Author Topic: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 51241 times)

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7487
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 370
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #100 on: 12/30/2017 05:40 PM »
How many times does Falcon 9 have to fly? Right now it has tens of flights behind its back, and only a single in-flight failure.

And how many of those tens of flights have been of the same configuration? They are literally now introducing the next version of F9 with who knows what kind of under-the-hood changes compared to previous hardware. In fact, I wouldn't venture to bet that there have ever been 10 exact same vehicles flown altogether.

How many times will Blue Origin have to fly the New Shepard capsule, before sending a test astronaut?

As many times as BO deem necessary. They aren't launching them for shits and giggles.

Online Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #101 on: 12/30/2017 05:52 PM »
When I'm in the lab, occasionally I have to work with toxic chemicals and machines that could theoretically explode in my face, blind me... or even kill me.

These are the risks I take.

Tests astronauts take higher risks, but guess what - they're aware of them. And they still want to fly.

I'm happy I'm not a test astronaut though :) I will literally have no options if I want to fly a new vehicle, because noone will will let me go.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2883
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #102 on: 12/30/2017 06:20 PM »
Attempting to return to topic.

BO is a very proud organization. They don't want half measures. Or "booms". They find "agile" as suspect or "half assed".

ULA admires BO for this as of like kind.

(SX, in contrast, doesn't, more impatient, has a far more narrow objective.)

All three mentioned here have different motivators - BO wants "six sigma" spaceflight with reuse,  ULA wants survival w/o RD180 and economic NSS/institutional mission bidding, SX wants dominant global launch market share.

They conflict mostly due to "pride overlap". BO:"SX, that's not how to do reuse!", ULA:"SX, that's not how to do NSS/institutional!", "SX:WTF! None of you know anything about hard driving the global market!".

So its not "fear of failure" as much as "if you've a failure you didn't do/assess the job properly in the first place".

Online Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #103 on: 12/30/2017 06:38 PM »
Actually, Blue Origin is one of my top favourite companies (I even place them above SpaceX). I guess it's also overexpectation from my side.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #104 on: 12/30/2017 07:10 PM »
One fatal flight can setback HSF industry by years or decades. Companies would closeup or kill programs as investment money disappears. Virgin Galatic were lucky to survive their fatal SpaceShipOne test flight accident.

Unlike VG, Blue hasn't sold any NS tickets so they are beholding to nobody but their owner. When they do sell tickets the NS will be ready to fly with small fleet and lead time of few months.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
  • Liked: 1377
  • Likes Given: 1135
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #105 on: 12/30/2017 07:52 PM »
Itís funny. People are in two camps.
Some think BO is being duly careful taking most of two decades to develop a system to take tourists and experiments briefly out of the atmosphere.
The other group believes that BO will fly a very large, fully reusable, LOX-LCH4, composite, TSTO, orbital launcher by 2020.
While supplying the next generation, high performance, high reliability, disposable cryogenic rocket engine to ULA.

Mind you I have a friend who works at Blue. I wish her and them the best, even while I remain skeptical.

What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3682
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2436
  • Likes Given: 3107
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #106 on: 12/30/2017 07:53 PM »
Pet peeve is when people say NET (No Earlier Than) dates, or even projections, are "deadlines."

No, they're not. Please stop doing that. It's called NET for a reason.

In my opinion Bezos, as well as Branson and Musk should stop giving dates.

No NETs. No Deadlines. No dates at all.

They give dates for their own reasons, not ours. Everyone just has to remember that. I mean gosh, how many dates has Elon Musk thrown out about Falcon Heavy?

Maybe because I've been in jobs where I have to issue No-Early-Than dates that I'm not bothered by them when they pass in silence. But if anything they provide a window into the current thinking, and I'd rather have that than silence.

Quote
Manned suborbital spaceflight is always one-two years in the future. It has been always "next year" since 2010. And I think there's still a big chance to be one year away in the future in the end of 2018.

To race is on to see who will make it to space first - the sub-orbital folks (i.e. Virgin Galactice & Blue Origin), or the orbital ones (i.e. Boeing & SpaceX).

2018 is going to be another fun year!!  :D
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #107 on: 12/30/2017 08:08 PM »
I agree. What a fun year 2018 will be! :) I also wish Blue Origin all the best, but please... all hurry :) I want to fly to space some day :)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8937
  • UK
  • Liked: 1519
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #108 on: 12/30/2017 08:29 PM »
I agree. What a fun year 2018 will be! :) I also wish Blue Origin all the best, but please... all hurry :) I want to fly to space some day :)

I see no reason for them to hurry. I admire their slow and steady approach complete with their controlled releases of information.

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1063
  • United States
  • Liked: 526
  • Likes Given: 1054
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #109 on: 12/30/2017 09:55 PM »
Attempting to return to topic.

BO is a very proud organization. They don't want half measures. Or "booms". They find "agile" as suspect or "half assed".

ULA admires BO for this as of like kind.

(SX, in contrast, doesn't, more impatient, has a far more narrow objective.)



It is hard to compare SX and BO because they both have very different financial situations.

SX has to produce a revenue stream to fund development of new technology.  SpaceX has to stay agile and has a large customer base waiting on launches.

BO is self funded by Bezos and is not dependent on any revenue stream from customer. 

This key difference drives a lot of decision making at both companies. 

 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3561
  • Liked: 1758
  • Likes Given: 1123
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #110 on: 12/30/2017 10:18 PM »
Itís funny. People are in two camps.
Some think BO is being duly careful taking most of two decades to develop a system to take tourists and experiments briefly out of the atmosphere.
The other group believes that BO will fly a very large, fully reusable, LOX-LCH4, composite, TSTO, orbital launcher by 2020.
While supplying the next generation, high performance, high reliability, disposable cryogenic rocket engine to ULA.

Mind you I have a friend who works at Blue. I wish her and them the best, even while I remain skeptical.

I have seen zero evidence that New Glenn will be primarily composite, or that it will be TSTO fully reusable.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
  • Liked: 1377
  • Likes Given: 1135
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #111 on: 12/30/2017 10:23 PM »
Itís funny. People are in two camps.
Some think BO is being duly careful taking most of two decades to develop a system to take tourists and experiments briefly out of the atmosphere.
The other group believes that BO will fly a very large, fully reusable, LOX-LCH4, composite, TSTO, orbital launcher by 2020.
While supplying the next generation, high performance, high reliability, disposable cryogenic rocket engine to ULA.

Mind you I have a friend who works at Blue. I wish her and them the best, even while I remain skeptical.

I have seen zero evidence that New Glenn will be primarily composite, or that it will be TSTO fully reusable.

 ::)
OK Leave those two two words out.  (fully & composite)
How about the rest of it?
« Last Edit: 12/30/2017 10:38 PM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
  • Liked: 1377
  • Likes Given: 1135
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #112 on: 12/30/2017 10:38 PM »
Belay that
Quote
According to Mr. Henderson, the facility will contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement Ė advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine
Composite
Not that it matters
NG represents a host of breakthrough attributes
There is a good Air Force study, done after the X-33 fiasco, that details the obvious problem with relying on multiple breakthroughs.
There will be plenty of issue to work through.
Money will buy them time, but time will be spent.
2020 is right around the corner.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3561
  • Liked: 1758
  • Likes Given: 1123
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #113 on: 12/31/2017 01:35 AM »
Belay that
Quote
According to Mr. Henderson, the facility will contain the largest carbon AFP (Automated Fiber Placement Ė advanced method of manufacturing composite materials) machine and the largest autoclave in the world as well as a stir welding machine
Composite
Not that it matters
NG represents a host of breakthrough attributes
There is a good Air Force study, done after the X-33 fiasco, that details the obvious problem with relying on multiple breakthroughs.
There will be plenty of issue to work through.
Money will buy them time, but time will be spent.
2020 is right around the corner.

For interstages and fairings, IMO. Fiber is state-of-art there, but nothing new. SpaceX and ULA use it there all the time.

I don't think Blue is trying anything really aggressive with New Glenn, mostly state-of-art at lower cost. Look at the design of BE-4: yes, it's ORSC, but at low pressure. New Glenn is a very large rocket to only launch 45 tonnes to LEO with downrange recovery, which suggests reasonably conservative mass fractions and design choices.

Edit: "as well as a stir welding machine" strongly suggest Al or more likely Al-Li tanks. Stir welding is only especially useful for tanks. It's also state-of-art. No breakthroughs at all. Almost everything Blue is trying to do has been done before, they are just scaling some of it up.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2017 01:50 AM by envy887 »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2883
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #114 on: 12/31/2017 02:07 AM »
Attempting to return to topic.

BO is a very proud organization. They don't want half measures. Or "booms". They find "agile" as suspect or "half assed".

ULA admires BO for this as of like kind.

(SX, in contrast, doesn't, more impatient, has a far more narrow objective.)



It is hard to compare SX and BO because they both have very different financial situations.
Likewise ULA. Kind of "in between".

Quote
SX has to produce a revenue stream to fund development of new technology.  SpaceX has to stay agile and has a large customer base waiting on launches.
They have to also generate ROI on those developments as a "going concern", so it matters what they choose to attempt.

Quote
BO is self funded by Bezos and is not dependent on any revenue stream from customer.
Nor when/how they need to do so.

Quote
This key difference drives a lot of decision making at both companies.
That's another thread here.

In short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8937
  • UK
  • Liked: 1519
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #115 on: 12/31/2017 10:13 AM »
Attempting to return to topic.

BO is a very proud organization. They don't want half measures. Or "booms". They find "agile" as suspect or "half assed".

ULA admires BO for this as of like kind.

(SX, in contrast, doesn't, more impatient, has a far more narrow objective.)



It is hard to compare SX and BO because they both have very different financial situations.
Likewise ULA. Kind of "in between".

Quote
SX has to produce a revenue stream to fund development of new technology.  SpaceX has to stay agile and has a large customer base waiting on launches.
They have to also generate ROI on those developments as a "going concern", so it matters what they choose to attempt.

Quote
BO is self funded by Bezos and is not dependent on any revenue stream from customer.
Nor when/how they need to do so.

Quote
This key difference drives a lot of decision making at both companies.
That's another thread here.

In short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.

Kind of ignoring the fact that Amazon is a very successful business and that Blue Origin should be seen as more a part of that overall umbrella even if itís nominally separate.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2883
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #116 on: 12/31/2017 03:02 PM »
In short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.

Kind of ignoring the fact that Amazon is a very successful business and that Blue Origin should be seen as more a part of that overall umbrella even if itís nominally separate.

No. Amazon did actual business from the start, was never like BO. (Firephone, OTOH, "flamed out" because Bezos didn't want to "do the business" from the start.)

He also has many business failures. Not the thread/site to discuss then. He doesn't $hit gold, trust me on this. Nor does Musk.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8937
  • UK
  • Liked: 1519
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #117 on: 12/31/2017 03:13 PM »
In short, I've always found that companies that do actual business progress better than those who don't need to.

Kind of ignoring the fact that Amazon is a very successful business and that Blue Origin should be seen as more a part of that overall umbrella even if itís nominally separate.

No. Amazon did actual business from the start, was never like BO. (Firephone, OTOH, "flamed out" because Bezos didn't want to "do the business" from the start.)

He also has many business failures. Not the thread/site to discuss then. He doesn't $hit gold, trust me on this. Nor does Musk.

I just donít get your seemingly negative take on any analysis of Blue Origin of late. No one is asking for a remorselessly upbeat message but surely some balance is required.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5839
  • Liked: 3663
  • Likes Given: 5102
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #118 on: 12/31/2017 04:04 PM »
Blue is already winning launches (seven NG launches so far on their manifest) and likely has a customer for engines.  We'll see if their 'doing business' picks up tempo as the BE-4 moves toward a production start date.  They could become the exclusive launch provider for OneWeb*, for instance, which would instantly make for a head-to-head business competition worth watching.


* Especially if OneWeb gets the Boeing constellation licensing hand-off -- would put OneWeb's effort at equivalent level as Starlink
« Last Edit: 12/31/2017 04:07 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2883
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Blue Origin General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #119 on: 12/31/2017 05:50 PM »
Winning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.

Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".

(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?

add:
A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.

Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2017 06:00 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Tags: