Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4  (Read 125126 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« on: 10/03/2021 04:28 pm »
Thread 3 for this general Blue Origin thread. A new update only thread will be added later.

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.0

Thread 2:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43998.0

Thread 3:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53979.0

Please keep this civil and keep politics out of it and make sure your post is useful and not akin to some angry sobbing lashing out at people with nonsense (which was the problem at the end of thread 3).
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #1 on: 10/05/2021 02:50 am »
Ok, let's see if I can thread the needle without getting banned.

Eric Berger's latest article Revealed: The secret notes of Blue Origin leaders trying to catch SpaceX which gives some much needed context to this part of the Abrams manifesto:

Quote from: Alexandra Abrams
Memos from senior leadership reveal a desire to push employees to their limits, stating that the company needs to “get more out of our employees” and that the employees should consider it a “privilege to be a part of history.” One directive held out SpaceX as a model, in that “burnout was part of their labor strategy.”

This makes it looks like as if "pushing employees to their limits" is some sort of company policy that was created by the evil senior leadership, but we now know in reality these are opinions from senior managers in response to an outside consulting firm's report about SpaceX's strengths, where their labor strategy is clearly identified as one of their advantages. With this context in hand, these quotes don't seem nearly as controversial as Abrams made it out to be, do they?

This doesn't even touch the point that SpaceX's strategy is working, as the outside consulting firm confirmed.



On a separate note, NS-18's crew now includes Audrey Powers, Blue Origin's VP of Mission & Flight Operations, I don't know whether her position counts as "senior technical and program leaders", but it looks very much to me that this is a senior position held by a woman, and this gives context to another part of the Abrams manifesto:

Quote from: Alexandra Abrams
One-hundred percent of the senior technical and program leaders are men.

Note if you don't read this carefully, you'd be under the impression that all the senior leadership of the company are men, but the wording is chosen carefully to exclude non-technical non-program lead senior leadership, another deceptive tactic used by this manifesto.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2021 02:52 am by su27k »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8821
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10167
  • Likes Given: 11892
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2 on: 10/05/2021 03:19 am »
Quote from: Alexandra Abrams
Memos from senior leadership reveal a desire to push employees to their limits, stating that the company needs to “get more out of our employees” and that the employees should consider it a “privilege to be a part of history.” One directive held out SpaceX as a model, in that “burnout was part of their labor strategy.”

This makes it looks like as if "pushing employees to their limits" is some sort of company policy that was created by the evil senior leadership, but we now know in reality these are opinions from senior managers in response to an outside consulting firm's report about SpaceX's strengths, where their labor strategy is clearly identified as one of their advantages. With this context in hand, these quotes don't seem nearly as controversial as Abrams made it out to be, do they?

Yes, they do. They show how ignorant Blue Origin management is on how to inspire employees.

Human beings are motivated by many things, depending on their needs at the time. And sometimes they try to satisfy multiple needs at the same time. There are plenty of companies that can provide more motivation than just a salary, not just SpaceX. I've worked at one that was growing like mad, and everyone knew that we had a chance to "change the world" (in our marketplace), so working long hours did not have to be mandated, only encouraged.

The Blue Origin philosophy almost borders on "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"   ;)

I think this gets back to a muddled message as to what the goal is for Blue Origin. Sure, New Shepard is finally flying, but everyone knows about the BE-4 being seriously behind schedule, and does anyone really know what is going on what New Glenn? The pace of development on New Glenn is too slow to inspire the team to work long hours, especially if there are no engines to use for testing.

There are ways to motivate teams, including providing a clear goal, clear rolls and responsibilities, and giving them the ability to succeed - and fail too. And failure is where Blue Origin can learn from SpaceX, since SpaceX tried to fail early by allowing their teams to experiment AND fail. Failure is considered a mode of learning, and while failure does cost money, so does learning too late.

We'll see if any of the current revelations inspire the one person that matters to make changes - Jeff Bezos.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #3 on: 10/05/2021 03:48 am »
Quote from: Alexandra Abrams
Memos from senior leadership reveal a desire to push employees to their limits, stating that the company needs to “get more out of our employees” and that the employees should consider it a “privilege to be a part of history.” One directive held out SpaceX as a model, in that “burnout was part of their labor strategy.”

This makes it looks like as if "pushing employees to their limits" is some sort of company policy that was created by the evil senior leadership, but we now know in reality these are opinions from senior managers in response to an outside consulting firm's report about SpaceX's strengths, where their labor strategy is clearly identified as one of their advantages. With this context in hand, these quotes don't seem nearly as controversial as Abrams made it out to be, do they?

Yes, they do. They show how ignorant Blue Origin management is on how to inspire employees.

Human beings are motivated by many things, depending on their needs at the time. And sometimes they try to satisfy multiple needs at the same time. There are plenty of companies that can provide more motivation than just a salary, not just SpaceX. I've worked at one that was growing like mad, and everyone knew that we had a chance to "change the world" (in our marketplace), so working long hours did not have to be mandated, only encouraged.

The Blue Origin philosophy almost borders on "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"   ;)

It seems that you didn't actually read Eric Berger's article, I would strongly suggest reading it first, since it's an excellent piece of reporting, which you don't see much nowadays. But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

Quote from: Eric Berger
The Blue Origin leaders also noted that Musk's vision for settling Mars has served to motivate his current employees and inspire future generations. Perhaps Blue Origin could do something similar with the Moon, one executive suggested.

Blue Origin should also reconsider how it compensates employees, some members of leadership said. SpaceX generally paid at or below market rates, but it offered employees private stock options that have historically risen to become a valuable part of compensation. Blue Origin, by contrast, paid higher salaries, but its options were worth much less.

“I would like to see us change how we reward teams and individuals for company or project level success," one executive said. "Dinners, shirts and parties can only get us so far. I think real and meaningful financial incentives for Blue employees can help. While not discussed in the briefing I know several current and former SpaceX employees who will tell you they worked hard/harder due to both the company expectation and the financial incentives they received in the form of options. They know their work drove up the value of their options."

Offline c4fusion

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Sleeper Service
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #4 on: 10/05/2021 04:23 am »
It seems that you didn't actually read Eric Berger's article, I would strongly suggest reading it first, since it's an excellent piece of reporting, which you don't see much nowadays. But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

I think one of the parts that Coastal Ron was trying to get at - is that people at blue are still not motivated despite the report coming out 3 years ago. While talk and ideas is definitely a step in the right direction, it doesn’t seem like they have a concrete plan, much less than executing on it.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8821
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10167
  • Likes Given: 11892
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #5 on: 10/05/2021 06:07 am »
Yes, they do. They show how ignorant Blue Origin management is on how to inspire employees.

Human beings are motivated by many things, depending on their needs at the time. And sometimes they try to satisfy multiple needs at the same time. There are plenty of companies that can provide more motivation than just a salary, not just SpaceX. I've worked at one that was growing like mad, and everyone knew that we had a chance to "change the world" (in our marketplace), so working long hours did not have to be mandated, only encouraged.

The Blue Origin philosophy almost borders on "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"   ;)

It seems that you didn't actually read Eric Berger's article...

I did. In fact I extracted a number of quotes for a post I did on another thread (see here). One of the quotes from Eric Bergers article was:
Quote
Another executive expressed similar thoughts. “We need to get more out of our employees," this person said. "The lack of effort over weekends to meet deadlines is not a culture I am accustomed to in an operations outfit. I realize that development is somewhat different but regardless SpaceX expects and gets more out of their employees."

My perspective is from someone in management looking into another organization, and seeing that after 20 years of operation that they don't understand how to motivate people. People not working overtime is a symptom of the problem they have, not the problem itself. Hence my philosophy comment, which uses humor to point out how clueless people try to solve the wrong problem.

Quote
...since it's an excellent piece of reporting, which you don't see much nowadays.

Actually there is a LOT of great journalism out there. You just have to be willing to read stories that may conflict with your beliefs. Let's hope that Jeff Bezos read this article.

Quote
But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

Blue Origin is a 20 year old organization, and they were just discovering in 2018 that they had a morale problem? And did they solve it in the past 3 years? Sure doesn't seem like it, does it?

Quote
Blue Origin should also reconsider how it compensates employees, some members of leadership said. SpaceX generally paid at or below market rates, but it offered employees private stock options that have historically risen to become a valuable part of compensation. Blue Origin, by contrast, paid higher salaries, but its options were worth much less.

This may be one of those "you have to experience it to understand it" things, but the reason why people are willing to work for SpaceX at market rate is because of the EXPERIENCE they will get, not the stock options. If you read Eric Bergers book "Liftoff" you'll see a very young SpaceX always on the edge of failure, but still able to find talented people willing to give more than 100% - and they didn't do it for the stock options.

I've worked for such a company before, so I understand how the freedom to be responsible for what you're doing is refreshing compared to most corporate jobs. And just like at SpaceX, money was not the prime motivator for me, but the excitement of the job.

Jeff Bezos will be able to attract plenty of talented people once corrects the deficiencies they have today - of which there are a few. We'll see if he corrects them...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline savantu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Romania
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #6 on: 10/05/2021 06:52 am »


It seems that you didn't actually read Eric Berger's article, I would strongly suggest reading it first, since it's an excellent piece of reporting, which you don't see much nowadays. But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

..

It seems you're drawing not the best conclusions from Eric's article. The only thing coming to my mind from reading that article is BO's senior leadership is as sharp as a marble and that explains basically everything. Not need for grandiose assumptions.
BO suffers from the same problem as resource rich countries ( Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc ), the curse of undeserved richness leading to totally inept/cleptocratic/wastefull and disconnected from reality leadership. Life in those countries or in BO by extension, cannot be anything else, but miserable.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2021 06:54 am by savantu »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #7 on: 10/05/2021 07:48 am »
It seems that you didn't actually read Eric Berger's article, I would strongly suggest reading it first, since it's an excellent piece of reporting, which you don't see much nowadays. But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

I think one of the parts that Coastal Ron was trying to get at - is that people at blue are still not motivated despite the report coming out 3 years ago. While talk and ideas is definitely a step in the right direction, it doesn’t seem like they have a concrete plan, much less than executing on it.

But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

Blue Origin is a 20 year old organization, and they were just discovering in 2018 that they had a morale problem? And did they solve it in the past 3 years? Sure doesn't seem like it, does it?

It seems that you're under the impression I'm arguing there's no management problem at Blue Origin, that is not the case, my point is not that there's no management issues, my point is Alexandra Abrams' manifesto is inaccurate and deceptive, and one should not take it at face value, especially if you haven't actually read it.

Just to put this on the record: I do believe there's a big management problem at Blue Origin, I wish they could be more like SpaceX instead of increasingly becoming an old space outfit, I think firing Bob Smith and all his cronies would be a good first step if Bezos wants to address the issue. (I don't usually express this in Blue Origin's forum, since I don't want to be viewed as a SpaceX amazing people who wants to dunk on SpaceX competitors)

With that out of the way, here's the thing some people in this thread is not getting: Just because Alexandra Abrams says there's a management problem at Blue Origin, and you too think there's a management problem at Blue Origin, this does not mean Alexandra Abrams agrees with you. In fact it's entirely possible - even likely - that you and Alexandra Abrams have the exact opposite idea of what Blue Origin's problem is, see attached diagram for an illustration of this concept.

This discussion of how to get employees to work hard is just one example, you say Blue Origin should properly inspire and motivate employees so that they'll work hard willingly, and I agree. But if you actually read Alexandra Abrams' manifesto, there's zero mentioning of lack of motivation or inspiration, in fact it explicitly pointed to SpaceX's model as a bad thing, something shouldn't be copied by Blue Origin ("One directive held out SpaceX as a model, in that “burnout was part of their labor strategy.”", and this - as I pointed out above - is deceptive, since: a. This is not really a "directive" as in "order from the top management", it's a discussion notes in response to something the consulting report has said; b. SpaceX's strategy goes way beyond "burnout", their model included proper motivation and inspiration, which Blue Origin's management did recognize and hope they can copy)

Here's some more examples:

1. Many of us here has pointed out that Blue Origin seems to put building buildings ahead of building rockets, we think they should adapt SpaceX's way of building hardware first, and building buildings later. Yet this is the exactly opposite of what Abrams' manifesto is suggesting, where they complained about Blue Origin's new headquarter is not "LEED-certified". So not only they wanted Blue Origin to build buildings, they want it to be built to super high standard as well, you think SpaceX's Sprung structures and open highbays are "LEED-certified"?

2. Many of us here has pointed out that New Shepard's flight rate is too low, especially compared to SpaceX's launch cadence, and they need to increase flight rate. Again this is completely opposite of what Abrams' manifesto is complaining about, where they see Blue Origin's attempt to increase flight rate of New Shepard as a problem and suggested this will "compromising flight safety". They even used the word "impatience", well Elon Musk was frustrated about Falcon 9 back to back scrubs last year and flew to Florida to personally oversee improvement of the Falcon 9 flight rate, how do you think Ms. Abrams will write about this situation?

3. Many of us here has pointed out that having too much money is a disadvantage for Blue Origin since it makes them less aware of cost control, this is also the opposite of what Abrams' manifesto is complaining about, where she wrote about "spending were frequently denied" and implies direction like "be careful with Jeff’s money" is a bad thing.

4. Many of us here has pointed out that Blue Origin needs to adapt a more iterative development process like SpaceX, this again is the opposite of what Abrams is complaining about, where she slams the company for not "prioritizing sound systems engineering practices" and the example she gave is some paperwork not being done before New Shepard was built. For many of us old timers here, we should all remember how "lack of system engineering" is one of the FUD old space made about SpaceX many years ago, and prioritizing paperwork over hardware is exactly what we are complaining about with regard to Blue Origin.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2294
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #8 on: 10/05/2021 07:53 am »
Agree with SU27k. Blue has major problems, but the solutions aren’t necessarily the ones proposed by Abrams.

She seems like she would have some major issues with SpaceX’s approach too.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2021 03:46 am by M.E.T. »

Offline savantu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Romania
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #9 on: 10/05/2021 08:25 am »


With that out of the way, here's the thing some people in this thread is not getting: Just because Alexandra Abrams says there's a management problem at Blue Origin, and you too think there's a management problem at Blue Origin, this does not mean Alexandra Abrams agrees with you. In fact it's entirely possible - even likely - that you and Alexandra Abrams have the exact opposite idea of what Blue Origin's problem is, see attached diagram for an illustration of this concept.
..
But to whom are you infering this ? Who cares about Abram's solutions ? To me it's just your juxtaposition. There's nothing in the article which requires Abram's manifesto for clarification. The article stands on its own.
You can't have the pie and eat it too.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2021 08:26 am by savantu »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9111
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #10 on: 10/05/2021 08:40 am »
Just because Alexandra Abrams says there's a management problem at Blue Origin, and you too think there's a management problem at Blue Origin, this does not mean Alexandra Abrams agrees with you.
Why would that matter in the slightest?

Blue have manged to have those (highly evident to even external observers) management problems outlined by Avascent for years before hiring them as consultants. And they've managed to retain those exact same problems for years afterwards despite now having had those problems printed in boldface for them by a third party. The opinions of whistleblowers (be they the one who accepted being publicly identified or the others who did not) make zero different to that fact.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8821
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10167
  • Likes Given: 11892
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #11 on: 10/05/2021 02:51 pm »
But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

Blue Origin is a 20 year old organization, and they were just discovering in 2018 that they had a morale problem? And did they solve it in the past 3 years? Sure doesn't seem like it, does it?

It seems that you're under the impression I'm arguing there's no management problem at Blue Origin, that is not the case, my point is not that there's no management issues, my point is Alexandra Abrams' manifesto is inaccurate and deceptive, and one should not take it at face value, especially if you haven't actually read it.

You are confused. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with what Alexandra Abrams wrote. NOTHING.

My observations are MY observations, and based on my management experience and on the Eric Berger article about what Blue Origin management was thinking back in 2018.

If you want to have a separate discussion about what Alexandra Abrams wrote, fine. But my response to what she wrote has been that Jeff Bezos needs to investigate to see whether what she alleged has any truth to it. I don't agree or disagree with what she wrote, but in the long history of company mismanagement, it would not surprise me if there are elements of truth to what she wrote.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Liked: 2281
  • Likes Given: 4399
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #12 on: 10/05/2021 05:12 pm »
For my money the far more telling reveal from Eric’s article is how out-of-touch Blue was (is) with respect to their costs/estimates and producibility. If they fail against SpaceX it will be because of this – not the homogeneity of their leadership.

Offline hoku

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #13 on: 10/05/2021 05:13 pm »


It seems that you didn't actually read Eric Berger's article, I would strongly suggest reading it first, since it's an excellent piece of reporting, which you don't see much nowadays. But to the point, Blue Origin's senior leadership did discuss how to better motivate and inspire employees in their notes, they don't seem to be ignorant at all:

..

It seems you're drawing not the best conclusions from Eric's article. The only thing coming to my mind from reading that article is BO's senior leadership is as sharp as a marble and that explains basically everything. Not need for grandiose assumptions.
BO suffers from the same problem as resource rich countries ( Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc ), the curse of undeserved richness leading to totally inept/cleptocratic/wastefull and disconnected from reality leadership. Life in those countries or in BO by extension, cannot be anything else, but miserable.
It's too bad that the external consultants didn't inform BO management about the three secret ingredients for becoming a successful launch provider:

1) engines
2) Engines
3) ENGINES

While BO lacks engines qualified for an orbital launch vehicle, it has to fund the whole "standing army" at all the various sites. Yet it seems that in 2018, when BO needed to curtail spending, the top management decided that engine development, testing and qualification was of lesser importance.

Well, at least BO has the tallest water tower on the eastern seaboard...  ;)

edit: typo
« Last Edit: 10/05/2021 06:56 pm by hoku »

Offline savantu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Romania
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #14 on: 10/05/2021 06:01 pm »

It's too bad that the external consultants did inform BO management about the three secret ingredients for becoming a successful launch provider:

1) engines
2) Engines
3) ENGINES

While BO lacks engines qualified for an orbital launch vehicle, it has to fund the whole "standing army" at all the various sites. Yet it seems that in 2018, when BO needed to curtail spending, the top management decided that engine development, testing and qualification was of lesser importance.

Well, at least BO has the tallest water tower on the eastern seaboard...  ;)

They had engines, but 0 vision. The BE3 is working well since 2015. They could have done an elongated NS,  version 2 with 3 BE3 for stage 1 and a single engine stage 2. Be able to launch, I don't know, let's say 250kg in LEO.
But at least get orbital, launch something, get experience and get ready for the next big thing.

OTOH, BE4 being put on the back burner seems hard to grasp even if we go by Occam's razor. They couldn't be that dumb. It has to be some evil scheme.


For my money the far more telling reveal from Eric’s article is how out-of-touch Blue was (is) with respect to their costs/estimates and producibility. If they fail against SpaceX it will be because of this – not the homogeneity of their leadership.
That's what happens when there is a continuous in-flow of money, no questions asked. As with everything in the world, what's for free is wasted.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47328
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80131
  • Likes Given: 36295
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #15 on: 10/05/2021 06:50 pm »
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1445460754098909194

Quote
Rob Meyerson, reflecting on the anniversary of Blue Origin's in-flight abort test: "This and the other accomplishments made by the amazing team at Blue Origin during those early days are often overlooked by the headlines of today. They cannot be erased."

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6851212663821860864/

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #16 on: 10/05/2021 08:27 pm »
We love to knock Old Space due to their lack of vision and refusal to innovate. But Old Space is at least launching regularly and are trying to develop new hardware (Vulcan), even if it's obsolete before it's flown.

Blue Origin seems to have the worst of both worlds. They have a management team that are mired in the worst of Old Space and seem (according to both the article and the record of achievement) to be completely detached from reality, let alone the future. Also, like a very fresh New Space company, there are lots of promises and few results.

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #17 on: 10/05/2021 08:57 pm »
Quote
Rob Meyerson, reflecting on the anniversary of Blue Origin's in-flight abort test: "This and the other accomplishments made by the amazing team at Blue Origin during those early days are often overlooked by the headlines of today. They cannot be erased."

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6851212663821860864/

I've seen some commentary suggesting this was actually throwing shade at Bob Smith, contrasting Blue Origin before his hiring ("Blue Origin did a lot with a small team," "We HAD the competence, the competencies, and the confidence" (emphasis in original), "This and the other accomplishments made by the amazing team at Blue Origin during those early days"), with how after the hiring of Smith, Meyerson left Blue Origin in a year. Whether you choose to take this interpretation is up to you.

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Liked: 2281
  • Likes Given: 4399
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #18 on: 10/05/2021 09:45 pm »
For my money the far more telling reveal from Eric’s article is how out-of-touch Blue was (is) with respect to their costs/estimates and producibility. If they fail against SpaceX it will be because of this – not the homogeneity of their leadership.
That's what happens when there is a continuous in-flow of money, no questions asked. As with everything in the world, what's for free is wasted.

So true. The forcing function of surviving off one's own efforts, of living to fight another day cannot be overstated. Any accomplishment is the team's, and by association one's own. Any celebration or feast is earned and deserved – and not just a benefactor's charity.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2021 12:32 am by dglow »

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1094
  • Likes Given: 782
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #19 on: 10/05/2021 10:25 pm »
I just read Eric Berger's latest article about the internal memos at Blue. They made a number of good observations, and hopefully some are in the process of being implemented (e.g., Jarvis). I don't want to bash Blue. I want them to succeed for the same reason I want SpaceX to succeed: to see humanity expand into the solar system. I made a comment about that on Ars Technica, but I wanted to repeat those thoughts here to see what you all think.

It's been said before, but given Bezos' vision for Blue Origin, perhaps he should pivot away from building rockets and start building payloads. His vision of millions of people living and working in space is great, but it needs a near term goal that people believe they will see in their lifetime. Perhaps that near term goal can be a permanently manned space station - a place where you could live the rest of your days in health and safety. To make this a reality requires chipping away at a number of very practical problems: demonstrating "artificial gravity" (via a rotating station); radiation shielding, food production, waste management, recycling, 3-D printing, etc. The goal will be to minimize the resupply needed from the ground and reduce the lifecycle cost. What would it cost to buy an apartment on this space station? What would the monthly expense be per person? How can you get those numbers down?

Making this a reality would be the stuff of science fiction. Many of the technologies would have direct application to a Martian settlement as well. Let Elon focus on low cost transportation. Jeff can focus on making it possible to truly live in space. If these two could get past their pissing match and work together they could each advance their visions faster.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1