Blue Origin General Discussion - thread 6

[Robert_the_Doll]

The competitor got orbital flight going with a less than quarter billion dollar investment. They started after B.O.. The numbers are not public, but I'd bet Bezos's investment has out stripped the competitor from day one and continues to do so.

Talk of billions of dollars pouring in starting in 2017 ignores most of the company's history. Its a red herring, the billions of dollars are going down the drain until payloads fly.

That is simply untrue. The COTS program alone netted SpaceX $278 million and nearly $400 million by 2011. This does not include the $1.6 billion contract in December 2008 for CRS.

[meekGee]

So what was the BE-4 designed for? A larger new shepherd?

*snip*

Ironically, your snark is more or less dead on lol

Image source: https://parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/552848main_Commercial_Crew_Program_Overview_Collura.pdf

The concept you pictured used BE-3s, according to every account of it I'm aware of.

IIRC that's correct. This New Shepard "big brother" eventually turned into the New Glenn. The methalox design of New Glenn itself wasn't made public until about 2016, shortly before Blue Origin's big pivot towards its development.

So BE-4, just like Raptor, was the basis for the new rocket, predating it by several years, as is normal.

Too bad it ruins the narrative, but it is the best marker for "starting development of a new orbital rocket".

[Chris Bergin]

Talk about Blue please. It's in the title of the thread. Some of you should know better!

[zubenelgenubi]

Talk about Blue please. It's in the title of the thread. Some of you should know better!

Moderator:
Off-topic posts posted after Chris' warning are deleted.  So were some pre-warning off-topic posts because members were responding to them, ignoring his warning. ⚠️

[Eric Hedman]

It looks like Bezos might be getting some cash to put into Blue Origin to speed things up.  He disclosed plans to sell 50 million shares of Amazon within the next 12 months.  At today's share price, that is $8,590,500,000.00.  After he pays capital gains tax, that still leaves a lot to reinvest.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bezos-discloses-plan-sell-amazon-183048439.html

It could also be cash to buy ULA.

[Tywin]

Almost 8 years of finance for Blue...

[woods170]

Almost 8 years of finance for Blue...

Actually no. Currently Bezos invests around $2B in Blue each year; the "$1B per year" figure has been outdated for a while. What remains after taxes would be enough to fund Blue for slightly less than three years.

[johnlandish]

Blue Origin’s New CEO On Honing The Company’s Business Practices
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/blue-origins-new-ceo-honing-companys-business-practices

Summary:
The new CEO was chosen for his expertise in manufacturing, signaling a focus on increasing Blue Origin's operational efficiency.

Emphasizing a cultural shift towards urgency, the CEO aims to move beyond the company's reputation for being slow-moving.

The CEO stresses the importance of customer needs over artificial deadlines to instill a sense of urgency.

Transforming Blue Origin into a robust business, the vision includes strategic efforts to lower costs and expand the market.

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.

Blue Origin's diverse customer base and broad operational scope highlight a plan for scalable production to meet this growing demand.

Leveraging 34 years of manufacturing experience, the CEO aims to dramatically increase production capabilities.

A key goal is the commitment to launching New Glenn within the year, reflecting an urgent push for progress.

Acknowledging the market's capacity for multiple launch companies, the CEO sees room for growth and competition.

Strategies include quick decision-making and accepting calculated risks to accelerate the company's pace.

The CEO sets aggressive goals, notably the significant reduction in launch costs and the timely launch of New Glenn, marking a new phase of dynamism at Blue Origin.

[mordroberon]

New NPR article about retiring ISS. https://www.npr.org/2024/02/21/1232639289/international-space-station-retirement-space-stations-future

Interesting part is at the end

>Gatens says one piece of technology that is being developed at Blue Origin is a big rotating space station that, when finished, would have artificial gravity.

This is coming from Robyn Gatens, director of the ISS, so seems like a reliable source. This is the first confirmation I've seen of Blue Origin developing artificial gravity.

[JCRM]

A key goal is the commitment to launching New Glenn within the year, reflecting an urgent push for progress.

... by taking more risk: "We are going to learn a lot from any profile of a flight of New Glenn" is not quite as bombastic as "anything after clearing the launch pad is a bonus" but disappointing none the less.

[Tywin]

Almost 8 years of finance for Blue...

Actually no. Currently Bezos invests around $2B in Blue each year; the "$1B per year" figure has been outdated for a while. What remains after taxes would be enough to fund Blue for slightly less than three years.

Actually MAYBE...Blue are EARNING now a lot more money than before, so maybe Bezos need to put less...

[Tywin]

Blue Origin’s New CEO On Honing The Company’s Business Practices
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/blue-origins-new-ceo-honing-companys-business-practices

Summary:
The new CEO was chosen for his expertise in manufacturing, signaling a focus on increasing Blue Origin's operational efficiency.

Emphasizing a cultural shift towards urgency, the CEO aims to move beyond the company's reputation for being slow-moving.

The CEO stresses the importance of customer needs over artificial deadlines to instill a sense of urgency.

Transforming Blue Origin into a robust business, the vision includes strategic efforts to lower costs and expand the market.

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.

Blue Origin's diverse customer base and broad operational scope highlight a plan for scalable production to meet this growing demand.

Leveraging 34 years of manufacturing experience, the CEO aims to dramatically increase production capabilities.

A key goal is the commitment to launching New Glenn within the year, reflecting an urgent push for progress.

Acknowledging the market's capacity for multiple launch companies, the CEO sees room for growth and competition.

Strategies include quick decision-making and accepting calculated risks to accelerate the company's pace.

The CEO sets aggressive goals, notably the significant reduction in launch costs and the timely launch of New Glenn, marking a new phase of dynamism at Blue Origin.

That will destroy the Falcon 9 number kg/$ to orbit...

[DrTadd]

Blue Origin’s New CEO On Honing The Company’s Business Practices
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/blue-origins-new-ceo-honing-companys-business-practices

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.


That will destroy the Falcon 9 number kg/$ to orbit...

That number has to be baseline lift cost. They will never charge that. BUT it will make very cheap base lift for whatever BO wishes to try themselves.

One of the things folks gripe about BO is their diversity. But that may come home to help them being all over the map. Once NG flies, I can see BO doing their own moon landings with their own lander packages that they have been working on. Not just landers but landers with equipment experimental packages like the solar cell process they have talked about.

Being all over has certainly slowed them to launch, but if(once) they get there, it will open up the doors to experimentation for them on space hardware out side of LEO (IMHO where the real future is).

[DanClemmensen]

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.

That will destroy the Falcon 9 number kg/$ to orbit...

BO will not reach those prices until they are routinely using a reusable second stage, which does not appear to be likely in the next five years. By that time, Starship will already have "destroyed" the F9 $/kg with cost/launch in the $6-$9 million range. F9 will continue to serve a small niche market (Crew Dragon and a few NSSL launches).

Without a reusable second stage, NG is just a bigger F9, but ten years late. It uses the same operational model, so its operations cost will be broadly similar, with only incremental improvements.

NG must compete with Starship, not F9.  Starship is designed to use a much less expensive operational model and to be fully reusable from the start. It also has four times the payload capacity of NG and is designed to be refueled in orbit.

[Tywin]

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.

That will destroy the Falcon 9 number kg/$ to orbit...

BO will not reach those prices until they are routinely using a reusable second stage, which does not appear to be likely in the next five years. By that time, Starship will already have "destroyed" the F9 $/kg with cost/launch in the $6-$9 million range. F9 will continue to serve a small niche market (Crew Dragon and a few NSSL launches).

Without a reusable second stage, NG is just a bigger F9, but ten years late. It uses the same operational model, so its operations cost will be broadly similar, with only incremental improvements.

NG must compete with Starship, not F9.  Starship is designed to use a much less expensive operational model and to be fully reusable from the start. It also has four times the payload capacity of NG and is designed to be refueled in orbit.

The same Starship that will land in the Moon in 2021?


I will wait, and wait, and see...

[dglow]

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.

That will destroy the Falcon 9 number kg/$ to orbit...

BO will not reach those prices until they are routinely using a reusable second stage, which does not appear to be likely in the next five years. By that time, Starship will already have "destroyed" the F9 $/kg with cost/launch in the $6-$9 million range. F9 will continue to serve a small niche market (Crew Dragon and a few NSSL launches).

Without a reusable second stage, NG is just a bigger F9, but ten years late. It uses the same operational model, so its operations cost will be broadly similar, with only incremental improvements.

NG must compete with Starship, not F9.  Starship is designed to use a much less expensive operational model and to be fully reusable from the start. It also has four times the payload capacity of NG and is designed to be refueled in orbit.

The same Starship that will land in the Moon in 2021?


I will wait, and wait, and see...

@Tywin, stop acting like a child.

Dan responded to you with a well-considered and forward-looking post. Rather than engage him on the merits, you post some fly-by snark set three years in the past. Please, get it together.

[JCRM]

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.

[/quote]

I seem to remember another CEO saying something very similar

[Emmettvonbrown]

New Glenn will be a weird animal in a weird place, compared to SpaceX vehicles.
- a reusable first stage (almost) twice as large as a F9 (7 m vs 3.7 m)
- a reusable first stage with a diameter relatively close to Super Heavy (7 m vs 9 m)
-  a reusable first stage burning methalox, so somewhat similar to Super Heavy
- payload wise: right between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy (23 mt and 64 mt : vs 45 mt)   
- but no reusable second stage, at least not immediately
- and hydrolox will make orbital propellant depots and transfer harder than methalox
- add to that a possible impact on Vulcan is B.O gets ULA...

A rocket truly in a weird, interesting place.

[JCRM]

NG must compete with Starship, not F9.  Starship is designed to use a much less expensive operational model and to be fully reusable from the start. It also has four times the payload capacity of NG and is designed to be refueled in orbit.

NG must compete with F9 and Vulcan. At some point it may have to compete with Starship.

[dglow]

NG must compete with Starship, not F9.  Starship is designed to use a much less expensive operational model and to be fully reusable from the start. It also has four times the payload capacity of NG and is designed to be refueled in orbit.

NG must compete with F9 and Vulcan. At some point it may have to compete with Starship.

By all appearances, Vulcan and NG are going to be teammates soon.

The CEO forecasts a rise in launch capacity demand, with plans to reduce launch costs from $60-$100 million to $6-$9 million, opening up a broader customer base.

I seem to remember another CEO saying something very similar

Was that other CEO incorrect? Note the quote above references costs, not prices.