Author Topic: How could winning the HLS second contract change the Blue company?  (Read 20154 times)

Offline Tywin

If, in June, Blue manages to win its first major NASA contract, and enter fully into the Artemis program, how might this milestone change Blue?

« Last Edit: 01/20/2023 04:01 pm by Tywin »
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2123
  • Likes Given: 57
It wouldn't. Blue Origin's "National Team" plan is exactly what one would expect from an ossified Old Space company, which is what Blue Origin has become, so executing on that plan wouldn't change anything about them.

Best-case scenario, they could become as successful at executing on spaceflight projects as Boeing has been recently.

Offline AlexP

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 73
I would worry more that it would cause it not to change, and they would think that putting up maps showing how many states your program covers is the way to win. Maybe by losing they could realise their approach needs a big rethink, starting at the top.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
It wouldn't. Blue Origin's "National Team" plan is exactly what one would expect from an ossified Old Space company, which is what Blue Origin has become, so executing on that plan wouldn't change anything about them.

Best-case scenario, they could become as successful at executing on spaceflight projects as Boeing has been recently.
This. Blue is just the new old space company.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9162
  • Likes Given: 38
I would worry more that it would cause it not to change, and they would think that putting up maps showing how many states your program covers is the way to win. Maybe by losing they could realise their approach needs a big rethink, starting at the top.
That didn't work with the first HLS competition.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12082
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18060
  • Likes Given: 12086
I would worry more that it would cause it not to change, and they would think that putting up maps showing how many states your program covers is the way to win. Maybe by losing they could realise their approach needs a big rethink, starting at the top.
That didn't work with the first HLS competition.

Winning the second HLS competition won't change things either IMO. Blue remains ossified, stuck in a mindset where everything has to be kept a secret for as long as possible. For some reason they seem to think that even the tiniest amount of transparency is bad.

As long as Blue puts most of its publicity in the wrong kind of publicity (see how they reacted publically when they lost the first HLS competition), people will keep ridiculing them, which will just result in more of what we have seen over the past 10 years: a whole lotta nothing.

And before people jump on me, I'll explain why I just made that comment. Back in 2018 Blue was awarded a $500 milion contract when they entered Phase 1 LSA of the new NSSL competition. It was their chance to enter NSSL, compete, win a contract in Phase 2 and start earning big money on launching stuff to space. But to do so, they had to perform.

Guess what happened: niets, nichts, nakkes, niente, nothing. Blue's performance on the contract was dismal. By the time the Phase 2 contracts were awarded (to ULA and SpaceX) 3 years later, Blue had completed barely half of the Phase 1 milestones. That resulted in their Phase 1 contract being terminated early by the USAF, and Blue receiving only half of the payments.

If half a billion US government dollars is not enough to entice Blue into some speedy action, then why should people expect that Blue will act differently in case of winning the second HLS contract?
« Last Edit: 01/23/2023 11:47 am by woods170 »

Offline AlexP

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 73
I would worry more that it would cause it not to change, and they would think that putting up maps showing how many states your program covers is the way to win. Maybe by losing they could realise their approach needs a big rethink, starting at the top.
That didn't work with the first HLS competition.

Winning the second HLS competition won't change things either IMO. Blue remains ossified, stuck in a mindset where everything has to be kept a secret for as long as possible. For some reason they seem to think that even the tiniest amount of transparency is bad.

As long as Blue puts most of its publicity in the wrong kind of publicity (see how they reacted publically when they lost the first HLS competition), people will keep ridiculing them, which will just result in more of what we have seen over the past 10 years: a whole lotta nothing.

And before people jump on me, I'll explain why I just made that comment. Back in 2018 Blue was awarded a $500 milion contract when they entered Phase 1 LSA of the new NSSL competition. It was their chance to enter NSSL, compete, win a contract in Phase 2 and start earning big money on launching stuff to space. But to do so, they had to perform.

Guess what happened: niets, nichts, nakkes, niente, nothing. Blue's performance on the contract was dismal. By the time the Phase 2 contracts were awarded (to ULA and SpaceX) 3 years later, Blue had completed barely half of the Phase 1 milestones. That resulted in their Phase 1 contract being terminated early by the USAF, and Blue receiving only half of the payments.

If half a billion US government dollars is not enough to entice Blue into some speedy action, then why should people expect that Blue will act differently in case of winning the second HLS contract?
Obviously New Glenn's development is a mess, but is that really a fair description of what happened?

"The purpose of the agreements was to help Phase 2 competitors pay for launch vehicle development and infrastructure. Blue Origin received $500 million; Northrop Grumman $792 million and ULA $967 million. The funds were to be spread out through 2024, and the Air Force from the beginning said the LSAs would be terminated with those companies that did not win a Phase 2 procurement contract."
https://spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
[edit - this isn't yet taking into account the decreased award amount, just posting it for the info about early termination]

So: the funds were supposed to be spread out until 2024, and failing to win phase 2 contracts was always going to lead to early termination. Maybe there's extra information out there that I don't have access to regarding particular missed deadlines?

And yeah, it's obviously possible, even probable, that losing the HLS contract again will also lead to no change, at which point we can firmly say Bob Smith probably has a job for life and adjust our ever-dimming hopes accordingly.

edit - for clarification
« Last Edit: 01/23/2023 12:29 pm by AlexP »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
I would worry more that it would cause it not to change, and they would think that putting up maps showing how many states your program covers is the way to win. Maybe by losing they could realise their approach needs a big rethink, starting at the top.
That didn't work with the first HLS competition.
In theory, you learn more from losing than you do from winning. Losing tends to focus you, unless you are too arrogant to learn. Therefore it is possible that BO learned from the loss of the first HLS contract. At the very least, we can hope they learned that $4 Billion is too high a bid.

I am generally negative about BO, mostly because of the protest and lawsuit, but maybe they will do better this time.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
SNIP


Obviously New Glenn's development is a mess, but is that really a fair description of what happened?

"The purpose of the agreements was to help Phase 2 competitors pay for launch vehicle development and infrastructure. Blue Origin received $500 million; Northrop Grumman $792 million and ULA $967 million. The funds were to be spread out through 2024, and the Air Force from the beginning said the LSAs would be terminated with those companies that did not win a Phase 2 procurement contract."
https://spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
[edit - this isn't yet taking into account the decreased award amount, just posting it for the info about early termination]

So: the funds were supposed to be spread out until 2024, and failing to win phase 2 contracts was always going to lead to early termination. Maybe there's extra information out there that I don't have access to regarding particular missed deadlines?

And yeah, it's obviously possible, even probable, that losing the HLS contract again will also lead to no change, at which point we can firmly say Bob Smith probably has a job for life and adjust our ever-dimming hopes accordingly.

edit - for clarification
The AirForce gave the award expecting timely completion of the milestones. The fact that Blue performed soo slowly/poorly they terminated the contract means exactly that. That the airforce expected a certain speed of progress, which blue was completely unable to produce.

Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 358
Quote from: woods170
Guess what happened: niets, nichts, nakkes, niente, nothing. Blue's performance on the contract was dismal. By the time the Phase 2 contracts were awarded (to ULA and SpaceX) 3 years later, Blue had completed barely half of the Phase 1 milestones. That resulted in their Phase 1 contract being terminated early by the USAF, and Blue receiving only half of the payments.

How was it dismal? They received the lowest of the NSSL-2 competition funding, nearly $300 million less than Northrop Grumman, and almost $500 million less than ULA. That money was not spent all at once nor payed out all at once. If they were the only competitor who lost NSSL, then you might have a kind of reasonable point. But instead we do have another, that was Northrop Grumman (NG), who also lost out, despite being arguably far better off than Blue Origin in terms of being vastly better funded, and was farther along than either Blue or ULA in terms of OmegA's progress towards first launch.

Also, since the SpaceNews article was linked to, I'll just quote a key passage as to why the funding was being cut off from both NG and Blue. Hint: it has nothing to do with failing to make their milestones!

"Roper said a key reason why the LSAs could not continue for all three companies is that the Air Force doesn’t have enough money in the budget."

But there's also something that people are missing, which distinguishes Blue from NG in this case: NG chose to throw away all their OmegA R&D as well as infrastructure work and quit instead of pursuing it to a first launch and fielding it commercially. Blue is still pressing towards finishing and launching New Glenn, come hell or high water.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2023 10:04 pm by Starshipdown »

Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 358
SNIP


Obviously New Glenn's development is a mess, but is that really a fair description of what happened?

"The purpose of the agreements was to help Phase 2 competitors pay for launch vehicle development and infrastructure. Blue Origin received $500 million; Northrop Grumman $792 million and ULA $967 million. The funds were to be spread out through 2024, and the Air Force from the beginning said the LSAs would be terminated with those companies that did not win a Phase 2 procurement contract."
https://spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
[edit - this isn't yet taking into account the decreased award amount, just posting it for the info about early termination]

So: the funds were supposed to be spread out until 2024, and failing to win phase 2 contracts was always going to lead to early termination. Maybe there's extra information out there that I don't have access to regarding particular missed deadlines?

And yeah, it's obviously possible, even probable, that losing the HLS contract again will also lead to no change, at which point we can firmly say Bob Smith probably has a job for life and adjust our ever-dimming hopes accordingly.

edit - for clarification
The AirForce gave the award expecting timely completion of the milestones. The fact that Blue performed soo slowly/poorly they terminated the contract means exactly that. That the airforce expected a certain speed of progress, which blue was completely unable to produce.

Do you or woods170 have anything to back that statement up with? The SN article is pretty explicit and provides much better information here than either of you two have. Nothing was stated about either Blue or Northrop Grumman having their LSA-1 awards terminated because they were failing to meet their milestones or anything else punitive like that. And keep in mind that NG was way further along towards launch in many ways than either ULA or Blue at that point.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2023 03:59 pm by Starshipdown »

Offline AlexP

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 73
SNIP


Obviously New Glenn's development is a mess, but is that really a fair description of what happened?

"The purpose of the agreements was to help Phase 2 competitors pay for launch vehicle development and infrastructure. Blue Origin received $500 million; Northrop Grumman $792 million and ULA $967 million. The funds were to be spread out through 2024, and the Air Force from the beginning said the LSAs would be terminated with those companies that did not win a Phase 2 procurement contract."
https://spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
[edit - this isn't yet taking into account the decreased award amount, just posting it for the info about early termination]

So: the funds were supposed to be spread out until 2024, and failing to win phase 2 contracts was always going to lead to early termination. Maybe there's extra information out there that I don't have access to regarding particular missed deadlines?

And yeah, it's obviously possible, even probable, that losing the HLS contract again will also lead to no change, at which point we can firmly say Bob Smith probably has a job for life and adjust our ever-dimming hopes accordingly.

edit - for clarification
The AirForce gave the award expecting timely completion of the milestones. The fact that Blue performed soo slowly/poorly they terminated the contract means exactly that. That the airforce expected a certain speed of progress, which blue was completely unable to produce.
Well, that's not what the quote I provided says, on either front. Given you also insisted in multiple posts recently that they were paid 2.5bn by the Air Force, I'll need you to provide a source for what you're saying here.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
SNIP


Obviously New Glenn's development is a mess, but is that really a fair description of what happened?

"The purpose of the agreements was to help Phase 2 competitors pay for launch vehicle development and infrastructure. Blue Origin received $500 million; Northrop Grumman $792 million and ULA $967 million. The funds were to be spread out through 2024, and the Air Force from the beginning said the LSAs would be terminated with those companies that did not win a Phase 2 procurement contract."
https://spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
[edit - this isn't yet taking into account the decreased award amount, just posting it for the info about early termination]

So: the funds were supposed to be spread out until 2024, and failing to win phase 2 contracts was always going to lead to early termination. Maybe there's extra information out there that I don't have access to regarding particular missed deadlines?

And yeah, it's obviously possible, even probable, that losing the HLS contract again will also lead to no change, at which point we can firmly say Bob Smith probably has a job for life and adjust our ever-dimming hopes accordingly.

edit - for clarification
The AirForce gave the award expecting timely completion of the milestones. The fact that Blue performed soo slowly/poorly they terminated the contract means exactly that. That the airforce expected a certain speed of progress, which blue was completely unable to produce.

Do you or woods170 have anything to back that statement up with? The SN article is pretty explicit and provides much better information here than either of you two have. Nothing was stated about either Blue or Northrop Grumman having their LSA-1 awards terminated because they were failing to meet their milestones or anything else punitive like that. And keep in mind that NG was way further along towards launch in many ways than either ULA or Blue at that point.
Fact is the airforce cancelled their contract due to performance (this is an easy google). If you believe that blue's performance was adequate or higher, please prove so.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2023 04:05 pm by deadman1204 »

Offline whitelancer64

SNIP


Obviously New Glenn's development is a mess, but is that really a fair description of what happened?

"The purpose of the agreements was to help Phase 2 competitors pay for launch vehicle development and infrastructure. Blue Origin received $500 million; Northrop Grumman $792 million and ULA $967 million. The funds were to be spread out through 2024, and the Air Force from the beginning said the LSAs would be terminated with those companies that did not win a Phase 2 procurement contract."
https://spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
[edit - this isn't yet taking into account the decreased award amount, just posting it for the info about early termination]

So: the funds were supposed to be spread out until 2024, and failing to win phase 2 contracts was always going to lead to early termination. Maybe there's extra information out there that I don't have access to regarding particular missed deadlines?

And yeah, it's obviously possible, even probable, that losing the HLS contract again will also lead to no change, at which point we can firmly say Bob Smith probably has a job for life and adjust our ever-dimming hopes accordingly.

edit - for clarification
The AirForce gave the award expecting timely completion of the milestones. The fact that Blue performed soo slowly/poorly they terminated the contract means exactly that. That the airforce expected a certain speed of progress, which blue was completely unable to produce.

Do you or woods170 have anything to back that statement up with? The SN article is pretty explicit and provides much better information here than either of you two have. Nothing was stated about either Blue or Northrop Grumman having their LSA-1 awards terminated because they were failing to meet their milestones or anything else punitive like that. And keep in mind that NG was way further along towards launch in many ways than either ULA or Blue at that point.
Fact is the airforce cancelled their contract due to performance (this is an easy google). If you believe that blue's performance was adequate or higher, please prove so.

No, they cancelled the $500 million development contract because Blue Origin wasn't selected for the NSSL launches. They did the same thing for Northrop Grumman.

If it's easily found, then you should have no problem providing a link to a source (or two or three) to back up what you've been saying.

So far my Google searches haven't resulted in anything to back up what you're saying. There are many articles on the NSSL award but none that say Blue Origin lost out due to slow or poor performance.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12082
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18060
  • Likes Given: 12086
The AirForce gave the award expecting timely completion of the milestones. The fact that Blue performed soo slowly/poorly they terminated the contract means exactly that. That the airforce expected a certain speed of progress, which blue was completely unable to produce.

Do you or woods170 have anything to back that statement up with? The SN article is pretty explicit and provides much better information here than either of you two have. Nothing was stated about either Blue or Northrop Grumman having their LSA-1 awards terminated because they were failing to meet their milestones or anything else punitive like that. And keep in mind that NG was way further along towards launch in many ways than either ULA or Blue at that point.
Fact is the airforce cancelled their contract due to performance (this is an easy google). If you believe that blue's performance was adequate or higher, please prove so.

No, they cancelled the $500 million development contract because Blue Origin wasn't selected for the NSSL launches. They did the same thing for Northrop Grumman.

If it's easily found, then you should have no problem providing a link to a source (or two or three) to back up what you've been saying.

So far my Google searches haven't resulted in anything to back up what you're saying. There are many articles on the NSSL award but none that say Blue Origin lost out due to slow or poor performance.

What part of "The intent of the LSAs (Phase 1) was to create a more competitive environment leading into Phase 2" did you not understand?

The Phase 1 LSA was started with the intention of having more than 2 competitors for the Phase 2 NSSL competition. The USAF, when they started Phase 1 LSA, knew full well that there was already one Phase 2 NSSL contestant with fully developed vehicles: SpaceX. Which is why Phase 1 LSA gave contracts to ULA, Blue Origin and Northrop-Grumman, for developing Vulcan, New Glenn and OmegA. Purpose was to further the development of those vehicles to the point where they could compete against the vehicles offered by SpaceX. Two of Phase 1 LSA vehicles, at that time (2018), had already been in development for some time: Vulcan had been in development since early 2015 and New Glenn had been in development since 2012.

The situation in late 2018, when the Phase 1 LSA contracts were awarded, was as follows:
- Vulcan had been in development for a good 3 years since 2015
- New Glenn had been in development for a good 6 years since 2012.
- The main engine for both had been in development since 2011.
- Omega had been development for just a year, since 2017.

The size of the Phase 1 LSA awards was dependent on how much development of the vehicles had already progressed, as perceived by USAF.
That resulted in Omega gitting the biggest award (almost $1B) because it had most of development still to go.
The second biggest award (a little less than $800M) went to Vulcan, which had seen only half the development period compared to Blue Origin. And that latter fact explains why Blue Origin got the smallest award (of "just" $500M): the USAF deemed them to be furthest along in launch vehicel development.

If the intention of Phase 2 NSSL had been to go with the incumbents (ULA and SpaceX) regardless, then the entire Phase 1 LSA would not have been necessary.
Yet, USAF awarded over $2B worth of development contracts to Vulcan, New Glenn and Omega anyway. This resulted in Blue Origin going head-to-head with ULA. Both had more-or-less equal chances to become the second provider besides SpaceX.
But where ULA, under the excellent leadership of Tory Bruno, grabbed that opportunity with both hands (they accelerated Vulcan development), Blue Origin did NOT grab the opportunity. They just kept muddying along in the slow pace they had always done.

Two years later, USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
Which led them to award the second Phase 2 NSSL award to ULA (the first one going to SpaceX).

It is possible that Blue wrongly interpreted the projected runtime of the Phase 1 LSA. It was projected to spend funds from 2018 to 2024. BUT, USAF had stated, from the beginning, that upon awarding of the Phase 2 NSSL contract, that the losing Phase 1 contestants would see termination of their Phase 1 LSA contracts. And it had already been communicated in 2018 that the Phase 2 contracts would be awarded in late 2020.

THAT little fact should have been enough for Blue to recognize that they basically had just TWO years (between late 2018 and late 2020) to get New Glenn development firmly AHEAD of Vulcan development (where Blue Origin should have been in the first place to begin with, given that New Glenn started development a full THREE YEARS before Vulcan).

Yet Blue Origin totally screwed the pooch. They did not accelerate. They let ULA overtake them. They did not do their best to complete the majority of the milestones before the USAF was to decide on the Phase 2 NSSL contracts. In other words: their performance in the Phase 1 LSA was dismal. And exactly because their performance was dismal, they did not win a Phase 2 NSSL contract, which automatically resulted in termination of their Phase 1 contract.


So yes, the termination of Blue's Phase 1 LSA contract was the direct result of a lack of adequate performance.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2023 02:26 pm by woods170 »

Offline whitelancer64

*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?
« Last Edit: 01/24/2023 02:57 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?
I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Offline whitelancer64

*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Interesting take, particularly since it undermines your repeatedly expressed position.

I must ask, then, how does Woods know that New Glenn wasn't meeting its milestones, while Vulcan was completing a "high number" of them? In an above comment, Woods says that Blue Origin had completed just over half of their Phase 1 milestones.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2023 03:34 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9162
  • Likes Given: 38
*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Interesting take, particularly since it undermines your repeatedly expressed position.

I must ask, then, how does Woods know that New Glenn wasn't meeting its milestones, while Vulcan was completing a "high number" of them? In an above comment, Woods says that Blue Origin had completed just over half of their Phase 1 milestones.
Well, there's a flight Vulcan sitting at the cape today starting its integration for flight. But even the most ardent BO fans would not be able to claim with a straight face that there is a finished New Glenn first stage with 7 mounted engines, a finished upper stage with engines mounted, and finished fairings, all completed and ready for integration and rollout. That's a fairly concrete milestone to compare.

Offline whitelancer64

*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Interesting take, particularly since it undermines your repeatedly expressed position.

I must ask, then, how does Woods know that New Glenn wasn't meeting its milestones, while Vulcan was completing a "high number" of them? In an above comment, Woods says that Blue Origin had completed just over half of their Phase 1 milestones.
Well, there's a flight Vulcan sitting at the cape today starting its integration for flight. But even the most ardent BO fans would not be able to claim with a straight face that there is a finished New Glenn first stage with 7 mounted engines, a finished upper stage with engines mounted, and finished fairings, all completed and ready for integration and rollout. That's a fairly concrete milestone to compare.

Completely irrelevant, thank you.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Indeed, it is not public.  Which makes Woods' statements that much more suspect.

"While the U.S. Air Force said that it did not pay termination costs to Northrop Grumman [NOC] and Blue Origin for ending their Launch Service Agreement Other Transaction Authority (LSA OTA) pacts on Dec. 31, the service did pay the companies for meeting milestones in the more than two years the companies spent developing their launch systems–OmegA for Northrop Grumman and New Glenn for Blue Origin.

The Air Force paid $531.7 million to Northrop Grumman and $255.5 million to Blue Origin (Defense Daily, Jan. 22).

“The LSA Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements were public-private partnerships where the government and industry contributed funds to the development of the respective launch systems,” the Air Force wrote in an email on Feb. 1. “The funds contributed by the Government were tied to contractual milestones and data deliverables. The government paid each industry partner when evidence was provided that milestones documenting progress towards the completion of its launch system were achieved (e.g., successful completion of various design reviews, key facilities, test articles, components, and tests). The details of the milestones are specific to each industry partner’s launch system. Therefore, they are company proprietary and not publicly releasable.”

https://www.defensedaily.com/air-force-787-2-million-northrop-grumman-blue-origin-meeting-lsa-development-milestones/space/
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Interesting take, particularly since it undermines your repeatedly expressed position.

I must ask, then, how does Woods know that New Glenn wasn't meeting its milestones, while Vulcan was completing a "high number" of them? In an above comment, Woods says that Blue Origin had completed just over half of their Phase 1 milestones.
OK prove me wrong. If this is about you winning a debate, go get the info you are demanding. Don't just pretend everyone is wrong if they cannot produce all the info you demand.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2023 04:35 pm by deadman1204 »

Offline AlexP

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 73
I mean if all we're doing is providing opinions of what might have gone on in the contract, then okay. But it seemed like factual statements were being made, for which sources are preferable.

I personally think Bezos and Musk would pose together for a "BFFs forever!" photo before ULA would fail to win that DoD contract, but there you go.

Offline whitelancer64

*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Interesting take, particularly since it undermines your repeatedly expressed position.

I must ask, then, how does Woods know that New Glenn wasn't meeting its milestones, while Vulcan was completing a "high number" of them? In an above comment, Woods says that Blue Origin had completed just over half of their Phase 1 milestones.
OK prove me wrong. If this is about you winning a debate, go get the info you are demanding. Don't just pretend everyone is wrong if they cannot produce all the info you demand.

Prove you wrong? ???

No.

The burden of proof is on the person who is making the claim.

You are the one asserting that the Air Force said that Blue Origin's poor performance is the reason that they cancelled the contract.

It is on YOU to prove that YOUR claims are right, by supplying evidence showing that what you are saying is true.


At any rate, I think you have been proven wrong already, as multiple articles have been linked to this thread discussing the cancellation of Blue Origin's NSSL contract, none of which mention poor performance on the part of Blue Origin as the reason why the contract was cancelled.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2023 05:34 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • Liked: 2494
  • Likes Given: 2191
If getting the axe mix-contract is not evidence of poor performance, what is?

Offline vaporcobra

Many of the dismissive commenters on here have been around for years. You should know full well that woods170 has proven to be a reliable source of info and insight beyond what the average public has access to.

Offline AlexP

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 73
I'll re-post this as it's fairly clear and to the point:
"The purpose of the agreements was to help Phase 2 competitors pay for launch vehicle development and infrastructure. Blue Origin received $500 million; Northrop Grumman $792 million and ULA $967 million. The funds were to be spread out through 2024, and the Air Force from the beginning said the LSAs would be terminated with those companies that did not win a Phase 2 procurement contract."
https://spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
Emphasis mine.

So the rejoinder here is now becoming "well they didn't do well enough to justify selection, ergo they did poorly." I would put some stock in this if most people weren't of the overwhelming view, long before the phase 2 awards were announced, that ULA and SpaceX would win the awards. Here are two separate threads from this site with polls demonstrating this:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48112.0
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48797.0

Obviously not definitive of opinion everywhere, but I think given the expertise and interest-level on this site it presents a very good ballpark. Therefore, I don't think the stated argument is very persuasive. Quite possibly BO did do poorly, but not winning the competition is itself not strong evidence of this.

If it's based on not publicly available data then... not really a lot of point having this back and forth.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2023 06:47 pm by AlexP »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
If getting the axe mix-contract is not evidence of poor performance, what is?
I do not like BO, but this is not reasonable. The NSSL contracts were a competition to select two providers. There are not enough NSSL launches to support more than two providers. One provider was SpaceX and did not get any development money because they were bidding Their existing NSSL-qualified rockets: F9 and FH. The other three providers were therefore effectively competing for the second slot. ULA won, so development funding was stopped for the other two competitors. This was not specifically because Northrup Grumman or BO were performing poorly. It was because ULA was performing better. The contract was awarded in 2020 for launches to start in 2022.

I personally think that BO was performing poorly, by which I mean they had no realistic chance of delivering New Glenn in time to actually support NSSL phase 2 launches, but that's not the issue here.

Offline whitelancer64

Many of the dismissive commenters on here have been around for years. You should know full well that woods170 has proven to be a reliable source of info and insight beyond what the average public has access to.

I'm aware of Woods' knowledgeable posting elsewhere.  Still, I would like to see a source for his claim that Blue Origin completed half their milestones while ULA completed "more," and that this was viewed by the military as poor performance.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 02:20 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14123
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13998
  • Likes Given: 1391
*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

According to your logic, maybe BO also has a fusion drive tucked in the corner of one of its hangers.

This is not a semantics competition.  NG could not have met any significant milestones since so many years later, it is still a complete no-show.  BO never misses a chance to crow about achievements.  It's just that it doesn't have that many.

If they didn't get the second phase award despite the high promise of NG, and other competitors did, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline whitelancer64

*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

According to your logic, maybe BO also has a fusion drive tucked in the corner of one of its hangers.

This is not a semantics competition.  NG could not have met any significant milestones since so many years later, it is still a complete no-show.  BO never misses a chance to crow about achievements.  It's just that it doesn't have that many.

If they didn't get the second phase award despite the high promise of NG, and other competitors did, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.

Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • Liked: 2494
  • Likes Given: 2191
….snip.. I don't think the stated argument is very persuasive. Quite possibly BO did do poorly, but not winning the competition is itself not strong evidence of this.

If it's based on not publicly available data then... not really a lot of point having this back and forth.

Not sure what us being posited here? B.O. never had a chance of winning, everybody knew it, therefore getting axed in the middle of the competition is not a poor performance?   

I am not trying to spin anything, I am not “trolling” as some of the B.O. fanatics suggest. A “good” performance would have been getting a contract.

A “poor” performance would be having a competitor start later than you and then beat you with your own engines.

Offline whitelancer64

….snip.. I don't think the stated argument is very persuasive. Quite possibly BO did do poorly, but not winning the competition is itself not strong evidence of this.

If it's based on not publicly available data then... not really a lot of point having this back and forth.

Not sure what us being posited here? B.O. never had a chance of winning, everybody knew it, therefore getting axed in the middle of the competition is not a poor performance?   

I am not trying to spin anything, I am not “trolling” as some of the B.O. fanatics suggest. A “good” performance would have been getting a contract.

A “poor” performance would be having a competitor start later than you and then beat you with your own engines.

That's the thing, they didn't get axed in the middle of the competition.

And yes, they did have a chance of winning. It wouldn't have been a competition otherwise, that was the whole point of the development contracts, to give Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, and ULA a shot at winning some of the launches.

Blue Origin's development contract was cancelled when the NSSL launches were awarded to ULA and SpaceX. Northrop Grumman's development contract was also cancelled at the same time -- because the competition was over.

And "good" vs "poor" isn't about winning the contract, two posters here are saying that the military characterized Blue Origin's performance as poor without providing any supporting evidence that that is the case.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2023 07:43 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline AlexP

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 73
….snip.. I don't think the stated argument is very persuasive. Quite possibly BO did do poorly, but not winning the competition is itself not strong evidence of this.

If it's based on not publicly available data then... not really a lot of point having this back and forth.

Not sure what us being posited here? B.O. never had a chance of winning, everybody knew it, therefore getting axed in the middle of the competition is not a poor performance?   

I am not trying to spin anything, I am not “trolling” as some of the B.O. fanatics suggest. A “good” performance would have been getting a contract.

A “poor” performance would be having a competitor start later than you and then beat you with your own engines.
To reduce it down to an even simpler version of what I already said: ULA and SpaceX were always the strong favourites to be selected, therefore you cannot extract any information as to how "good" or "bad" (the exact word originally used was "dismal") BO's performance was in said competition from their not, as expected, winning. ULA are old hands, and were never likely to drop the ball on it.

I just think it's quite easy to critically discuss something without resorting to over-the-top language in order to exaggerate a point.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14123
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13998
  • Likes Given: 1391
Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.

Call it the "mean value theorem of dysfunction".  It is 2023 now.  NG won't be flying even in 2024.  If some milestones were met, then the project got stuck after them.  Or, they were never met.  Given the cancellation, the second option is likelier, but it doesn't really matter.

Where.  Is.  The.  Progress.

You keep demanding that everyone present proof of absence, whereas everyone else is saying how about BO present some bone-fide rockets.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 02:27 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12082
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18060
  • Likes Given: 12086
*snip*
USAF viewed the results and saw much progress in Vulcan development, with a high number of milestones completed. But they also saw way-less-than-much progress in New Glenn development, with a much lower number of milestones completed.
*snip*

Perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

How many milestones did ULA complete compared to Blue Origin? Which milestones were they? Can you provide a link with this information?

Also, when did they characterize Blue Origin's performance as poor or too slow?

I'm gonna bet you are asking the impossible. That information probably isn't public.

Interesting take, particularly since it undermines your repeatedly expressed position.

I must ask, then, how does Woods know that New Glenn wasn't meeting its milestones, while Vulcan was completing a "high number" of them? In an above comment, Woods says that Blue Origin had completed just over half of their Phase 1 milestones.
Well, there's a flight Vulcan sitting at the cape today starting its integration for flight. But even the most ardent BO fans would not be able to claim with a straight face that there is a finished New Glenn first stage with 7 mounted engines, a finished upper stage with engines mounted, and finished fairings, all completed and ready for integration and rollout. That's a fairly concrete milestone to compare.

Emphasis mine.

Exactly!

Even without having the benefit of being able to talk to sources inside ULA, SpaceX, Airbus, etc., anyone who kept his/hers eyes peeled has seen that ULA overcame Blue's 3-year lead in a rapid pace.

And that is not because Blue supposedly has no experience in building orbital class rockets. They vacuumed up a huge number of(former) SpaceX, ULA, Boeing, LockMart and NASA folks. All the experience they need is there. All the money they needed was there as well: starting in 2015 Jeff's been consistently funding Blue from his own pockets with at least $1B per year. Heck, they even found a stray $3B to try to change NASA's mind with regards to the HLS award to SpaceX. So, availability of funding is not the issue either.

Then why is it that Blue allowed ULA to overtake them in the Phase 2 NSSL competition?

Well, in my opinion it is because being competitive is NOT in Blue's DNA. Being fast is NOT in Blue's DNA. And that is why they continue to lose competitions for government work. I would not be surprised if the second HLS award goes to Dynetics. I also wouldn't be surprised if, in round 2 of Commercial LEO Destinations, Starlab is selected instead of Blue's Orbital Reef.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 09:36 am by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12082
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18060
  • Likes Given: 12086
Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.

Call it the "mean value theorem of dysfunction".  It is 2023 now.  NG won't be flying even in 2024.  If some milestones were met, then the project got stuck after them.  Or, they were never met.  Given the cancellation, the second option is likelier, but it doesn't really matter.

Where.  Is.  The.  Progress.

You keep demanding that everyone present proof of absence, whereas everyone else is saying how about BO present some bone-fide rockets.

Emphasis mine.

That is indeed the question to ask, based on the delays communicated by Blue itself.

Here's a short history:
- In 2016 Blue indicated a 2020 launch date for New Glenn.
- In 2018 Blue indicated a 2021 launch date for New Glenn.
- In early 2021 Blue indicated a late 2022 launch date for New Glenn.
- In early 2022 Blue indicated a late 2023 launch date for New Glenn.

It shows very slow progress. The initial estimate in 2016 was that launch was 4 years away. Two years later, in 2018, launch was still 3 years away, indicating a delay of 1 year.
Three years after that, launch was still almost 2 years away, upping the total delay to 2 years.
But here is the thing: one year after the 2021 announcement, Blue once again communicated that launch was still nearly 2 years away. That is year-for-year slip. That is the kind of slips SLS suffered for years in a row. It also indicates no real progress towards launch in the 2020 to 2022 timeframe. Perhaps COVID related? But then why did ULA NOT suffer the same problem with Vulcan?

Progress is undeniably there however. In late summer 2022 images of flight-like test hardware for the upper stage and fairings finally began to emerge. As well as images of tank sections, domes, interstage and engine section of the first stage. But progress is slow. Mind you, this thing was supposed to launch in 2020, meaning that test articles would have to be completed at least a year before that, to facilitate the usual static tests and integrated test firings. But only now, early 2023, are test articles finally being completed, with the majority of the static tests, and integrated test firings yet to happen. Heck, some of the GSE needed to support those tests is still under construction. It is therefore IMO unwise to assume that Blue will make the current target date of "late 2023". More like it will slip at least another year, to late 2024.

If Blue manages to get New Glenn off the launch pad by late 2024, it will mark one of the longest - if not THE longest - development timeline of any US orbital rocket, ever. Twelve years from initiation of development to launch.
That's even two years longer than the protracted development timeline of SLS.
By comparison the, generally considered, lengthy development timelines of Falcon Heavy (7 years) and Vulcan (8 years) look blazing fast.

I won't even compare New Glenn development to the Atlas V and Delta IV development timelines, because that would only serve to make New Glenn's development timeline look even more ridiculous.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 10:48 am by woods170 »

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3373
  • Liked: 6076
  • Likes Given: 828
In the phase one competition, Blue would get $500M if they completed all their milestones, and Northrop-Grumman $792M.  Each company got $109M to start.   At terminination, both companies were paid for milestones achieved.  Blue got $256M and Northrop $532M.

If the first $109M was an advance on milestones, then Blue got (109+256)/500 = 73% of possible milestone based money.  Northrop got (109+532)/792 = 81% of their milestone based money.  If the first $109M was a simple payment, and the rest based on milestones, then Blue got 256/391 = 65% of their money, and Northrop 532/683 = 77% of their money.

Now milestone dollars and milestone achievements are not perfectly correlated (when I worked on milestone based contracts we definitely looked at $/milestone/difficulty and prioritized the most cost-effective ones).  But naively this implies they got less expected work done than Northrop, and if the award was based on confidence they would succeed, they likely finished third (out of three).
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 12:51 pm by LouScheffer »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15351
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8492
  • Likes Given: 1346
New Glenn and Omega lost to Falcon 9/Heavy and Vulcan because Falcon 9/Heavy and Vulcan were better options at the time of the competition.  Winners get funding to build rockets.  The losers don't - and haven't.  Blue did win part of the Vulcan contract, by the way, and is building and delivering BE-4 engines as a result.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 01:44 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9162
  • Likes Given: 38
In the FY2021 budget for NGSV/1206853SF (the only one where the line item was split by provider, as previous years under 1206853F were confidential) ULA received $327m (plus $25m congressional add for engine dev), whereas BO received $36m (plus $25m congressional add for engine dev) and NG received $40m. ULA funding also tapers off to much lower levels for FY2022 and FY2023 ($140m, out of $967m total), indicating most Phase 1 milestones were completed by FY2021.

::EDIT:: https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY23/RDTE_/FY23%20Space%20Force%20Research%20Development%20Test%20and%20Evaluation.pdf
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 01:58 pm by edzieba »

Offline whitelancer64

Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.

Call it the "mean value theorem of dysfunction".  It is 2023 now.  NG won't be flying even in 2024.  If some milestones were met, then the project got stuck after them.  Or, they were never met.  Given the cancellation, the second option is likelier, but it doesn't really matter.

Where.  Is.  The.  Progress.

You keep demanding that everyone present proof of absence, whereas everyone else is saying how about BO present some bone-fide rockets.

We are talking about the milestones of the NSSL competition, not whatever you have dreamed up in your head. Per a prior comment by Woods, Blue Origin met at least half of the milestones set by the NSSL development contract. I'd like to know their source for that.

I have not demanded any proof of absence. You are gibbering nonsense in that respect.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 02:09 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.

Call it the "mean value theorem of dysfunction".  It is 2023 now.  NG won't be flying even in 2024.  If some milestones were met, then the project got stuck after them.  Or, they were never met.  Given the cancellation, the second option is likelier, but it doesn't really matter.

Where.  Is.  The.  Progress.

You keep demanding that everyone present proof of absence, whereas everyone else is saying how about BO present some bone-fide rockets.

We are talking about the milestones of the NSSL competition, not whatever you have dreamed up in your head. Per a prior comment by Woods, Blue Origin met at least half of the milestones set by the NSSL development contract. I'd like to know their source for that.

I have not demanded any proof of absence. You are gibbering nonsense in that respect.
Maybe you should step back for a day or two. Almost 50% of posts in anything related to blue are you responding to literally everything.

Offline whitelancer64


Maybe you should step back for a day or two. Almost 50% of posts in anything related to blue are you responding to literally everything.

Maybe you should stop making questionable or outright false posts about Blue Origin for a day or two so I can step away.

I'm not a huge fan of Blue Origin and it's frankly annoying that people make misleading, false, or blatant lying posts about Blue Origin that I have to step in and question or correct.
« Last Edit: 01/25/2023 03:27 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
IF Blue actually gets a rocket to orbit, they might win a contract.  Until then, we have to wait and see.  As pointed out, they are slow, and they are slower than ULA.  They also keep things very secret as far as engines, and other developments. 

Offline whitelancer64

IF Blue actually gets a rocket to orbit, they might win a contract.  Until then, we have to wait and see.  As pointed out, they are slow, and they are slower than ULA.  They also keep things very secret as far as engines, and other developments.

You do not have to put a rocket into orbit to win a contract. That is not and never has been a prerequisite.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6450
  • Liked: 4553
  • Likes Given: 5058
IF Blue actually gets a rocket to orbit, they might win a contract.  Until then, we have to wait and see.  As pointed out, they are slow, and they are slower than ULA.  They also keep things very secret as far as engines, and other developments.

You do not have to put a rocket into orbit to win a contract. That is not and never has been a prerequisite.

Once again you are clearly correct, but totally off base.
You do not have to put a rocket into orbit to win a contract. but you have to put a rocket in orbit to win respect, to be taken seriously.
There are terms for payloads that fly on debut launches.
Among then are "expendable",  "low budget", "risk tolerant", and "in-house".
These are not the type of payloads we are discussing here.

But none of this is addressing the OP question of "How would wining the second HLS contract change Blue"?

I won't attenpt to answer that either.
What may be addressable is the inverse: "How would Blue have to change to win the second HLS contract?"
I see three ways:

1 Lean more heavily on the politicians to slide the contract to them and have them work on it exactly as they have worked on New Glenn.
In secret.  Waiting to be sued to produce the data that was to be delivered under the contract.  Never showing flight hardware.

2 Pay for development by the major aerospace companies they have on their team to produce credible designs. 
Who here expects Boeing to pay for a design of a segment that has to launch on New Glenn before it debuts?
Who here expects Boeing to invest heavily in a system with few flight prospects?

3 Get their act together.  Fly New Glenn.  Create a compelling case for a traditional lunar lander that meets the technical requirements, like 4 astronauts, and the fiscal constraints.  Show progress and convince their partners to join in wholeheartedly.

If Blue chooses door number 3 as their way to win, the change in the company will be tremendous and great to see.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14123
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13998
  • Likes Given: 1391
Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.

Call it the "mean value theorem of dysfunction".  It is 2023 now.  NG won't be flying even in 2024.  If some milestones were met, then the project got stuck after them.  Or, they were never met.  Given the cancellation, the second option is likelier, but it doesn't really matter.

Where.  Is.  The.  Progress.

You keep demanding that everyone present proof of absence, whereas everyone else is saying how about BO present some bone-fide rockets.

We are talking about the milestones of the NSSL competition, not whatever you have dreamed up in your head. Per a prior comment by Woods, Blue Origin met at least half of the milestones set by the NSSL development contract. I'd like to know their source for that.

I have not demanded any proof of absence. You are gibbering nonsense in that respect.
"don't look at reality, look at the sock puppet over here, that's what's important"

---

You're saying that it's not impossible that the project was humming along just fine, met milestones on time, and then stalled on a dime... and you're asking for people to prove you're wrong even though BO keeps those things a secret.

I'm telling you that realistically if your project drags for so many years then the milestones were likely equally late.

I'm also telling you that the state of the project is a lot more important than whether the milestones were achieved on time.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2023 12:53 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline whitelancer64

Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.

Call it the "mean value theorem of dysfunction".  It is 2023 now.  NG won't be flying even in 2024.  If some milestones were met, then the project got stuck after them.  Or, they were never met.  Given the cancellation, the second option is likelier, but it doesn't really matter.

Where.  Is.  The.  Progress.

You keep demanding that everyone present proof of absence, whereas everyone else is saying how about BO present some bone-fide rockets.

We are talking about the milestones of the NSSL competition, not whatever you have dreamed up in your head. Per a prior comment by Woods, Blue Origin met at least half of the milestones set by the NSSL development contract. I'd like to know their source for that.

I have not demanded any proof of absence. You are gibbering nonsense in that respect.
"don't look at reality, look at the sock puppet over here, that's what's important"

---

You're saying that it's not impossible that the project was humming along just fine, met milestones on time, and then stalled on a dime... and you're asking for people to prove you're wrong even though BO keeps those things a secret.

I'm telling you that realistically if your project drags for so many years then the milestones were likely equally late.

I'm also telling you that the state of the project is a lot more important than whether the milestones were achieved on time.

I have NOT asked anyone to prove me wrong. You're thinking of Deadman, who literally did say that.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58124.msg2451874#msg2451874

You may have missed my response to that, which is, of course, that the burden of proof is upon the person who makes the claim.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58124.msg2451893#msg2451893

I'm asking for evidence, if any exists available to the public, of how many NSSL development milestones were met. Woods has made very specific claims related to that. I'd like to know how he knows that, if there's a source he can share. I've made it very clear that's what I'm asking for several times now and he has been suspiciously silent in regards to this.

And yes, it's possible that Blue Origin's progress was going all right -- considering, as Woods has claimed, that they met half of their development milestones -- and things rather fell off of a cliff when the contract was cancelled and they were no longer receiving payment for completing milestones.

Quote
"I'm also telling you that the state of the project is a lot more important than whether the milestones were achieved on time."

What matters is how the military thought things were going. Clearly ULA and SpaceX came out on top. That does not mean that Blue Origin was making no progress.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1237
  • Likes Given: 438
Can you explain how your comment relates to the the NSSL contract's development milestones (which we have already established we do not know what they were for each company)?

If not, then your post is wholly irrelevant.

You're just vomiting up mindless anti-Blue Origin rhetoric, which is both off-topic to the conversation at hand, and unproductive to the furtherance of any other possible discussion. We don't need any more of that nonsense here.

Call it the "mean value theorem of dysfunction".  It is 2023 now.  NG won't be flying even in 2024.  If some milestones were met, then the project got stuck after them.  Or, they were never met.  Given the cancellation, the second option is likelier, but it doesn't really matter.

Where.  Is.  The.  Progress.

You keep demanding that everyone present proof of absence, whereas everyone else is saying how about BO present some bone-fide rockets.

We are talking about the milestones of the NSSL competition, not whatever you have dreamed up in your head. Per a prior comment by Woods, Blue Origin met at least half of the milestones set by the NSSL development contract. I'd like to know their source for that.

I have not demanded any proof of absence. You are gibbering nonsense in that respect.
Maybe you should step back for a day or two. Almost 50% of posts in anything related to blue are you responding to literally everything.

Perhaps you should take your own advice?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14123
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13998
  • Likes Given: 1391



I have NOT asked anyone to prove me wrong. You're thinking of Deadman,
....
What matters is how the military thought things were going. Clearly ULA and SpaceX came out on top. That does not mean that Blue Origin was making no progress.

Focus.

The *secret progress theory" was semi plausible 3-4 years ago.  With every passing year, it is less so.

Same with the secret milestones that were met and yet yielded no progress except for the aforementioned secret progress.

Your claims boil down to the unfalsifiable assertion that there's a surprisingly mature NG hiding inside the big hangar. I think it's ridiculous, but people are entitled to believe whatever they want.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline whitelancer64




I have NOT asked anyone to prove me wrong. You're thinking of Deadman,
....
What matters is how the military thought things were going. Clearly ULA and SpaceX came out on top. That does not mean that Blue Origin was making no progress.

Focus.

The *secret progress theory" was semi plausible 3-4 years ago.  With every passing year, it is less so.

Same with the secret milestones that were met and yet yielded no progress except for the aforementioned secret progress.

Your claims boil down to the unfalsifiable assertion that there's a surprisingly mature NG hiding inside the big hangar. I think it's ridiculous, but people are entitled to believe whatever they want.

I could say the same to you: Focus on the conversation at hand - the one that's actually going on in this thread - not the one you're having in your head.

They're not "secret" milestones, the people running the NSSL competition know about them. And, so, at least so he claims, does Woods.

If that information is available to a nobody me, I'd like to see it.

That's it. That's all I'm asking for.

That's all that's going on here.

If you think it's something else, you are wrong.

So -you need to focus on what's happening in this thread, not what you wish was happening.

I have not here, and never have claimed elsewhere, that Blue Origin has a mature New Glenn in their hangar. I agree that such an assertion would be ridiculous.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
IF Blue actually gets a rocket to orbit, they might win a contract.  Until then, we have to wait and see.  As pointed out, they are slow, and they are slower than ULA.  They also keep things very secret as far as engines, and other developments.

You do not have to put a rocket into orbit to win a contract. That is not and never has been a prerequisite.


So, they haven't won a contract because they are either too expensive, or their estimated time of an orbital rocket is too long.  So, again, if they put a rocket into orbit, they prove they can launch stuff, then they might win a contract.  The Air Force required SpaceX to have several successful launches before they would let them bid, then it was after a lawsuit by SpaceX. 

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14123
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13998
  • Likes Given: 1391



I have NOT asked anyone to prove me wrong. You're thinking of Deadman,
....
What matters is how the military thought things were going. Clearly ULA and SpaceX came out on top. That does not mean that Blue Origin was making no progress.

Focus.

The *secret progress theory" was semi plausible 3-4 years ago.  With every passing year, it is less so.

Same with the secret milestones that were met and yet yielded no progress except for the aforementioned secret progress.

Your claims boil down to the unfalsifiable assertion that there's a surprisingly mature NG hiding inside the big hangar. I think it's ridiculous, but people are entitled to believe whatever they want.

I could say the same to you: Focus on the conversation at hand - the one that's actually going on in this thread - not the one you're having in your head.

They're not "secret" milestones, the people running the NSSL competition know about them. And, so, at least so he claims, does Woods.

If that information is available to a nobody me, I'd like to see it.

That's it. That's all I'm asking for.

That's all that's going on here.

If you think it's something else, you are wrong.

So -you need to focus on what's happening in this thread, not what you wish was happening.

I have not here, and never have claimed elsewhere, that Blue Origin has a mature New Glenn in their hangar. I agree that such an assertion would be ridiculous.
You're the only one here having this conversation...

Everyone else is telling you that you're stuck on an unfalsifiable assertion that obviously nobody can disprove and that at the end of the day doesn't even matter.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline whitelancer64


I could say the same to you: Focus on the conversation at hand - the one that's actually going on in this thread - not the one you're having in your head.

They're not "secret" milestones, the people running the NSSL competition know about them. And, so, at least so he claims, does Woods.

If that information is available to a nobody me, I'd like to see it.

That's it. That's all I'm asking for.

That's all that's going on here.

If you think it's something else, you are wrong.

So -you need to focus on what's happening in this thread, not what you wish was happening.

I have not here, and never have claimed elsewhere, that Blue Origin has a mature New Glenn in their hangar. I agree that such an assertion would be ridiculous.
You're the only one here having this conversation...

Everyone else is telling you that you're stuck on an unfalsifiable assertion that obviously nobody can disprove and that at the end of the day doesn't even matter.

No, that's the conversation that has been going on in this thread.

You, on the other hand, are setting up a strawman to knock over and then are patting yourself on the back as if you've accomplished something.

I have made no unfalsifiable assertion.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

IF Blue actually gets a rocket to orbit, they might win a contract.  Until then, we have to wait and see.  As pointed out, they are slow, and they are slower than ULA.  They also keep things very secret as far as engines, and other developments.

You do not have to put a rocket into orbit to win a contract. That is not and never has been a prerequisite.


So, they haven't won a contract because they are either too expensive, or their estimated time of an orbital rocket is too long.  So, again, if they put a rocket into orbit, they prove they can launch stuff, then they might win a contract.  The Air Force required SpaceX to have several successful launches before they would let them bid, then it was after a lawsuit by SpaceX.

Well, in general, there are six customers with launch contracts for New Glenn:  Eutelsat, muSpace, OneWeb (5 launches), SKY Perfect JSAT, and Telesat (multiple launches). Most recent launch award was for Kuiper with 12 launches and an option for 15 more.

I agree that New Glenn is very likely to be in a much better position to secure some launch contracts the next round of NSSL awards, and indeed, they are already working to that end.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/blue-origin-nssl-launch-service/
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70487
Moderator:
Enough "he said or thought/no, he said or thought" argument.

Move on, or stop cluttering this thread with cr@p-posts.  A substantial chunk of this thread, with an OP about a hypothetical, is veteran members arguing with one another about topics that they have argued about before. 😴 🪴 😴 Boring.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2023 08:50 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Hug

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Australia
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 95
I think the bigger impact on the company was the entire concept of a HLS contract rather than anything now; we're set in the ways we go. This extract from Amazon Unbound has stuck with me because of how blatant it is.
Quote
Blue Origin was now nakedly opportunistic. After Donald Trump won the presidency and announced the goal of returning Americans to the moon by 2024, Blue executives quickly put together a seven-page proposal outlining a lunar service to the Shackleton crater on the moon’s south pole, paving the way for human colonies there. “It is time for America to return to the Moon—this time to stay,” Bezos emailed the Washington Post, after it obtained a copy of the proposal. The idea would evolve into another massive undertaking, called Blue Moon.

You (and Blue Origin execs) look at SpaceX and a big takeaway in their success is that they were able to scale rapidly off the COTS and CRS contracts into the blossoming firm that they were in 2016. Blue on the other hand... so Bezos and co decides 'right that's it, we're going deep on the next big government contract we see.' Trump goes moon, so they open up a lander department and all that. Which is why they were so upset when they lost. Option A was their ideological method to scaling as a firm; to have SpaceX come in with supposed mars launch vehicle with a new paintjob and win was a slap in the face.

If they win, it's not really changing much about the company. Had they won with the design space I thought they might go with that could've shifted it up but probably not to be (given that we received a contractor list for the announcement). I think the large part of the reason they historically talked about their lander on SLS was because it would be more politically popular. So it's not like the current path is a new thing.

On a side note, you can actually hear some of these thoughts of using gov money to subsidize development of vehicles in their complaints. "NASA is providing SpaceX a $3 billion subsidy to convert a heavy-lift launch vehicle into a sustainable lunar lander"
Quote
Nevertheless, the story ULA execs eventually heard from employees at Blue, Sowers said, was that Bezos was frustrated that the government was funding Elon Musk’s space dreams and wanted to get in on the action. To compete for those lucrative contracts and to “get paid to practice,” as Bezos put it to colleagues

Which is also hinted at in the supposed National team post option A selection meeting. Not everything here turned out, but there's enough that rings a bell.


Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
IF Blue actually gets a rocket to orbit, they might win a contract.  Until then, we have to wait and see.  As pointed out, they are slow, and they are slower than ULA.  They also keep things very secret as far as engines, and other developments.

You do not have to put a rocket into orbit to win a contract. That is not and never has been a prerequisite.


So, they haven't won a contract because they are either too expensive, or their estimated time of an orbital rocket is too long.  So, again, if they put a rocket into orbit, they prove they can launch stuff, then they might win a contract.  The Air Force required SpaceX to have several successful launches before they would let them bid, then it was after a lawsuit by SpaceX.
I think that situation was and will be unique to spaceX. Before that point, the contracts were a ULA monopoly. SpaceX had to sue to break the monopoly. The hard work has now been done, and ULA doesn't solely own gov launch.

And this is great - more competition is ALWAYS better for the space force and for all tax payers.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2023 03:16 pm by deadman1204 »

Offline rpapo

I think that situation was and will be unique to spaceX. Before that point, the contracts were a ULA monopoly. SpaceX had to sue to break the monopoly. The hard work has now been done, and ULA doesn't solely own gov launch.

And this is great - more competition is ALWAYS better for the space force and for all tax payers.
While I wish Blue Origin the best of luck in being able to win some of those contracts, they really need to get something up into orbit.  Even if they have to do it on their own dime (something they have no lack of).  The company has existed for over twenty years now.  They have an expensive joy ride that works most of the time, and they have a really nice Methalox engine which will hopefully be flight tested in a few months.  And some big buildings.  But their silence on all else is not a good thing, considering that they have tended to trumpet their successes quite loudly in the past.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline whitelancer64

I think that situation was and will be unique to spaceX. Before that point, the contracts were a ULA monopoly. SpaceX had to sue to break the monopoly. The hard work has now been done, and ULA doesn't solely own gov launch.

And this is great - more competition is ALWAYS better for the space force and for all tax payers.
While I wish Blue Origin the best of luck in being able to win some of those contracts, they really need to get something up into orbit.  Even if they have to do it on their own dime (something they have no lack of).  The company has existed for over twenty years now.  They have an expensive joy ride that works most of the time, and they have a really nice Methalox engine which will hopefully be flight tested in a few months.  And some big buildings.  But their silence on all else is not a good thing, considering that they have tended to trumpet their successes quite loudly in the past.

Yet another comment with the same, old, worn-out lines in it. It's like you are copy and pasting.

Please come up with new material.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17209
  • Liked: 7067
  • Likes Given: 3045
I think the bigger impact on the company was the entire concept of a HLS contract rather than anything now; we're set in the ways we go. This extract from Amazon Unbound has stuck with me because of how blatant it is.
Quote
Blue Origin was now nakedly opportunistic. After Donald Trump won the presidency and announced the goal of returning Americans to the moon by 2024, Blue executives quickly put together a seven-page proposal outlining a lunar service to the Shackleton crater on the moon’s south pole, paving the way for human colonies there. “It is time for America to return to the Moon—this time to stay,” Bezos emailed the Washington Post, after it obtained a copy of the proposal. The idea would evolve into another massive undertaking, called Blue Moon.

You (and Blue Origin execs) look at SpaceX and a big takeaway in their success is that they were able to scale rapidly off the COTS and CRS contracts into the blossoming firm that they were in 2016. Blue on the other hand... so Bezos and co decides 'right that's it, we're going deep on the next big government contract we see.' Trump goes moon, so they open up a lander department and all that. Which is why they were so upset when they lost. Option A was their ideological method to scaling as a firm; to have SpaceX come in with supposed mars launch vehicle with a new paintjob and win was a slap in the face.

If they win, it's not really changing much about the company. Had they won with the design space I thought they might go with that could've shifted it up but probably not to be (given that we received a contractor list for the announcement). I think the large part of the reason they historically talked about their lander on SLS was because it would be more politically popular. So it's not like the current path is a new thing.

On a side note, you can actually hear some of these thoughts of using gov money to subsidize development of vehicles in their complaints. "NASA is providing SpaceX a $3 billion subsidy to convert a heavy-lift launch vehicle into a sustainable lunar lander"
Quote
Nevertheless, the story ULA execs eventually heard from employees at Blue, Sowers said, was that Bezos was frustrated that the government was funding Elon Musk’s space dreams and wanted to get in on the action. To compete for those lucrative contracts and to “get paid to practice,” as Bezos put it to colleagues

Which is also hinted at in the supposed National team post option A selection meeting. Not everything here turned out, but there's enough that rings a bell.



It's surprising that Blue didn't anticipate that SpaceX's Option A bid would end up being much lower than their bid. The prices of the base period bid were public information (see the post below), so they should have know that SpaceX's price would be around $2.25B (the base period price) or slightly more (it ended up being $2.9B for Option A):

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46645.msg2103598#msg2103598
« Last Edit: 01/30/2023 11:38 pm by yg1968 »

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2123
  • Likes Given: 57
It's surprising that Blue didn't anticipate that SpaceX's Option A bid would end up being much lower than their bid. The prices of the base period bid were public information (see the post below), so they should have know that SpaceX's price would be around $2.25B (the base period price) or slightly more (it ended up being $2.9B for Option A):

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46645.msg2103598#msg2103598
I don't think they were surprised by SpaceX being cheaper. They were surprised by NASA not having enough money to back two bids. They figured "with two winning bids, we only need to beat Dynetics and we're good, so we can basically ignore SpaceX and not worry about how much better they are than us." Which arguably is exactly the type of thinking NASA explicitly encouraged with the new split-bid process for landings past the first (e.g. having SpaceX submit a sole-source bid, and separately have everyone else bid against each other).

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 470
  • Likes Given: 2110
  I am not "clued-in" like many people here are, but I see nothing in what BO has achieved so far to warrant serious consideration for such an important contract; i actually think the money would be better spent shoring-up the existing
work being done, and ISS follow-on. Let BO get something actually done with orbital Reef, for instance. IMHO, of course!

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
  I am not "clued-in" like many people here are, but I see nothing in what BO has achieved so far to warrant serious consideration for such an important contract; i actually think the money would be better spent shoring-up the existing
work being done, and ISS follow-on. Let BO get something actually done with orbital Reef, for instance. IMHO, of course!
Appendix P is money that congress directed NASA to spend on an HLS from an alternate provider. Congress did not  (quite) explicitly require that the money must go to BO, but it smells like that to a lot of observers.  It is a stupid waste of time and money, IF Starship succeeds. If Starship fails it may suddenly end up looking like a brilliant piece of insurance that saves Artemis.  Reminder: in 2016, Boeing was obviously the best choice for CCP and SpaceX was a long-shot backup alternative in most people's minds.

I think Starship is very nearly certain to succeed, and I think NASA should find a way to cancel Appendix P if Artemis 3 succeeds, but "prediction is difficult, especially the future".


Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14123
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13998
  • Likes Given: 1391
I think that situation was and will be unique to spaceX. Before that point, the contracts were a ULA monopoly. SpaceX had to sue to break the monopoly. The hard work has now been done, and ULA doesn't solely own gov launch.

And this is great - more competition is ALWAYS better for the space force and for all tax payers.
While I wish Blue Origin the best of luck in being able to win some of those contracts, they really need to get something up into orbit.  Even if they have to do it on their own dime (something they have no lack of).  The company has existed for over twenty years now.  They have an expensive joy ride that works most of the time, and they have a really nice Methalox engine which will hopefully be flight tested in a few months.  And some big buildings.  But their silence on all else is not a good thing, considering that they have tended to trumpet their successes quite loudly in the past.

Yet another comment with the same, old, worn-out lines in it. It's like you are copy and pasting.

Please come up with new material.
Maybe when there's something new of worth to write about...

There's a routine here.  BO posts a video with basically nothing new, the thread comes alive with the same back and forth, eventually dies down, repeat.

As long as you keep getting excited over the non developments, you can't blame people from repeatedly putting them in perspective...

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline JCRM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 445

As long as you keep getting excited over the non developments, you can't blame people from repeatedly putting them in perspective...

Perhaps you could work on "putting things in perspective" in an objective and non-antagonistic manner?

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1749
  • USA
  • Liked: 1457
  • Likes Given: 2474
I think that situation was and will be unique to spaceX. Before that point, the contracts were a ULA monopoly. SpaceX had to sue to break the monopoly. The hard work has now been done, and ULA doesn't solely own gov launch.

And this is great - more competition is ALWAYS better for the space force and for all tax payers.
While I wish Blue Origin the best of luck in being able to win some of those contracts, they really need to get something up into orbit.  Even if they have to do it on their own dime (something they have no lack of).  The company has existed for over twenty years now.  They have an expensive joy ride that works most of the time, and they have a really nice Methalox engine which will hopefully be flight tested in a few months.  And some big buildings.  But their silence on all else is not a good thing, considering that they have tended to trumpet their successes quite loudly in the past.

Yet another comment with the same, old, worn-out lines in it. It's like you are copy and pasting.

Please come up with new material.
People also say that water is wet. It never stops being true.
Blue takes on project after project but never finished them.  Believe it or not, no one here wants Blue to suck and fail. We're all space fans, the more the better.
We are just disillusioned because they keep promising and not delivering. There is also the legal behavior of the company.
When NG launches, that will be something we will all be happy for.

[deleted]
« Last Edit: 01/31/2023 06:11 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70487
Moderator:
The thread has passed the point of insightful discussion, and the same veteran members are trotting out their same pro/anti arguments, yet again. 

Thread locked.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Tags:
 

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