Author Topic: How could winning the HLS second contract change the Blue company?  (Read 22535 times)

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: 1846
  • USA
  • Liked: 1514
  • Likes Given: 2623
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: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
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: 6485
  • Liked: 4595
  • Likes Given: 5234
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?

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14337
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14205
  • Likes Given: 1398
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: 831
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1394
  • Likes Given: 452
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?

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14337
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14205
  • Likes Given: 1398



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: 5190
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
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. 

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14337
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14205
  • Likes Given: 1398



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: 11562
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7684
  • Likes Given: 75191
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: 78
  • Australia
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 97
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: 1846
  • USA
  • Liked: 1514
  • Likes Given: 2623
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

Tags:
 

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