Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4  (Read 125125 times)

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1541
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #20 on: 10/05/2021 10:56 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.

BOLD...see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor  ;)

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14108
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13974
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #21 on: 10/05/2021 11:00 pm »
There's another elephant in the room here.

If you took SpaceX, with all their prowess, and had them attempt an orbital or lunar city, they'd also fail.

They'd fail even before implementation - they'd fail in connecting the goal with the next objective, since those are a lot more difficult at the scales we're talking about.

I think it's no coincidence that Musk ended up pursuing Mars and not the other destinations.

As long as JB is talking about millions of people in orbit, he has a real problem with a plan that extends beyond token steps.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
  • Liked: 2372
  • Likes Given: 10139
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #22 on: 10/05/2021 11:05 pm »
It's been said before, but given Bezos' vision for Blue Origin, perhaps he should pivot away from building rockets and start building payloads.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  Bezos's hard-won business experience over the decades shows that you should build your own solutions whenever possible, and buy out solutions when that gives you a leg up.  AWS, Amazon Air, Amazon last-mile delivery, Prime Video, Audible, Kiva, etc.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • California
  • Liked: 8462
  • Likes Given: 5371
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #23 on: 10/05/2021 11:12 pm »
There's another elephant in the room here.

If you took SpaceX, with all their prowess, and had them attempt an orbital or lunar city, they'd also fail.

They'd fail even before implementation - they'd fail in connecting the goal with the next objective, since those are a lot more difficult at the scales we're talking about.

I disagree (partly) - I don't see a Martian city (what Elon wants to create) as being easier to accomplish than an orbital or lunar city.

The problem is not what they want to do. The problem is that they lack a real plan with realistic intermediate steps to accomplish it.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2021 11:13 pm by Lars-J »

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1541
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #24 on: 10/05/2021 11:26 pm »
It's been said before, but given Bezos' vision for Blue Origin, perhaps he should pivot away from building rockets and start building payloads.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  Bezos's hard-won business experience over the decades shows that you should build your own solutions whenever possible, and buy out solutions when that gives you a leg up.  AWS, Amazon Air, Amazon last-mile delivery, Prime Video, Audible, Kiva, etc.

I'll be honest, I'm starting to lean towards the notion that Bezo is not some business experienced leader as portrayed.  I think he got lucky with Amazon(Walmart and Sears really dropped the ball on that one), and I don't think he is why Amazon is the Amazon on today.  The couple of times he personally touted something new for Amazon (Fire phone anyone?) they all seemed to flop.

He does seem ok at new things.  He seems bad at entering existing markets however.  That is why I feel Billh is correct.  BO/Jeff need to do all the NEW things required for their stated goals....not reinvent the wheel(rocket).  That is what SpaceX/Musk is good at however....re doing the old things cheaper/better.

No "good" business man would of let BO get this out of hand if he was actually paying attention to the business.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 180
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #25 on: 10/05/2021 11:28 pm »
I think Mars is easier for this since ISRU is easier there. The Moon is much easier for a brief visit, but its advantages there are mostly irrelevant for settlement (you already have to have long-duration life support...)

But the difference in difficulty isn't sufficient to explain Blue's issues... both are far harder than getting to orbit. There *are* sensible near-term steps toward orbital habitats (eg. In-space manufacturing) that could be taken.

I think it's mostly the too-large jump from New Shepard to New Glenn and the lack of urgency/paperwork and legalese rather than build-and-test focus.

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1541
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #26 on: 10/05/2021 11:35 pm »
There's another elephant in the room here.

If you took SpaceX, with all their prowess, and had them attempt an orbital or lunar city, they'd also fail.

They'd fail even before implementation - they'd fail in connecting the goal with the next objective, since those are a lot more difficult at the scales we're talking about.

I disagree (partly) - I don't see a Martian city (what Elon wants to create) as being easier to accomplish than an orbital or lunar city.

The problem is not what they want to do. The problem is that they lack a real plan with realistic intermediate steps to accomplish it.

Bingo we have a winner.

SpaceX is taking manageable jumps towards their goals.  Remember, ITS was what they said they were going to do after Falcon.  But they realized that the size jump (3.89m to 12m) was a little too much at once and scaled it down.  BO is trying to go straight to the end with little to no middle steps.  You can do that with dedicated employees, great management, and unlimited money.  Only problem is they only seem to have the money.....

edit: wrong name
« Last Edit: 10/05/2021 11:37 pm by ulm_atms »

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 #27 on: 10/05/2021 11:44 pm »
It's been said before, but given Bezos' vision for Blue Origin, perhaps he should pivot away from building rockets and start building payloads.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  Bezos's hard-won business experience over the decades shows that you should build your own solutions whenever possible, and buy out solutions when that gives you a leg up.  AWS, Amazon Air, Amazon last-mile delivery, Prime Video, Audible, Kiva, etc.

- AWS was built to solve an internal problem first, then was expanded to external customers.

- Amazon Air only started recently, so in the first ~20 years of Amazon's existence they used EXISTING delivery services.

- Prime Video and Audible are extensions of the content they were already selling

- Kiva was bought by Amazon to help them lower their overall warehousing costs

I don't see anything in the history of Jeff Bezos that rules out him focusing on how people will live and work in space, and winding down his transportation effort. He could still pursue New Glenn, which supports ULA's Vulcan, but just not follow on with New Armstrong.

10 years ago the semi-reusable New Glenn looked like a great idea considering the semi-reusable Falcon 9/H, but now with the fully reusable Starship Blue Origin may not have the ability to compete with what SpaceX is doing with rockets.

BUT, there is no one building commercial habits and work places, so instead of the red ocean of space transportation, Bezos could pursue the blue ocean of space habitats. See Blue Ocean Strategy for the reference. And Bezos already has the factory set up that he can use for the payloads, so...
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 RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
  • Liked: 2372
  • Likes Given: 10139
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #28 on: 10/05/2021 11:46 pm »
It's been said before, but given Bezos' vision for Blue Origin, perhaps he should pivot away from building rockets and start building payloads.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  Bezos's hard-won business experience over the decades shows that you should build your own solutions whenever possible, and buy out solutions when that gives you a leg up.  AWS, Amazon Air, Amazon last-mile delivery, Prime Video, Audible, Kiva, etc.

I'll be honest, I'm starting to lean towards the notion that Bezo is not some business experienced leader as portrayed.  I think he got lucky with Amazon(Walmart and Sears really dropped the ball on that one), and I don't think he is why Amazon is the Amazon on today.  The couple of times he personally touted something new for Amazon (Fire phone anyone?) they all seemed to flop.

I think he's a top notch businessperson.  A+.  One of only two businesspeople that I know who can spend effectively huge amounts of capital as fast as it comes in the door.  Amazon is a well-oiled machine and we know where the buck has stopped for many years.

But that doesn't mean that he's infallible.  He learned the wrong lesson with the success of the "one click" patent strategy, for example.  And his successful destruction of the National Enquirer.  So from time to time you get stupidities like the boat landing patent, the 39A dispute, and the HLS bidding strategy error and subsequent ham-fisted lobbying effort and lawsuit.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14108
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13974
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #29 on: 10/06/2021 12:06 am »
There's another elephant in the room here.

If you took SpaceX, with all their prowess, and had them attempt an orbital or lunar city, they'd also fail.

They'd fail even before implementation - they'd fail in connecting the goal with the next objective, since those are a lot more difficult at the scales we're talking about.

I disagree (partly) - I don't see a Martian city (what Elon wants to create) as being easier to accomplish than an orbital or lunar city.

The problem is not what they want to do. The problem is that they lack a real plan with realistic intermediate steps to accomplish it.
That's the old mars-vs-moon argument, but with a twist.

The Martians say that for anything larger than a small station, Mars is easier (and by a lot)

Being a martian, I'm saying that an org that is led by a practical engineering CEO will by necessity end up going for Mars.

You OTOH are saying that a lunar or orbital city is equally as hard, but it's not working out because the org that happened to choose that goal (BO) is not as good, or goal oriented, or otherwise savvy as the org that chose Mars (SpaceX).

I think history will show that the pattern will repeat, and practical efforts for large-scale habitation (hopefully not only SpaceX) will aim at Mars.



ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

« Last Edit: 10/06/2021 07:32 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1541
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #30 on: 10/06/2021 12:35 am »
It's been said before, but given Bezos' vision for Blue Origin, perhaps he should pivot away from building rockets and start building payloads.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  Bezos's hard-won business experience over the decades shows that you should build your own solutions whenever possible, and buy out solutions when that gives you a leg up.  AWS, Amazon Air, Amazon last-mile delivery, Prime Video, Audible, Kiva, etc.

I'll be honest, I'm starting to lean towards the notion that Bezo is not some business experienced leader as portrayed.  I think he got lucky with Amazon(Walmart and Sears really dropped the ball on that one), and I don't think he is why Amazon is the Amazon on today.  The couple of times he personally touted something new for Amazon (Fire phone anyone?) they all seemed to flop.

I think he's a top notch businessperson.  A+.  One of only two businesspeople that I know who can spend effectively huge amounts of capital as fast as it comes in the door.  Amazon is a well-oiled machine and we know where the buck has stopped for many years.

But that doesn't mean that he's infallible.  He learned the wrong lesson with the success of the "one click" patent strategy, for example.  And his successful destruction of the National Enquirer.  So from time to time you get stupidities like the boat landing patent, the 39A dispute, and the HLS bidding strategy error and subsequent ham-fisted lobbying effort and lawsuit.
Yea, but the "other" people he brought in to run/manage Amazon was a lot of their success IMO.  I say that as the people you bring in to actually run your company are more important then who owns the company.

In Amazon...he chose wisely.  In BO, well, he didn't basically.

As for a great business man....I don't see it personally.  I don't equate $$$ to how great of a business man/woman you are.  Now Ford....I would say he was.  He realized that you had to pay people enough or no one could afford his product.  That is a sign of a great business man IMO...someone who sees more then money.  They see the people and products too and realized that one cannot live without the other two.  And Amazon is not what it use to be...it has gone downhill a lot over the last 5 years.  The amount of fake/ripped off products is so bad I just can't use it at this point.  But those bring in the $$$ so they won't do more then token things about it and look the other way.

But i'm going stop here as this convo is slowing diverging away from BO and more into general business management at this point. 

TLDR:  Bezo's is not a great business man using BO as a example.  The fact he hasn't canned Bob Smith is proof enough for me.  If he still thinks Bob is doing a good job at BO...well...he's not.  Do a good business move and fix that ASAP.

Offline ericgu

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • United States
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 213
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #31 on: 10/06/2021 12:53 am »
BO is trying to go straight to the end with little to no middle steps.  You can do that with dedicated employees, great management, and unlimited money.  Only problem is they only seem to have the money.....

SpaceX trajectory (ha  ha) was:

1) A Fastrak-derived engine and a small rocket to go along with it, along with a pressure-fed upper-stage engine.
2) A much larger booster using the existing engine in the first stage and a modified version for the upper stage.
3) A reusable version of that larger booster.
3) A three-core booster variant

All of those are small incremental steps, based on existing art to reduce risk as much as possible. They knew what to expect from Fastrak for Falcon 1, and they knew what the Merlin could do for Falcon 9. FH was clearly much more work than they expected but it turned out not to be a critical part of their strategy (it was "plan b", upscale Merlin was "plan a").

All except #1 got funded by development contracts and launch revenue.

Starship is obviously a much more ambitious goal, but it builds on their existing expertise. Raptor is a big jump. The first stage is just a new implementation of the Falcon 9 first stage. Starship is another big jump, but it fits into their long-term goals.

The question I would ask is "has SpaceX missed any incremental steps?" Yes, they could have explored second stage reuse on Falcon 9 and chose not to. Perhaps others as well, but generally I think they look for the next logical step and try to take appropriate steps.

Blue Origin seems to be committed to "hard mode".

They went from a small combustion tap-off engine to a large staged combustion engine in one step.

They went from a suborbital rocket to a heavy-left partially reusable orbital rocket in one step.

They went from no experience in orbital operations to designing a lunar descent module.

I really don't get their development approach, and none of it fits into their model. I used to make fun of "step by step, ferociously" but I think they would be in a much better place if they actually had taken a "step by step" approach and had some success along the way.

Build something, fly something, learn something, move on.

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Liked: 2281
  • Likes Given: 4399
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #32 on: 10/06/2021 01:00 am »
The Martians say that for anything above a small station, Mars is easier (and by a lot)  …  I think history will show that the pattern will repeat, and practical efforts for large-scale habitation (hopefully not only SpaceX) will aim at Mars.

Mars is easier, but the moon will always be more convenient and feel more connected. Nobody can stream/facetime/VR with 8 min of lag. That will matter a lot.
I suspect those who successfully establish Martian colonies will circle back and apply their learnings to practical lunar colonies in time.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14108
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13974
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #33 on: 10/06/2021 02:05 am »
The Martians say that for anything above a small station, Mars is easier (and by a lot)  …  I think history will show that the pattern will repeat, and practical efforts for large-scale habitation (hopefully not only SpaceX) will aim at Mars.

Mars is easier, but the moon will always be more convenient and feel more connected. Nobody can stream/facetime/VR with 8 min of lag. That will matter a lot.
I suspect those who successfully establish Martian colonies will circle back and apply their learnings to practical lunar colonies in time.
I want to keep this away from a rehash of Mars vs NEO, so I'll tie it back to company culture.

You know how, proverbially, BO "had it easy", while SpaceX "had it rough" and thus gained its grit?

Being in Earth's backyard will have the same sort of cultural effect.  Not only is ISRU harder, but also there's a fat, bottomless supply only two days away, with no launch window limitations even.

That's a one-two combination that means it'll always be just low-g resorts, not a true independent entity.

Mars, like SpaceX, will have to fend for itself. Luckily it also has extractable resources and milder conditions, so it can.  You'll never build a low-g resort there, but it will be a self sufficient world, and IMO also an independent culture, exactly because of that communication gap.

And I doubt the Martians will be inclined to bother with the moon, not with the asteroid belt nearby.

I think there's irony here.

--
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down
« Last Edit: 10/06/2021 02:13 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

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 #34 on: 10/06/2021 02:30 am »
The Martians say that for anything above a small station, Mars is easier (and by a lot)  …  I think history will show that the pattern will repeat, and practical efforts for large-scale habitation (hopefully not only SpaceX) will aim at Mars.

Mars is easier, but the moon will always be more convenient and feel more connected. Nobody can stream/facetime/VR with 8 min of lag. That will matter a lot.

Colonizing our Moon doesn't solve the redundancy problem that Musk is addressing by colonizing Mars. And regardless how close our Moon is, it is not as habitable as Mars. Plus, I think anyone going to Mars will know about the lack of realtime communication, but remember that they will still be able to post to social media in almost real time...  :D

This isn't a competition between where humanity should expand out into space, since people will go where they want based on how many factors, including work. I know there is a lot of interest in our Moon, and maybe that will be one location for humanity to get a foothold. Other places include artificial habits (likely rotating for artificial gravity) that are in Earth-local space or further out.

Elon Musk is planning to be a major source of funding for Mars colonization, and I think he sees it as a humanitarian mission, meaning no monetary ROI. For everywhere else though, there is no clear source of funding to support the initial creation of the habitats. That would be an opportunity for Jeff Bezos, who still holds the title of richest individual on Earth.

Quote
I suspect those who successfully establish Martian colonies will circle back and apply their learnings to practical lunar colonies in time.

NASA is expecting to spend up to $1B to develop the next generation spacesuit for use on the Moon. There is no way humanity is going to be able to afford to expand out into space if that is a gauge to how expensive it will be to live in space. Yet another area where Jeff Bezos has room to contribute.
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 spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #35 on: 10/06/2021 02:42 am »
All the dreams of moon colonies, Martian colonies, orbital cities in space with millions of people living and working there, all begin with a cheap way to get to orbit.  This means reusable rockets.  There is not way any of this is going to happen with expendable rockets.  They need to first be cheap to build, cheap to maintain, and eventually fully reusable. 

SpaceX worked on this and got Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.  They are still working on this with Starship and Superheavy. 

Blue Origin has only a plan for New Glenn and can't seem to even get the BE-4 out the door.  Sub-orbital isn't going to get it.  If they want to really get in the game without stupid lawsuits, they need to get BE-4 delivered, and then get New Glenn working, and it really should be fully reusable if they are going to begin to catch up. 

No amount of lawsuits, or dreaming of millions working in space will actually get it done.  Only by building the engines and the rockets will ever get it done. 

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #36 on: 10/06/2021 02:45 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.

I think there's some misunderstanding here, my comment is strictly focused on the Abrams manifesto, which I assume is still a valid topic in this thread. It's not meant for a general discussion of Eric Berger's article (except to the extent where I used it as evidence against the Abrams manifesto), nor is it meant for a general discussion of Blue Origin's management problem (there're already a lot of good comments on this).

If you don't care about the Abrams manifesto, that's perfectly ok, just skip my comments about it, I have my reasons for wanting to refute it.


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?

Well for starters if you want to fix a management problem, you need to at least agree on what the problem is, no?

But if you think the Abrams manifesto doesn't matter at all, that's fine, you can ignore my comment on it, as I said above my previous 3 comments are focused on this manifesto, not meant as a general discussion of Blue Origin's issues.


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.

Ok, let me re-iterate this: My comment is focused on refuting the Abrams manifesto, if you don't want to discuss that, that's ok, just ignore my comments about it.

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Liked: 2281
  • Likes Given: 4399
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #37 on: 10/06/2021 04:13 am »
Being in Earth's backyard will have the same sort of cultural effect.  Not only is ISRU harder, but also there's a fat, bottomless supply only two days away, with no launch window limitations even.That's a one-two combination that means it'll always be just low-g resorts, not a true independent entity.

Yes, we are in violent agreement. Many will prefer an upstate summer home over the exotic getaway oceans away.

Quote
And I doubt the Martians will be inclined to bother with the moon, not with the asteroid belt nearby.

The companies that master domes and tunneling with the training wheels of Mars’ atmosphere and resources will gladly adapt and apply their trades to the moon – and other other bodies throughout the solar system I hope.

Quote
I think there's irony here.

Spoken in a thick Belter accent.   ;)

Online dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
  • Liked: 2281
  • Likes Given: 4399
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #38 on: 10/06/2021 04:23 am »
Elon Musk is planning to be a major source of funding for Mars colonization, and I think he sees it as a humanitarian mission, meaning no monetary ROI. For everywhere else though, there is no clear source of funding to support the initial creation of the habitats. That would be an opportunity for Jeff Bezos, who still holds the title of richest individual on Earth.

Once a reliable Terra-Mars railway is established then money will take care of itself. When individuals, corporations, and governments can stake out/claim/purchase the real estate and mineral rights of a new world, Earth capital will flow as Martian capital is generated.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2021 01:17 am by dglow »

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6439
  • Liked: 4538
  • Likes Given: 5022
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #39 on: 10/06/2021 05:25 am »

- AWS was built to solve an internal problem first, then was expanded to external customers.
(snip)

THERE"S a real parallel.
Magic Dragon, as it was originally called, was conceived to meet an internal SpaceX need, returning people from orbit.

It turned out to have a deep pocketed natural customer who was desperate for it:
NASA's ISS, which lost it's cargo download capability with the retirement of the Shuttle.

After proving itself,  NASA became an external customer for Dragon's original purpose, carrying people to and from LEO.

SpaceX is building Starship to achieve its own goal of high capacity human flights to Mars.
It  found an external customer: NASA's HSF Moon Landing


Not only do these bring in funding, (and a customer with extensive knowledge), but they give a purpose beyond the initial flights.

What synergies does Blue have that are comparable to AWS?
(We pretty much know that New Shephard isn't leading to anything. 
Even a substantial suborbital tourism business is not assured.)
What unique aspect of New Glenn is going to pull in a big, external customer?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0