[HN Gopher] Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing c... ___________________________________________________________________ Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX Author : _Microft Score : 146 points Date : 2021-07-31 19:06 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | cratermoon wrote: | Is Jeffy still going with the "here's $2 billion, pick me | instead" attempt? https://www.inputmag.com/culture/jeff-bezos-is- | straight-up-t... | mastrsushi wrote: | I know this is completely random, but I just love how HN posters | rarely communicate with each other past one or two comments. | mfgs wrote: | It probably has something to do with not getting notified when | someone replies to your post. | mastrsushi wrote: | I think it's more to do with lack of social engagement. It's | not difficult to figure out how to refresh your accounts | comment page. | dillondoyle wrote: | Maybe selfishly some clout at play too? I don't think sub | comments add to profile upvote scores. | zamadatix wrote: | I think they count, never really checked specifically | though and the karma system isn't exactly spelled out in | detail anywhere. I'm pretty sure your downvotes to the | parent and children of a comment you make don't count | though - or at least I read that a few times while | looking into the site initially. | | I bumped your comment up, if you want to find out I | should be able to un-up it once you check your current | number... if I remember to refresh my comment history ;). | Hayvok wrote: | Multiple providers has been the "name of the game" for a long | time now, so it's not surprising that Blue Origin or ULA got | caught off guard. They had to know this Day was coming, but maybe | not so quickly. | | This should be a wake up call to established space players: the | days of cost-plus contracts, multiple bid winners, and endless | cost and time overruns - are over. There's no purpose to those | anymore. | | For the past fifty years this all made sense: going to space was | hard, and the financial risks were astronomical. This decision | highlights how much progress we've made toward establishing a | "space economy". Space has been de-risked enough that the | corporations can take on the (previously fatal) risk of a fixed- | price contract. De-risked enough that the government is | reasonably certain of achieving a strategic objective with a | single provider. | | BO, ULA, et. al - the game just changed. Adapt, or die. | cronix wrote: | Maybe BO will one day actually do something noteworthy on their | own, rather than trying to prevent SpaceX from moving ahead | because they actually do things. Bezos also recently tried to | block Starlink's modified expansion plans[1] saying it was unfair | to his conceptual Project Kuiper (conceptual because it doesn't | yet physically exist vs Starlink which is in beta service and | expanding). Amazon isn't even using BO to launch their own | Project Kuipers first satellites (they're going to use ULA)[2]. | That says a lot. | | > Amazon did not say when the first launch will occur, but the | company said it had contracted with United Launch Alliance for | nine launches to begin building out its constellation of 3,236 | satellites in low Earth orbit. | | [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex- | starlink... | | [2]https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/amazons-first- | intern... | trhway wrote: | Dealing with and relying on ULA will be the Bezos' space | endeavors undoing. Similarly as if Russians agreed to the | original Musk idea back then - there wouldn't be SpaceX today. | | Technically going hydrogen way Bezos cornered himself - the | turbine would be extremely expensive and reliability is an | issue, and without it they are very limited by expander and | tap-off. | pmoriarty wrote: | Why can't they cooperate instead of compete? | | It's not like they don't already have all the money they'd ever | need or could use, and wouldn't the world be better off if they | worked together than against each other? | jexe wrote: | Having some competition is probably the best way to make space | companies work efficiently, cheaply, and reliably, so these two | egomaniacs fighting it out in a space race might be the best | possible thing for progress in the industry. | WalterBright wrote: | They're no more egomaniacs than, say, whoever wins a gold | medal at the Olympics. You've got to be an egomaniac to think | one deserves to be the fastest runner in the world, a | completely pointless honor, but we celebrate them anyway. | | Pointless as in I, an old man and an uncoordinated complete | failure at athletics, can ride my bike faster than any of | them can run. | yissp wrote: | At least to some extent, competition was the reason for the | first moon landing, right? | nickik wrote: | Because BlueOrigin has nothing to offer SpaceX other then if | they want to simply give money to SpaceX. | thrill wrote: | No. | [deleted] | [deleted] | krapp wrote: | These companies are run by billionaire sociopath narcissists | who live to crush and dominate the competition and who want all | of the glory (and money) for themselves. | oh_sigh wrote: | Do you think bezos was a psychopath in 1999? | joshsyn wrote: | Call them what you want. They pushed the world forward, | period. | cratermoon wrote: | They have certainly pushed the world. Whether the direction | we're going is 'forward' is extremely debatable. It | certainly might look that way from certain positions, but | not all points of view agree, and there's no clear way to | determine which should be privileged. | systemvoltage wrote: | It's one thing to disagree, another to call them | sociopaths. | | If what they're doing is debatable - let's debate then. | With respect for each other and with civility. | bigbob2 wrote: | So it's civil to engage in anti-competitive behavior | which arguably sets back the progress of humanity | ("pushing the world forward"), but not civil to use the | word 'sociopath' in reference to such actions? I was | always taught that actions speak louder than words. | smabie wrote: | I mean sociopath has a real definition you can't just | call everyone you don't like sociopaths. | krapp wrote: | They pushed the world, certainly. Whether they pushed it | "forward" is debatable. | tayo42 wrote: | Going to the moon again is pushing the world forward? Why? | Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back | jhgb wrote: | "Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go | back" | | -- Europeans in 1493 about the Americas...not! | medstrom wrote: | They might have said it if the Americas had even worse | living conditions than Antarctica. We're not colonizing | that either. | jhgb wrote: | > We're not colonizing that either. | | That might largely be explained by the fact that doing so | would be illegal as per international law to begin with. | [deleted] | marcinzm wrote: | These companies aren't going to the moon, the US | government is going to the moon using these companies. | These companies are significantly lowering the cost of | going into space and eventually going to Mars. That is | moving the world forward. | tayo42 wrote: | So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation. | | > SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded to the GAO decision on | Twitter with a flexed-biceps emoji. | | This sounds like billionaires and their egos fighting | with each other. Not really trying to make the world | better | marcinzm wrote: | >So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation. | | You said going to the Moon isn't innovation. You can't | have it both ways. | B4CKlash wrote: | This is an incredibly small minded perspective. Difficult | challenges require new technologies, new processes and | new ways of thinking. More specifically, technologies | developed through the race to land on the moon (and space | flight generally) are integral to almost every aspect of | 'your' life and define what most of us consider human | flourishing. | | Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_techn | ologies#:~:t.... | | https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we- | would... | tayo42 wrote: | These companies are just trying to shoot rockets further | then each other. They're not science pr research | companies. We're not learning more about space and the | universe thanks to the them. | | What spin off tech have we gotten from them? | sterlind wrote: | Starlink? | | But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their | focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing | towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are | engineering and logistics problems more than science | problems, but I think they're very important. | tsimionescu wrote: | Those are all ways to squander the Earth's limited | resources while sounding forward thinking. Colonizing | Mars will likely _never_ happen, there is simply no | upside: huge challenges, with no interesting resources. | The Earth has plenty of space, we 're limited by | resources, and there are no interesting resources on | Mars. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we'll have | a colony outside the solar system before a colony on | Mars. | | Asteroid mining is more plausible, but still extremely | unlikely given our current technology. There are massive | hurdles, and few things that would massively improve life | on Earth - it's much more interesting from a profit | perspective than a future of humanity perspective. | __d wrote: | Musk's motivation, which he has expressed repeatedly, is | to make humanity resilient to an event that makes Earth | uninhabitable. | | Whatever that event might be (asteroid impact, nuclear | war, environmental catastrophe, plague, whatever), I | think the idea of having a second site of human | habitation is not an unreasonable goal. | | Which is not, as has sometimes been stated, "giving up on | Earth and the rich moving to Mars" -- it's just an | insurance policy. | | The resources expended to achieve this are tiny. It's not | a lot of money, and the consumables are ... literally | drops in the ocean. | | That's not to say that there aren't other problems that | could be addressed using that money, but it's not really | a question of either/or: humanity could very easily do | both, should it choose to do so. It's just that Musk | chooses to focus on this problem, and its solution. We're | all certainly free to make a different choice ... | nickik wrote: | These companies work for NASA, NASA wants do research. | Their tech enables that research. | | SpaceX uses that money to lower the price of space flight | for everybody and enables a whole lot of other companies | to do new things in space. | | SpaceX themselves does things like Starlink. | | SpaceX also shares materials tech with Tesla that get | used in their products. | | It will also anable real exploration of Mars and the | outer Solar System. | kiba wrote: | Elon Musk gave Jeff Bezos advice on building rockets, which | Bezos flatly rejected. He also hoped that Bezos work on Blue | Origin or otherwise Bezos will die before he gets anywhere. | | Of course, Musk also mocks Blue Origin. | inglor_cz wrote: | Would it be better if C, Java and Rust were integrated into a | single uberlanguage with one central committee to drive further | development? | | From a layman's perspective, an idea like that would make | superficial sense; they are all programming languages, after | all. From a programmer's perspective, that would be a | nightmare. | | I think the companies are so far apart that extensive technical | cooperation would slow them both down. Maybe they could share a | weather service or even a drone ship fleet for landings, but | not the core products and their parts. | simcop2387 wrote: | For an example of this, see the Parrot VM from the Raku/Perl | 6 development. | Kinrany wrote: | > Would it be better if C, Java and Rust were integrated into | a single uberlanguage with one central committee to drive | further development? | | Yes! | | They need different runtimes, but there's a lot of | infractructure they could have been reusing. It's a shame we | have a couple dozen language silos that have to reinvent | everything. | hobofan wrote: | You mean like Rust (and Zig initially) building on top of | LLVM? Or like the dozen languages that coexist on top of | the JVM? | | Rarely does a new language build everything from scratch, | and the parts they build new are often progress. | Rebelgecko wrote: | It seems like ULA's team-up with BO hasn't been going well | breakfastduck wrote: | Because there's no ego benefit there. | | That's all these companies exist for. | marcinzm wrote: | SpaceX is a functioning business that actually launches | things into space at a lower cost than competitors. | | Basically every successful company has a massive amount of | ego behind it but the question is if they actually achieve | anything tangible and, eventually, profitable. | pmoriarty wrote: | _" SpaceX is a functioning business that actually launches | things into space at a lower cost than competitors."_ | | This might actually lead to a greatly increased risk of | creating an impenetrable field of space junk if the | thousands more satellites that SpaceX launches collide in | to one another. | | If that happens expect SpaceX supporters to start singing a | different tune. | marcinzm wrote: | SpaceX is launching its own internet satellites into low | orbit so their satellites will only burn up in a decade | without boosting. If your argument is "don't progress or | change in any way because something bad might happen" | then I suspect you'll find few takers on this site. | tsimionescu wrote: | Collisions in LEO launch debris in all orbits, they are | not limited to LEO. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX | will turn out to be the reason we won't be able to | explore space at all for a few hundred years. | marcinzm wrote: | >Collisions in LEO launch debris in all orbits, they are | not limited to LEO. | | How often? You'd need a pretty lucky collision to knock | something into a higher stable circular orbit. | tsimionescu wrote: | Any collision has a chance to knock things at orbital | speeds in any direction. Anything launched away from the | earth will be flung towards other orbits at something | close to the 28,000km/h speeds of LEO. | | Here is an article in Nature [0] discussing other risks, | and mentioning that LEO is already in the early stages of | Kessler Syndrome, while SpaceX alone is seeking to launch | as many extra satellites as there are tracked pieces of | debris already in orbit, with several other companies | having similar plans. They also mention that debris in | one orbit can cross to other orbits. | | [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7 | _Microft wrote: | _> I wouldn 't be surprised if SpaceX will turn out to be | the reason we won't be able to explore space at all for a | few hundred years._ | | You seem to be referring to the Kessler syndrom. If that | happened, it would not mean that we could not send probes | to space anymore. It only becomes unviable to have | satellites at the altitude of the debris field. We could | still launch through it into higher orbits or onto | interplanetary trajectories. | nickik wrote: | Such complete nonsense. Just admit that you have personal | problems with those people, because your technical | arguments are total nonsense. | [deleted] | PhileinSophia wrote: | Because competition is how innovation is born. | ImprobableTruth wrote: | Space is expensive. Bezos is pumping 1 billion per year into | the company and the blue origin proposal was for 13 billion. | Even for Bezos that's not chump change. | _Microft wrote: | Too much money might be part of Blue Origin's problem to | deliver. SpaceX did not have the luxury to take ages, they | had to build a working rocket to be able make money or die | otherwise. | | I can only recommend Eric Berger's excellent book "Liftoff" | to gain insights into SpaceX' way of working to get the | Falcon 1 rocket off the ground and eventually into orbit. I | cannot imagine Blue Origin having operated in a similar way | at any point in their history. | pmoriarty wrote: | All the more reason to cooperate and pool resources instead | of duplicating effort. | kiba wrote: | One company works slow, the other company works fast. | avereveard wrote: | "Let's pool 9 woman and birth a 14 foot tall baby" | kelnos wrote: | I'm not so sure, though. I think there's still an argument | to be made for multiple approaches and different | technology, which you're not likely to get if everyone | works together. I'm not sure that "avoiding a monoculture" | is important for this sort of thing, but maybe it can't | hurt? | | Another problem when multiple independent orgs pool | resources and work together is you either end up with | design-by-committee (which leads to overengineering and | extra expense, both of which are anti-goals for SpaceX and | BO), or deadlock when the parties can't agree. And you'd | better believe personalities like Musk and Bezos would | clash a _lot_ if they ever did a joint venture on | something. | pmoriarty wrote: | _" you'd better believe personalities like Musk and Bezos | would clash a lot if they ever did a joint venture on | something"_ | | If they clash a lot it's proof they're not good at | cooperating. | | So maybe the answer is that Musk and Bezos are good at | competing, but not good at cooperating. | | That doesn't mean that cooperation is a losing strategy, | but just that one has to be good at cooperating in order | to succeed at it. | Meandering wrote: | People like to romanticize market competition as a epic | battle of great minds and ideas that we all benefit | from... but, in all honestly, it allows for comparative | testing of diverse ideas while keeping pricing honest. | Cooperation might lower the "cost" of producing similar | products but, then we are producing similar products. A | major goal of competition is to prevent us from putting | all our eggs in one basket. | | I mean what if all the space companies decided to use one | company's rocket engine and they failed to delivery... | adrr wrote: | It's like an average person spending $1,000 per year for a | hobby. | dillondoyle wrote: | And at 200bb producing 'income' it's hard to grasp how huge | that is. Even at what in this market is a super | conservative 5%... | dev_tty01 wrote: | What motivation does SpaceX have to cooperate? SpaceX is way | ahead on any metric that matters. Nothing to gain. | fnord77 wrote: | Was this ever about progress? Or ego? | dna_polymerase wrote: | Blue Origin makes Bezos look like a sad little boy that wants to | fit in with he big boys but fails miserably. BO feels like a | cheap SpaceX knock-off. His ride over the Karman line (which they | tried to point out as the border to to space so bad on their | channels) really convinced me of that. Bezos lacks a vision for | space, it's just a hobby for him and he fails at executing the | Amazon playbook there. | systemvoltage wrote: | Just keep in mind that there are regular engineers like any of | us working at Blue Origin and giving their best to achieve | something, make a living and tackle really hard problems. | | Some viewpoints expressed on HN feel like social media fed | hatred, people often forget that there is a massive army of | brilliant people doing stuff that most engineers would dream | of. There are Facebook/Google engineers working on | advertisement tech and we generally don't scorn at them. Adtech | is far more "uncool" than space exploration. | | I say kudos to Blue Origin to lift a building sized socket up | to space with humans in it. | __d wrote: | I agree that the current fanboi bucketing on Blue Origin is | dumb, herd-mentality, kicking-the-weakest, bs. People need to | grow up. | | I think it's genuinely interesting to compare two well- | funded, privately-led space companies and their results. What | is it that has allowed one to make such substantially better | progress than the other? | | It's clear that SpaceX is a tough place to work, and Musk has | very high expectations that go well beyond a hard-worked 9-5 | 5 days a week. That said, Amazon is not an easy place to work | either ... so is Blue Origin a driven workplace culture? | | Perhaps it's just that BO got distracted by the sub-orbital | hop goal, and should have ditched that (like SpaceX and the | Falcon 1 and Falcon 5) and just gone straight into New Glenn? | There's something to be said for aiming high. | | Perhaps it's just bad luck? BE3 seems ok, but BE4 appears to | have some issues. Maybe SpaceX got lucky with Raptor? Or | perhaps the difference is just the staff -- one good hire | could be the difference between the fairly quick success of | Raptor vs. the delays with BE4? | | Ironic as it is, I will give Musk some credit for keeping his | ego out of the cockpit. Not that he's short of ego, but (so | far) he's resisted the urge to launch himself. | jollybean wrote: | I actually like the fact there's a review of large, single | supplier government contracts. | | They should do this even without grievances from losing bidders. | sprkwd wrote: | Good. They can't have everything. Where would they put it? | baron816 wrote: | One thing you have to remember about NASA is that it's packed | with professional space nerds. | | You know what space nerd love? SpaceX. You know what they don't | love? Blue Origin. | jakear wrote: | Between this and JEDI I get the impression Jeff feels he simply | _deserves_ things, regardless of the established protocols which | decide he does not, and he's more than willing to take the | government to court to prove it. | | Maybe that's just the kind of attitude it takes to be the richest | person alive, but it definitely rubs me the wrong way. | | Not like he cares who it rubs or in which way, of course. | thrower123 wrote: | The Asteroid Wars in 20 or 30 years between Musk and Bezos is | going to be right out of Ben Bova. | whatshisface wrote: | Won't be much of a war if Bezos can't get Blue Origin working. | They can't operate at 5% of the speed of SpaceX or even 100% of | the speed of SpaceX. They have to operate _faster_ than SpaceX | because SpaceX is in the lead. | thrower123 wrote: | Or lobby successfully enough to criminalize their | competition. | | With the weight of Amazon on their side, I wouldn't rule that | path out. | babesh wrote: | The US won't allow that for now because of external | competition from China and Russia. That would result in the | US losing the current Space Race. | | EDIT: Probably India as well | | If SpaceX were Russian, Indian, or Chinese, the US would | shit its pants. | krapp wrote: | There is no "current space race" as far as the US is | concerned. Americans put a man on the moon fifty years | ago, and no one is worried that China or Russia are going | to "gain the high ground" and nuke Washington from orbit. | No one cares. | kelnos wrote: | I think you're underestimating things here. These days we | have two new milestones: a crewed mission to Mars, and a | permanent moon base. The fervor to get there is of course | nowhere near what it was like in the 50s and 60s, and I | probably wouldn't even call this a new "space race", but | the US doesn't want to look weak in matters like this, | especially with China's general technological and | economic rise over the past decades. | | I actually think the US hasn't made such a big deal about | Mars and the moon because they're afraid China will latch | onto that and make it a big deal, and more likely "win". | So instead we focus on LEO, ISS, Mars rovers, probes, | telescopes, etc. And if China does eventually build a | permanent moon base or get a crew to Mars before the US | does, the US can claim "cool, good job, but we didn't | think it was all that important, so we didn't pursue it | as hard as they did". | | (Note that I believe that _Musk_ pushing hard for Mars is | not the same as _the US_ pushing hard for Mars. The US | seems more outwardly excited about Musk 's ability to | cheaply ferry things to and from orbit than anything much | farther.) | babesh wrote: | small satellites, Internet access to remote areas (both | military and commercial uses), space tourism, space | habitats, competitors to GPS (both military and | commercial uses) etc... | [deleted] | Applejinx wrote: | Indeed. Best watch out for Bezos trying to sabotage SpaceX... | or NASA. | JulianMorrison wrote: | SpaceX has two tried and tested orbital delivery systems and is | making its typical iterate-and-explosions progress on a third. It | is basically the only company doing this. | | The idea NASA would plunk down money for imaginary spaceships is | silly. They have their own one of those already. | f0xytr0xy wrote: | Tl;dr: Two billionaires fighting over who gets gifted our tax | dollars to launch spy satellites. | FreakyT wrote: | It's really a shame what has happened to Blue Origin. They've | gone from a promising space startup to yet another purveyor of | perpetual vaporware. | | Where is the BE-4 engine? Delayed, again and again. New Glenn, | the rocket that could actually go into orbit? Same. So far their | only functioning hardware (New Shephard) is, in effect, a | glorified amusement park ride. | | Considering that SpaceX has actually made it to orbit multiple | times, any rational actor would clearly choose SpaceX over BO. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Slow and steady wins the race. I'm not counting them out, Bezos | is so immensely wealthy that if he wants Blue Origin to succeed | then it will succeed. | whatshisface wrote: | Slow and steady wins the race against fast and transient, | not, as SpaceX has been, fast and persistent. | [deleted] | chasd00 wrote: | Slow and steady doesn't work against persistently fast and | right. | inglor_cz wrote: | This is not really a race, as it does not have a well-defined | endpoint. Reaching the orbit is just a starting step for some | other activity and former champions may fall by the wayside | as decades go by. | | Soviets were once in the lead very clearly, Roskosmos lost | that edge a long time ago. | adventured wrote: | > Slow and steady wins the race. | | Not if it's a 100m or 200m sprint. Try that and you'll finish | dead last. | | If SpaceX had gone with slow and steady, it would have merely | given their monopolistic competition - competition | particularly well connected in DC - that much more time to | try to wipe them out using their preferred approach of | avoiding competition via government protection. | | Blue Origin may yet make something of itself via slow and | steady pacing (which Bezos can afford), however it's not | winning the race. | the_third_wave wrote: | That is like saying that the meek shall inherit the earth - | or what is left of it when the bold have taken all they | wanted. Slow and steady is just that, slow. There is a place | for it, e.g. when refining an established practice like | mining or internal combustion engines. Commercial space | exploration is a place where rapid advances can be made by | visionary explorers, only once you can buy an off-the-shelf | space minivan for the whole family the time has come for | 'slow and steady'. | pmoriarty wrote: | It's not like immense wealth hasn't been squandered before. | bawolff wrote: | The moral of the tortise and the hare fable is that the hare | lost because he took breaks. He lost despite having a faster | top speed not because of it. | paxys wrote: | Everything SpaceX is successfully launching today was similarly | delayed during development. It's too early to write off Blue | Origin, especially since Bezos _just_ got involved in it full | time. | [deleted] | [deleted] | tigershark wrote: | No, it wasn't. Blue origin was founded two years before | SpaceX. SpaceX in the meantime managed to create the first | ever reusable commercial rocket, the first ever reusable | heavy launch vehicle. The first ever commercial manned flight | for the ISS. And it's well on track to perform an orbital | test in the next month or two with a fully reusable rocket | that is using a full flow engine. Seriously, you are trying | to compare an Australopithecus climbing a tree with an Homo | sapiens building nuclear weapons. | archsurface wrote: | Similarly delayed? The delays are different by over a decade. | Spacex was attempting orbit in 2006. When will blue origin? | 2026? | rnd1 wrote: | The point of procurement is to procure something. | mattr47 wrote: | Bezos was never a scientist, engineer or dreamer. He is an | entrepreneur, business savvy guy. Its about the dollar for | him (which I'm not saying is a bad thing), versus for Elon it | is a dream/passion to get to Mars. | relativ575 wrote: | He's always been a big space nerd. | | "While at Princeton, Bezos attended O'Neill's seminars and | ran the campus chapter of "Students for the Exploration and | Development of Space." Through Blue Origin, which he has | called his "most important work," Bezos is developing | detailed plans to realize O'Neill's vision." - [0] | | [0] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/04/16/documentary- | featur... | namelessoracle wrote: | The kind of guy who saves The Expanse on a whim probably | does have at least a hobbyist interest in space. | | Elon was probably more invested earlier and was paying more | attention to what was going on is for sure though. Im not | convinced Bezos personal attention is going to do much to | help his space company though. Nothing about him seems like | it would help other than his wealth. And he hasnt shown a | willingness to throw a significant part of his fortune into | his space venture. Nothing about this strikes me as | anything more than what is a hobby that one of the richest | persons in the world is passionate about | WalterBright wrote: | If that was true, Bezos would have sent someone else on the | test of manned flight rather than risk his own ass. | Retric wrote: | Blue Origin was founded in 2000, SpaceX 2002. SpaceX achieved | orbit in 2008. Blue Origin is still sub orbital yet planning | on a moon mission. | | At this point Bezos might be better off starting over with a | new team. | mastrsushi wrote: | You sound like a Sunday golf narrator. | craftinator wrote: | Ah, the context-unaware personal snipe. These flagrant | and pouty birds spend their days sqawking at other random | birds in an effort to achieve some kind of short lived | feeling of superiority. They often go after other birds | with no regard to the situation at hand, which causes | their actions to look exceedingly stupid to the casual | birdwatcher. This behavior is where they get their name, | as their actions are "context-unaware", and makes them | very easy to spot. | mastrsushi wrote: | >They often go after other birds with no regard to the | situation at hand, which causes their actions to look | exceedingly stupid to the casual birdwatcher | | ...Yeah not sure you landed that one too smoothly. It's | healthy to get out more you know? | starik36 wrote: | They have some achievements to show. New Shepard was the | first to land vertically. That's not nothing. | | BE-4 has been delayed, true, but if it were looking like a | failure, ULA would have dropped them a long time ago. | | I think 2022 will clear up lots of things for everyone. | SLS, BE-4, New Glenn, etc... Till then there is no sense of | dooming anything. | jhgb wrote: | > New Shepard was the first to land vertically | | Apollo LM was the first to land vertically. | | > if it were looking like a failure, ULA would have | dropped them a long time ago | | That seems to be assuming that they have a choice. Given | the fuel difference between AR-1 and BE-4, they've been | committed to BE-4 for quite some time, no matter how much | progress BO is doing (or not doing) on BE-4. | Retric wrote: | The first soft landing on the moon occurred in 1966. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_9 | | Many rockets did soft landing on earth before that point, | but none of them had been in space. | jhgb wrote: | Sure, if that probe's rather crude landing system is | enough for you, suit yourself with Luna 9. However, the | LM landed on its legs in one piece, just like DC-X, New | Shepard, Grasshopper, and F9 first stage did later. | xoa wrote: | > _They have some achievements to show. New Shepard was | the first to land vertically. That 's not nothing._ | | Sorry, but the McDonnell Douglas DC-X did the rocket | straight up & down vertical landing in 1993. New Shepard | frankly wasn't particularly different. It went higher and | longer sure, but for orbital rocketry the challenge isn't | height so much as _speed_ and everything that comes with | that. The Falcon 9 flight 20 at the end of 2015 that | marked its first landing was a vastly bigger achievement | given that it was an orbital class rocket booster. It was | going much, much faster and had to descend on a much more | complicated arc through the atmosphere. And it pathfinded | for actual rapid reuse, which is a whole different set of | skills. That New Shepard did a suborbital jump a mere one | month earlier 2015 honestly just isn 't great. | | Since then, F9 has done over 100 more flights, to orbit, | including crewed ones, and set ever growing records on | cadence, reuse of boosters and refurb speed, satellite | launch records, etc. NS has done... what? 5 test flights | over 6 years? Then that silly little PR stunt? It's | ludicrous. And it's long since stopped serving any useful | purpose in terms of learning because it avoids so many of | the true challenges in going orbital which involve 9+km/s | of delta-v. | WalterBright wrote: | > silly little PR stunt | | The media has been grossly unfair to Bezos. What Bezos | actually did was risk his own neck in the first manned | flight of a totally new rocket design. It was a massive | display of faith in his engineering team. | | Musk didn't do that. Branson didn't do that - and earlier | test pilots of his craft died. | | As for the BO rocket being totally automated, that was | the original intent of the Mercury missions, until the | astronauts objected. Nobody called them joyriders or | ludicrous. | WalterBright wrote: | Personally, though, I would have taken with me as | passengers the chief mechanic and the chief engineer, | just to ensure the rocket works well! | errantspark wrote: | One pilot died, the other bailed out successfully. | | Branson didn't fly on the first flights because | SpaceShipTwo is a completely different beast to New | Shepard. SpaceShipTwo is a pioneering space plane with | MANUAL controls. New Shepard is basically the absolute | most boring way you could claim to have "gone to space". | It's vastly vastly less interesting and ambitious | compared to what SpaceX and even Virgin Galactic are | doing. | WalterBright wrote: | It didn't have to have manual controls, and in fact the | fatal accident was caused by moving the wrong control. | | Automated controls are _more_ ambitious than manual | controls. Note that the Apollo 11 was supposed to be | totally automated, but Armstrong saved the mission by | overriding it and doing it manually. | | > most boring | | Well, until the automation goes wrong, then it is briefly | very exciting. | justahuman74 wrote: | Blue's landing is not in the same league as SpaceX's | orbital re-entry landing | xgbi wrote: | > *near-orbital re-entry | | The first stage is far from orbital velocities when it | reaches MECO and starts down, even though I strongly | agree with you: SpaceX is in an entire other league. | [deleted] | Retric wrote: | Blue Origin arguably did the first verticals landing from | "space" as defined by 100km of altitude in 2015. Though | the lunar lander is perhaps the more famous vertical | landing from space in 1969, following earlier soft | landings like Luna 9 1966, and a lot of earlier VTVL | rocket research at the time. | | SpaceX started on powered decent in 2011 achieving it's | first landing from an actual orbital space flight in | 2015. I don't mean to dump on Blue Origin but their | achievements are really just around the definition of | space as 100km which is completely arbitrary, their | effectively just publicity stunts. | | It's possible that Blue Origin will create a useful | system for space exploration, but based on past progress | their years if not decades from that point. | [deleted] | jvanderbot wrote: | Blue Origin is doing non-launch things. They are working on a | lander system and studying lunar mission concepts at a level of | seriousness that does deserve some respect. | | https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-telescope-on... | | I appreciate SpaceX's focus and god bless em for what they're | doing in that sector, but there are other things to space than | just delivery driving. | elif wrote: | Forget orbit, SpaceX has paid for it's ISS contract about 3x in | savings over Soyuz. Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse | now. | meepmorp wrote: | > Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now. | | You're not optimizing for the same outcomes as Congress. NASA | is a jobs agency. | Arrath wrote: | A 'jobs agency' that has produced a whole lot of technical | advancements, maybe. | meepmorp wrote: | I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about Congress, | the guys with the checkbook. For them, it's a jobs | program. | | They're the next stop for Bezos, btw. This ain't over. | ren_engineer wrote: | maybe in the 60s, current NASA is living off past | accomplishments | Swenrekcah wrote: | Launch technology isn't the only thing space research and | exploration is about. | | It's an important one for sure! But it's just not true to | say NASA hasn't accomplished amazing stuff in the last | decades with the funds and focus they're allocated. | voidfunc wrote: | NASA is a taxpayer boondoggle. The faster we can | transition wasting tax dollars on it to the private | sector and dismantle the agency the better. | voxic11 wrote: | What advancements have its current flagship program (SLS) | produced? Maybe they do produce some but congress clearly | wants them to produce jobs not anything else. | jvanderbot wrote: | You know congress funds a lot more for space than SLS, | right? | voxic11 wrote: | but sls is the program with the most funding currently | right? | aaronbrethorst wrote: | From 2011: | | Robert Siegel: "As NPR's Peter Overby reports, Capitol Hill | has always been deeply involved in NASA's activities, and | sometimes seem to regard NASA as a jobs program, as well as | a space program." | | Overby: "This year [2011], according to federal contract | data, NASA will buy goods and services in 396 of the 435 | congressional districts." | | https://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555781/congressional- | suppo... | | From 2019: | | "NASA will often highlight the fact that its SLS rocket and | Orion spacecraft support aerospace suppliers. For example, | this agency website details the number of suppliers in | every US state and says, 'Men and women in all 50 states | are hard at work building NASA's Deep Space Exploration | Systems to support missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.' | There are 106 suppliers in Alabama, alone, according to | NASA's site." | | https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/an-alabama- | represent... | usehackernews wrote: | BO didn't want to replace SpaceX. That's not what this is | about. | | BO said historically NASA gives contracts to multiple | companies, and BO wanted funding too (in addition to SpaceX. | | BO "argued that the agency was required to make multiple | awards" because it had previously stated a preference for | multiple awards" | elif wrote: | BO wanted 10B compared to SpaceX's 2.7B. | | They also got court injunctions preventing SpaceX from | starting it's program, kinda deflating your whole 'just | wanted to play along' narrative | skissane wrote: | > They also got court injunctions preventing SpaceX from | starting it's program | | Not strictly speaking a "court injunction", a "stop work | order" from GAO (which isn't a court). | | And it is debatable whether it actually stopped SpaceX | from working on anything. | jve wrote: | > Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now | | I don't think SpaceX would be as strong if not that early | NASA funding. "SpaceX contracted with the US government for a | portion of the development funding for the Falcon 9 launch | vehicle, which uses a modified version of the Merlin rocket | engine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX | | So by your thinking, they could have only invested in old- | school-reliable-expensive rocket companies, because less risk | is involved... | | So funding a space company that doesn't yet have required | capability but can be helped to get there - is not dumb. | cycrutchfield wrote: | Or maybe they (correctly) assessed that SpaceX was actually | able to deliver on its promises and Blue Origin is not. | yborg wrote: | It's telling that Bezos has chosen to take this fight to | Washington DC - his only real hope is to kneecap SpaceX | politically. It's not that Blue Origin lacks engineering know- | how, it's that they brought in a ULA executive to run things | and so he's running the ULA playbook - maximize profits by | delaying things indefinitely to keep that taxpayer money | flowing. Blue Origin wants SpaceX to play by its rules and slow | to a crawl so they can compete. Elon Musk, for all his faults, | wants to accomplish something and is personally driving things | to get that done and is unwilling to settle for vanity wins and | big talk to impress fellow billionaires at Davos. Unless Jeff | can convince Elon to focus on salad fights over how high is up | I'd say this competition is long over. | jccooper wrote: | Blue Origin isn't vaporware. They have engines, they have | rocket bodies, they have tooling, etc. | | But they are, apparently, firmly in development hell, with no | public indication of trying to change that. | nickik wrote: | The definition of vapoware is things that are delayed | continously after they should have been released. | | The BE-4 fits into that. | completelylegit wrote: | vaporware is a product that has been announced but never | materializes. | voakbasda wrote: | A project is not vaporware until it gets canceled without | delivering. | jhgb wrote: | Wikipedia: "announced to the general public but is late | or never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled" | | Is official cancellation necessary? | squarefoot wrote: | The point is that Blue Origin isn't going to have anything | ready by 2023 which is the year the crewed Artemis 2 mission | should get the go. They might not be vaporware, but they're | still several years behind SpaceX. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-31 23:00 UTC)