO satellites) as opposed to a sign that New Glenn meets more of the needs of the launch market. For instance, this advantage goes away if SpaceX builds a wider diameter payload fairing, which wouldn't cost a lot to do (Musk has said they are open to different fairing sizes).

And while it's good to examine where a product has its strengths, New Glenn has some weaknesses, including throwing away a 7m diameter 2nd stage on every flight, regardless the size or number of payloads it carries.

I'm can't wait for New Glenn to start flying, because maybe that will speed up the shift in the launch industry from expendable to partially and/or fully-reusable launchers.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/18/2019 10:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/18/2019 10:27 pm
I doubt F9 and FH can take 7m fairing. Vulcan and Ariane6 should be able to.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/18/2019 11:02 pm
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...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/18/2019 11:28 pm
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'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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MaxTeranous on 02/19/2019 09:33 am
The idea that Blue can just crack on with New Armstrong now before ever even flying an orbital rocket is insane. Sure you see lessons in what others are doing, but the only real way to learn and improve is to do it - and Blue aren't doing it yet.

Blue need to finish New Glenn, and fly it a whole bunch of times and learn stuff. Then take all that learning to the next thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: krsears on 02/19/2019 12:32 pm
"will" is showing up a lot with respect to NA and NG.

Blue has yet to get anything to orbit.  They have yet to show that they can approach the necessary velocity to get a payload into orbit.

There are a lot of very hard things left to do on Blue's "to do" list even before the "trying to land a booster on a moving ship" part.  After that comes the idea of inspecting the booster for any unexpected effects from launch/landing.  Presuming no RUD's along the way.

A single RUD would delay progress for a significant amount of time since the Gov't would get involved in any investigation.

Do I think they can do it?  Yes, eventually.  However, their Gradatim increment and implementation cadence, to this point, indicates that quite a bit of time is left before much in the way of visible progress is forthcoming.  The market will only wait so long before being forced to select alternative options.

One cannot look at SpaceX and apply their successes to Blue.  The two companies' operations are far too different.  Yes, SpaceX has shown that what Blue wants to do is possible, but is it possible in the way that Blue wants to do it and in a time frame that the market will bear?  To this point, Blue is making NASA look speedy in comparison, and the commercial sector is not near as patient as the government sector.

Now, one could say that JB's true motivation is not commercial launch success but his goal of getting people and manufacturing into orbit, and there's no time limit on that.  However, the fact that Blue is trying to enter the commercial launch business shows that JB feels the need to get Blue to fund itself somehow.

I wish Blue success, because I believe that moving manufacturing into orbit is the only way that humans are truly going to venture out en masse.  While EM's SH/SS progress looks promising (there's that "will" word again) the anchors that are Earth's gravity and atmosphere are significant hurdles.

Just some musing.

Kendall
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/19/2019 01:41 pm
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.
It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience.  Way outside. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/19/2019 02:10 pm
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.
It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience.  Way outside. 

 - Ed Kyle
Which is why we (I) love them so much and consider their approach to be better.

The space industry has been stuck on a logarithmic progress curve for the last 50 years.  Now that this paradigm has been broken, BO would be wise to keep with the times.

Going almost directly to NA is indeed insane, but it illustrates how dire their position is. Either rely on a rocket that's inadequate to keep up with their direct competitor, or make a truly giant leap.

Neither is appetizing, but at least one of these choices has a considerable upside.

They should pursue NG with all their might until it flies (and maybe they'll get lucky and SS will be more delayed than NG will be) and then pivot and run after NA.

Maybe they can last "forever" on JBs money, but "lasting" is not exactly their goal.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/19/2019 02:46 pm
I have two questions:

What is the widest and longest fairing that a F9/FH can handle?

Is Blue using a BE-3U for New Glenn?  If so is it one or more than one?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/19/2019 02:55 pm
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 2010 2000; New Glenn first flight is expected for 2021, after 11 years Afaik 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.]
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rokan2003 on 02/19/2019 02:58 pm
Blue was founded in 2000.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: krsears on 02/19/2019 03:06 pm
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.

Kendall
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/19/2019 03:13 pm
This is 21 years, not 11.

Right. Have edited my post to fix that. They started working on the engine for an orbital rocket in the early 2010s, so I think ~11 years it still is a valid guess for the time from New Glenn development start to currently planned first flight. Conclusion stays the same.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/19/2019 05:53 pm
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 2010 2000; New Glenn first flight is expected for 2021, after 11 years Afaik 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.]

Those numbers look right, but there's another way to look at it.

SpaceX founded 2002, first orbital attempt 2006, first successful orbital launch 2008, number of orbital launches 70*, number of orbital launch systems brought into service 3.
Blue founded 2000, first orbital attempt 2021(projected), first successful orbital launch 2021(projected), number of orbital launches 0, number of orbital launch systems brought into service 0.

As of this writing, Elon Musk is giving a 60% chance of Starship reaching orbit by 2020-- while Blue is still on track for a 2021 launch of New Glenn. SpaceX took four years to develop its first orbital launch vehicle, and another two years to achieve a first successful flight. Blue is on pace for 21 years for its first orbital vehicle.

New Glenn may be proceeding at something approaching the industry average pace, but Blue as a whole is proceeding much more slowly than SpaceX.

*67 Falcon 9 launches including CRS-1, 2 successful Falcon 1 launches, 1 Falcon Heavy launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/19/2019 07:04 pm
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). SpaceX initially focused on launching satellites, which they managed within 6 and a half year, compared to 21+ years for Blue Origin. When averaging that out, Blue really looks damn slow.

Then, compare it to RocketLab - 12 years to achieve their goal, launching a satellite. This makes rather look SpaceX damn fast.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/19/2019 07:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/19/2019 07:47 pm
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.

Sure. I also copied Lemurion's comparison of development time for an expendable smallsat launcher (Falcon 1) to a partially reusable heavy launcher (New Glenn).

Those comparisons are tricky, because both companies went different ways. I fully agree that Blue's progress is overall slower than SpaceX - mostly because SpaceX overall has been extraordinary fast.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1067173497909141504?lang=de
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/19/2019 10:03 pm
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 is really hard to do a true one-for-one comparison, but for me the fact remains that SpaceX has repeatedly achieved its goals and then built on those goals to step beyond. Blue has yet to achieve either suborbital passenger flight on NS or orbital flight with NG.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/19/2019 10:43 pm
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.
It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience.  Way outside. 

 - 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: PM3 on 02/20/2019 06:45 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/20/2019 12:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/20/2019 01:37 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/20/2019 01:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/20/2019 02:04 pm
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.

Very interesting. And would you agree that Super Heavy is a much surer bet than Starship? If so, and based on the rough estimates you shared above, SpaceX might have more room for failure in the Starship quest than some would give them credit for. While a definite setback, particularly for Mars, it need not mean the end of the company by any means. Worst case they might just have to shift gears a bit and do a kind of partially reusable SLS at a tenth the price.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/20/2019 02:59 pm
I too feel that Superheavy would be much easier to build than Starship.  It is like a giant F9 booster. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: cppetrie on 02/20/2019 03:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/20/2019 04:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/20/2019 04:54 pm
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.

In this scenario, expended upper stage costs are going to dominate. Blue is using Al-Li/carbon fiber and LH2 with 2 low production rate engines. SpaceX will use stainless with methalox (no insulation) and a single mass-produced Raptor. SpaceX can probably win that cost battle by $10 million or more.

At $100 million (ballpark) for a NG booster intended for 25 flights, the hardware cost (even with zero refurb) is $4M per flight. SpaceX just needs to get proportionally more flights out of their booster for the higher cost, which isn't unreasonable as they have more experience reflying orbital boosters, are aiming for ~1000 flights per booster, and are doing an easier trajectory with RTLS only. RTLS not only allows for faster, easier, and more booster flights, but also dispenses with the time and cost of a landing boat, return trip, and handling from ship back to launchpad.

Finally, we have fuel costs, which are still very minor. At most there is a few $100k difference.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 02/20/2019 05:56 pm
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.

Superheavy wouldn't use just one Raptor engine on an upper stage.  If it is an expendable upper stage it would have more Raptor Vacuum upper engines and probably deliver 200 tons to orbit.  One Raptor  smaller upper stage might fit a Falcon Heavy to increase it's payload to 70-75 tons, but it is not in the works.  SpaceX for now is going fully reusable with Super Heavy/Starship.  They have a lot of potential possibilities if Starship doesn't work out initially. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/20/2019 07:23 pm
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 one that does RTLS rather than requiring a landing ship. RTLS is a huge cost saver on an operational level. SpaceX will be spending more on Raptors than Blue on BE-4 engines but the operational and construction cost gaps won’t be quite as high as that alone would imply. SpaceX is also planning on a higher launch cadence which would also reduce operational costs per flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 02/21/2019 06:22 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: marsbase on 02/21/2019 06:26 pm
As Musk indicated, it was intentional "test to destruction".  Was that the case with the powerpack?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: cppetrie on 02/21/2019 06:30 pm
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"

*(Still hope that parts didn't hit any cows
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.

Separately, I’d suggest SpaceX’s openness engenders a more forgiving attitude towards problems encountered.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/21/2019 07:39 pm
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 think there's lots of bias in multiple directions on NSF, both for and against Blue and SpaceX.

Having said that, not only are these two very different situations, but also SpaceX and Blue have demonstrated very different reactions to equipment damage. As others have said, a failure during normal operations should not be equated to damage incurred during a stress test.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/21/2019 07:41 pm
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

There's something wrong with your memory. Blue apparently lost the entire engine, and the test cell, and stopped testing for months. And yet the response here on NSF was more like "testing happens" than "the sky is falling".

If you run an engine significantly past its design pressure and nothing extremely energetic happens, that's a win.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: docmordrid on 02/21/2019 08:07 pm
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"
>

ISTR that Blue's BE-4 oopsie wasn't "expected."

Elon Musk ✓ @elonmusk
Merlins. The max chamber pressure run damaged Raptor SN 1 (as expected). A lot of the parts are fine for reuse, but next tests will be with SN 2, which is almost done.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098653939141009408
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RoboGoofers on 02/21/2019 08:27 pm
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
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.

But Blue has been chuggin' right along so, no matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/21/2019 10:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/22/2019 12:12 am
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.
It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience.  Way outside. 

 - 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? 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/22/2019 12:25 am
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.
Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust? 

So amount of thrust if the only metric that should be looked at for "progress"?

Of course one could say that Blue Origin will be "...outside the realm of space launch industry experience..." when they attempt to land New Glenn on a moving ship, but apparently you think that is not hard enough to mention?  ;)

Over 50 years ago Americans built a rocket that had 6.5M pounds of thrust, so I'm not sure why doubling that every 50 years is beyond comprehension. If anything it seems like a goal we should have achieved decades ago...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/22/2019 01:56 am
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.

Yep, I’m 55 years old and sitting on the sidelines. Following advancements in space flight is a big part of my entertainment and while I believe in Blue and want them to succeed, it’s SpaceX that’s putting on the better show for my entertainment dollar (ie. Internet bill).

I am rooting for Blue to succeed, but the company isn’t planning to do anything truly exciting until the year after next. I will be cheering when New Glenn flies but I’m going to cheer for SpaceX a lot more times because SpaceX is doing more things I can cheer about.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 02/22/2019 02:15 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/22/2019 04:17 am
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.  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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 02/22/2019 08:15 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/22/2019 08:43 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 02/22/2019 09:31 am
Nothing new, but I link it anyway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o59IdSxfHmc
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MaxTeranous on 02/22/2019 01:30 pm
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

Frankly, it's easier to root for a company that's has 70 successful orbital launches than a company that has exactly the same number of orbital launches as your local Subway franchise.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/23/2019 03:03 pm
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.
Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust? 

So amount of thrust if the only metric that should be looked at for "progress"?
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".

 - Ed Kyle     
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/23/2019 03:49 pm
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.
Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust? 

So amount of thrust if the only metric that should be looked at for "progress"?
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".

 - Ed Kyle     
Of that list, only the last bit is revolutionary or "far out".

Being 1.7x or 2.2x beyond, by almost any metric, is normal progress when you move to a new generation vehicle.

The thing is most of the industry got used to fractions of past glory as "normal".

But yeah - SS itself is the new and glorious bit.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/23/2019 04:00 pm
...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.

Of course that would ignore that Jeff Bezos has stated they plan to go bigger than New Glenn at some point with New Armstrong, which may end up being something equivalent to the SpaceX Super Heavy. Of course if Super Heavy is flying by then, you wouldn't be saying the same things about New Armstrong that you are about Super Heavy, right? Because a new metric will have been achieved?

That is why I think vehicle thrust is a poor metric to use for comparison, since it is a means to an end, but not the end itself.

Quote
BFR would make 3.6 times more thrust than New Glenn and 2.73 times more than Falcon Heavy.

Again, focusing just on thrust misses the big picture, since both New Glen and Falcon Heavy are only partially reusable transportation systems, but Super Heavy and Starship are meant to be FULLY reusable transportation systems.

And other than ratios, you have yet to articulate WHY more thrust is bad, and WHERE the line is that transitions from big enough to too big.

Quote
It would make 1.36 times more thrust than any rocket ever...

Not sure why this statement made me think of the SLS rocket, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Constellation program would have continued, that you would have been cheering on the Ares V development and not saying it was "...outside the realm of space launch industry experience.  Way outside."  ;)

Both Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have made it clear that they both plan to build space transportation systems that are larger than what is available today. That looks like product evolution to me, but as always, YMMV...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/23/2019 07:47 pm
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.
Did it make 13.9 million pounds of thrust? 

So amount of thrust if the only metric that should be looked at for "progress"?
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".

 - Ed Kyle     

If the booster's higher thrust is a problem SpaceX can shorten it and use fewer engines. In fact they are likely to do that initially to get SuperHeavy flying sooner, then progress much like F9 v1.0>v1.1>v1.2

Starship doesn't need to do interplanetary reentries initially. It can do everything F9/FH does without much more than LEO entries, using either propulsive braking or multiple entry passes.

It does need to demonstrate fast turnaround, active cooled orbital heatshields, and orbital refueling. If you want to discuss things that outside the experience of the US launch industry, focus on those. Everything else is incremental upgrades of technologies demonstrated by Shuttle, Falcon, and others.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 02/23/2019 08:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 02/23/2019 08:44 pm
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.

Pretty bold prediction given that Blue has yet to launch NG, nor achieve orbit, nor deploy a payload.  I'd reserve judgment on how NA competes with other architectures (let alone NG) until Blue has "joined the club" first.

But even if NA had massive thrust and greater payload capacity, what's the point?  At this stage, if you can't do those things cheaply, efficiently, with a quick turn-around, it doesn't really matter how big your rocket is compared to the other guy's.

I agree with both SpaceX's approach with SS/SH and Blue's with NG.  SpaceX already has the partially-reusable thing down and is fairly efficient at turning around the launch pad and booster for reuse.  The next logical progression for SpaceX is to go fully-reusable and RTLS.  Basically a massive optimization of their existing abilities, with some cutting/bleeding edge technology needed to be mastered.

For Blue, they need to walk before they can run.  So building a vehicle like NG with some advanced technologies (like BE-4) but with massive margins is the safe, but progressive thing to do.  If/when NG flies, it shouldn't take them long to work out the kinks (well compared to traditional aerospace at least.)  They have the advantage of watching what others do and at least not make the same mistakes.  They're not in danger of going out of business since they're not really in business in the traditional sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/23/2019 09:24 pm
...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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 02/23/2019 09:58 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: FishInferno on 02/23/2019 10:39 pm
...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.

 - Ed Kyle

Emphasis mine.

You are missing the point of BFR. The point is not to launch large payloads, the point is to reduce the cost of payload to orbit. With a fully reusable BFR, SpaceX says it will be cheaper than Falcon. That's admittedly an unproven number, but I like to think they aren't just pulling numbers from thin air. Once BFR is that cheap, it won't matter if payloads are "too small" for it. It will wipe the floor with every non or partially-reusable rocket.

Look beyond the modern launch business, to when cargo is launched en masse on a daily basis. That's what BFR is built for.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/23/2019 11:35 pm
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.

Sure why not...  But when?  I mean NG sure got a leg up on F9 in terms of thrust.

You understand that SS is not the end of the road for SpaceX, right?  It's just the FIRST Mars ship design.  By the time it launches (1-2 years from now) SpaceX will already be half way through the s next-gen design - as is always the case.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/24/2019 12:11 am
...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.

 - Ed Kyle

BFR is being designed for Mars colonization. It will be capable of lifting large payloads to LEO but its design brief is to enable flights to Mars. You can argue that it's a fool's dream, but Elon Musk has been very clear about its purpose. Even if New Glenn were to be 100% reusable, it wouldn't affect the plans for BFR because there's no direct path from New Glenn's design to direct Earth/Mars transits and return.

Trying to understand its design based entirely on its fitness as an orbital launcher in the current or near-future market misses the point. There are other factors driving its design and you have to take those factors into consideration when evaluating it. Slapping a conventional hydrolox upper stage on it would provide even more lift capacity, but a conventional upper stage couldn't return from Mars so it's not in the design.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/24/2019 02:16 am
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.

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.

Competing for EELV-2 is a bonus, not a requirement. Carrying massive amounts of cargo, and lots of people, to Mars is the requirement.

And to be even more specific, the fully reusable Super-Heavy & Starship are meant to be the next evolution in space transportation systems - the next evolutionary step beyond Falcon 9/Heavy and New Glenn.

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.

Their pace of achievement, compared to everyone else in the space launch field, has shown SpaceX should not be underestimated...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/24/2019 03:42 am
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. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/24/2019 03:50 am
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: randomly on 02/24/2019 03:53 am
But is expending the center core of Falcon Heavy more expensive than a New Glenn launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/24/2019 04:13 am
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.   
Quote
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.

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.   

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/24/2019 04:18 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 02/24/2019 07:31 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 02/24/2019 09:33 am


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.

Quote
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.

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.

Your $25m launch cost has to cover fixed costs of launch plus amortization of launch infrastructure and development costs ($Bs). Also allow 5% a year return on money loaned to build vehicle and insurance for possible loss of vehicle. This can be external or self insurance but either way needs to factored in business model. Don't forget actual profit which is whole point of a business.
There is also refurbishment costs of vehicle, most likely new set of engines every X missions.

I can't see  BFR being any cheaper than F9R per launch. $/kg will be lot lower, but I can't see market that can maximize that to make BFR that much cheaper than F9R.





Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/24/2019 03:22 pm
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
EDIT:  Original post came out wrong...  So:

Given that they (SpaceX components) previously flew multiple times - no, they won't be more expensive.

:)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/24/2019 04:11 pm
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.

I know, and that is because you keep thinking Starship is being built strictly for commerce. It's not.

Again, you seem to keep forgetting why Elon Musk created SpaceX. It wasn't so that he could compete with ULA for EELV payloads.

Quote
The rocket will cost multiple billions and the payloads will cost more than the rocket.

I think you are confusing development cost with unit cost. Elon Musk has stated publicly that the development of the Super Heavy launch vehicle and Starship spacecraft may cost billions to develop, but considering the manufacturing experience Elon Musk and SpaceX already have the unit cost to produce a Super Heavy and Starship likely won't be anywhere near $1B per flight set. Remember rockets are mainly just big tanks with lots of empty space.

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...  ;)

Quote
Quote
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.

Obviously, but it's pretty simple math really when talking about unit cost. SH/SS only expends fuel for each flight, whereas New Glenn expends it's entire 7m diameter 2nd stage. Do the math on that for 10 flights and you'll see what the economic advantage is for fully reusable transportations systems.

Quote
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'm a big picture person that likes to look at historic trends to see how that applies to our future. And it's clear from our history that once a fully reusable transportation system is identified, that it's only a matter of time until it becomes the standard - regardless whether it has a perfect safety record or not.

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.

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. Which is what I assume for any form of reusable transportation I use today - especially electric scooters!  :D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/24/2019 05:29 pm
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
Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.
... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/24/2019 05:30 pm
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
Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.
... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.
Lost you there.  Who's they?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 02/24/2019 05:47 pm
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.
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.

Granted SpaceX cannot do this now, but it seems like a simple solution if this market becomes important.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/24/2019 06:18 pm
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
Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.
... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.
Lost you there.  Who's they?
Oh, I see.  My bad.

What I meant to say is "given that the Merlins and entire S2 previously flew multiple times, they are cheaper to expend".

Came out backwards.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 02/24/2019 07:09 pm
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
Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.
... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.
Lost you there.  Who's they?
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 10
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/24/2019 07:16 pm
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
Given that they previously flew multiple times - yes.
... and no, since they amortized a lot of their cost in most cases.
Lost you there.  Who's they?
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 10
Yeah that's what I meant
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/24/2019 08:20 pm
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.
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.

Granted SpaceX cannot do this now, but it seems like a simple solution if this market becomes important.

I don't think this allows FH to beat NG in terms of payload with booster recovery, though. However, it's probably not a issue since very few payloads require that much performance. Basically the only ones that need that it are direct to GEO, interplanetary, and dual berth GTO (which FH well not be doing anyway).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/25/2019 12:53 am
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/25/2019 02:39 am
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.

That's right - most current missions are within F9's RTLS or Barge landing capabilities, then by FH with downrange recovery, and all the rest of the current missions are covered by FH with expended center core.

NG's advantage, if there is any, will be limited to payloads that are just above FH in expended mode - currently zero.

And then there's SS which will easily cover those mission, plus a lot more - and on a similar time frame as NG.

So NG makes sense only if:
A) You assume that SS is vaporware and it's only NG vs. FH, and
B) You ignore that FH is already flying and NG is still on paper, and
C) You assume that FH expends only unflown center cores.

This is quite an elaborately constructed universe...




Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 02/25/2019 07:45 am
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. 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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 02/25/2019 08:00 am
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. 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.
Correct about heavy payloads, but they don't exist yet, and if we suppose them, we can equally suppose SS-only payloads.

And in a world where SS is delayed or fails, Musk already said they'll redesign F9 US...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/26/2019 03:30 am
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.

SpaceX advertises that Falcon 9 is capable of 22.8mT to LEO. And we already know they have a center core for Falcon Heavy that is essentially a strengthened Falcon 9, and THAT would be capable of 63.8mT to LEO.

Those are official capacities.

Quote
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.

You seem to be assuming that SpaceX is lying on their website - to a very significant degree. Or, it could be what you have read is wrong...  ::)

Quote
Also, NG has a much larger fairing volume.

Yep, that is an advantage. And Harris Corp has a telecommunications satellite with an enlarged antenna that requires a payload fairing of that size. But as of today that is a niche market, not the big middle.

Quote
So there are payloads and cases out there where NG has an advantage over F9/FH.

I don't know anyone that has argued that New Glenn doesn't have any advantages. Just that it's unique qualities are not in high demand, so it's more likely to compete on price against everyone but SpaceX. Which is not a bad place to be in the market - they should be very successful.

Quote
Still, NG will have to compete with Starship, if not initially than for the most part of its existence.

I think that is the point meekGee (and others) has been making. Which is why New Glenn is not really competing against Falcon Heavy.

Quote
And if you look at first flights of new rockets, there usually is a year long gap between first flight and paying customer flights.

Not for the SpaceX Falcon 9. And pretty much the reason for the gap with Falcon Heavy is that it's not in big demand, not that they couldn't have flown another. And even though I think Blue Origin will not have the same flight tempo as what SpaceX is capable of, I don't think it will be a year between the first two New Glenn launches.

Quote
But still, either Starship works, then NG is designed to compete with the wrong vehicle, or it doesnt than NG has a good perspective.

Blue Origin is building what they can with the abilities they have. New Glenn is as good as they can do for right now. They don't have the ability to build something to compete with SH/SS... yet.

Nor do they have to. Remember Blue Origin will be the 2nd semi-reusable launch provider, which makes them one of the top two launch providers cost-wise in the world. I'm reminded of this joke:

Quote
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!"

Blue Origin only needs to outrun everyone else besides SpaceX to be a HUGE success.  :D
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hkultala on 02/26/2019 06:16 am

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 now at 172 tonnes, then they have achieved 98% of this thrust they targeted at 2017.



Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/26/2019 07:06 am

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.

I blame Musk...I was reading his tweet and used his unit nomenclature. Should have put it in quotes as I was directly quoting his phrasing.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1093424663269523456

I've also seen it used in other SpaceX materials...like this web page:

https://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Take it up with him..who is said to have once been pursuing a doctorate in physics. Go figure.

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).

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...

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MaxTeranous on 02/26/2019 10:39 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/26/2019 03:16 pm

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.

Generally, you design the launch vehicle around an engine. If it doesn't reach 100% of desired thrust, it is a shorter rocket. This is why ULA wasn't really into designing an engine around the Atlas V to replace the RD-180 as a drop in replacement. And Vulcan has solids to deal with a thrust shortfall. It is also why the Falcon 9 wasn't stretched until the later Merlin versions could handle it. Thrust to weight at liftoff usually has quite a bit of overhead. For instance, the RS-68 on the Delta IV is a ~700,000 lb engine and it is usually lifting around ~600,000 lb. That gives you 100,000 lbs of wiggle room. The Atlas V likewise has around 100,000 lbs of extra thrust.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/26/2019 03:57 pm
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/26/2019 04:13 pm
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.
Quote
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.

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.
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 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/26/2019 04:50 pm
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.

It will work more or less either way, but they are not finalizing the design until they know it can reach 90-100%. That is my read anyways. Is ULA 100% content with this? Probably not, but that is life. It is compatible with solids though.

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1100167165578235905
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 02/26/2019 05:30 pm
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

Blue does not really need a better engine to learn how to fly NG either. To deliver full payloads, yes. Most contracts can be split into two launches. Expensive for Blue but doable. That leaves big gov payloads. Expendable might be enough to fulfill requirements, if not  there should be some lessons from the RS-68 on how to string the government along until development catches up.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/27/2019 04:05 am
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).

tonne is a non-SI unit accepted for use with the International System of Units (SI).

https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/table6.html
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2019 02:26 pm
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

Seems pretty likely they have done so. If the true average reliability of F9 was 95%, they would only have a 12.8% chance of reaching 40 consecutive successes.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2019 05:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 02/27/2019 07:51 pm
I think Blue will resolve any issues that may be limiting BE-4 to 70% thrust. Having said that, I fully agree that until the engine reaches its thrust goals it’s not going to be acceptable to ULA. Now, Blue is sufficiently secretive that BE-4 may have already reached its nominal thrust and this is a tempest in a teacup; we just don’t know. We do know that Blue has reached 70% and that Raptor has reached sufficient thrust for its projected mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/27/2019 08:06 pm
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 02/27/2019 08:47 pm
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).

1) Lots of re-design required. We don't know details how how Vulcan is laid out. Adding boosters all around also requires a redesign of the launch platform and possibly the flame trench. It's. not. that. simple.
2) The Heavy Centaur V will not fly for the first few years. It's. not. that. simple.
3) Irrelevant. You design for what you expect to have in performance. Thrust/weight ratio at liftoff it tightly controlled. Too much thrust is not optimal, too little and you won't even get off the pad. It's. not. that. simple.

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".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/27/2019 09:00 pm
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".

Then why are they holding up CDR until they get more data from the engine. If it makes no difference, and it is 100%(or close to it) or nothing, they should just assume that they hit that and move on. It only makes sense to hold up CDR if they have options to compensate.

Remember, nobody has really flown a methane engine let alone a 550,000 lbf methane engine. SpaceX ran an engine somewhat like this on a stand for a few weeks and broke it. Nothing about this is guaranteed. ULA would have been smart to not assume anything and protected themselves regardless. That is what the AR-1 was until 70% was reached and they very well could have a plan for not reaching 100% as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 03/01/2019 02:11 pm

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.

It is public knowledge, from a January statement by Blue, that a "new version of the engine will soon be installed at the test site ... 'and we’re going to be going up to 100 percent power.' " (https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-breaks-ground-for-be-4-factory/)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 03/01/2019 06:14 pm
(mod) What are we arguing about? Would it be better suited for the engine (Raptor vs BE4) thread?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 03/07/2019 07:00 am
Bezos not a fan of Musk Mars plans.

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)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: HVM on 03/07/2019 08:51 am
Bezos not a fan of Musk Mars plans.

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)
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...

Also I hate whole Antarctica/mountain top comparison, Earth's winter storms/summit blizzards out class any sandstorms at Mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/07/2019 01:20 pm
Bezos not a fan of Musk Mars plans.

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)
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...

Also I hate whole Antarctica/mountain top comparison, Earth's winter storms/summit blizzards out class any sandstorms at Mars.
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.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/07/2019 02:45 pm
So back maybe 3-5 years, there was a general condescending and dismissive tone coming from Arianne and ULA supporters on the forum.

That was ok, since they are not execs in the respective corps. Surely the actual corps know better, right?

Wrong, as it turned out.  Soon afterwards we learned that the execs share the same attitude, and both company are now committed to expendable launchers in an era that will be dominated by reusable launchers.

This latest from Bezos is similarly disappointing, and it makes him come across as if he doesn't know much about the venture he's involved in.

How are you going to have millions of people working and living in space if you worry about living on a mountain?

It makes that a**-backwards long-term roadmap they published a while back seem more significant than I gave it credit for at the time.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/08/2019 12:49 am
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 03/08/2019 02:20 am
Bezos not a fan of Musk Mars plans.

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)
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...

Also I hate whole Antarctica/mountain top comparison, Earth's winter storms/summit blizzards out class any sandstorms at Mars.
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.

I think there's no question that O'neill Cylinder will be harder than a city on Mars. Gravity well is where all our industry base is developed for, all our tools/equipment/processes works with gravity, so if you want to lower startup cost and adapt existing off the shelf stuff for space use, gravity well is where you should go. With reusability, energy is just fuel, and fuel is cheap.

It also helps that gravity well gives you resources just outside the door, instead of millions of miles away. You can start putting dirt on top of the habitat using just a shovel and a bag, instead of having to setup a mining operation somewhere else in the solar system and moving the materials over.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 03/08/2019 02:47 am
Currently all our industrial process is based on gravity.  However, radio crystals can grow larger in 0g.  Also perfect ball bearings can be made in 0g without machining.  An O'Neal cylinder with the center for 0g manufacturing and the outer rim for gravity is a good place for manufacturing.  I like both the industrialization of Earth-Moon centric space nearer in case of emergencies.  I also like the idea of Mars colonization.  Let's have both. 

SpaceX seems to be moving faster toward Mars capable spacecraft, which in turn can do moon or O'Neal also.  Blue Origin is moving way too slow in my opinion based on the billions Bezo's has to throw at it.  He has had plenty of time to get New Shepard flying.  New Glenn is still a few years out.  I think he has had too many personal problems that has slowed him down.  Musk has had his own problems but he works 18 hours a day and sees things through to get them done. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/08/2019 01:19 pm
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
Grounded indeed.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Eylrid on 03/08/2019 03:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/08/2019 04:37 pm
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.

Given a nuclear exchange, who is to say that the colonies wouldn't be involved?

And it is probably just best to let natural selection play out. If Humans destroy themselves completely on Earth, presumably by making Earth completely uninhabitable by complex multi-cellular organisms, then that is just one more failed biological experiment - one of trillions in the dust bin of evolution.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/08/2019 04:38 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/08/2019 06:26 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/08/2019 06:39 pm
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
Individuals won't, but corporations will.

A company like Alcoa is well versed with the idea of identifying a resource even in a remote area of the world  and paying people to be the crew that sets it up.  The incentive to people can be a share in that operation that they're setting up.

So if Alcoa, or any other corp, wants to be a global aluminum supplier, they will pay for people to go.

These people have to be of a very specific type, usually known as "having a pioneer's spirit", but these people are known to exist ...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/09/2019 01:27 pm
Quote
Bezos 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.     

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Silmfeanor on 03/09/2019 02:07 pm
Quote
Bezos 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.     

 - 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/09/2019 02:17 pm
Quote
Bezos 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.     

 - Ed Kyle

I prefer to say that BO’s first orbital rocket is slightly ahead of SpaceX’s 4th orbital rocket, developmentally speaking.

Considering the two companies are roughly the same age, I would say it’s about time.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/09/2019 03:47 pm
Quote
Bezos 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.     

 - 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.

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

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: testguy on 03/09/2019 04:19 pm
Quote
Bezos 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.     

 - 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.

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

Totally agree with all your points.  However, I also got to believe that the momentum has rapidly and significantly increased at SpaceX and that they will surpass Blue if they have not already.  They still appear to be on their master milestone schedule for the at least the early Mars missions which is a surprise to me.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 03/09/2019 05:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/09/2019 05:43 pm
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 are making changes to SN 2...hopefully the full thrust version. Anyways, his post is 100% accurate. BE-4 was full scale if not full thrust. The subscale Raptor was neither full scale nor full thrust.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/09/2019 05:43 pm


Quote
Bezos 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.     

 - Ed Kyle

Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 03/09/2019 05:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/09/2019 06:07 pm
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.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1091156245132673024

And it sounds like 170 is the bare minimum....

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1093424663269523456

But you are right, the sea level thrust of the 2017 presentation does match 170 t. Their plans change bi-annually though so who really knows. There have been what, half a dozen different thrust figures for Raptor quoted. 100% is just 100% that week.

Anyways, these discussions talk way too much about thrust. What about duration. Certain specs aren't useable until the engine reaches steady state. You can get to orbit with variable thrust numbers (look at electron), but not on a few seconds of thrust.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 03/09/2019 06:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/09/2019 06:42 pm
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.

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.

This has nothing to do with fandom, and the cancer sarcasm fell flat.  Arguing using strawmen is ineffective.

The SS/SH is not a mythological cure, but at a very fundamental level, based on its capabilities, it is a much bigger step than F9R was, and its impact will be correspondingly greater.

If you don't understand that, then you may be a fan (as you say), but you're not getting it. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/09/2019 07:32 pm
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.


So, is the military retiring hellfire missiles?Technically, it could eject its payload and then fly back to the launch point.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/09/2019 07:55 pm
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.


So, is the military retiring hellfire missiles?Technically, it could eject its payload and then fly back to the launch point.

That sort of reasoning is not really helping NG's case...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/09/2019 08:40 pm
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 03/09/2019 08:52 pm
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/09/2019 09:23 pm
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - Ed Kyle
SpaceX slowed down production since the F9 reusability program is a success ...  They also moved R&amp;D to the SS/SH system - which is not exactly hurting F9 is it?

How can they "cede an advantage" when F9 is flying and NG isn't?  What they're doing is not resting on the or laurels...

There was a similar tantrum being thrown when SpaceX moved from F9 to 9.1..  "Why can't they stick with what they've got?".  I'm sure you remember.

All this rapid development is really getting under some people's skin, but it's the only way to achieve progress.

---

Btw, Ed - you mentioned something about a fully tooled NG factory.  Do you have a pointer to this information?

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/09/2019 10:39 pm
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.

Quote
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...

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.

Quote
That 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/09/2019 10:44 pm
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.

Quote
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...

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.

Quote
That 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.

That last point was stated explicitly by Musk recently - that the F9 fleet will be far from end-of-life when the transition occurs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/10/2019 12:23 am
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!

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MichaelBlackbourn on 03/10/2019 12:38 am
I think anything much smaller and you won't be able to have a reusable 2nd stage without getting almost no payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/10/2019 12:41 am
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!

Quote
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.

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.

That's a good phrasing.  By "irrelevant" I meant "irrelevant to the future of spaceflight".  Especially poignant when in the context of NG, clearly not important when talking about ICBMs and (eye roll) anti-tank missiles...

As for sizing, I think SpaceX believes that (in addition to the obvious Mars goal) the future of comm sats is large constellations, and for those, SH is sized just right.  If constellations are successful, they will not stay at 300 kg per satellite, I'll guarantee you that.

Rocket development time is about 10 years.  SH will enter service when the first constellation will already be mostly deployed.  I am absolutely certain that by the time SH exits service, it will not be able to deploy a whole orbital plane worth of that-day constellation sats.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 03/10/2019 12:43 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 03/10/2019 01:34 am
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.

SpaceX can scale BFR to nearly New Glenn size by shortening the booster, and still retain enough commonality that they don't have to redevelop much of anything later. The booster isn't the hard part, so that's not going to save that much money though... so they probably aren't going to scale it down that much, but I do expect a shorter booster to fly first.

Technologically, New Glenn is just a bigger F9. Starship is a completely different class of beast, and potentially a completely different class of operating costs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 03/10/2019 03:18 am
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/10/2019 03:29 am
Quote
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.

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.

The main problem was overcapacity, as demonstrated by the following article:

Quote
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.

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.
https://thepointsguy.com/2018/01/fly-europe-entire-row-to-yourself/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/10/2019 03:43 am
BTW, it does feel a little ironic reading this thread talking about SpaceX vs Blue, then in another thread where Blue Origin is bragging about a dozen miles difference in altitude... SpaceX is set to fly crew to space at approximately the same time that Blue Origin is, in spite of starting later and... you know... being orbital.

The main difference between the two has been 1) speed of execution and 2) focus on meeting needs of actual paying customers while not scrimping on new tech development.

SpaceX's approach is objectively far better.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 03/10/2019 04:13 am
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/#28f25da4543f

Quote
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/10/2019 04:41 am
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/#28f25da4543f

Quote
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 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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 03/10/2019 04:54 am
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/#28f25da4543f

Quote
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 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.

To apply any of these argument to Blue vs SpaceX, Blue has to have a fully reusable LV first. This entire comparison of 787 vs A380 rests on the premise that both are fully reusable, without this premise there is no comparison.

Quote
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?

That's a separate issue, I was replying to the concern about BFR being oversized for commercial market. If you think BFR will be late, then there's even more reason to not optimizing it for today's market, but for where the market will be in the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/10/2019 06:23 am
...

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.

People talk about the A380, but the A380 was the way-late entry that wasn't revolutionary in comparison to the 747.

A closer analogy here is the 747, which was absolutely a giant step at the time, and led by people of vision, against the doubts of many.

The result is a part of aviation history.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/10/2019 07:43 am
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/#28f25da4543f

Quote
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 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.


And yet, despite the glaring difference in track record displayed above, people for some reason refer to SpaceX's stated goals as "party balloons", while not even blinking twice at the idea that Blue Origin wants to go from never reaching orbit to launching the most powerful operational rocket in the world.  And not only launch it, but land and reuse its booster stage.

And for the greatest irony of all, much of the reason people don't scoff at BO's stated goal of landing and reusing their rocket (the way they scoffed at SpaceX back in the day) is because SpaceX have done it. And still Blue is viewed as the reliable sure bet, while SpaceX designs "party balloons".

Might be time to admit that this upstart SpaceX crowd are onto a recipe that works.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/10/2019 08:07 am
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/#28f25da4543f

Quote
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 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/10/2019 10:45 am
<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.

Will point out that the Falcon 1 is an orbital launcher. Blue Origin is only flying the single stage sub-orbital New Shepard 40 km straight up under power before ballistically coasting to apogee at about 100 km altitude.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/10/2019 11:42 am
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/#28f25da4543f

Quote
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 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.
That's odd reasoning... If you see a smart kid at school, does that mean all kids are smart?

SpaceX earned the respect it's getting by executing.  Even back in the F1 days, it was obvious their rate of progress was extraordinary  and their goals were unapologetic. Company culture is positive, and they're pretty open about what they do. This has never ceased.

BO, OTOH - not so much.  Almost no achievements, secrecy for no reason... 

Speaking of, I asked yesterday - is there any information about their factory other than that the external structure was completed?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 03/10/2019 11:54 am
I'm not taking seriously anyone who compares Crew Dragon and the New Shepard capsule as if they were more or less the same thing.

New Shepard doesn't deal with any of the difficult challenges of an actual crewed spacecraft capable of maintaining people alive for more than a few minutes in space and surviving reentry from orbit.

Blue Origin is 7-10 years away from launching such spacecraft, based on their own estimates.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/972507214845014016
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/10/2019 12:37 pm
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.

"oversized" is a debatable term.  The other key item is Starlink deployment. With SS the deployment cost per satellite is fairly low. With F9, or even FH it's much higher.  Probably not to the point where it's uneconomic, but enough to push profitability years down the calendar.  :(

And remember Musk does not want flags and footprints on Mars, he wants a settlement

1 SH/SS is not going to cut it. That is just the start of the build up. That means cash, and lots of it.
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.

Then someone wants an on orbit spare or two, or there is an unexpected failure, or one that's been pushed
past its expected life because its operator didn't want to spend the money to replace it or....

The question will be what's the trade off cost between a new FO cable or a new satellite, keeping in mind you can't move the cable to a new location and sell it to another operator.

Keep in mind there are 3 LEO/MEO comms constellations already in orbit around the Earth, offering (potentially) anywhere to anywhere comms on the planet.

Despite this I'd guess 99% of mobile phones talk to their nearest tower and most users don't know they even exist.

So we already know what doesn't work in the mass market. What does is a bit more debatable.


Quote from: su27k
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: matthewkantar on 03/10/2019 04:54 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/10/2019 06:48 pm
I think anything much smaller and you won't be able to have a reusable 2nd stage without getting almost no payload.

I think this is a point many are missing when trying to compare the SH/SS to modern day transportation systems that are incremental improvements, not big jumps in capabilities.

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. SpaceX was going to attempt to recover the 2nd stage, but gave up to work on the SH/SS.

And for all we know the SH/SS combo is the SMALLEST sized transportation that can provide full reusability - just as the Boeing 247 was the first modern airliner, but was quickly eclipsed by newer/larger next generation models.

I think New Glenn will be HUGELY important for Blue Origin, and I have no doubt that since they will be competing against companies that offer expendable transportation, that they will do very well - assuming they figure out how to fly safely (which I think they will). But they will need this experience in order to understand what their future FULLY reusable transportation system will be, and they will have the luxury of watching the successes and mistakes of SpaceX.

As with many other people, I wish Blue Origin would go faster. But in a world where they are going to be the 2nd partially reusable transportation provider, they are far ahead of their rivals. Which is, by any measure, a good place to be.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/10/2019 07:37 pm
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.

As far as reality goes, NG is a beast yet to be seen...

You've seen more of SS (propulsion and structure) than you've seen of NG, and F9/FH are actual flying vehicles.  That's my definition of "reality" at least.

As for NS vs. F1 - really?  NS is comparable to an F1-class grasshopper.   Somewhat higher altitudes, but only a small fraction of the velocity, energy, weight fraction...  Actually even less, since grasshoppers (at least GH2) were built around an orbital-class rocket.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2019 08:00 pm


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.

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.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GWH on 03/10/2019 08:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2019 08:08 pm
Blue have said orbital tourist flights using NG are quite few years away. I'm guessing this because of lead time on development of crew vehicle. One way to do tourist flights earlier is for NG to fly Starliner or Dreamchaser, if SNC can come up with crew version.

While Boeing has financial interest in flying Starliner on ULA vehicles, NG may work out cheaper. There is nothing that says they can't fly it on both vehicles.

Dreamchaser is probably better option, really depends on how long it would take to develop crew version compared to capsule Blue is working.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/10/2019 08:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 03/10/2019 08:11 pm
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!

Quote
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.

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 BFR is oversized for the current commercial market in the same way that the Tesla Giga battery factory is oversized for the current commercial market. Whether they are oversized for their future markets remains to be seen.

But the key point here is that BFR is not for the commercial market, it's for the SpaceX market. The SpaceX market involves launching many thousands of Starlink satellites as quickly and cheaply as possible to build a huge money making constellation. In this role it will have no problem maxing out its payload capacity, whatever that turns out to be.

The second role for the BFR is putting humans on Mars and in this role it will also have no problem maxing out its payload capacity, whatever that turns out to be. The first role will pay for the second role. If anyone else like NASA, the Airforce or others want to make use of BFR that's a bonus for SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 03/10/2019 08:16 pm
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.
If they can launch a rocket into orbit...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 03/10/2019 08:27 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/10/2019 08:28 pm
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.
If they can launch a rocket into orbit...

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GWH on 03/10/2019 08:47 pm
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.


Since this thread is about whose strategy is better, its entirely valid to talk about government contracts. They spread out costs and makes for a more competitive company, and its quite possible those contracts come with higher profit margins.

So, why haven't they cracked the government market? Well....
Only one company participated in COTS.
Both companies participated in CCDev 1 & 2, but only one continued on to the point of actual launch contracts.
Only one company has 2 vehicles flying today that are certified for various payloads.

One company actually got busy putting metal into orbit and continuously improving from there.
Which strategy do you think is better?

Blue Origin's manifest stretches out past 2021, its highly unlikely they launch more than a few times times that year, and I would be very (pleasantly) surprised if that 10 launch manifest doesn't average out to 3/year while they work though their teething pains.
SpaceX's manifest doesn't even list past 2021, but I still count 19 non-USG payloads, call it 16 if you remove the hopeful lunar landers. 3 year period averaged out at 5-6/year.


Quote
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 about energy requirements don't scale linearly with velocity.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 03/10/2019 08:49 pm
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.

No they could not, at least not easily--or all the sounding rocket providers would be launching orbital payloads by now.  And let's not forget e = mv2; please note the v2.  With respect to e, that "... ~60% of what Falcon 9 1st stage did ..." is paltry by comparison.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2019 08:58 pm
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...
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.

HSF to LEO is one area it might payoff, then again there is another trade to be had. Build 25t crew capsule for fully reusable NG or large 45t crew capsule which can carry lot more paying passengers. I'm picking 45t capsule will have lower seat price.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/10/2019 09:15 pm
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.

Only if you do count OneWeb, but do not count StarLink, which is easily 10x the number of launches....

And if the rationale is that StarLink is "internal" then you're just hunting for methods to paint reality your way, but you're not affecting reality...

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 03/10/2019 09:31 pm
No they could not, at least not easily--or all the sounding rocket providers would be launching orbital payloads by now.

Sounding rockets have been converted to orbital rockets.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/10/2019 09:48 pm
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.
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.

I thought the word "fact" would get some attention, and I meant because as designed both Falcon Heavy and New Glenn are only partially reusable.

Now sure, a brand new 2nd stage design could be built for both, but that would change their target markets due to significantly less payload capabilities, and it would not obviate the need for the existing Falcon Heavy and New Glenn. Plus, just look at the pace of innovation Blue Origin intends for New Glenn - 7-8 years of operation before flying humans. That is too incremental to support a big change in New Glenn.

So my point was that the SpaceX SH/SS represents the first generation of fully reusable launch systems - designed from the start to be fully reusable. And I think Jeff Bezos will wait until New Armstrong before he attempts full reusability.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 03/10/2019 10:09 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 03/10/2019 10:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: schaban on 03/10/2019 10:39 pm
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.

I see 15 F9 and FH official commercial satellites on SpaceX website. I don't see any mission for NG @ Blue Origin website. Can you please point where you see 10 missions for NG listed?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 03/10/2019 11:01 pm
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:

Their goal is to make life multi-planetary by founding a permanent human presence on Mars. To achieve that goal they need to bring down the cost of sending mass into orbit and to achieve that they want to use reusable spacecraft. The biggest constraint they must work with is limited funds. This is forcing a focus on development of a single jack of all trades system (Starship / SH) for all of its needs which includes the launching of a major satellite constellation to help pay of everything.

SpaceX force the pace of development. They build the best they can as quickly as they can then they push things until they break, figure out why they broke and build them better in an iterative process. They try to build as much as possible in-house to avoid time and cost overruns of subcontractors and  stay in control.

The driving force behind SpaceX is Elon Musk. He has an incredible work ethic and expects the same dedication from his work force. He is wildly ambitious and continuity striving for improvement at every opportunity. Many who work at SpaceX share Musk’s vision and excitement. Working at SpaceX is not just a job, nor a career it’s a calling and has been described as working for the armed forces – Special Forces like the Marines or SAS.

What SpaceX is not is a billionaire trying to make money for money’s sake. Money to Musk is just a means to an end. In the early days Musk invested more than $100 million in SpaceX even though he thought the chances of success were slim. The reason he did so was (to quote his own words) “because someone’s got to at least try”.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 03/10/2019 11:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/11/2019 02:07 am
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - 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.
I said "much of", not "entirety of".

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/11/2019 02:26 am
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - 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.
I said "much of", not "entirety of".

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
Understood, but what was your take on the F9.1 transition?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/11/2019 02:31 am
They may yet. No way in heck that Gwynne will let Elon cancel Falcon 9 and Dragon before the replacement is ready and tested. Even Elon acknowledges they'll be flying Falcon 9 for a long time, if only for government payloads.

Falcon 9 and Dragon will not be terminated before Starship has been proven. It's pretty clear right now that operations with F9/Dragon are happening in *parallel* with development and tests of Starship.

Ed, you don't have to automatically assume SpaceX will do the stupidest possible thing in spite of reality showing that they're not taking that approach.

If Starship doesn't work out, they'll continue flying Falcon 9 (etc) even longer.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 03/11/2019 10:24 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 03/11/2019 10:41 am
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - 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.
I said "much of", not "entirety of".

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
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.

That said they may well end up flying Falcon for many years. In fact as long as they can make good money from doing so they will fly it. The problem with Falcon 9 is that it cannot directly help them in their primary goal which is making life multi-planetary by get humans to Mars. It can only help indirectly by making money for Starship development. So it’s not an end in itself just the means to an end.

If Starlink is a huge success and makes very large sums then Falcon 9 will die much more quickly. If not and SpaceX are still scrapping round for cash then it will hang around a lot longer.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 03/11/2019 11:20 am
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/11/2019 12:29 pm
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - 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.
I said "much of", not "entirety of".

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

Ed - you're not an amateur observer, so you know better.

"This is a process that has already begun, in a tiny 10% step to start." is a complete mis-statement of facts.

What is really happening is that because of re-use of the very system you extol, SpaceX doesn't need to produce as many rockets.

Right now the leading rockets are flying 4 times.  If the average number of flights (including attrition and intentional expendable use) will reach 9, then the number of Merlins produced will equal that of the vacuum version.

And still nothing "lost".

I am sure the number could have exceeded 9, but there won't be time for that, since SS will take over.

At that point - what's the use keeping F9/Raptor alive when a fully reusable SS is flying regularly?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 03/11/2019 01:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/11/2019 09:00 pm
Do we have any sense of whether BlueOrigin will develop a NewGlenn hopper or are hopper's only part of SpaceX's approach?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: AbuSimbel on 03/11/2019 09:23 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MaxTeranous on 03/12/2019 10:02 am
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.

Plenty of ships have bow thrusters, rapid response props and such that can keep them steady in 1 position, it's not something that is impossible for a suitably equipped ship to do. Whether Blue equip their ship so is an entirely different question ofc.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Doesitfloat on 03/12/2019 01:17 pm
Bow thrusters have no effect if the ship is moving over 2 knots.
Thrusters work by pumping water from one side of the ship to the other. If the ship is moving the thruster the intake pressure drops so  the pump can't get enough water moving through it. In addition the exit of the thruster is into a moving stream of water.  That means the effect is simply washed away.  To move a boat   a pressure differential is required. Low pressure on the intake side and high pressure on the outlet. Simply put to move a boat sideways to a dock the thrusters pump the water from the dockside to the port side; moving the boat to the dock.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/12/2019 06:29 pm
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 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.   

 - Ed Kyle       
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ZachF on 03/12/2019 06:29 pm
Shrug.  Irrespective of your assumption there, SpaceX has been flying multiple orbital rockets for years, while JB has been talking.  Hence "grounded".

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...
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.

 - 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.
I said "much of", not "entirety of".

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

This is the line of thinking that gets you decades of stagnation.

I don't want my grandchildren talking about marginal improvements to GTO payload 100 years after Armstrong walked on the moon.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 03/12/2019 07:00 pm
I guess I just don't see BFR being the better design.   

 - Ed Kyle     

It is if your goal is landing over 100 tons of payload on Mars. F9 and FH can't do that.

Elon Musk didn't start SpaceX to make more money. He did it to achieve his dream of people going to Mars. It's his hobby. Billionaires can do crazy stuff like this.

Jeff Bezos started Blue Origin to expand humanity into cislunar space. Different destination, but it's another billionaire hobby business.

If either of these private companies were traditional money making enterprises they would have a different business strategy.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 03/12/2019 07:16 pm
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 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.   

 - Ed Kyle       


1) SpaceX is not exploiting the reusability cost advantage by lowering prices because they are using the savings to support Starship development.
2) Yes, Starship is “massive” and is using a new and more advanced engine design that may not ever offer the same t/w as Merlin. At the same time, a New Glenn-sized Merlin-engined Falcon successor, no matter how competitive it may be in the current or near future market, would be completely useless for SpaceX’s stated goal of reaching Mars. This is what I think you may be missing: Starship’s design is primarily, if not entirely, driven by Mars requirements.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a practical goal or if the company ever achieves it; the ship is being designed for that purpose. SpaceX is resource-constrained and isn’t going to expend anything on an internally funded vehicle that cannot support its Mars ambitions.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2019 07:18 pm
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?

You know this of course, so I'm just restating the obvious. The answer is that though SpaceX has reduced the cost to access space substantially, there are many market factors out of its control.

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).

Quote
Why are its competitors still winning any launch contracts despite using expendable vehicles?

Again, you know why. 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.

Quote
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.

No one needs to guess here, since SpaceX has been very clear about what they are doing. They have not dropped prices because A) they need to recoup their costs on developing Falcon Block 5 and Falcon Heavy, and B) to fund development of the Super Heavy and Starship.

Quote
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.   

Because you keep thinking of the Super Heavy/Starship as a 1:1 replacement of Falcon 9. That would be like thinking a Boeing 707 was a direct replacement for the DC-3.

Elon Musk has stated - OVER AND OVER - that SpaceX was created to make humanity multiplanetary, and the Super Heavy/Starship make that happen. Falcon 9/H were the interim steps to get there, and they will stay operational for as long as they are useful.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 03/12/2019 07:21 pm
One reason SpaceX isn't lowering costs much, is they are still have lower costs.  The government gives ULA flights to keep them in business.  They pay them more but give excuses for not using SpaceX.  Same with Ariene 5.  Europe gives them launches.  Russia and China use their rockets for their governments and companies. 

All of them are looking to create some type of reusable boosters now. 

SpaceX will lower their costs more if and when others develop their reusable rockets and if/when Starship/Superheavy gets flying with lower costs/kg. 

SpaceX got less money to develop Dragon II than Boeing, yet both can do the same thing.  They get less money to launch Air Force satellites than ULA.  Why do they not use SpaceX exclusively?  Excuse is government wants at least two providers and some competition. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/12/2019 07:29 pm
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 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.   

 - Ed Kyle     
Well if you're going to say "supposed  advantages of reusability", you have to pick which side of the fence you're on.

If F9 is not cheaper to operate and SpaceX is blowing smoke, then clearly why not move away from it to a fully reusable system?

If F9 is cheaper to operate and SpaceX is pocketing the difference, what better time to develop the fully reusable product, before a competitor is able to start squeezing down margins?

----

SpaceX is not winning all contracts since it's charging just below what its competitors do, since they're trying to maximize profit for SS, not maximize flight rate.

This makes extra sense since their biggest launch project is Starlink, and a high market makes it difficult for OneWeb to compete.

Nothing forces you to lower prices to match costs, especially not when there's high-priced competition.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kenp51d on 03/12/2019 09:19 pm

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.

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?

Ken
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ZachF on 03/13/2019 01:49 pm

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).


This is the main reason, IMHO, for the current major slump in the GTO market; Satellite manufacturers and operators are re-calibrating their designs around lower launch costs.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 03/13/2019 02:40 pm
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 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.   

 - Ed Kyle     
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.

For some tasks other than the primary task of landing on Mars, BFR may not be the optimal design, but SpaceX have monetary constraints and are not in a position to develop a lot of deferent rockets optimised for specific tasks. BFR certainly is a compromise but it will be very good at a lot of tasks and that is good enough.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/13/2019 02:50 pm
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?

Elon Musk has already stated that Falcon 9 will be phased out once SH/SS are proven, so commercial customers may not have much of a choice in that.

But to more directly answer your question, I think customers consider both the provider and the transportation system when they look at redundancy. For the transportation system they want to make sure they can always get their hardware to space, and for the provider they want to make sure there is competition between providers to keep prices competitive.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/13/2019 03:05 pm
For me, it's money. Supposedly SH/SH can accomplish a LEO mission for less money than an F9. Why fly on a more expensive launcher.

On SX not reducing prices, it is absolutely to have the money to accomplish SH/SS.

IMO, why they don't want to reduce prices and take over the market, it doesn't make them enough money to do the things to get to Mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 03/13/2019 05:04 pm
After they get going and maybe others lower prices, SpaceX may be forced to lower prices some to stay cheaper.  Tesla seems do be doing fine now and Musk may want to sell some shares to put into SpaceX. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/15/2019 01:07 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 03/18/2019 01:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/18/2019 02:15 pm
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.
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/18/2019 03:49 pm
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)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/18/2019 06:08 pm
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)

Nice summary.

Two comments tho.

First - I don't think BO "saw VG's mistake" with respect to air-drop.  I don't think they ever thought this idea made sense.  Air drop companies are always started by "airplane people" who are trying to get into the space business.  Without that starting point, nobody has any motivation to air drop.  BO starting with vertical launched rockets because they had a path forward to orbital rockets.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/18/2019 06:22 pm

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2019 07:39 pm



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.


Wouldn't say NS is safer or better than SS2. Here is quick list of pros a cons.

NS Pros
Has LAS system.
Launch experience is same as orbital LV.
Best cabin/capsule because of large viewing windows.
Can go higher than 100kms.

Cons
Possible exploding booster (see Delta 2 launch failure video).
Possible parachute failure. Single chute failure not a problem, 2 failures should survive hard landing.
Needs dedicated launch site in remote area with low air traffic.
Needs more ground infrastructure.
No crew to help passengers.

SS2 Pros
Aircraft operations, ground systems lot simpler. Only need a hangar. Share public airport.
Safer hybrid engine, cut LOX off and it stops. Shouldn't explode.
Safer landing sequence ie glide back to runway.
Has crew to help and reassure passengers.
Can be launched in clear airspace near airport.

Cons
Doesn't go as high.
No orbital launch experience.
Small cabin windows.
Possible failure of flutter wings. Fatal outcome.
Airport needs to be in low air traffic area.

I'd go with NS as its more like real space flight launch experience.










Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/18/2019 09:24 pm

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 03/18/2019 09:35 pm
It's not even about SX resting on their laurels, which they won't.

SS isn't made redundant by a bigger reusable rocket.  It's not Top Trumps.  In a market where NA is useful, a 100-150ton vehicle should be as well.   

The recent A380 cancellations show how success can get complicated when  you're dealing with mass transit.

SpaceX and Blue are both failing if SS and NA don't fall into the mass transit category.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/18/2019 09:54 pm

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/18/2019 10:03 pm

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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.
If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/18/2019 10:19 pm

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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 true. Elon is on record as saying that their future ships will dwarf the BFR. In fact, if I recall correctly he was saying they would dwarf the original ITS concept.

In no way will SpaceX stop at SS. The pace of innovation is Musk’s ongoing focus. SS is just a stepping stone.

Unlike in the children’s story this hare does not stop and take a nap, in fact it continuous to accelerate, leaving the tortoise further and further behind.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/18/2019 10:23 pm

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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.
If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/19/2019 01:18 am

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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.
If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...

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.
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.
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.

Why wouldn't they use this capability to forge ahead? 

Maybe they'll build an Orbit-to-orbit system next?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: randomly on 03/19/2019 01:25 am
I can certainly see them aggressively pursuing SEP and /or NEP systems, and solar and nuclear power systems as a next step.
Remember Elon's end goal is colonizing Mars. There are a lot of technologies still to develop to further that goal.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dglow on 03/19/2019 01:30 am

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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.
If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...

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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/19/2019 02:59 am
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, I absolutely can't be sure off - agreed.

I never said SpaceX won't be fast-followed, or that SpaceX won't take their eyes of the ball....

I said that assuming they'll rest on their laurels aster the 9 m SS/SH flies, that it will be "the end of the line as far as cost savings", etc - is one hell of an assumption.

SpaceX has shown zero inclination to stop moving forward so far, even when they had the lead - and that decision caused the lead fast-follower to miss badly when committing to their F9 killer.

There's also no reason to think that SS/SH represents the best launch can be.  Its architecture is based on what SpaceX can do and afford right now, and on the fact that it's the "bootstrap vehicle".

Give it 10 years, and circumstances will be different, requirement will be different, Musk will be different.  (One of these three is wrong). 

Shrug.

SpaceX might get fast followed, but whoever the fast follower is, they've got to move a hell of a lot faster than BO is.  The last 3 months in Boca Chica demonstrated that in the most brutal way.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 09:18 am

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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.
If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...

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.
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.
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.

Why wouldn't they use this capability to forge ahead? 

Maybe they'll build an Orbit-to-orbit system next?
that's still only incremental improvement, which can be leapfrogged.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/19/2019 01:03 pm

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.
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.

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.
My answer is that Elon has been following a roadmap, and Starship is as far as that roadmap went.

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.
If you have a copy of Musk's roadmap, you can be a very rich man...

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.
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.
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.

Why wouldn't they use this capability to forge ahead? 

Maybe they'll build an Orbit-to-orbit system next?
that's still only incremental improvement, which can be leapfrogged.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 02:01 pm
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.

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.
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.

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 ?: ???
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/19/2019 02:08 pm
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.

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.
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.

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...

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 02:25 pm
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.

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.
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.

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...

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 03/19/2019 02:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/19/2019 02:48 pm
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.

Quote
So 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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Oli on 03/19/2019 03:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 03:51 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 04:06 pm
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.

Quote
So 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.
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.
Quote
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/19/2019 04:09 pm
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).

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 04:14 pm
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).

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.
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"
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 03/19/2019 04:54 pm
...

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.

Let's revisit the list. SpaceX got to orbit first (Blue still hasn't). SpaceX got customers first. SpaceX has flown 67 71 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.

Edit: Corrected, thanks envy887
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 03/19/2019 05:00 pm
...

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.

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.

Minor correction: SpaceX has reached orbit on 71 missions: 68 F9, 1 FH, 2 F1.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 03/19/2019 05:44 pm
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.

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.
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.

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...

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 03/19/2019 05:48 pm
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.
What better fitness?

What magic does NA has that allows it to be more optimal than all variants of SS which can go from E2E to Mars?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 06:00 pm
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.

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.
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.

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...

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 better fitness?

What magic does NA has that allows it to be more optimal than all variants of SS which can go from E2E to Mars?
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.

I think the better comparison to Starship is the "FH-Killer" New Glen with a "Smaller frakking rocket" reusable upper stage, like skeptics said SpaceX should have done for FH before moving to Starship.

If the New Glen with RUS can approach Starship's cost per ton to orbit, it can undercut Starship on lighter payloads by having a smaller absolute cost to orbit. (Both would be cheaper than an Electron to put a cubesat into orbit, but all else equal RUS-NG would be cheaper because it's smaller, given that both rockets would be wasting their lift capacity)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 03/19/2019 06:21 pm
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.

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.
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.

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...

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 better fitness?

What magic does NA has that allows it to be more optimal than all variants of SS which can go from E2E to Mars?


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/19/2019 06:40 pm

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.
Actually hydrolox is better suited for high energy trajectories.  In theory.

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GreenShrike on 03/19/2019 10:00 pm
Sheesh -- trim quotes in your replies, please!

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.

You need less hydrolox propellant for a given delta-V than methalox, which means you need less lift from Earth to fuel in-space flights. This assumes that the harder task of managing boil-off for hydrogen as compared to methane doesn't end up consuming all of efficiency gains of hydrolox.

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...

Exactly: 'fit' is probably less important than 'cost'. Efficient yet expensive quite often loses to good enough but much cheaper -- which is essentially legacy aerospace versus SpaceX in a nutshell.

Now, whether lifting methalox prop from Earth will be cheaper than Earth- or lunar-sourced hydrolox is unknown so who knows if that will apply to future hydrolox versus methalox choices, but SpaceX is certainly working (and banking) on making methalox lift very cheap indeed. And given that propellant lift capability is quite small compared to in-space propellant usage (e.g. it'll take 4-6 tanker flights to fill a BFS), and that mission costs are much greater than propellant costs, I think it likely that fewer, larger tanker missions will be less expensive than a greater number of smaller flights.

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.

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.

You speak as if Chomper and Tanker variants aren't going to be things just as soon as SpaceX decides there's sufficient financial justification for them. And, if there's financial savings to be had by limiting return velocities, then SpaceX is free to incorporate it.



The big problem I see with arguing between Blue and SpaceX is that neither company is being led by an idiot, which means both are well aware of the industry and current circumstances and can change to adapt to the times -- especially with legacy aerospace companies providing stark examples, including about avoiding having shareholders who can demand every penny of profit this quarter and investment in the future be damned. As neither is going bankrupt any time soon, they're both doing okay.

If New Glenn's lift costs (not pricing) get hammered by SpaceX, then they'll do something about it. If New Armstrong is better suited to future competition than SH/SS, then SpaceX will do something about that, too.

It certainly helps that, unlike legacy aerospace, SpaceX actually plans to do something with their own aerospace capabilities (i.e. Starlink) rather than just continually waiting for someone else to give them money to launch. I suspect Blue is planning something similar, since "build it and they will come" is rather less of a business strategy than "build it so we can leverage it ourselves and if others want to use it as well, hey, that's fine, too", and Bezos does business well.

As such, continuing to lower the costs of access to space will benefit both Bezos' cis-lunar industry or Musk's Martian dreams, and I don't think either -- in true Silicon Valley style -- will stop pushing out faster-better-cheaper versions (or blocks or marks or model years or however you want to call them) on their own. It's an approach/business strategy they both agree on.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2019 04:49 pm



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.







Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 03/20/2019 05:48 pm



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.
There's nothing stopping SpaceX from deploying a STAR48 out the side door as an earth departure stage for a payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 03/20/2019 05:52 pm



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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2019 09:19 pm



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).
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rondaz on 05/11/2019 03:34 am
The billionaire space race between Musk, Bezos and Branson

Jon Mace, BNN Bloomberg

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-billionaire-space-race-between-musk-bezos-and-branson-1.1257228
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 05/13/2019 01:01 am
The billionaire space race between Musk, Bezos and Branson

Jon Mace, BNN Bloomberg

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-billionaire-space-race-between-musk-bezos-and-branson-1.1257228
Did 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/13/2019 01:17 am
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....
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 05/13/2019 01:27 pm
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....
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/16/2019 02:08 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: MichaelBlackbourn on 05/16/2019 03:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/16/2019 07:38 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 05/16/2019 08:08 pm
...
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/17/2019 12:57 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 05/17/2019 02:02 am
...
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.
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.

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 Blue's approach with engines vs. SpaceX is really indicative of their approaches/business strategies (the main point of this thread.)

Blue had zero time pressure and no funding worries, so they had the "luxury" of designing Hydrolox BE-3 for NS, LNG BE-4 and BE-4 Vac for NG, and now Hydrolox BE-7 for Blue Moon.  And that's not even their full list of engines (https://www.blueorigin.com/engines/); missing BE-1 and BE-2.  Only recently have they had to adapt; dropping BE-4 Vac in favor of BE-3 for NG upper stage due to time pressures to get NG flying.  Blue framed their engine development work as a step-wise, planned, roadmap to learn and progress.  How much of the previous engine design and fabrication experience actually helped them with the follow-up engines, we'll likely not know until the company history is written by insiders.  What all these engines definitely represent, though, is a lot of time and money investment (possibly wasted if it didn't bring them closer to their goals.)  They have an inventory of engines that can be used for future vehicles, but do they really need all of them?

Contrast that with SpaceX who designed engines that were fundamental to their survival and actually flew: Merlin 1 variants, Kestrel, MVac, Raptor (only flown a few cm off the ground) and the delayed Raptor Vac.  Elon's stated clearly that SS/SH are the future and he fully intends to retire the F9 family once SS has taken over and gained acceptance.  So, SpaceX will drop down to a single engine (with Raptor Vac a planned upgrade sometime in the future.)  Elon's delayed even Raptor Vac as a shortcut to optimize for cost and speed at the expense of performance.  Optimizing for total system cost will likely see SS/SH fly quickly, even after several radical shifts in design: size, CF vs. stainless, reentry TPS, etc.

So clearly SpaceX's approach gets rockets constructed and flying more quickly and earning them money for their survival.  Blue's approach results in more engines constructed, NS making reusable sub-orbital hops, and NG hopefully flying in the next few years.

I think current F9 success and future achievements will validate SpaceX's approach as a sound one.  Blue won't go away as they can continue their strategy (almost) indefinitely, regardless of commercial success (as long as Jeff's heirs continue to fund his ambitions.)  But nothing ensures that your vision survives you more than actually flying hardware for paying customers.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/17/2019 05:04 am
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. Blue can keep developing new engines and vehicles until Bezos dies without making a single penny, and although I don't think that's the intent, it has formed a certain "relaxed" character and long-term strategy for Blue Origin as a company.

SpaceX and Blue aren't really competitors yet. Both have lofty goals, Mars for SpaceX versus orbital colonies for Blue, but only SpaceX needs to have revenue to survive. 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.

Regarding the idea of minimizing engine development costs, it's obvious that reusable engines, amortized over many flights instead of one, allow considerations like efficiency and longevity that wouldn't normally be so concerning for disposables.  There is certainly a valid argument to spend more on quality to get more flights out of a reusable engine.  Whether efficiency is worth buying depends on the engine's ultimate cost, and whether the company owner isn't concerned about ROI.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/17/2019 03:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 05/17/2019 03:13 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 05/17/2019 03:34 pm
SpaceX and Blue aren't really competitors yet.

SpaceX and Blue are direct competitors for talent (e.g., Starlink in Redmond).  They also have competed against each other for GTO launches and Air Force contracts.  Lastly, Bezos tries to salt Musk's fields from time to time (e.g., 39A, patents).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/17/2019 03:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/17/2019 03:58 pm
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?)

One possibility might be that they're filling in the gaps first, then going back and improving performance.

I've noticed a definite "Armadillo" flavor with Blue, in that they went in a bunch of different directions before figuring out a plan. John Carmack ran out of money just about the time that Armadillo was starting to hit its stride, but that wasn't a problem for JB.

Quote
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.

I think what's going on is that top-level management doesn't make any major decisions without JB, and JB is sometimes too busy to make decisions for Blue. So decisions get made late, sometimes really late.

If I were an engineering lead waiting for a decision from JB that might not come for months, I might tell my people to slow down and take their time, along with a few days off, or perhaps they'd like to go write some papers. Slow progress is better than chaotic backtracking. That's pure speculation, but there may be some of that happening as well.

Some of this might improve once more and more major decisions have been ironed out and they fall into routine.  In fact, I think a lot of what we've seen for the past couple of years is the results of major decisions having been made. But fundamentally what we're witnessing is a company that doesn't need to make money, which throws everybody on the outside into head-scratching.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/17/2019 04:43 pm
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.

Setting Mars aside, SpaceX is still in the same position they were in ten years ago. Back then, their competition didn't have to try very hard to win government contracts, and they still don't. Now, their near-term future competition is backed by one of history's richest men, not to mention by some of China's richest people, and quite possibly the Chinese government. All of these forces are targeting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. SpaceX pretty much has to get SS out in order to stay in business. They could drop Mars right now and that wouldn't change.

SpaceX's business is all down here where all the humans are. Bezos will use philanthropy to develop infrastructure between Earth and the Moon, and SpaceX will service that infrastructure as it develops, because that will still be where the humans are.  But Bezos doesn't care about Mars, so he's not going to build settlements there. Where SpaceX operates will be proscribed by, surprise, surprise, geography and physics, same as it's always been for everybody, and also by Bezos.

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.

And that's fine with me, because I'm an O'Neillist (quite the opposite of a nihilist). :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/17/2019 05:34 pm
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.

Why? SpaceX lead is increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing.  Blue can't dawdle forever.

We live in interesting times. It's a great time to be alive.

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.

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.


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.
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/17/2019 05:49 pm
Why? SpaceX lead is increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing.  Blue can't dawdle forever.

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/



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.


It is a 20 year lease. No choice but to do it then or wait tell 2034. And there are a few details you aren't accounting for
1.)SpaceX already had a pad they took over from a previous heavy lift vehicle (SLC-40).
2.)SpaceX proposal was for exclusive access while Blue Origin proposed multi-user access
3.)SpaceX didn't need 39A for crew transportation or a heavy lift vehicle, they already had SLC-40.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/17/2019 07:09 pm
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.

If he's not trying to accelerate that kind of thing so that it happens at scale in his lifetime, then what's the point?

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! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 05/17/2019 07:23 pm
Bezos seems to also be unstable, he recently divorced giving up what? 35 billion dollars? 

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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/17/2019 09:33 pm
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. 

Bezos said how many times that this vision will take several generations? Was it 4 or 5 separate occasions? That those in the front on the audience might see the first real steps toward it? Front was the children.

The difference between Bezos and Musk is that Musk tends to put the far fetched stuff at the end of the presentation. I specifically think of the ITS presentation and the places where it landed and passengers went for a walk... Yes I know, that particular goal post got moved of the continent long a go.


Overall Bezos has the money to do WTF he wants with it while Musk increasingly does not.
I would hope that Blue finds more speed on near term applications on while still working on the fundamentals that will be needed later.
I also hope that Musk does a lot less announcing and more delivering...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/17/2019 09:52 pm
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.

Not sure what to make of the Musk comment. As far as CEOs go he is far more "dynamic" than average ones, but then again he is doing things that were thought to be undoable, so maybe that is just a requirement.

I'd say the pace of change that Elon Musk indulges in, and inspires within his companies, is a strength overall. We shouldn't focus on the downsides too much, since he accomplishing a lot of real, and amazing things.

Quote
But Blue seems so disappointing so far. Hopefully that will change, soon. Or I'll cancel my Amazon Prime membership, dang it! :)

In a world without SpaceX Blue Origin would be king. However in the real world Blue Origin is plodding along in comparison to SpaceX, but when compared to the rest of the world they are doing amazing things.

It's all a matter of perspective...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/17/2019 10:54 pm
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.

We understand that.  Some of us simply don't think that's an effective use of resources.

In other words, Blue Origin is Jeff Bezos, and Jeff Bezos' business strategy emphasizes the juggernaut that is Amazon.

The irony here is that this is not at all how Amazon was built.

SpaceX and Blue aren't really competitors yet.

They are direct competitors.  Blue Origin is trying to sign up satellite launch customers today, so they are competitors here and now.  It just might not seem like it because Blue Origin hasn't launched anything to orbit yet, so they've had limited success signing up customers so far.   But as soon as they can, Blue Origin will be launching satellites, and they will be taking everything they can away from SpaceX.

Longer term, they're both planning larger vehicles to take humans out off this planet.  They're in direct competition on that front too.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 05/18/2019 12:01 am
One big difference between SpaceX and Blue Origin in my experience is that Blue tends to elide over intermediate steps in a way that SpaceX doesn't.

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.

SpaceX in comparison has been clear about the intermediate steps between the present and their goals.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/18/2019 12:48 am
Bezos seems to also be unstable, he recently divorced giving up what? 35 billion dollars? 

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/18/2019 12:52 am
....
Overall Bezos has the money to do WTF he wants with it while Musk increasingly does not....
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.

Bezos divorced, which cut in to his fun money. Still plenty, sure, but the gap has narrowed. Bezos should stop acting like he has all the time in the world. It seems safe, but unpredictable events can happen, and it'd be nice to have actually made progress in the meantime.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ulm_atms on 05/18/2019 01:05 am
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/

Except New Shephard only goes straight up and down with no reentry.  When people say NS vs F9...I always laugh...the two rockets are about as far apart as apples and steaks.  The F9 is the steak as it is cooked on the way down.  ;D

To me, the SX/BO comparison (mass to orbit) is basically this:

Falcon 9 vs No BO rocket to compare
Falcon 9 Heavy vs New Glen
New Armstrong vs SH/SS

What has always puzzled me is that BO has ALOT more money, been around longer then SpaceX, but still haven't launched more then a suborbital rocket straight up.  SpaceX had less money to work with, been around a shorter time, but is ahead of BO by a good bit.  Why are they so far apart?  MY take...SpaceX is Musk's passion...BO is Bezos side gig.  That driving force right there is the difference between the two and the distance between them.  Bezos heart just doesn't seem in it like Musk's is.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/18/2019 02:10 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/18/2019 03:49 am
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.

New Glenn can send the larger version to TLI, provided it does not carry the ascent stage. I believe the plan is for NASA to provide the ascent stage which will then dock to the Blue Moon large lander at NRO, with the lander then performing the full descent. If the lander dry mass is about 5.6 t with 27.8 t of propellant, it will be able to do that mission. See my post below for the details.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41146.msg1945829#msg1945829
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 05/18/2019 03:49 am
Someone said SpaceX didn't need pad 39A, they had pad 40.  Pad 40 is limited 4 or 5 million lbs thrust.  Pad 39A has a 12 million lbs thrust limit.  Starship with Super Heavy booster will be a little over 11 million lbs thrust.  I say they needed 39A.    He is also further along with Starship.  FH which launches from 39A has a 5 million lb thrust.  New Glenn, which hasn't flown yet, will have a little over 3.5 million lbs thrust.  Musk knew where he was going with it.

When is New Glenn supposed to fly?  By 2021?  Maybe, because he is running behind, just like old space Boeing with SLS. 

I was 16 on July 20, 1969.  We were supposed to be on Mars by 1984 using Saturn V's and making the Saturn V booster reusable.  Never happened, budget was cut.  We won the Space Race, and were bogged down in Vietnam.  People and congress, and Nixon, were tired of spending money on Vietnam and NASA. 

I want to see us go to Mars in my lifetime.  SpaceX right now is our only hope.  Bezos could spend more, but he hasn't.  Musk is spending all he has and makes getting things done. 

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/18/2019 04:29 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nathan2go on 05/18/2019 08:07 pm
...
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.

Space tourism in LEO will be something like 1 or 2 orders of magnitude cheaper than crewed Lunar missions:  one launch of Starship will carry 80 people to LEO in cabins that are easily big/comfortable enough for a few days in LEO (maybe even 4 month to Mars).  With a Starship and two tankers, Lunar flybys will cost about double the LEO  trip.  But with government Lunar bases, the crew turn-over will be low (months?), so the habitat/ surface infrastructure re-use will be low.  Maybe the average will be 1 cargo launch per crewed launch, and 3 crew launches (1 SS + 2 tankers) for every 6 people; so Lunar is 1 person per launch compared to 80 for LEO.

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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/19/2019 12:23 am
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. When the politicians decide to do something peaceful in space they assign it (usually) to NASA. And sure, if something goes wrong then Congress has oversight responsibility, but if Congress wants the program to continue they will keep funding it - the Shuttle program is a good example of that, where 40% of the fleet was lost and they kept flying.

Quote
If SpaceX does land a Starship on Mars, that will force NASA to ramp up its Mars activity.

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.

Quote
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.

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/19/2019 01:54 am
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.

I'd just like to state for the record that I can't remember a time when any focus group would tell some billionaire he should be talking about his passion for O'Neill colonies and making charitable donations toward lunar landers.  Ever. 

Quote
He certainly doesn't act like it is, ...

You mean, other than making it the topic of his high school commencement speech, and being president of his SEDS chapter, and underwriting the salvage of a couple of F-1 engines, and starting a suborbital tourism program, and building a reusable rocket that's also very large by any standard, and paying to develop the first real lunar module since Apollo (with apologies to Masten), and talking about orbital space settlements for most of his life, he doesn't seem to care about these things at all.

Quote
...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.

You mean, other than having a suborbital spacecraft and an orbital rocket and a biconic capsule and a lunar module and at least five rocket engine designs and two big new factories, he really doesn't seem to be building anything.

Quote
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! :)

Hm.  Do you play chess?

I do agree with Bezos that these are very early days for space exploration, hopefully just the beginning of a long push that won't end with a President who decides space is a waste of money or a Congress that prioritizes pork over material progress.

And I agree with you that watching SpaceX continuously innovate never gets old. I hope that never stops, but I'm not the kind of person who would believe that what I can't see can't be happening. 

Like Bezos, I wrote about space all through high school. Like Bezos, I was heavily influenced by an avid devotion to the game of chess. And like him, I was president of my college SEDS chapter. And I even tried to start an online bookstore in 1990, but the similarities unfortunately stop there.  :) What I'm trying to say is that I can put myself in a mindset where I believe I can understand why one of the world's richest men wouldn't feel constrained to announce everything his space hobby company is working on, however passionate about it he might be.

Everything else from this point becomes complete speculation. Is Blue developing all kinds of things in secret?  We'll have to wait.  Is Blue even competent as a business?  We'll have to wait. Is Bezos devoting a lot of time to his hobby? We may never know. 

We can say definitively that New Shepard + New Glenn + Blue Moon are actually a lot to be working on all at once, not at all a light workload for any company, even if it was SpaceX.  And since they've mentioned the capsule (although not for years), and won a contract for some other orbital transfer spacecraft we haven't seen yet, we know they have other stuff brewing, too. 

If you said they weren't very, very busy, by any standard at any time, you'd be demonstrably incorrect.

All of this is happening at the same time Amazon is building out a grocery chain and a huge logistical storage network and drone deliveries and a new human delivery network and planning a satellite constellation, so not much going on there, either.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/19/2019 02:31 am
...
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.

Why?

Quote
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.

Why?

Quote
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. 

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?

Quote
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.

What Mars Market?  Market for what?

Quote
(snip)

So the existence of a Mars spaceport will force the existence of a Moon base and also LEO tourism.

Well, of course.   ::)

Quote
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].

Not like those Mars colonies!  People are lining up to buy tickets to New Donner!

Quote
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. 

And with Mars colonies right around the corner, better to focus on that right now!   ;D

Quote
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).

Nor have we seen New Glenn, nor have we seen SH/SS, or an ECLSS that will last several months without resupply. 

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.  In fact, quite possibly once someone builds a single rotating station, we'll not see any Mars infrastructure for a long, long time, and if/when that takes place, it'll be a research station.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/19/2019 02:54 am
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.

I think that if SpaceX's annual R&D budget was that much, they wouldn't be doing $750M debt rounds or talking about how one tourism deposit enabled them to start on SH/SS years sooner. I strongly suspect you're off by a factor of five or more.  I worry that SpaceX is being stretched very thin right now.

Quote
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.

I'm not sure why anyone should believe that SpaceX will have any profits coming from Starlink any time within the next few years. As a singed Iridium and Globalstar investor, I'm fairly certain that Starlink will soak up any revenue it generates for years to come, and quite possibly much of SpaceX's revenues from launch services.

Quote
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.

I think it's pretty difficult to compare a business fighting to survive to a hobby that's just beginning to do some business.  Maybe by next year, or the year after. At what point shall we judge Blue Origin to be a living, breathing business?  When they stop getting $1B/year of pocket allowance?

And do we judge Blue to be a separate company, or really an unofficial subsidiary of Amazon?

Quote
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,

Careful.  Unless you're very close to Bezos, you can't know that.

Quote
...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.

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.

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.

SpaceX can't do that.  Musk has bet the whole company once on SH/SS, and once on Starlink. The problem with that strategy is that the day you lose for the first time is the day you lose the whole company.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they live through this one, but doing SH/SS and Starlink simultaneously is very, very dangerous.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/19/2019 03:29 am
The fact that SpaceX is an actual company, actually delivering stuff for customers ("fighting to survive", as you concern-troll it) is a point in their favor vs a hobby that can't seem to deliver BE-4 to ULA or put people on a suborbital rocket or even fly that rocket with convincing regularity.

SpaceX is fine. It's Blue I'm worried about. Blue has neither the drive of an Elon nor the operational efficacy of a Gwynne.

For instance, in 2016 they boasted: "More than three years into development, the BE-4 will be qualified for flight in 2017, at least two years sooner than any alternatives."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39674.msg1495938#msg1495938


Granted, it's ULA that is probably most impacted by this, but it's still not great. They're /hoping/ to be on their last development engine right now.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/19/2019 05:37 am
Dave - Jeff Bezos has done wonderfully well with Amazon.  I'm a fan.

With BO, however, under any sane interpretation, and especially in light of his achievements at Amazon, is stumbling badly.

A manned suborbital vehicle that's as late as Virgin Galactic's, a new engine that's very late even though the spec is relaxed compared to Raptor, a rocket that's so late it entirely missed the competition.

In theory BO might be doing better than "oldSpace" if they ever deliver, but even if they do, that's not a very high bar.

The oddly discombobulated long-range technology roadmap from a year ago and the recent talk of O'Neill cylinders doesn't help.  It makes it look like he's disconnected, and that might explain what we're seeing with BO.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 05/19/2019 06:25 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nomadd on 05/19/2019 09:00 am
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?
 Given BO's performance so far, I'm a little skeptical that they'll have the magic to transform into the company they hope to be.
 But, anybody who knows my record for predictions knows I'd only say that to insure they succeed.
 Right now, I'm not even sure what the basis for intelligently debating the thread subject is. It's comparing apples to really expensive apple seeds.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/19/2019 03:04 pm
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...)

That installation can do 13 Tb/s, so at a 5% utilization, that's around 2.5 exabytes per year. That means the installation can cover an average of 4 TB/user/year and 640,000 users. The running cost of the installation is basically only depreciation, which at 5 year life means $200 million per year. 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. Though SpaceX likely would pour additional billions in investment into Starlink, to get to the point where they are generating billions in profits per year quicker. More satellites means more capacity, better coverage, better utilization, more users, more profit.

Maybe the above is optimistic, but it's certainly not impossible.

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.

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/19/2019 03:58 pm
The good news about Blue is that they are expanding ever faster and continue to gain momentum.
The factory is basically done and outfitting it with machinery should be well underway. We saw big items in last article about it. The launch pad is getting closer to completion even if there is not much press about it. As we all know no launching of these rockets without it. Even relatively small stuff continues to improve, ie: Hiring a couple hundred employees is no longer an insurmountable task like a few years ago.

Faster progress would obviously be nice and less boring but the big infrastructure does take time. Esp. fpr the launchpad it is unclear to me if they could have finished years earlier.
Soon enough we'll all find out if they have a launch vehicle or an oversized confetti cannon. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (*cough* Ariane 5 2.0 *cough*)
The next question for me is if Blue will use that momentum and infrastructure to pick up the pace in 2021ish if they'll stop one more to work the next big thing instead.


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/19/2019 04:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Nathan2go on 05/19/2019 07:14 pm
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...

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.

...
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. ...

Oh sure.  I think a NASA-funded Lunar landing will happen first.  SpaceX wants a piece of that business, since most of the gear they build will be helpful for a Mars landing.  Without a forcing function however, the Lunar landing will degenerate into nothing more than flags and footprints.  The Moon is pretty boring, and the thrill (and funding) will die out pretty quickly.

If SpaceX then lands on Mars (even just a cargo ship containing de-hydrated food, fold-out solar panels, a radio beacon, camera, and a MOXIE-like ( https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/instruments/moxie/  ) oxygen generator demonstration except with tanked hydrogen for methane production), that will build public support for continued crewed space flight.  It will strengthen the Lunar program, keep NASA talking about a Mars landing in the 2030s, and keep NASA throwing money in SpaceXs' direction (for dual-use Martian/Lunar technologies).

So I agree that a Lunar landing will come first, but a Mars spaceport (where "Spaceport" as a minimum means a facility that produces propellant for returning vehicles, has pressurized living space, and has a stockpile of provisions) will happen before similar large scale Lunar ISRU.  ISRU is simply easier on Mars; as Zubrin argued in "The Case for Mars", if you bring your own LH2, no digging is necessary to make methalox.  Hauling enough LH2 to Mars for a return trip would use half of Starship's cargo mass, and most of the volume; but that's good enough to prove the concept and support getting say, half the initial landing ships back.  When digging for ice does start, again it's easier on Mars, since unlike the Moon, Mars has places with ice and sunlight, and the ice won't be as cold/hard.

I agree we're likely to have a new space station in LEO before long; the Axiom concept seems like a natural follow-on and/or supplement to the ISS:  https://axiomspace.com/.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/20/2019 04:24 am
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.

Let's remember that public opinion about the Apollo program never rose above 50% (see Fig. 5) (https://www.academia.edu/179045/_Public_Opinion_Polls_and_Perceptions_of_US_Human_Spaceflight_), and as the Apollo 13 movie reminded us, just two missions later landings on the Moon were already yesterdays news. Apollo 11 was exciting because it was a first for humanity, not just a first for the U.S., but once something becomes routine it gets replaced by something else.

Quote
I could be wrong, but I believe that crewed Lunar and Mars landings will have that effect again.

In our 24 hour news cycle there are lots of space-related things that the public gets excited about. And while there would be some excitement about the first woman to land on the Moon, that would quickly fade due to all the other things that demand our attention these days, both real and inconsequential. Meaning that our goal for going back to the Moon has to be for something more substantial than headlines.

Quote
If manned space exploration excites the public, then the political "leaders" will follow.

Not sure if you remember, but we've been in space - i.e. "manned space exploration" - continuously for over 18 years. People living and working in space, just like what this proposal would do, although the Trump proposal would result in far shorter periods of time (i.e. days vs years).

And while the "public" supports science and supports our efforts in space to some degree, they really don't pay that much attention to it on a daily basis. Ask a random person on the street when the last time was they watched the NASA TV ISS feed and see what the reaction is.

Quote
Everybody wants to step into the winners circle and be seen with the winner.

So your position, and the position of the Trump administration, is that today we are losers in space. Is that right?

If that is your position then that is part of the reason why I have a negative reaction to the Trump 2024 proposal, because I don't see that America is a loser in space right now. My opinion is that Trump has to demean the achievements of others in order to claim responsibility for any level of success achieved during his administration. In other words he would claim credit for the sun rising in the East if he could...

Quote
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.

Luckily both Blue Origin and SpaceX are disconnected from the Sturm und Drang of the U.S. Governments efforts in space.

Do they require more money to reach their respective goals? Yes!

Do they require government money? NO!!

Are they OK with taking government money if it helps them to achieve their own goals? YES!!!

Both Musk and Bezos are playing the long game, and neither needs to hitch their horse to the whims of the U.S. Government. Though I'm sure both hope that NASA one day can be pointed in a direction that coincides with their goals.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/23/2019 02:46 am
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Well, sure, but Blue doesn't have to take business at a loss if they don't want to.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/23/2019 04:28 am
...

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 don't get this fascination with how much money JB has.

Bigelow/BA has money. Paul Allen/Stratolaunch has money.

The USG/NASA has more than all of them combined.

Money doesn't automatically buy you engineering creds.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/23/2019 06:29 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yaotzin on 05/23/2019 07:59 am
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.

Also, the USG as much as just declared a new cold war, so that little "unless" just grew in size quite a bit.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/23/2019 10:12 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 05/23/2019 11:21 am
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.

The big cost here is the satellites. The rest can mostly be pieced together from readily available and cheap-ish services. I assume it would basically work something like this:

1. SpaceX doesn't advertise on Starlink, so you hear about Starlink from the media, a friend or elsewhere.
2. You go on the website, where you can order a package for say $500, where you get the antenna, receiver and three months access. Running subscription of $100/month beyond the first three months.
3. The package arrives (possibly straight from the manufacturer of the antenna/receiver) and you follow the directions in the package, setting up the antenna and connecting it to the receiver.
4. The receiver automatically connects to the visible satellites, so all you have to do is plug in the ethernet cable to your computer and use the account information given when placing the order.
5. Then you go online. The satellite can do direct connections between users on the same satellite, or it connects to a ground station and connects to the internet.

Basically, SpaceX can do this model without advertizing, data centers, content, warehousing, and a lot of other stuff. What they will need is ground stations (maybe 5 in the US, 30 globally, for the initial stages), as well as customer support. For the most part, this can be done on the cheap. As time progresses, they can start adding additional features.

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.

Rapid growth can be capital intensive, which may mean continual cap raises for many years, and a gradually falling ownership share. But on the other hand, 20% of a $100 billion company is worth more than 50% of a $20 billion company.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/23/2019 09:24 pm
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.
..  for less than one annual NASA budget.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 05/23/2019 09:31 pm
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.
..  for less than one annual NASA budget.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/23/2019 10:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 05/23/2019 11:23 pm
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.

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.
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]

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 05/23/2019 11:44 pm
All right, SpaceX is the new NASA, they will do the science only for the benefit of mankind, right? Ridiculous.

They will do whatever science is necessary to get making to Mars.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 05/23/2019 11:46 pm
SpaceX self funded sending a $100,000 car past mars orbit and quickly lost contact.

NASA has failed to make even momentary contact with ANY of the mass simulators they launched.

What's that got to do with Blue?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/23/2019 11:59 pm
I think there are two things that Blue has to do near term.
Successfully flying New Glenn , delivering customer payloads. (To me recovery is optional for a while.)
Not failing with New Shepard. Failing in the killing people -esp. customers- sense.

With both of those things under their belt they do have lot of options. It also ends the current development round.
Bezos having money is not everything but it can pay for a hell of a lot. I sometimes wonder if they picked up any interesting technology or companies during their expansion.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/24/2019 01:26 am
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.

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.
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]

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.
Well one question is how intentional it is.

Are you saying that BO could have been flying NG already, but are choosing not to?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2019 03:04 am
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.
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.

SpaceX has always been good at using customer launches to develop their reuse strategy. They were able to take the first stage booster, which is most of the cost of the launch, and after the mission was over, attempt reuse with it. That means that revenue can be almost as good as being pumped with an equal amount of cash to spend on tests. That's one strong way SpaceX has been able to punch well above their weight and why BlueOrigin's approach may not actually be better long-term (as it's limited to Bezos' wealth) unless Blue can start generating real revenue themselves.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 05/24/2019 07:32 pm
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.

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.
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. ...
Well one question is how intentional it is.
I think it's very intentional.
Quote
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?

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/24/2019 07:47 pm
Well one question is how intentional it is.
I think it's very intentional.
Quote
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?

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?

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.

Nobody is immune to this, and the solution is to keep top level architecture moving and keep innovating.

This risk is especially dangerous for "follower" type companies.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 05/24/2019 08:40 pm
People seem to forget SpaceX-Musk, founded in 2002, first orbit in 2008, had no credibility until a just a few years ago when they started launching customer payloads into orbit on a regular basis.  They were winning about half of the contracts but were not launching anything.  Basically Falcon 9 v1.1 was their winning ticket circa 2014, and they quickly built upon that.  By my logic no one should take Bezos-Blue seriously until 2026-2030 assuming New Glenn first flight in 2022-2023.

Even today only ULA and Ariane  5 (and SLS) are  allowed to launch billion dollar payloads. Blue is acting like their first [test] launch is going to be with a JWST like cannot fail mission.

Anyway I have never heard a reason and I do not understand why they would attempt New Glenn as their first orbital rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/24/2019 08:42 pm


Well one question is how intentional it is.
I think it's very intentional.
Quote
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?

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.


Doesn't bold well for SLS and Orion given their snail pace development.



Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 02:04 am
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.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/25/2019 03:02 am
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.

Quote
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.

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?
You are a hopeful man, I'll give you that.

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.

Blue fits inline with all the rest of them, with the one exception that JB is a lot richer than those other gentlemen.

So far, all that the money helped with is that the lack of results hasn't killed the company, and that some people think it's a matter of strategy...

Except that if JB is so rich, why would he be afraid of moving fast?  I mean I can see how a poor investor says he doesn't have money for two strong thrusts, so he'll bide his time until the market leader makes all the mistakes and then cunningly strike, when the time's just right...

But JB is richer than the queen...  What's he afraid of?  He can just go already, he's got all the money in the world for a second, or third strike...

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.

This race is increasingly looking like the boring company race from earlier today.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/25/2019 03:52 am
This race is increasingly looking like the boring company race from earlier today.

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.


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:

Quote
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/

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: svlu on 05/25/2019 04:18 am
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!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/25/2019 04:28 am


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 &amp; Whitney Rocketdyne circa 2012

BO and SpaceX were founded at the same time. Falcon 1 was in orbit 6 years later, some 11 years ago.

In order to claim to be "the next SpaceX" as your analogy implies, shouldn't BO be showing some signs of achievement?

----

A lot of us, self included, were looking forward to see what BO will do, since the day it was founded.   But for almost 20 years now, all we see are pretentious Latin slogans, fancy emblems, talk of secrecy, stealthiness, lightning fast following, leather jackets and ray-bans - but no rockets.  We got fed up. 

With all the money in the world, this should have been SpaceX on steroids. Instead we have slideshows from 50 years ago.

There's no technical leadership, only faint following.  Now they're into an "audacious telecom constellation" - is there no self respect left?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/25/2019 07:57 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 05/25/2019 12:30 pm
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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/25/2019 01:54 pm


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. 



Amazon mail order business is not their only line of business. AWS is probably more profitable and is going from strength to strength. There is also Amazon Prime internet TV and in few years satellite broadband.  I don't see Amazon going out of business anytime soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 06:39 pm
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.

Quote
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.

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?
You are a hopeful man, I'll give you that.

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.

True that it took some of Beal (money) and some of Kistler (vision) and some additional fanaticism to create some success, in SpaceX's case.

Quote
Except 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?

Quote
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.

Well...actually JB could be a huge deal poorer and they still wouldn't be bankrupt.  But yes, as you have observed they can afford to take their time.

For a company that's never launched anything, they sure do have a lot of launch contracts.  Sat companies are willing to make those contracts because of Bezos' reputation. What kind of reputation do you think he would have if Blue was willing to run their company the way you're suggesting?

Quote
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.

It seems to me that one of their very basic promises is to be very reliable, and that promise conflicts with your suggestion that they can afford to launch and fail several times over. So give it a couple of years, and allow them to build their pieces. In the mean time, their appearance of reliability will allow them to continue winning government and commercial contracts. I suspect that their careful preparation will help them launch things into space.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/25/2019 06:56 pm
Beside NG  launch contracts Blue has picked up BE-4 contract with ULA, and Airforce EELV replacement development funding.

ULA wouldn't bet their future on any old company same can be said for $100Ms Airforce is giving Blue.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 07:03 pm
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.

ULA only just passed CDR for Vulcan. Their launch date for Vulcan is 2 years from now. Good engineering management would put Blue's delivery date for BE-4 at about the time ULA needs it, several months from now when the first Vulcan is ready for fit checks. BE-4 is not holding up Vulcan.

Since New Glenn is aiming for about the same time frame, BE-4 isn't holding up New Glenn either. Blue can increase BE-4 power output by 1% per month for the next two years, thereby driving us all completely over the edge, and it'll still be at 100% by the time there's a rocket waiting for engines.

As for Starship, yes, we're all hoping Starship will be completely orbital by 2021.  Heck, I'm hoping they'll lop a year off that, but it's SpaceX, and their schedule generally never moves the direction I'm hoping for.

OmegA wouldn't surprise me if it makes orbit by July of this year, frankly, because all the pieces exist and ATK's been working on it since 1995, and the government has given ATK and NG several billion dollars thus far to get it airborne. It's been 24 years and I note that people trust Blue Origin far more than they do NG to get a rocket flying.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/25/2019 07:08 pm
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.

I suspect that one thing that rivals New Glenn's ambition for reliability is going to be the reliability of folks on this forum demanding that Blue goes faster or JB won't have proven his dedication sufficiently for their satisfaction.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2019 11:24 pm
...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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/25/2019 11:28 pm
...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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/25/2019 11:39 pm
Quote
Except 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?


Just the track record over the past two decades?

SpaceX:
Founded in 2002
F1 first flight in 2006
F1 orbital flight in 2008
F9 first flight (orbital) 2010
F9 Grasshopper 2012
Dragon at ISS 2012
F9 re-entry (Cassiope) 2013
F9 landing 2015
F9 reuse 2017
FH first flight 2018
Dragon 2 at ISS 2019
Production Raptor in 2019
Starhopper first hop 2019
Starlink first deploy 2019

BO: Founded in 2000 (two years earlier) and the only thing they've done is fly NS, which is an F1-sized grasshopper with a suborbital capsule, and build (still not finished) a large engine which (with all the time and money in the world, and lack of design baggage) is a second-best engine.

They've shown videos of an FH-Class rocket, a lunar lander, and aspirations for a comsat constellation and orbital industry - but they haven't built any of them.

So no, they're not moving fast.  They're just talking fast.

---

And no, the idea that it's intentional doesn't jive with their history of statements, and is inconsistent with even their own plans.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/26/2019 12:34 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ulm_atms on 05/26/2019 12:42 am
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......
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ulm_atms on 05/26/2019 01:03 am

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.

That is true, but the Starlink sats are very unique in their design.  If everything pans out for Starlink and it works as intended, I would give SpaceX the credit for developing the ability for very large constellations.  At this point, everyone said that it was not possible due to the amount of launches needed to send that many sats into space and wrote off Starlink as a "yea...right....sure...whatever".  SpaceX then turned sat design on it's head to make it possible...or at least attempt....they deserve some credit at least.

What industry changing/leading thing has BO done to date?  I agree with meekGee with the leadership part of BO...it's lacking.  See my post above for why I think it is lacking.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/26/2019 01:18 am
Not long ago the industry folk were snickering about SpaceX losing spectrum rights and being beaten to the punch by OneWeb. Now they’re complaining about seeing satellites at twilight.

It’s worth pointing out that kind of BS.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: JH on 05/26/2019 01:29 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/26/2019 02:25 am

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.

But they absolutely are leading progress in all these fields. They are practically dominating progress.

What progress has ULA made lately? ESA? BO? Come on.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/26/2019 03:31 am
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.

Relative scale is the difference here. If SpaceX were content to launch a single engine Grasshopper-type suborbital rocket up to the Karman line and back at a rate of a few launches a year, I’d imagine a flawless record would be a tad less challenging to achieve.

Heck, even Blue’s aspirational goals talk about maybe a dozen NG launches a year for the foreseeable future. That’s not a very exciting vision to me.

SpaceX in that same timeframe wants to achieve perhaps a hundred Starship launches per year, including multiple landings on the planet Mars per synod.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: JH on 05/26/2019 05:54 am
If I had to pick one of them, I’d go with SpaceX. I was just saying that there is sometimes a bit too much absolutism in this thread for my taste.

Blue neither is some garage project, not has it made as much progress as one might have expected, given how long it’s been around and how much cash has been — and is being — pumped into it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/26/2019 02:21 pm
I want to be clear.

I absolutely want and think Blue Origin will succeed.

There’s room for more than 1.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 05/26/2019 03:44 pm
Blue origin is the clear runner up, leaps and bounds above the rest of the pack. But it's sad to look at them out in front of the rest, and look at SpaceX running like the Devil is at their heels.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/26/2019 04:47 pm
I want to be clear.

I absolutely want and think Blue Origin will succeed.

There’s room for more than 1.
I also want ULA to turn around and start heading in a sensible direction.

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.

But as you say though, one can still hope.

If there's anyone else out there that's relevant, them maybe in China. Certainly not in the US or in Europe.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/26/2019 05:19 pm
China recently announced a reusable lv and the incorporation of methane engine (at first glance very similar to BE-4 but about 1/4 the thrust)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Slarty1080 on 05/26/2019 06:53 pm
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 think part of the difference is down to how the pair handle their other day jobs. Jeff spends one day a week at Blue and the rest with Amazon, whereas Elon mostly splits his time between SpaceX and Tesla. But Elon works ludicrous hours probably putting in in a 40+ hour working week at both Tesla and SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 05/27/2019 01:17 am
I absolutely want and think Blue Origin will succeed.

There’s room for more than 1.
I also want ULA to turn around and start heading in a sensible direction.

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.

The reason I'm skeptical of BO is that there are "Gradatim Ferociter" organizations that still show serious progress.   Take JPL or JHU/APL for example.  They are definitely "Gradatim" - they are risk averse, they analyze the crap out of everything, they try really, really hard to make stuff work the first time.  But the end result is "Ferociter" - ground-breaking missions to everywhere in the solar system.   And though expensive, they meet schedules defined years in advance - they have to, to meet planetary launch windows.

BO has a budget that is in the same league as JPL (which is about $1.6B per year (https://www.space.com/16952-nasa-jet-propulsion-laboratory.html)), and so even with a  "Gradatim Ferociter" philosophy should be capable of pushing back the frontiers of what is possible.   But the evidence so far is scant.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 05:01 am

...

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?

That's a nice balanced post, and you of course are big about JB's being an "O'Neillist", but then:

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.

So Dave - you envision a sky full of "cis-lunar industry" (whatever that means) and love the notion of "Millions of people working in space" - and then you turn your nose at satellite flares that are only visible during sunrise/sunset windows?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 05/27/2019 10:53 am
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.

Raptor can be iterated every ~3 weeks which is a perfect sign of SpaceX's lets do it approach. I bet it will take Blue far longer than 3 weeks to iterate BE-4.

Once Starlink starts earning revenue then no one will be able to catch up with SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/27/2019 03:05 pm
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/27/2019 03:40 pm
SpaceX has their work cut out for them setting up the Mars City and doing logistics for the lunar base and exploring the rest of the solar system. It’ll take way longer than 10 years.

But assuming they’ve accomplished that, then they have to terraform Mars which will take 100 years just to get above the Armstrong Limit and a thousand years to get anything like breathable.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/27/2019 04:04 pm
SpaceX has the much better approach and business strategy than Blue because they actually get things done with a fairly limited budget.

Yes, and maybe one way to describe the two is:

- SpaceX is an operational business that has customers.

- Blue Origin is still in product development and, for the most part, doesn't have paying customers to worry about yet.

A company changes when there are real customers paying you money for a service, especially when that money is important to you getting a paycheck.

Quote
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.

Blue Origin doesn't have an unlimited budget, but the difference between the visible sense of urgency between SpaceX and Blue Origin is rather stark. That said, in a world without SpaceX Blue Origin would be viewed as making great progress, so it's not like they are industry laggards, just that in comparison to SpaceX it is clear who is able to gets things done quicker.

Quote
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.

I think Blue Origin can be very successful in the commercial launch world with New Glenn, and by themselves they will be a very tough competitor due to the cost advantage reusability gives them, since everyone else but SpaceX will still be bidding expendable rockets.

And New Glenn will be very useful in helping to expand humanity out into space, just maybe not as efficiently as SpaceX will be able to do assuming they perfect the Starship/Super Heavy combo.

Quote
Once Starlink starts earning revenue then no one will be able to catch up with SpaceX.

Yes there is competition between Blue Origin and SpaceX, but they are not the only two launch providers in this world, and there is plenty of room for both of them to be successful. And we WANT both to be successful, because we need to encourage reusable transportation system development so that we can continue to lower the cost to access space, and that is the only way we'll be able to afford to move humanity out into space.

I just wish Blue Origin would go faster...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/27/2019 04:07 pm
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 it means they have achieved their Starship aspirations, which in turn means they have the cheapest access to space by perhaps an order of magnitude.

We have seen them pursue Starlink as a means to their Mars end. That ultimate Mars goal will require trillions upon trillions of dollars to sustain. And if SpaceX has already mastered cheap access to space, cheap mass satellite construction, deep space navigation and logistical support and all the other advances that go along with establishing a Mars colony, then they will OF COURSE utilize those competitive advantages to try and dominate asteroid mining, lunar colonization and any other industrial activities in space that they can derive revenue from.

There is no reason why they would focus on Mars only. In fact, while all of their other space activities will be profit generators, Mars will perpetually soak up spare capital. So the continuation of their Mars ambitions REQUIRES that they continue to pursue all these other revenue opportunities at the same time.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: launchwatcher on 05/27/2019 04:47 pm
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

Shotwell has much higher long-term ambitions: expanding beyond earth is only “the first step [towards] moving to other solar systems and potentially other galaxies; I think this is the only time I ever out-vision Elon.”

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-shotwell-bfr-mars-rocket-texas/

They'll find stuff to do.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 04:48 pm
Exactly - Starship is just a tool.

I also think Mars is the first place to settle, but if someone wanted a moon lab or telescope or resort - that person can buy a Starship, or buy Starship flights during the off season, or however they'll structure it.

Manned asteroid missions?  I think that's in the cards and in the near future. Mining there?  Hmmm.  That's a tough call.  A bit of chicken and egg problem, unless it solves something fundamental for the Mars colony.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/27/2019 05:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 05:10 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/27/2019 05:21 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 05:24 pm
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.

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.

And then yes, SpaceX will be on it early
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/27/2019 05:26 pm
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 05:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/27/2019 07:47 pm



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.




Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 09:05 pm
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.

Though - to be fair - it'll take some exploration to understand how to separate out precious metals in situ.  Otherwise all you'll be hauling back is iron...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/27/2019 09:15 pm
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. During that period Blue might be (hopefully) filling in more infrastructure pieces. And then SpaceX will move back into cislunar infrastructure development as they begin to have money to spend.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/27/2019 09:22 pm
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.

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.

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.

Given the cost of getting materials to space, even with the drop in launch costs, that's still where they're worth the most.  If someone can capture a 300-1000 mT asteroid, just a small boulder by most standards, that's actually useful material no matter what it's made of.  It may be radiation shielding, construction material, rocket fuel, unrefined gases, fertilizer...whatever it is, it will be useful and eventually valuable.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/27/2019 09:23 pm
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.

Bingo.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 09:26 pm
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.

Clearly that's already happening, with just the effort to bring up Starlink completely paralyzing Starship development.

Can't wait to see how deployment will slow them down.

That was sarcasm, btw.  Suitably used since how can you have possibly missed that over the last 6 months, both projects have blown any observer out of the water with how fast they're progressing. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/27/2019 09:29 pm



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.

Yeah, but that outlook suffers from the problem of there not being a market, and the market is not there since you don't have resources - thus chicken and egg.

The focus proposed above, trying to find precious metals in highly concentrated ready-to-use form is interesting, since if it's possible, and at Starship pricing, the market exists and it's a way to bootstrap operations there.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/27/2019 11:48 pm
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 accelerated Mars Colonization build the Starship XX as a true Colonial transport. A 20 meter diameter space vehicle to transport lots of stuff from Earth to Mars. Could be launch with Super Heavy with no cargo and partial propellant load to LEO to be outfitted with payload and full propellant load. Send off a squadron/fleet of them with every Mars launch window.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 02:43 am



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?

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/28/2019 03:36 am



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?

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.

There's

9) real estate

All habitable off-Earth settlements are built by people.  As on Earth, some locations are sweeter than others, but the biggest impediment to building in orbit other than in LEO is bulk material for shielding and atmosphere.  If you can get bulk material back to cislunar space, you can build better real estate than just inflatable bolos. Assuming you can do it for a price that someone can and wants to afford, you can sell your real property and build more.

The off-Earth real estate market already exists, as evidenced by the fact that companies like SpaceX and Bigelow go out and try to sell real estate (in the form of stations and bases) to countries and private customers.  Most people don't normally think of a real estate market in space, but it's there in its early stages.  Some caveats are that the building methods are very different in comparison to what we use on Earth's surface, and the codes are entirely up to the contractor.

I think of orbital space settlements as pretty much a straight real estate play, subject to all of the same investment rules plus more technical due diligence.  Pick a spot, finance, build, sell, repeat. Build commercial, mixed and residential, because you'll need all three to drive your business.  Just like all early developments out in the middle of nowhere, careful planning and marketing are key.

There are a lot of volatiles you can't get from the Moon, but that you can get from an asteroid.  The biggie is nitrogen, ubiquitous on Earth but more precious in space. When I think of bulk materials being brought back to cislunar space, either through direct transportation or capture, I imagine nitrogen compounds and precious metals as the most important, on the premise that everything else is available to launch electrically from the lunar surface.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 04:11 am
Real estate is a secondary market. Secondary to space settlement.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 05/28/2019 05:20 am
I was wondering if one reason blue appears so slow and somewhat vague is a combination of long pole critical dependencies not being finished and Bezos only wanting to announce when a particular project is ready. Let's assume they have a lot of good in space infrastructure in advanced development, but it only makes sense to announce it once their orbital launcher is ready. The launcher is likely stalled on the BE4 engine getting ready. Engines take a long time for everyone. 
Normally they would not have mentioned blue moon at this point either except Artemis as a potential customer forced their hand. If my theory is true we should see a lot more announcements once NG is flying.
Of course there is still a limit how much their organization can do in parallel, so we shouldn't see too many either. But perhaps with NG flying some of these resources could work on the next projects and there should be a steady flow of announcements in the future.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 11:19 am
He announced New glenn and Blue Moon well before either was ready.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 05/28/2019 12:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 02:18 pm
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.

Blue Moon also wasn't that secret, at least not any more than MCT/ITS/BFR/Starship was before 2016.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/28/2019 07:35 pm
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 do have that impression as well, i.e. that they talk about things sometimes in a vague sense, but only specifically when they want to bid on something.  When they spoke about Blue Moon a few years ago, I had the impression of a tiny lander.  I was a bit blown away when I saw the full scale model in the recent presentation.

In retrospect, I have the impression that details for New Glenn came with the announcement of collaboration with ULA for BE-4.  In other words, both major components we know about (New Glenn, Blue Moon) fit the idea that they were announced because it was necessary to announce them.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 05/28/2019 07:36 pm
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 thought JB's so rich and that he can afford to move slowly because he doesn't need customers and can finance BO forever and that's the whole beauty of this cunning plan...

If BO needs customers, I suggest they make a rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/28/2019 07:57 pm
The market for space settlement will be really small for a long time.

The word "small" is a relative term.  The one piece of space real estate that still exists cost $150 billion. And that would be why a certain real estate billionaire keeps making noises like he's going to sell space real estate.

Quote
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).

You either believe that rocket travel will become cheaper in the near future or you don't, I guess.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
So 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 05/28/2019 07:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 05/28/2019 08:19 pm
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.

It's entirely possible for Blue to be really inefficient, AND for reusable rockets to be really hard, AND for the BE/NG/NA teams to not be all that large, and others are working on lots of stuff that hasn't been announced.  :)

One of my own unfounded suspicions is that Elon Musk has been a bit of a pathfinder for Jeff Bezos, in that Bezos has had these carefully laid plans to do something he views as incredibly daunting and difficult that will require the rest of his life because he's not a government.  Musk has demonstrated that one can get a lot done in a hurry if one is not a government, with a much smaller budget, and not only that, Musk throws shade on Bezos every so often for being so slow. So Bezos is still getting used to the idea that (a) he has a hell of a lot of money and (b) he can get a lot done too, in addition to (c) he needs to hire a Gwynne Shotwell instead of micro-managing the company whenever he gets a spare moment.  Bezos is very smart, but he also has a very careful, methodical personality - he's the Augustus to Musk's Julius.

The inefficiency lies in working for a few years on things like New Shepard, because of course one should work several years on hydrolox suborbital rockets before one carefully moves on to something more ambitious, and works on that for a several years...

Another one of my unfounded suspicions is that because of his chessplayer personality, Bezos does have a lot of pieces for which he sees no need to make announcements, and we'll find out what he's got when he's damned well good and ready. Some of the pieces can be reasonably deduced, like a return capsule, and some come as a surprise, like fuel-cell-based IVF in a really big lunar lander that also happens to sport a hydrolox expander cycle engine we'd never heard of.

But yeah, I think they're working on all the tall poles at once, and we'll find out what they some are in the next two or three years.

(Bob Smith is the CEO of Blue Origin.  Bob Smith is smart. Bob Smith also comes from a long and distinctive career in dinospace, which makes him great at politics and slow at the things I value more.  Now that Blue is working with Maxar, I'm kind of waiting for Bezos to hire away Mike Gold as his CEO, and Mike Gold will release the proverbial Kraken.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Barley on 05/28/2019 11:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/28/2019 11:57 pm
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.
When the off-world population is of the same order of magnitude as the US, then sure.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/29/2019 12:03 am
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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/29/2019 12:44 am
Quote
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.

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.
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.
Quote
Quote
So 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'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.

...but I'll try to ensure that we DO get huge LEO habitats in spite of my skepticism they'll happen. A small chance of something good happening is not reason enough to not encourage it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/29/2019 12:51 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/29/2019 01:05 am
Luckily, we can even support both.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 05/29/2019 01:20 am
Luckily, we can even support both.

I have raised the question before about whether this can be a win-win situation for all - particularly when it comes to slicing the revenue pie between the various competitors. Particularly in the early years I don’t necessarily think more competition will result in a better overall outcome.

SpaceX isn’t fighting Blue out of pride or personal vendetta or some similar petty reason. They are fighting them because they need every scrap of revenue that Blue might encroach upon.

In my view, if Blue went out of business tomorrow, the likelihood of SpaceX reaching Mars sooner rather than later increases without a doubt.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 05/29/2019 07:17 am

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/29/2019 07:38 am
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.

Those in the "club for the future" will most likely see the end of the century (or close to it).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Barley on 05/29/2019 07:56 pm
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.
When the off-world population is of the same order of magnitude as the US, then sure.
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.

These examples include intangibles in trade and are also in the context of cheap transport, so they don't push the limits of physically isolated economies.  They do show that your "necessarily" is unwarranted.  Historically we can find much smaller economies that were much more isolated, because transport was relatively more expensive. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chasm on 05/30/2019 12:13 am

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.


At some point Jeff said that he spend a total of ~500 million USD on Blue so far - not including  BE-4 development.
Was it 2 years or so before the 1 Billion a year announcement?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/01/2019 11:44 pm
Do we know how many flight-like development BE-4s Blue Origin has made/tested? When they blew one up, they claimed to be “hardware rich,” so that implies several, but I have so no evidence so far of more than like 2 or 3 of them (flight-like ones).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 06/02/2019 03:16 am

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.

That's not entirely correct. If these end markets supply the secondary markets as well (like in space mining and fuel production requiring telecom services and space tourism companies catering for maintenance personnel etc) you get multipliers that increase the space based economy to be far greater than what is sold to earth bound customers. They do need to be able to provide services to each other on both directions or in a loop, so this requires a certain combination of space based activities.


Edit: and that's even before there are people living in space. At that point, there are end users in space and trade with earth needs to be no higher than needed to import what they need but can't be produced as economically in space yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/02/2019 04:14 am
The problem of providing these space services is that you're addressing a smaller market than the primary markets I listed. A lot of space enthusiasts (some of which become space entrepreneurs) focus a lot on things like space mining for propellant, but this is actually a *tiny* secondary market. It will become relevant if there's just a massive amount of space activity going on, but you don't get there with a self-licking ice cream cone.

So unless you're like Bezos and can just straight up fund a space settlement or whatever, with financial support basically indefinitely from interest alone, then you really should be focusing on expanding those primary markets.

There's not a huge amount of money to be made in mining propellant.

The amount of money to be made mining propellant is a lot less than the money to be made in space launch itself,
...which is a lot less than the money to be made in satellite manufacture...
...which is a lot less than the money to be made in operating those satellites (for one of the primary markets I mentioned).

...which is why it makes total sense for SpaceX to leverage their launch capability to make satellites and do Starlink. A lot of people gave crap to SpaceX for it, but the margins in satellite services are FAR greater than for space launch. It's really the only logical step they can go. And it's way less insane than starting a launch company (let alone a space propellant mining firm).

...if the market for space launch were ten times larger, then SpaceX could justify a large, full RLV without having to branch out into satellites. But at ~20 launches per year, they've already basically saturated the launch market and the only real option they have is to enter the higher margin space markets and, even if they're not super profitable, at least they'll be able to create their own demand for a full RLV.


I think Bezos understands this strategy, now. That's why Amazon is also wanting a megaconstellation. And that's all very good if you want the cost of launch to come down so we can become a truly spacefaring civilization.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 06/07/2019 09:43 pm
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.

And NASA said, "Let real estate exist."  And it was so.

So we'll see whether anyone takes NASA's offer, and if they do, someone else will (probably) decide to do it too.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-releases-iss-commercialization-plan/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Cheapchips on 06/20/2019 08:10 am
Bezos's  meme comments at the JFK summit made me think of this thread.  To paraphrase, a successful meme lacks nuance and creates conflict.  Pretty much sums up how Bezo and Musk talk about each others efforts.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Rondaz on 07/09/2019 06:23 pm
Buzz Aldrin is looking forward, not back—and he has a plan to bring NASA along..

"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/
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/10/2019 03:29 am
Buzz Aldrin is looking forward, not back—and he has a plan to bring NASA along..

"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/
Buzz and the spaceflight community...

(also, accidentally perfect meme image...)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/26/2019 10:22 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/27/2019 09:18 am

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.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rokan2003 on 07/27/2019 09:39 am

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.
Points 1 and 2 above, sure. But point 3 isn't accurate. BO can fly New Shepard whenever they choose to.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: kevinof on 07/27/2019 09:53 am
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.


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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/27/2019 11:01 am
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)

Quote
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.

Absolutely agreed, was trying to make that point with my post. They are too different to compare apples-to-apples.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 07/27/2019 11:25 am
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)
Is it possible that milestone payments for various contracts have been triggered by Starhopper is an interesting question.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/28/2019 02:19 am
Well for one thing, New Shepard is more than 10 years old:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard#Development

"...The full-scale vehicle was initially expected to be operational for revenue service as early as 2010..."
"...An initial flight test of a prototype vehicle took place on 13 November 2006..."
The current version of the vehicle is 4.5 years old. (first flight in April 2015)

I don't expect SpaceX to fly hopper at a rate of 2/year for the next 5 years.

If New Shepard is "operational", then it is failed in that respect.
If New Shepard is "developmental", then it is just very slow.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/28/2019 07:52 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/28/2019 07:03 pm

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'd actually be surprised if it doesn't.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/28/2019 07:50 pm

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'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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dgmckenzie on 07/28/2019 08:11 pm
That'll be Mk1 and/or Mk2.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: punder on 07/28/2019 08:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/28/2019 08:39 pm


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'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 make 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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/28/2019 08:52 pm
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/28/2019 09:00 pm



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'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...

It's definitely another example of the 'iterative, on the fly R&D testing' mentioned in the original post of this thread as SpaceX' aproach. Build a relatively cheap prototype, do tests, adapt the final design to lessons learned, rinse and repeat.

I don't really know what Blue Origin does, but I assume they do quite a lot, causing their tests to be few and far between (relative to SpaceX at least). However, their progress made by these tests should become visible at some point. Otherwise, we'll continue to question whether there's actually considerable progress.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/28/2019 11:55 pm
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...

So for NG to "succeed", BO needs SS to fail, according to you.

This sounds awfully close to ULA's and Arianne's lines of reasoning.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 07/29/2019 12:13 am
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: butters on 07/29/2019 12:50 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/29/2019 01:10 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 07/29/2019 01:10 am
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.

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.

NG could eventually be better than F9/FH after it proves itself and matures.  When it comes online it will not have made orbit yet.  It will not have gone through a recovery, refurbishment and reflight yet.  It will still only be partially reusable like F9/FH, throwing away the second stage as well as the fairing.  Both of which will be significantly larger and more expensive than the corresponding SpaceX F9 versions (obviously more capable to go along with the larger size and cost.)  This is of course, assuming that they nail everything relatively quickly (reach orbit, land the booster on a moving ship, keep it from falling over, secure it and return it to port, etc.  None of these tasks was easy for SpaceX.  Blue has the benefit of being a follower (not necessarily a fast one) so hopefully they won't repeat any of SpaceX's mistakes.  They'll likely encounter new mistakes.

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.

Being better than F9/FH is not a given, it's going to have to be proven.  It certainly has the better specs on paper, but reality may intrude on their plans.

And in all that time, SpaceX will not be standing still.  Worst case, SS/SH could match NG with an expendable S2.  Best case, they'll be flying and reusing SS/SH at the same time that NG comes online.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/29/2019 01:40 am
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/29/2019 01:54 am
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.

When they finish the NG they don't have to wait nothing, no capex, no amortization, nothing...And is no the same start a program like NA with more the 2000 employees complete focus in this system, than start a program with a giant leap from NS to the NG with less the 1000 employees and zero experience ...

They will have ready, the ramp, the engine test facility in FL, the assembly factory in FL, the engine factory in Huntsville, the experiencie with the engines BE-4, BE-3, BE-7, with the lander Blue Moon, etc... and all this hardware and the experience, if they need for her development in the new system...etc...

And revenue from ULA, commercial sats customer with NG, tourists customer with NS, maybe with Blue Moon for NASA Artemis program, and the one billion annual from Bezos...

I think so is difficult to think they don't will go faster...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/29/2019 02:22 am


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.



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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/29/2019 02:42 am


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"?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/29/2019 02:42 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: lonestriker on 07/29/2019 03:02 am
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...

From Elon's statements, there's little refurbishment of the Merlin engines.  They are mature at this point so even matching Merlin's reuse profile will be a huge accomplishment for the BE-4 engine, so the whole Kerolox vs. Methalox thing is overrated:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1143195449425321984


Regarding Blue all of a sudden also figuring out how to reuse the fairings: Elon has only now just stated that they think they've figured it out.  That's after years of trying and failing.  SpaceX also makes their own fairings, so they can make modifications to them for better reuse.  Does Blue even make its own fairings?  I don't know there. 

You have either far too much blind faith in Blue or think far too little of the actual difficulty of reuse.  Doing anything like SpaceX is not going to be easy and needs a sense of purpose.  SpaceX has that because they need to cut costs everywhere or they may go out of business.  As you've stated previously, Blue isn't driven by the need for funding.  So why would they bother trying to recover fairings instead of more valuable improvements like S2 reuse, or a Starship S2 clone?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/29/2019 03:06 am


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"?

Richer... "now" until 2015 Bezos only put 500 million in all that time in the projects of BLUE.  I don't say the contracts wins for SpaceX are not fair,  I only say that helped a lot to be what is SpaceX today, and go faster today (not wiht the Dragon 2...but still is the better the velocity,  if we compare with Boeing and the Starliner, that received more money).

I only say if NASA instead of give that money, of the commercial crew program to a "OldSpace" company like Boeing, would have given to BLUE, maybe now we will have two partial reuse rockets like Falcon 9 and the OTS...

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.

I don't say BLUE is better in any case...in my opinion in the long run term, the chemical propulsion is almost in her limit possible and don't have a strong moat, that can't be replicated...

And I only say, why Blue have been slower in all this time, but why should be go much faster in the moment they delivery the NG...thats all...I still think so SpaceX and Blue will dominated the launcher market for years...

PD: Sorry Lar, english is my second language and I still try to write proper...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 07/29/2019 03:30 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/29/2019 03:54 am
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 07/29/2019 05:00 am
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...


Blue doesn't need to develop its own FFSC engine to compete with Raptor; Blue needs to finish and fly BE-4. Just because Raptor is a better engine that doesn't mean that BE-4 isn't a very good engine in its own right (or at least it will be once it enters production).

As for BE-7's pace of development, that's a very different thing than BE-4. It's a much simpler dual-expander cycle and it's been under active development for over three years. It's not on the same critical path, so Blue could develop it completely independently. Also, in order to get their designed use out of it, Blue has to get it to the Moon and that requires BE-4.

As for delays on Starship, there don't really seem to be any significant ones at the moment. Yes, the first hop came later than SpaceX originally planned, but since SpaceX is producing Starhopper and Starship in parallel it really hasn't had much of an effect on the overall schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 07/29/2019 05:09 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/29/2019 12:19 pm
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.
I love Elon but this particular statement? Yeah, no, it was a taunt, not a real offer.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Spindog on 07/29/2019 12:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kabloona on 07/29/2019 12:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/29/2019 02:57 pm
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 them...

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/29/2019 03:25 pm
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.

Not having customers demanding progress probably did slow them down, but that is entirely Blue's fault, not NASA's or SpaceX's. They waited until the last 2 years to secure any customers for an orbital launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/29/2019 04:22 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/29/2019 04:57 pm
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

Falcon is actually winning and flying NSSL missions, so New Glenn is way behind it there.

As for Starship, the LSA award was heavily skewed toward a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of the market, so I'd say the better indicator is how it's competing with New Glenn on the commercial market. So far, New Glenn has a half-dozen or so commercial launches booked, while Starship has only DearMoon.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/29/2019 05:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/29/2019 05:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/29/2019 05:21 pm
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.

An empty lot might have been easier to work with, but that doesn't relate to my point. Blue has had plenty of time to build a pad from scratch since they lost the bid for 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/29/2019 05:26 pm

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. Okay, the Nazis win WWII. What does the world look like in 2019. Please provide evidence.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Wudizzle on 07/29/2019 05:45 pm
Now that we've invoked Godwin's Law for no reason other than personal axe-grinding, perhaps we can move this thread back toward the topic.

Perhaps it would be interesting to view Blue Origin and SpaceX as portfolio companies. We tend to want to line up rockets and compare them 1:1. In reality, these companies have multiple product lines and corresponding capabilities in production, under development, and on the roadmap. Comparing the operational capabilities of the entire portfolios for a given date (using company-provided roadmaps/dates) might be more instructive.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/29/2019 06:00 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/29/2019 06:03 pm
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.
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).

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/29/2019 06:06 pm

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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/29/2019 06:28 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/29/2019 06:47 pm

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.

They don't actually use the BE-3 for suborbital tourism, though. Despite saying they wold for several years now. And Merlin was flight qualified in 2005, while Blue took until 2015 to do the same.

And Blue has had plenty of assistance from the government. They got twice as much USAF money and the same access to NASA/USAF resources for BE-4 as SpaceX got for Raptor, and it's not at all clear that they are as far along with that project. And that's probably the best example of Blue working quickly.

Blue is slow because they aren't in a hurry. It's as simple as that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kabloona on 07/29/2019 06:59 pm

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.

For the 1 or 2 Class C missions relevant to the LSA procurement, the Air Force chose to believe that New Glenn would be ready before Starship, and that judgment call, which is already being shown to be questionable based on (1) Raptor's being flight-ready, at least for hops, (2) SpaceX already building Starship and SuperHeavy prototypes, vs Blue's lagging on BE-4 and apparently not even building engineering development hardware yet for New Glenn.

So the Air Force awarded Blue the LSA money despite (1) having zero present-day capability for the 30+ Class A and B payloads that F9 could be launching now, and (2) Blue clearly losing the schedule race between New Glenn and Starship/Super Heavy.

In fact, you could make a contrarian case that  the Air Force awarded the LSA money to Blue *because* they knew Blue was lagging, and needed more money/incentive to light a fire under them. Essentially rewarding them for having gotten almost nowhere with New Glenn except for an engine that can't even run at full thrust yet. Oh, and building some nice production facilities.

So one of SpaceX's main complaints in the lawsuit is that Blue is being rewarded for failure. No wonder they're suing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/29/2019 08:54 pm
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's the art of cherry picking the numbers you work with.
Step 1: Decide what you want to claim
Step 2: Find a way to structure your data or your metric to support the claim
Step 3: Describe the process backwards, starting from step 2.

This is how you also argue that re-use is working badly, or is not viable, or was a mistake, and that expendable rockets still make sense.  We've seen this from multiple people, some of them industry insiders, over the last 5 years.  It doesn't change anything of course, and in fact it probably convinced some of the old space companies to make some unfortunate decisions.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/29/2019 09:21 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 07/29/2019 09:29 pm

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.
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,
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Wudizzle on 07/29/2019 09:35 pm

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.

Questionable perhaps, but SpaceX had reached orbit, a baseline requirement for any of these missions. If SpaceX had not reached orbit, and subsequently NASA had not thrown them money, I don't think many people would have been surprised or overly upset about that decision-making rationale.

Maybe SpaceX would be dead and buried. Something something about no facts for alternative histories.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/29/2019 09:38 pm
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.

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.

This thread is kind of stale, it's so blindingly obvious that SpaceX is ahead of everyone else put together it's not that interesting any more. But I can't just do what everyone else would do and ignore it.

Also, I know Mike Godwin, that wasn't an example of Godwin's Law.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 07/29/2019 10:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 07/30/2019 12:50 am
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.
Let's not actually call people trolls. Just let people draw their own conclusions.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/30/2019 02:31 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/30/2019 03:46 am
I think Lar is closer to the truth in that the LSA is to increase competition not limit it. In which case the position would be SpaceX needs no help to be the front runner in any competition. It is just that fairness of FAR has been stretched almost to the breaking point in the LSA case. If someone is picking winners and loosers by other methods than fair and open competition then where is the sole sourced/or other documentation explaining why a FAR waiver is required.

All in all this points to SpaceX being in the upper hand position in any competition with Blue for government launch contracts.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/30/2019 04:42 am

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:

Quote
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.)

So, they were evaluated on price, exactly like CRS.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 07/30/2019 06:56 am
I can't see how winning one customer or other really says anything about BO/New Glenn or SpaceX/Starship being further along. Customers will always have specific requirements where one launch vehicle can be selected over another based on small details.

Which will reach orbit first, New Glenn prototype or Starship prototype? Probably starship.
Which will reach orbit first, New Glenn "final" product or Starship "final" product? More difficult to say. Depends a lot on how fast SpaceX can nail down Starship design. I think I would bet on New Glenn.
Which will see reuse first, New Glenn first stage or Super Heavy booster? My guess is Super Heavy.
Which will first launch a mission to the moon or mars? Probably Starship.

New Glenn isn't an entirely direct competitor to Starship of course. Starship has over three times the payload capability and is fully reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kabloona on 07/30/2019 01:01 pm

edit: the redacted SpaceX document says this:

Quote
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.)

So, they were evaluated on price, exactly like CRS.

And now you've hit on another (alleged) unfairness in the LSA competition. The SpaceX complaint says the Air Force added "optional" vertical integration facilities into SpaceX's total cost, while failing to add any of ULA's gov't-funded infrastructure subsidies for Atlas V that Vulcan would also be benefiting from. So it's not clear that the Air Force actually did the cost comparison fairly.

But let's not go down the lawsuit path on this thread. There's an entire thread dedicated to the lawsuit here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48188.0

Suggest further lawsuit discussions go there.

But back to Blue vs. SpaceX. I don't actually have a problem with Blue getting LSA funds. I want to see New Glenn succeed, just like I want to see Starship/Super Heavy succeed.

But let's not pretend that the Air Force LSA award decision really means anything except the Air Force wanting to fund New Glenn, Vulcan, and OmegA because they want those vehicles to succeed, and they didn't see any reason to further dilute their limited funding pool on Starship, which they probably viewed as Elon's expensive pipe dream and not likely to fly in the next 5+ years.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/30/2019 01:28 pm

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:

Quote
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.)

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 award decision and solicitation are completely incongruous (and the award evaluation allegedly grossly miscalculates the cost), which is why SpaceX is contesting the award.

For CRS cost was a much more severely limiting factor, and Boeing and Lockheed were not even in the ballpark on price. Anyway, ULA didn't have a proven (and already certified) complete solution for 95% of CRS mission, so the comparison is irrelevant. ULA isn't a spacecraft operator and would have been starting from the same position as the other competitors.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/30/2019 03:07 pm

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:

Quote
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.)

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.

Quote
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.)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/30/2019 03:50 pm

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:

Quote
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.)

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.

Quote
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.)

Mission related technical and schedule risk are also assessed under the "more important" EELV Approach criteria, though. Specifically:

Quote
... 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Kabloona on 07/30/2019 03:57 pm
OK guys, now you're really down the lawsuit rathole. There's a whole thread for that. Please use it.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48188.0

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/30/2019 04:11 pm

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.

You aren't applying cost weighting with common sense. If the bid was $1 trillion, but it was the best approach by far, cost would be the over-riding factor. If that was unstated, it should be assumed.

Anyways, this is all talking about probabilities based on incomplete information. Without seeing the solicitation, the award decision and all the proposals, I would defer to the only people that have done so that doesn't have a bias for one company or another and that is the air force.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/30/2019 04:15 pm
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.

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.
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.

Asserting that SpaceX "won" by losing the LSA sounds more like a fact twist to me.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: tater on 07/30/2019 04:30 pm
While it is uncontroversial to say that BO won the LSA (which is a simple statement of fact), I read that statement by @edkyle99 to be in the context that BO was winning the "race" between SpaceX and BO. Was I wrong to do so?

As to how important that LSA is in terms of objectively ranking the capability of the companies... I think it doesn't do that at all.

In terms of the overall ranking of which company is "ahead" right now there is no possible question that it's SpaceX. That can certainly change in time, but that moment will necessarily be at some point after BO actually achieves orbit, not any time before that.

As to the thread topic of which business strat is better, I guess I'm in the wait and see camp.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 07/30/2019 05:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 07/30/2019 06:25 pm
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.

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.
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.

Asserting that SpaceX "won" by losing the LSA sounds more like a fact twist to me.

 - Ed Kyle

The only strategy that winning the LSA really supports is the "wait until the government funds your development of a Falcon Heavy competitor" strategy.

Is that a better business strategy than spending your own money to develop and fly a heavy vehicle? Perhaps. It's certainly more common, with ULA, NGIS, and Blue all pursuing it. But as a taxpayer, I definitely prefer SpaceX's strategy of building FH on their own dime. And I'd prefer that the USAF encourage that kind of initiative by putting some money into whatever FH needs to better support NSSL, rather than rewarding companies that can't be bothered to put any skin in the game.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: tater on 07/30/2019 06:34 pm
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.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: intelati on 07/30/2019 08:33 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/31/2019 08:55 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/31/2019 11:07 am
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.

It's a relatively safe bet that Starship will be ready before (or even shortly after) any of the competitors. The biggest risk is Starlink at the moment. If that market does not take off as expected, keeping it on a lifeline is going to have major consequences.

But without competition, SpaceX has no incentive to drop their prices. So apart from them working towards a non-sustainable presence on Mars, all other innovation will continue at the current pace. With competition, launch prices will drop, and it will be much more affordable to start up new space based initiatives. This will allow a far greater pace of innovation.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 07/31/2019 03:20 pm
The catch is that the only thing even resembling a true competitor to Starship is New Armstrong, and it’s barely on the drawing board.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/31/2019 04:15 pm
...

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 07/31/2019 04:24 pm
...

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.
So everybody else is dead before even trying, nice.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: corneliussulla on 07/31/2019 04:28 pm
BO would not exist if any normal business analysis metrics was involved. Space access etc just happens to be the hobby of the richest man on earth.

With the current size of the launch market there is probably not enough revenue to sustain more than 1 of these companies and you can be sure any launches BO has contracted are based on low pricing since they are being launched on slideware rocket.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 07/31/2019 04:44 pm
As Elon famously said when asked about moats: Pace of innovation is the only thing that matters.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/31/2019 04:56 pm

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.

How is the gap closing if SpaceX is going faster. BE-4 has marginally more thrust than Raptor while BE-3 has  less thrust than merlin (the current situation). The current situation is New shephard with about 1/50th of the thrust of Falcon Heavy while the future situation will be New Glenn with 1/3rd the thrust of a competing SpaceX rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/31/2019 04:57 pm


So everybody else is dead before even trying, nice.

If they don't get their ass in gear, yeah, pretty much.

"The quick and the dead" and all that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/31/2019 05:09 pm
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.

SpaceX have the 5 gems of power, and nobody should be even try to compete...eliminate competition is perfect...let's turn SpaceX in the next Standard Oil...

Quote
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.

Amazing thinking for a enthusiastic of space...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 07/31/2019 05:15 pm

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 07/31/2019 05:17 pm
There's room in the market for two successful launch providers. Once SS/SH is operational, SpaceX can undercut everyone else. As long as Blue or somebody else has the second best launch price they will still be in the game. SpaceX will only slightly under cut the second best to keep generating large profits. No need for SpaceX to significantly drop prices. Remember, SpaceX needs to generate a large income stream to afford it's Mars program.

SpaceX also needs to avoid becoming a monopoly under antitrust laws or they will be broken up just like Standard Oil.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 07/31/2019 07:30 pm

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...

Shrug.  That you have that opinion does not hurt them.  That BO corporate leadership is behaving (like ULA and Ariane Space before them) in this very same attitude will.

The latter two were banking on a "guaranteed" revenue stream.  They still are, pushing forward with expendable rockets.

BO is banking on a "guaranteed" financing stream. 

Neither is an excuse for not moving fast, not in a competitive environment.  The "Guaranteed" income will allow them to survive, but they are losing the leadership position, and with it, the ability to grow.

I'm not advocating for one launcher company.  I'm saying that if there isn't a change in attitude, there will be consequences, and no amount of snark or dismissal will change that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 07/31/2019 07:40 pm
BO is banking on a "guaranteed" financing stream. 
That diddn't work so well for Stratolaunch.
The genius of SS in many ways is that it manages to square the circle, and even if you only want it to launch satellites to GEO, it is a solution which ends up accidentally capable of a lot more.

So there is a reasonable chance that it would carry on, post a Stratolaunch type issue.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 07/31/2019 07:47 pm

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 doesn't need an elastic market, which is why they have no incentive to drop their prices. Including Lunar tourism. They have no incentive to do this 'at cost'. Even the current moon mission might turn out to be a one off just to get some more money for the development of Starship. Afterwards, it's whatever NASA is willing to pay. Unless the market is elastic, or there's a competitor to undercut. Worst case scenario, it's SLS - 10%.

LEO constellations are a new market. There are many unknows that need to be solved before money can be made. Technical risks and launch costs are only a small part of the risks. As front runner, SpaceX will have to work through all if them, while the rummer up can copy their work. Long March running rates (if enough money can be saved, ITAR will be circumvented in a heartbeat) will not make that much of a difference. Unless Starlink itself isn't all that profitable either.

But a scenario where SpaceX offers launches at cost to space startups, in exchange for part of the shares, to take advantage of their innovations, that would be great.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: tater on 07/31/2019 07:54 pm
Bezos has stated that his objective is to (eventually, when they do something) reduce cost. It's part of his talk he gives: Amazon exists because he didn't also have to invent package delivery, etc, that was an off the shelf solution.

It's important to realize both founders have similar goals, which are not really business goals. Musk wants his science fiction future, and Bezos wants his. The two are not incompatible, though part of the mechanism for both companies is a working business that can sell access to space---albeit at a vastly reduced cost from what had come before.

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. Ideally they do this at a large markup. If Blue comes along and starts pricing competitively, then both companies will end up reducing prices to whatever level that battle drives them to. Once prices get to a certain low level, we then can start to see new sorts of businesses cropping up, because the cost of access is no longer prohibitive for start ups to experiment. Bezos says he wants this as well.

Also remember that BO has a guaranteed revenue stream---Jeff Bezos.

Like I said above, I have no idea which company is more successful in XX years, I don't have a crystal ball, but at the moment there seems to be no question SpaceX is ahead.

I also have no idea if Starship works as a reusable stage 2. If it works even moderately well (some number of reuses with little to no refurb between), it's transformative.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RedLineTrain on 07/31/2019 08:18 pm
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.

What SpaceX identifies as the competition and what we identify as the competition may be two different things.  See, for example, the recent unexpected conquest of F9 over Pegasus.

Or SpaceX may believe the more profitable path is to grow the market with lower prices.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 08/01/2019 12:03 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 08/01/2019 01:45 am
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 08/01/2019 01:59 am
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 08/01/2019 03:03 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 08/01/2019 03:12 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 08/01/2019 03:36 am
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: tater on 08/01/2019 03:44 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: joek on 08/01/2019 03:48 am
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.

Thanks for that translation, although I would challenge the "50 years of experience" as a basis for anything.  ULA has been in a hard place; Blue threw them a lifeline--which is still a big TBD.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 08/01/2019 04:14 am
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...

Yes, what actually happens will depend at least in part on the decisions made by whoever inherits Elon’s controlling interest BUT, that completely misses my point and vastly understates Gwynn Shotwell’s position. She is the President and Chief Operating Officer of SpaceX and therefore a member of the board. Forbes calls her the 59th most powerful woman in the world.

My point is that SpaceX does not depend on Elon’s money, while Blue Origin does depend on Jeff Bezos’ money.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 08/01/2019 03:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: kendalla59 on 08/01/2019 05:27 pm
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.

The BE-4 original intent was to use LNG, not purified methane, and that might have some interesting cryogenic properties which might get more interesting under higher G forces. They also chose from the beginning to go with an oxygen rich preburner, with all of the turbo shaft leaking issues that might create. They also chose to use a fairly moderate chamber pressure which could limit the throttling capability.

I'm an embedded software developer not a rocket scientist, but I usually can smell when a hardware project is in trouble. The hardware guys tell me that everything runs on smoke. When it leaks out, things stop running.

Edit: I've just started reading up on LNG rollover, a topic of great interest in the petrochemical world.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 08/01/2019 07:17 pm
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.

Yeah, I don’t see anything wrong with BE-4 even if it may be having teething troubles. From all accounts it’s a very good engine with its biggest weakness being that it’s been overshadowed by Raptor. As for ULA choosing it, I think part of that came down to the fact that Blue was as confident enough to develop it on their own dime, and it was looking to be further along than AR-1.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: kendalla59 on 08/01/2019 07:45 pm
Wow, the more I read up on the problems associated with LNG the more I think it's a terrible choice for rocket fuel. There are all kinds of stability problems associated with storing LNG. The boiloff gas is mostly pure methane, so the amount of heavier hydrocarbons in the liquid keeps increasing. This can lead to layers with different densities (stratification) and sudden pressure increases due to superheated liquid rapidly transitioning to the gas phase. All of these concerns magically disappear if you use purified methane gas. The Raptor architecture is looking more and more superior to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Blue Origin has already quietly transitioned away from LNG. I'd also like to know how many launches before the LOX seals on the turbo shaft need replacement.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: niwax on 08/01/2019 09:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 08/02/2019 02:22 am
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?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 08/02/2019 03:24 am
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/02/2019 03:47 am
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 2000. 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).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Wudizzle on 08/02/2019 04:14 am
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).

This isn't relevant. The point is that one company is launching orbital rockets with whatever money they can scrounge up and the other is not. Where it came from is irrelevant.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 08/02/2019 04:14 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 08/02/2019 06:06 am
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?

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.


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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 08/02/2019 07:23 am
This thread is going in circles of increasing entropy each round..
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: sanman on 08/02/2019 07:24 am
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.

It seems like space science & exploration along with space tourism would underpin the demand for a superheavy launcher like New Armstrong. The Moon and Mars are the main places to go for those things, rather than LEO. There's no near/medium term business case for orbital manufacturing, when consumers are all sitting here on Earth. People on this forum have pointed out that zero-G can facilitate production of certain pharmaceuticals as well as grow perfect crystals for semiconductors, but do you really need a New Armstrong for that?

It seems like Blue's naming conventions are directly linked to their roadmap. New Glenn is orbital, just like John Glenn. New Armstrong is lunar, just like Neil Armstrong. (Perhaps it may one day do Mars too as a bonus - or else Blue has to come up with a new name - should the business case for Mars become viable in their perception.)

It seems like Blue is aiming for the Moon, because the business case is better than for Mars, in the medium term. The Moon is mere days away, and not months away like Mars. Blue's/Bezos' approach to risk is different than SpaceX's/Musk's.


Quote
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.

Perhaps the security of Bezos' funding keeps Blue from burning as much midnight oil, but meanwhile Musk keeps his engineers hopping - and tearing their hair out. As the more conservative outfit, Blue seems more likely to keep mainstream business opportunities as its main focus. Meanwhile, Musk will take more risks in the interest of getting to Mars. Where is the threshold at which risk management begins to break down? How many risky maneuvers can you pull, before something seriously backfires?

Quote
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.

The Hare always pays less attention to the Tortoise when it's farther ahead. Because SpaceX's technical teams plunge into the thickets first, they emerge from them first too. But arguably, Blue may have a "second mover advantage" whereby it benefits from seeing which of SpaceX's mistakes to avoid, in order to move ahead more efficiently than it otherwise would. (aka. "The pioneers get the arrows, the settlers get the land.")
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: svlu on 08/02/2019 07:38 am
If New Glenn is orbital and New Armstrong is for Moon missions then will the Blue Mars rocket be named New Musk?!!! 😂😂😂
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Semmel on 08/02/2019 09:17 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Darkseraph on 08/02/2019 10:10 am
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!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: svlu on 08/02/2019 10:33 am
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.
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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: niwax on 08/02/2019 10:40 am
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.

They did call their first booster Goddard
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: svlu on 08/02/2019 10:53 am
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!

I was hoping for them to do a boost back burn with the SH and land at the launch site, but initially maybe they try to simplify the flight profile as much as possibly  (and not have a full configuration of raptors on SH too). Anyway it would make sense for New Glenn, since it is smaller, expandable second stage, been in development for some time, to be operational first. I also think they really need to be first to be relevant, if SpaceX gets a couple of operational flights in before New Glenn, they will snag most customers.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 08/02/2019 01:27 pm
... 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.

Progress doesn't "just happen", though. And if you're not changing things, you're unlikely to be finding the best solution... in fact you might not have a solution that works at all.

I don't think we have enough insight into Blue to say what they are or aren't changing.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 08/02/2019 04:32 pm
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!

You read my mind!

Excellent comment, 100% agree...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: gefere on 08/02/2019 10:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: mme on 08/02/2019 11:00 pm
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.

[1] The extensive use of lawyers to achieve a goal.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: LouScheffer on 08/03/2019 01:02 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 08/03/2019 01:15 am
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.

How do you know he didn't? He may have realized that his endeavor was a dead end, and just wanted the thing to fly once.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/03/2019 12:14 pm
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!
If they both have similar flight profiles, but one is fully reusable and the other isn't - how are their costs similar?

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 &gt; 1/day, and no conventional system (including NG) can compete with that.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 08/03/2019 02:24 pm
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 &gt; 1/day, and no conventional system (including NG) can compete with that.
<nit>
Several times a day, if it is in fact being designed in addition to have P2P capability.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rockets4life97 on 08/06/2019 01:43 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/06/2019 01:56 am
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.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 08/06/2019 02:31 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 08/06/2019 02:40 am
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!
If they both have similar flight profiles, but one is fully reusable and the other isn't - how are their costs similar?

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 &gt; 1/day, and no conventional system (including NG) can compete with that.
Sure, one flight a day, they're not there yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/06/2019 03:59 am
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!
If they both have similar flight profiles, but one is fully reusable and the other isn't - how are their costs similar?

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 &gt; 1/day, and no conventional system (including NG) can compete with that.
Sure, one flight a day, they're not there yet.
I don't think you're taking the time to read before replying...

The claim is that even with "early plan", where SS flight rate is limited to way below 1/day, it is still a fully reusable vehicle.

Meanwhile NG is expending more hardware than FH even. (Not to mention SS).

Therefore costs at that phase of operation won't be comparable.


Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/06/2019 04:44 am
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".
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 08/06/2019 05:18 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 08/06/2019 06:46 am
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 be

Quote
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".

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 08/06/2019 07:00 am
The way I see it is Blue Origin is taking a traditional approach to rocket building, engine building, etc.  Large building with clean room inside construction.  This is taking longer. 

SpaceX is taking a non-traditional approach to SS/SH building, outside with smaller buildings for prefabricating some parts. 
They are also, it seems like going to build a steel milk-stool type launch pad that is water cooled, not mounds of dirt, fire proof bricking, and lots of concrete.  Their launch facility can be built faster.  Another SpaceX design is using the same fuel in both stages, thus feeding both from the bottom.  The booster will feed the upper stage, the upper stages can then used these fuel lines for docking and transfering fuel.  They will not need the traditional umbilical structures saving more time and costs. 

Blue is back to traditional umbilical tower for the different fuels used one the first and second stage.  Probably building a traditional launch pad with earth concrete and fire brick.  They will also be landing on a faster moving ship.  This may take some time to work out.  It took time for SpaceX to work out details for landing on a stationary barge (ship) at sea. 

So, it seems SpaceX is going a less expensive route by simplifying design, fuels, and launch and landing equipment.  This gets them in the game quicker.  Blue has not launched an orbital vehicle and landed an orbital booster yet.  Look how much time they have spent on New Sheppard (which has made several successful landings) and not launched customers yet.  I feel they will be just as slow with New Glenn.  Hard to see it operational by 2022 unless it is expendible. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 08/06/2019 12:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/06/2019 12:06 pm
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.
I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: hamerad on 08/06/2019 12:25 pm
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.
I'll note that labeling on the EA site plan drawing only says "Starship Pad".

 - Ed Kyle
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 performance
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 08/06/2019 12:36 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 08/06/2019 02:58 pm
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

Indeed. There is a lot of good information in there about the Starship project in general.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/06/2019 05:35 pm
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.

Yep, you're right. I wasn't paying close enough attention, and I convoluted that last stock placement with the loan subscription.

Quote
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.

Agreed, and to be clear, I wasn't saying anything to the contrary.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/06/2019 05:57 pm
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 be

Quote
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".

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: su27k on 08/07/2019 03:36 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/07/2019 05:12 am
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 be

Quote
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".

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.

Good point about SpaceX always needing money to pour into the Mars venture. And that’s why I have consistently said competition such as BO is BAD for the colonization of Mars, because it will inevitably  force SpaceX to reduce prices to remain ahead of the pack. Thus reducing funds available for Mars settlement.

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.

If they can make a marginal profit on any of these areas they will play in those spaces in a heartbeat. None of that detracts from their Mars goals. It’s not like they will only have one Starship and if it is flying to the Moon it can’t then fly to Mars. No, they will use the  money from Moon missions to build even more Starships for Mars.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/10/2019 06:22 am
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.

Still not sure I follow. Falcon 9 currently competes well against Soyuz and PSLV, and certainly against smallsat launchers in some respects as we saw this past week.  In the long run, after it achieves a decent level of maturity, NG's size should make it SpaceX's biggest competitor in markets where Soyuz and PSLV are attempting to compete, as well.  Even if SpaceX were not present, NG should do exceptionally well against Soyuz and PSLV.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/10/2019 06:58 am
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 be

Quote
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".

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. 

All this is long term, the next five years for both companies and American space policy in general will be a large factor in the mix.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/10/2019 12:33 pm



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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/10/2019 07:07 pm
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 be

Quote
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".

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.

Hm. How many "space opportunities" would SpaceX "focus" on before "focus" is no longer the word you want to use?  :) 

And by "space opportunities" are you still talking about launch contracts, or spacesuits in plus sizes and six colors? I'm imagining ads on Chinese television screaming, "Elon's has the tastiest youtiao in over six hundred tidy and honorable lunar locations!"

Quote
SpaceX is uniquely placed to be the dominant player in all these markets, ...

I agree.

Quote
...and channel that revenue into their ultimate goal, which is building a city on Mars.

Here's where it gets sticky, because every new market in space will probably require a fair amount of development investment, i.e., cislunar space is just about as deep a black hole for investors as Mars is, with the important difference that opportunities in cislunar space will probably have a near-term payoff.

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.

In space, nobody can hear you scream, because everyone else is screaming, too.  Especially the fresh colonists at New Donner...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/10/2019 07:12 pm



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?

On Earth, if I buy something, I generally have to pay for it.  By extension, if I buy something for export to Mars, I generally have to pay for it.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 08/10/2019 07:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/10/2019 07:29 pm
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.

Quote
Eventually, 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...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/10/2019 08:14 pm



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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 08/10/2019 08:25 pm



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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/10/2019 09:45 pm



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.
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.
Categorically not true.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 08/11/2019 01:04 am



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.
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.
Categorically not true.

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.

If is permit me, the example, the Martian economy in the future could work like the new patron of gold...like a reserve where the central banks and the big funds of invest, could refugee her cash-liquidity...

PD: Sorry is my message is a little off topic, or bad writing...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: RonM on 08/11/2019 05:19 am
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.

Quote
Eventually, 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...

SpaceX's investors knew what they were getting into. Reusable rockets and satellite constellations. Future cislunar opportunities have nothing to do with it.

BTW, Elon is the founder of SpaceX. 1G bolo settlements? What the heck are you talking about? Bezos mentioned O'Neill colonies as a far future goal, but that's not a consideration for now.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/11/2019 06:17 am
In my view, Mars will always be the ultimate destination, but it won’t be a money generating enterprise in our lifetimes. Instead it will have to be funded from elsewhere.

How many commercial satellite launches are required to generate the revenue to fund one Mars trip? How many Starlink subscriptions to fund the Mars methane factory? The Mars solar farm? The Mars base life support systems? We don’t know yet.

And inbetween it all, SpaceX will have to still generate at least modest returns for shareholders, if not through dividends then at least by increasing the market valuation of the company.

So that’s why I think Elon will get involved in anything space related that can generate a profit, not only to establish the Mars base, but to sustain it on an ongoing basis, and to grow it. That’s going to require a lot of money. And I can’t see passenger fare revenue covering even a fraction of it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/11/2019 02:12 pm
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 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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/11/2019 03:09 pm
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 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

Because they’re doing it on a shoestring budget.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 08/11/2019 03:37 pm
Also, because Starship and Superheavy will not have liquid helium bottles. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 08/11/2019 05:47 pm
Also because there's only so many places with exclusion zones big enough to launch a Nova-class rocket, and SpaceX already has licence to use this one.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 08/11/2019 06:45 pm
SpaceX also has pad 40 to fall back on, if something happens.  They will also have Boca Chica. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/11/2019 08:17 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/11/2019 08:43 pm



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 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/11/2019 09:19 pm



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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 08/11/2019 09:20 pm
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. 

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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 08/11/2019 09:24 pm
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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/11/2019 09:32 pm
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. 

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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/11/2019 09:41 pm



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
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? 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/11/2019 09:51 pm
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.

I agree.  it all depends on the Mind of Jeff.  but in my view what He wants is validation of the engine more than anything else...there was a profile (you probably can find it in the archieves) of the SEattle paper...of Bezos back in the 2009 period...and he, Bezos talks a lot about "market innovation" and how its done as a quatum thing...he is fond of the mill story about how Seattle became a town...

what it strikes me that he is looking for is the "game changer" moment...what we at Boeing use to call the Dash 80 moment...ie when you spring some new technology on the industry and wow it all changes. 

we will see.  the next two to three years will show it
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/11/2019 09:54 pm



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.
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.
Categorically not true.

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. 
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/11/2019 10:00 pm
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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Tywin on 08/11/2019 10:22 pm



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.
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.
Categorically not true.

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.

The only stuff I can see at the beginning of a colony in Mars, that they can sell to Earth, is a very expensive premium product...like Mars diamonds, Mars wine, Mars clothes, mars jewelry , etc...


But still will be very difficult sustain a colony only with this...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/11/2019 10:26 pm
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

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

at some point in my life I almost went to work for three of the people in that list :) and had to think long and hard about their commitment to the prize...and was pretty impressed by it. 

the thing "I" dont get out of all of it...however is the economic theory of colonization of Mars.  and its OK I dont have any of my money in it and am really not planning on doing it (I am 52 and have two small children...thats not my role in life now) ...but just as a policy thing...well I dont get how the "money flows"

My view on space policy and space futures has varied since I wrote my first op ed for a non college news paper way back in the day.  I use to think as "space like aviation" or any other field of human endeavor mixed in with (because I am American) a bit of the old west theory rolled in.  I bought at one point the notion that a superpower had to have a "destiny" like the old west to survive (the Turner Thesis), have some op eds on the topic,...etc...but the more I have studied the real old west including how the family farm has come down through the generations...the more I have figured out that its not about anything if its not about economics...

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 gets even worse when you go to places that are "non normal" ie survival is harder...and Mars is going to be in my view one of the hardest survival nuts to crack for even a small base. 

I am starting to see how the economics of low earth orbit might work in terms of human operations there...but thats only been after nearly 1/2 trillion dollars of US money being poured into it...

anyway I am impressed by the goals Musk and the other rocket pioneers have...and they have made more money then I have so maybe their vision has more clarity then mine.  but mine does not see it :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/11/2019 10:28 pm

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: dgmckenzie on 08/11/2019 10:39 pm
Quote
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...

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/11/2019 10:54 pm

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
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/11/2019 11:04 pm
Quote
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...

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.

so since we have proven life in LEO is possible that shop keepers and families are next?  (for what its worth I think shop keepers are coming)

frontiers are more then just death...they are about life, where people think that they have a better chance for life at another place, their frontier, then they do where they are.  I dont think we are on the verge of a mass leaving of earth by people though...
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: b0objunior on 08/11/2019 11:13 pm

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
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DistantTemple on 08/11/2019 11:24 pm
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!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/11/2019 11:24 pm

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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/12/2019 12:14 am

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.
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.

But, one quick point:

why would a company like Alcoa invest on Mars?  thats the part I dont get

Valid question.  Like any investment, it requires that the investor (Alcoa) believe that the enterprise (colony) will be viable.  Not profitable (as explained above,) but that it will succeed.

This is Musk's ultimate sales job.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/12/2019 01:34 am

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/12/2019 01:46 am

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.

You don't have to.

But a company like Alcoa that operates in a saturated low-margin universe, and is not averse to developing resources in remote locations, might find it a lot more interesting...

To bring it back to SpaceX and BO, I think it'll be interesting to watch how Musk/Bezos tie the long term vision (Mars colony/cislunar industry) to near-term objectives. This might end up being "the great differentiator"
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/12/2019 03:04 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: yoram on 08/12/2019 03:38 am
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.

To be fair a lot of money without return has been spent by space agencies from several countries too. While their investment wasn't necessarily directly for moving humanity into space, they developed and matured a lot of technology that is needed for it and enables it.

SpaceX and BO are not existing in a vacuum, they are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/12/2019 03:42 am


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.

No I fully understand that part...or at least the part about him wanting to make a lot of money and then donate it to his vision of a settlement on Mars...and I also see that he says he doesn't need to make any money on it in his life time ...

there is zero mystery to me about that.   and I've made my point to my satisfaction at least about how I think that works with nothing of value on Mars to the people of earth or the economy of earth

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.

the similarity between the two is both are driving at space access...which is for me really good enough since I have long held and advocated the notion that it is the Boeings and Douglas of today who will build the space transportation systems that will eventually start the cost lowering cycle.  I think the market if it is allowed to work by various governments (particularly the one of the US) will sort out whose strategery is better...someone will make the "most correct" choice and come up with the "most correct" program

the rest of it for me is just to far in the future to worry about
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/12/2019 04:20 am
I think (and its not important what the rest of us think I guess) that Bezos is different at least in his goal.

There is no thinking involved here, and no secret either. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have completely different goals. And they are very public about their differences.

Quote
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.

You're not saying anything new, you're just taking up more space to say it...  ;)

Quote
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.

What Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos realized almost 20 years ago was that the only way to make their space dreams come true was to significantly lower the price to access space. And I don't think they care who does it, but both realized that they needed to make it happen since the U.S. Government and United Launch Alliance was not going to make it happen.

And I think for both of them they would rather be focused on the end goal (expanding humanity out into space), not the intermediate one (lowering the cost to access space). I wouldn't be surprised if both Musk and Bezos exit the space transportation business once reusable space transportation technologies have matured.

Quote
Oddly enough I think OSC which is failing horribly as a launch provider...might be one of the first of the Jaun Trippe's.

You are wrong about that. Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) succeeded so well that Northrop Grumman bought them. So you can stop saying "OSC", because that entity no longer exists - it's now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS).   ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 08/12/2019 05:10 am
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 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
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.

As for why they want to build it at 39A - remember that the days of Falcon 9/Heavy are numbered. SpaceX will replace them with Starship, as soon as practically possible.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 08/12/2019 12:34 pm
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 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

It's co-located on the same complex but some ~200 meters apart, which is far enough to not pose a major threat to the Falcon GSE.

SpaceX only needs 39A for 3 or 4 Falcon launches a year, with many multi-month gaps between flights. If Starship causes minor damage to the Falcon GSE they would typically have time to repair it.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: spacenut on 08/12/2019 03:39 pm
I think Bezos' of in space colonization in O'Neil colonies is realistic.  I've read that ball bearings can be made perfect in 0g without machining.  Crystals can be grown in space larger than on earth.  Various things can be manufactured in 0g easier and cheaper than in gravity.  Problem is transportation.  This is where reusable rockets come in.

Now colonizing Mars is also a good one.  Once we find out what minerals and ores can be mined on Mars that may be more plentiful than on earth.  You have a business case.  Again problem is transportation.  This again is where reusable rockets come in. 

Mars has the advantage over the moon with a little over a 24 hour day which helps with human adaption, an atmosphere that can be used, as well as water.  The moon is closer but that is about all going for it as far as colonization goes except maybe mining. 

Whose Approach/Business Strategy is Better?  Right now SpaceX's is as they make money as they go, and will more with Starlink.  BO hasn't made a dime yet and is totally dependent on Bezo's money.  Now what if the first New Glenn rockets crash upon trying to land at sea like SpaceX?  What they will be trying is harder than how SpaceX does it.  They will have a large moving ship.  The landing software not only has to control the rocket coming down but has to compensate for the moving ship.  If it crashes on the ship, how much damage will be done?  What if it doesn't hit the landing pad but the ships control area and it loses power?  SpaceX's drone ships are towed back with a tug.  There are still a lot of things Blue has to get right before they can succeed.  Yes, they have a few contracts, but they haven't launched an orbital rocket yet, and they haven't landed an orbital booster.   
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/12/2019 04:10 pm
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.

---------------------------------

See that line there? I drew a line. Posts below that line that are general economics?  Might be deleted.  You've been warned.

As a note: Posts about why the SS/SH launch site is going to be part of 39A... wait for it... OFF TOPIC!!!
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: gaballard on 08/12/2019 04:56 pm
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".

The flip side to that is, at what point will Blue Origin have “enough” cash that they’ll actually put something, anything, into orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 08/12/2019 05:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/12/2019 05:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 08/12/2019 06:58 pm
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 may be wishful thinking, but the fact that Blue has finally got BE-4 up to full power and has its factories coming together gives me hope that 21-22 will see New Glenn flying. Blue could certainly slip but for now I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/12/2019 07:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/12/2019 07:32 pm
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.
Ha, I guess you will always be a hater.
How do you see hate in this post?!

JB has a full time old space CEO running BO. That's a fact.

BO has been very slow delivering. NG was supposed to out-compete FH. BO has yet to launch an orbital rocket. Those are facts.

The only opinion is that I wish it weren't so.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 08/12/2019 07:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Wudizzle on 08/12/2019 08:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lars-J on 08/12/2019 09:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/13/2019 08:39 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 08/13/2019 09:03 am
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. Or maybe even 200 tons?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/13/2019 09:08 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 08/13/2019 10:35 am
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.

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.
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.

New Glenn is what? $90 million for 45 tons? Or $2000/kg.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2019 10:43 am
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.

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.
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.

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.

Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 08/13/2019 10:46 am
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.

(Also, a single launch could do around 500 Starlink satelllites!)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Wudizzle on 08/13/2019 02:31 pm
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'm not claiming that SS reusability is guaranteed. I'm making more of an assertion that if it doesn't, its non-reusable production costs won't be something we have to think about.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 08/13/2019 02:45 pm
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.

SpaceX has shown itself quite willing to change course when needed. On everything from parachute recovery of the first stage, to recovery of the upper stage, to propulsive landing of the Dragon capsule, etc.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 08/13/2019 03:02 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 08/13/2019 03:11 pm
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. Or maybe even 200 tons?
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 08/13/2019 03:12 pm
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.

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.
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.

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.

LEO megaconstellations could probably use the extra lift mass and fairing volume (9 m vs 7 m).

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 08/13/2019 03:19 pm
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. Or maybe even 200 tons?
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: DJPledger on 08/13/2019 03:25 pm
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.

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.
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.

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.
LEO megaconstellations could probably use the extra lift mass and fairing volume (9 m vs 7 m).

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.
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.

There will be a market for 150t payloads in the future. You can launch several comsats to GTO or even directly to GEO on a ride share mission on either SS or NA.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lar on 08/13/2019 03:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: niwax on 08/13/2019 03:39 pm
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. Or maybe even 200 tons?
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yggdrasill on 08/13/2019 04:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: envy887 on 08/13/2019 04:03 pm
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. Or maybe even 200 tons?
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.

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.

NASA will have to get over buying hardware and get used to buying services. With booster recovery and reuse the mission cost would be a lot lower than that, and should be near the $100M or so that New Glenn is expected to be.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TripleSeven on 08/13/2019 04:30 pm
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.

agreed I dont think Bezos thinks he is "holding back", I think that they have a plan and are proceeding along with it....with no care to operate a system that they dont plan to use while building one that they do plan to use

from both the hiring, dollar burn rate, and parts acquisition (like the boat) ...I would agree with you that the 21-22 time frame is likely.  thats also what friends of mine in the blue suits think...

have you talked to people who have interviewed with Blue?  from my limited conversations (5) its an interesting process...all five got the job...and now are as silent as tombs about what goes on inside. 

I suspect the roll out will be like the Dash 80...a surprise to everyone :)
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/13/2019 11:45 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/13/2019 11:52 pm
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. Or maybe even 200 tons?
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.

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.

You'll have to wait at least until SpaceX knows what that rocket will look like, and I don't think they'll know until after the first (or second or third) one is completed and flies.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: meekGee on 08/14/2019 04:59 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/14/2019 05:31 am
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.

Quote
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.

Venture capital works differently than what I think will be needed for funding colonization off of Earth, so I don't think it will be the VC's of the world that will step up.

Quote
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.

I agree that we shouldn't rule out public companies of any type. Lockheed Martin generated $58B in revenue last year, and they could afford to invest $100M per year for many years - if the right justification was agreed upon.

SpaceX is funding their efforts, so far, using profits and investments that at least partially support Mars colonization efforts. Blue Origin is solely funded by Jeff Bezos, and he could contribute $1B per year just on his own towards expanding humanity out into space.

But I think both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are likely already talking with wealthy individuals and public and private companies to line up future funding, and I think if properly done there could also be significant money contributed by individuals around the world using a donation model.

I certainly plan to donate to a Mars colonization effort that looks like it could work, and I think there could be millions of other people that would do the same.

So an "All Of The Above" effort is likely what will be needed, and what we'll end up with.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: rakaydos on 08/14/2019 11:57 am
Without treading too deeply into politics, if possible, there's a possibility that the charitable whims or multibillionares could reasonable become the primary economic driver on earth. Unlike the increasingly sophisticated automation of previous eras. which produced more jobs than they took away while driving down the price of goods (Henry Ford's famous bit about paying his workers enough to afford the cars they were building), Information age automation is not making as many new jobs as it replaces. (there's a good Kurzgesagt video that covers this)

If this trend continues, and we dont get some form of systematic wealth redistribution (UBI, ect), voluntary wealth redistribution in the form of charities and vanity projects may become an employer of a significant portion of the workforce.

Under that scenario, billionaire investors choosing to make a mars colony is as plausible as any other vanity project.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Yaotzin on 08/14/2019 12:19 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: speedevil on 08/14/2019 02:53 pm
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 tweet
Quote from: ElonTweets
This 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/14/2019 03:35 pm
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 tweet
Quote from: ElonTweets
This 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.

In terms of cost/kg to orbit, reusable F9 with fairing recovery at a launch cost of $30m to put about 15 tons into orbit is already down to around $2000/kg.

If a stripped down expendable Starship, with SH recovery can put 150 tons into orbit for a cost of maybe $50m, then that drops the cost to an incredible $333/kg. That’s 6 times cheaper than F9. I’m not sure what NG’s expected cost/kg might be in comparison. And if I understand your post correctly, there might be ways for SpaceX to improve expendable SS cost/kg further (not sure if the 300 tons payload for expendable SS is no longer applicable for example, or whether $50m might be a high cost estimate for an expendable SS).
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Barley on 08/14/2019 04:00 pm
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.
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.
But he has to find investors who will buy on those terms,  That gets harder the more desperate SpaceX is for money.

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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Lemurion on 08/14/2019 05:05 pm
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.
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.
But he has to find investors who will buy on those terms,  That gets harder the more desperate SpaceX is for money.

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.

It's true that desperate companies often have to sweeten the terms to get people to invest, however there's little to no evidence that SpaceX is in that position. All the articles I've read have indicated that when SpaceX issues a funding round the demand for shares outstrips the supply and there's no evidence of that changing any time soon.

It's a possibility, but at this point it's a remote one.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 08/14/2019 10:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/15/2019 01:49 am
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.

It would also be completely out of character for them to invest in extracting resources on Mars when there are known deposits all over the Earth's surface that have been well-characterized, for which their profits and logistics chains and sales are all completely predictable in markets that they know well. 

Start by sending geologists and drilling equipment to try to characterize some bauxite found on Mars nearby New Donner.  That in and of itself will take a while.

Since the aluminum is not going to be exported from Mars, it'll need to be sold for use by the colony. Chances are the company will wait a while for the settlement to become large and stable enough to justify shipping mining equipment off to Mars to mine bauxite, along with aluminum refining equipment, chemists and other personnel, so that hopefully the settlement's Earthside angels will buy said aluminum for their Martian dependents. 

Sounds like a great investment, right?

And LockMart investing $100M in a Martian settlement?  Really?  I'm still waiting for them to allow ULA to develop ACES.  How would the justification for that run again?
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: daveklingler on 08/15/2019 02:00 am
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.

No, they don't take large gambles.  They have large numbers of mathematicians attempting to predict prices and markets as accurately as possible, and large numbers of geologists using expensive instruments to characterize resources as accurately as possible, and large numbers of accountants trying to figure out exactly how much money they'll need to invest, and when, and what the profits will be, and when they'll come.  They allocate resources many years in advance for long operations with highly predictable outcomes. 

If you hear about somebody taking a gamble in the resource extraction business, it's generally an individual with comparatively little to lose.

Quote
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.

These businesses are so different from resource extraction that they're non sequitur.  You're also talking about startups and venture capital, so again, completely ungermane.

Quote
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.

Again, satellite companies know exactly who their customers will be and how much revenue they'll earn.  Their insurance companies have the same numbers.  When the precious satellites go up on used rockets, everybody knows exactly how much they're risking, and you can bet SpaceX's launch prices are exactly pegged to their customer's launch insurance rates so that it's a good deal for everybody. 

The idea that satellite companies launched satellites on used rockets and therefore resource extraction companies will invest in Martian colonies is fallacious.  It's more apples and oranges.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/17/2019 08:00 pm
Going to start a new thread as report to mods say it's wandering (very long threads always do).

Will do it later so people get some notice. Good idea to start some splinter threads as Thread 2 will be specific to the thread title as this one should have remained.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/17/2019 10:00 pm
I can't see any resource company investing in Mars without close existing market for their product.

The same can be said for moon, with only near term market for water and LH LOX is fuelling NASA lunar landers. Papers written by George Sowers and others have well defined business case and from sounds of it investors ready to invest if they can sign NASA up. Still need data from ground surveys to pin down development costs.

They is no current market in LEO for water but it is coming given number of smallsats using water propulsion. Even then initial market would only be few tons a year which could be serviced by single F9R launch. LH and LOX for fuelling human transport to from LEO to moon would require 10s -100s tons are year but given projected launch costs of SpaceX SS it would be hard for lunar fuel to compete on price.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs BlueOrigin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better?
Post by: high road on 08/18/2019 06:39 am
Actually, the advantage of water propulsion is that it's a simple technology and cheap, so the total cost of the smallsat is lowered. Refueling in space ads cost and complexity, so not likely for less expensive satellites.

A commitment from NASA and congress to do X on the moon rather than to use a certain architecture and work out what to do with it later might provide the guaranteed demand resource investors need. Although reality is different.
Title: Re: SpaceX vs Blue Origin - Whose Approach / Business Strategy is Better? Thread 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/18/2019 12:25 pm
And on to thread 2, and a reminder to stay focused on the thread topic, to start splinter threads if required.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48833.0