Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5  (Read 46260 times)

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1738
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1922
  • Likes Given: 1274
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #40 on: 05/01/2023 04:05 pm »
Falcon Heavy first flew in 2018…

I wrote Falcon Heavy in there as it was at the time a completed, fully operational rocket, just not one that flew in that particular year.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2023 04:11 pm by GWH »

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #41 on: 05/01/2023 09:06 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.



ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1728
  • USA
  • Liked: 1444
  • Likes Given: 2453
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #42 on: 05/02/2023 03:16 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.
The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #43 on: 05/02/2023 03:20 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.
The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.
Headcount vs revenue or even achievements.  10,000 employees is insane for the results we're seeing.

All of NASA is 18000, says the internet.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2120
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #44 on: 05/02/2023 03:36 pm »
According to this reddit user Blue Origin is now at over 10,000 employees:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/1344wdb/comment/jie71jn/

And still NOT launching to orbit.

Walmart has 2.3 million employees, and it hasn't even sent anything to space, let alone orbit. Vaastly less successful than Blue.
Assuming you're not just joking..

Walmart's goal is to sell, retail.  It's doing rather well, with an average revenue per employee of about $0.25M.

Very similar to Amazon (0.33).

Google, in comparison, is at 1.5. Microsoft at 1.1

Tesla at 0.60.

SpaceX, interestingly, at 0.21.

BO is at 0.012 based on 3500 employees. 0.004 if 10,000.

Better than I thought actually.
The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.
I don't think "they don't have a single functional project, they have a half-dozen projects which are all pre-revenue" is necessarily the winning argument you present it as. Most companies pick a core focus, get good at it, and once that's successful branch out. Blue Origin, by contrast, has decided to start everything simultaneously and see which gets to the finish line first.

And yes, I know, the counterargument is "most companies need revenue to survive, thus they need to actually succeed at something before they try doing everything; Blue Origin has Bezos' pocketbook, so they can skip past that first step." I think that overreliance on this has led to a company culture where "starting projects without finishing them" is what Blue Origin is good at. And changing company culture is extremely challenging.

Offline ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 3391
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #45 on: 05/02/2023 04:07 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.


Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1728
  • USA
  • Liked: 1444
  • Likes Given: 2453
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #46 on: 05/02/2023 04:26 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.
Rarely pointed out issue. Blue sucks up ALOT of talent. NASA has serious recruitment/retention issues because they simply cannot afford to pay what blue/spacex/whatever other company pays.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #47 on: 05/02/2023 04:54 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.
Rarely pointed out issue. Blue sucks up ALOT of talent. NASA has serious recruitment/retention issues because they simply cannot afford to pay what blue/spacex/whatever other company pays.
I think it's self filtering in that respect.

But a similar concern is that because of the insane level of funding it's more difficult to start and you aerospace company, or to raise funds for an existing one.

Imagine the effect on the market if blue origin were to suddenly disappear
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 09:27 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Liked: 2487
  • Likes Given: 2172
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #48 on: 05/02/2023 05:42 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1728
  • USA
  • Liked: 1444
  • Likes Given: 2453
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #49 on: 05/02/2023 06:45 pm »
Blue can be frustrating to follow, but hey, it’s just Bezos dollars being used to fund good aerospace jobs, right? What could be wrong with that.

But I have to counterpoint 10,000 workers sucked into an apparent productivity black hole with persistent reports from other aerospace companies and within NASA of key staff (and sometimes large parts of entire departments) leaving for Blue.

Blue has become a major skew in a relatively small market; that is rarely good news.
Rarely pointed out issue. Blue sucks up ALOT of talent. NASA has serious recruitment/retention issues because they simply cannot afford to pay what blue/spacex/whatever other company pays.
Think it's self filtering in that respect.
I don't know what you mean?

The number of people for this field is no where near unlimited. These companies and NASA would consider a shortage. Plus, new grads are not whats wanted. What people want is experience - which people get from NASA and then leave with for 2x the pay. Not great for NASA to put the effort into people and then lose them all the time.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1728
  • USA
  • Liked: 1444
  • Likes Given: 2453
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #50 on: 05/02/2023 06:47 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.
Yes spaceX does some other stuff, but they are mostly a launch company. They aspire to the largest internet service eventually (they are not right now).

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2120
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #51 on: 05/02/2023 07:04 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.
Yes spaceX does some other stuff, but they are mostly a launch company. They aspire to the largest internet service eventually (they are not right now).
All of Blue Origin's projects (rocket and non-rocket!) would also fall under "aspirations." So if it counts for Blue, it should count for SpaceX.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #52 on: 05/02/2023 07:58 pm »

The point was that do not judge a company based on its headcount. The post was very well done I thought.

SpaceX is a launch company. Most of its employees are involved in rockets. Even HLS is just a rocket with a different name.
Blue is obviously chasing alot of non-rocket related contracts. LEO stations, landers, ect. So many of its employees have nothing to do with building/launching rockets.

SpaceX manufactures more satellites than the rest of the world combined, manufactures millions of ground stations and provides customer service for Earth’s largest space borne internet service.
Yes spaceX does some other stuff, but they are mostly a launch company. They aspire to the largest internet service eventually (they are not right now).
All of Blue Origin's projects (rocket and non-rocket!) would also fall under "aspirations." So if it counts for Blue, it should count for SpaceX.

New Shepard:

ConfusedTravolta.gif
"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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #53 on: 05/02/2023 08:17 pm »
Pretty sure SPaceX’s Starlink constellation is a heck of a lot closer to profitability than New Shepard.

Starlink has at least a million subscribers. That’s a good billion dollars in annual revenue, at a minimum. Probably already comparable to their spacelaunch revenue, and they’ve already spooled up production for a constellation about 10 to 100 times more capable.

Deadman is wrong, anyway. I think SpaceX may have more people associated with spacecraft development (including HLS and Dragon) and operations than with launch. Folks just don’t see the insane satellite production capability of SpaceX, which is actually more valuable than their spacelaunch capability.

“I don’t see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it’s not happening! And I only apply this rule to SpaceX.” —some of y’all.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 08:20 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2120
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #54 on: 05/02/2023 08:53 pm »
“I don’t see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it’s not happening! And I only apply this rule to SpaceX.” —some of y’all.
To be fair, "I don't see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it's not happening!" does get applied to Blue Origin quite a lot too.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #55 on: 05/02/2023 09:23 pm »
“I don’t see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it’s not happening! And I only apply this rule to SpaceX.” —some of y’all.
To be fair, "I don't see 24/7 video feeds of it, so it's not happening!" does get applied to Blue Origin quite a lot too.
But we see the results of those efforts.  Those million Starlink terminals exist.  As do the satellites.

(As does Dragon, which is not under "mostly rocketry")

24/7 view is nice for R&D, but for production, you can also judge by results.

 
« Last Edit: 05/02/2023 09:25 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #56 on: 05/03/2023 05:32 pm »

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #57 on: 05/28/2023 10:54 pm »
Do you think Blue will submit a proposal for the moon buggy in conjunction with contractor with expertise, such as General Motors [who I understand built the first moon buggy]....

"Moon: NASA Asks Industry To Build New Buggies For $90 Billion Landings
Jamie Carter Senior Contributor,
May 27, 2023,07:15pm EDT

NASA has put out a call for private industry to help it build a next-generation moon buggy as part of its $90 billion-plus program to put U.S. astronauts back on the lunar surface in the late-2020s.

The space agency is building towards crewed landings on the moon, but so far it lacks the hardware to do anything but reach lunar orbit. A next-generation LTV (Lunar Terrain Vehicle) would allow its astronauts to explore the moon’s South Pole—the intended destination for its Artemis missions because of the possible presence of water—and conduct more science, according to NASA.....
"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/05/27/we-need-a-new-self-driving-moon-buggy-to-explore-the-lunar-south-pole-says-nasa/?sh=3e6f2f053b9c

My reasons for suggesting that blue origin would be the prime contractor
1. Transporting the Moon buggy down to the moon surface.
2. Interfaces between their blue moon lander, and the moon buggy.
3. I hypothesise that Blue Will want to develop their capabilities for mining [apart from things that have been deliberately buried!], and so having transport capabilities would be very much part of the overall Mission Objective to establish an eco-System of 1 million people living and working in space...
4. Servicing and maintaining the lunar transport vehicle, moon buggy...
« Last Edit: 05/28/2023 11:03 pm by DrHeywoodFloyd »

Offline Hug

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Australia
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #58 on: 05/30/2023 08:18 am »
Maybe? Judging from this job description it sounds like they have a robotic lunar rover program, so bidding for the LTV is within the realms of possibility.

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #59 on: 05/30/2023 11:43 am »
Maybe? Judging from this job description it sounds like they have a robotic lunar rover program, so bidding for the LTV is within the realms of possibility.

If the vision of Blue ring is...
"Blue Origin was founded with a vision of millions of people living and working in space for the benefit of Earth. Blue Origin envisions a time when people can tap into the limitless resources of space and enable the movement of damaging industries into space to preserve Earth, humanity’s blue origin. "
[ https://www.blueorigin.com/about-blue/ ]

Let us hypothesise, and discuss how will Blue Origin achieve this: in the short term [10-25 years], middle term [25-50 years], and the long term [50+ years]? Blue origin I'm not doing this out of the kindness of the heart, but for the same reasons as the railway barons in 19th Century developed the railway network in the United States.. They are do this to make a buck, make a profit... 

... As a result, for them to tap into the limitless resources, on the moon... that means mining in the next 10-25 years... but what materials would they mine to make it a profitable going concern?

Later perhaps manufacturing on the moon what can then be shipped to low earth obit?

What other use cases would space provide a company like Blue Origin a profit from the resources and opportunity of space?







Tags:
 

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