Submitted by kuroimakina t3_10yj1g7 in space
ChrisJD11 t1_j7yhpio wrote
Shouldn't they at least be able to get to orbit, then maybe the moon before they get a Mars contract?
seanbrockest t1_j7yugvl wrote
It's even worse than that, not only have they not gotten to orbit, they've never even tried to get to orbit. They've never built anything that was even capable of trying for orbit, and right now they don't have anything that launches at all.
danielravennest t1_j80uyvo wrote
Jeff's engines are on the launch pad right now. The ULA Vulcan rocket uses two of them in the first stage. New Glenn will use 7 of them and be reusable (eventually).
Vulcan is a standard throw-away rocket intended to replace the Atlas that has flown for many years.
seanbrockest t1_j81905h wrote
I'm still highly skeptical that an engine with that large of a chamber and that high of a chamber pressure can survive, but I guess we'll see!
seanflyon t1_j81h7ea wrote
They have test fired several of them. It is a hard problem and they have had their share of difficulties in development, but it looks like they have gotten it to work. Time will tell.
Argon1300 t1_j80avpf wrote
I mean... is that really worse? Wouldn't it be worse, had they tried for a decade and never managed?
homelessdreamer t1_j80whg6 wrote
Not in rocket science. It is famously difficult to get to orbit. At least companies that have tried understand what they don't know. Blue Origin only knows how to build gas powered shaftless elevators. Which isn't nothing, but certainly is an order of magnitude easier than orbit.
Argon1300 t1_j80yjid wrote
I mean... lets give them some credit. New Shepard has worked pretty reliably, even considering the recent failure. They have more experience with operating rocket powered vehicles than most other NewSpace companies. More importantly, they have experience with operating human rated reusable spacecraft, even if they just launch vertically up and then fall back down.
The difficulty in spaceflight for most companies arises in keeping their engines running for long enough to make orbit. Chaining two stages together when you already have the experience to operate them is not that much of a leap.
The only reason Blue is taking so long at the moment is because they wanted to skip smallsat launchers (a wise move given their small market and many competitors) and instead start out with a true monster of a rocket in the form of New Glenn. Rockets of that size take time. Compared to any development program of this type that is not SpaceX they are doing perfectly fine.
homelessdreamer t1_j81fg0n wrote
You are absolutely correct, they deserve credit where credit is due. The only thing I would counter you on is the difficulty of launching a large rocket is the number of systems required to work in those environments without failures. Not just the rockets running that long. The reason most space companies start small isn't because they hope to take over the small sat market but because it is more attainable to start small for quicker test and iterations. Bezos strategy is certainly bold but I would argue not very pragmatic. He is basically going all in blind on New Glen. If he pulls it off it will be an incredible feat. But if it fails how many chances will he have to recover. Even Boing, a company with significant industry experience has struggled to keep up with large rocketry in recent years by comparison to Space X. I absolutely love all the competition in space right now but I won't be holding my breath for the first launch of New Glen.
VikingBorealis t1_j81e0bs wrote
Strangely nonenof that translates to orbit or interplanetary travel...
seanbrockest t1_j81b987 wrote
In this case they've literally spent the last TWO decades working on this, and still have yet to even try, so yeah I'd say that's worse when they're applying for contracts.
[deleted] t1_j80l79y wrote
[deleted]
dhurane t1_j7z1jz3 wrote
It's a relatively cheap launch with New Glenn being oversized for the mission. NASA gets a cheap launch and validate a launch provider while BO gets to boast about winning a NASA mission.
Ukulele_Maestro t1_j7zczey wrote
Hmm.
NASA awarded pretty big contracts to spacex for lunar lander and starship. That's a platform under development and not at all proven yet.
Blue origin has a similar rocket, blue Glen. NASA wants more commercial launch providers, so a mission like this to cut the teeth of new Glen is a great thing.
robertojh_200 t1_j80az62 wrote
SpaceX is the most advanced launch organization in history, lapping the rest of the world twice over in mass to orbit with a nearly perfect safety record and dirt cheap vehicles.
Blue origin hasn’t been to orbit and their suborbital rocket just failed.
Investing in starship is smart based on track record, blue origin? They literally have no track record.
ketchupthrower t1_j80kv17 wrote
It's in NASA's interest for their to be healthy competition. They don't want to be reliant on the whims of SpaceX (and by extension Musk). SpaceX being dominant is an argument for diversifying the contracts.
Ukulele_Maestro t1_j80bb5j wrote
That's the point of this launch, to establish a track record
ZooZooChaCha t1_j83suvr wrote
NASA has learned its lesson about relying on one provider. Imagine if Boeing was the only commercial crew provider, or when the Space Shuttle was supposed to be the only satellite launch provider in the 80s.
It’s great that SpaceX has succeeded - but you know what’s better? Competition and an equally successful Blue Origin.
robertojh_200 t1_j83zpv5 wrote
That’s all well and good but blue origin has not proven the ability to be successful, even with a sub orbital joyride. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve anything, this is Amazon We are talking about, Jeff Bezos. Money isn’t the issue, it’s management, it’s pipe lining, I don’t want to say it’s talent because I know there’s plenty of talented people there. But blue origin is a laughingstock in the industry for a reason, and it’s going to take more than contracts to get them to a point where they can compete with SpaceX. They already have contracts with other private launch companies, they license out their engine, but they have been holding them back because of their constant delays. If blue origin wasn’t causing so many delays, there probably would be more substantial competition in the industry right now from other launch companies.
I don’t see how they are ready for a Mars contract within the next 10 years
ZooZooChaCha t1_j853u0u wrote
There was a time when SpaceX was the laughingstock as well. Gwen Shotwell is primarily the reason things didn’t end with Falcon 1. Even when NASA gave SpaceX a shot with commercial cargo and later commercial crew, people were skeptical. And if it weren’t for those contracts, SpaceX doesn’t make it.
Blue Origin had one “failure” so far for suborbital and the vehicle performed exactly the way it should in an emergency.
[deleted] t1_j856nce wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j80lrqa wrote
[deleted]
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j7zpfm3 wrote
>Blue origin has a similar rocket, blue Glen.
Do they, though?
Ukulele_Maestro t1_j7zqrw0 wrote
Starship is further along in development in that a prototype exists, but yeah they are both under development.
Blue origin has spent a billion dollars on manufacturering facilities to build new Glenn. That to me shows they are serious about building it and we should see the first prototype rolling out sometime soon
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j7zrwge wrote
Ive worked for enough startups to know that spending money means nothing.
Ukulele_Maestro t1_j7zsffu wrote
Then you should know also that starship could be a complete failure too.
But I get it. SpaceX good blue origin bad. That's the thought process around here.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_j7zu779 wrote
Starship has flown hops and landed and its from an enterprises that not only has gone to orbit, but is the planet's premier launch service provider.
New Glen is a couple of pictures of incomplete tanks and fairings.
If Blue Origin wants to be taken seriously, they gotta actually make an orbital rocket and actually go to orbit. You can't just burn money without results and expect people to take you seriously. Its been what, 20 years? I think people (and Nasa) have been patient with them.
[deleted] t1_j80u4qy wrote
[removed]
MrZorg58 t1_j80hsn4 wrote
One would think so. Bezo's has been using his fortune to sue NASA at damn near every turn, setting back science missions for years to come. NASA having to spend their funds to fight litigation is insanity. But Bezo doesn't care. He wants a cut of the pie, even if he isn't ready to do anything.
Rocket_wanker t1_j81ty08 wrote
Not saying the suit had any grounds, but it was exactly one lawsuit.
Elon has quite a few under his belt now though:
2019 (SpaceX vs NASA bid protest over a launch procurement, later withdrawn)
2005 (SpaceX vs Boeing and Lockheed)
Not to mention all the shady shit Starlink has pulled with the FCC.
Lawsuits force change in this industry, acting like one lawsuit somehow shaped NASA’s ability to do anything is absurd.
MrZorg58 t1_j82dl5v wrote
Musk told reporters, it seemed like Bezo's retired to: “Turns out Besos [sic] retired in order to pursue a full-time job filing lawsuits against SpaceX …"
There are other suits he's done, but failed.
I don't really care, but I think it was a stupid decision on NASA's part, to accept 2 billion "donation" and then award the contract to Bezo's, who hasn't even achieved orbital flight yet.
More on some of his other suits against Musk. https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/jeff-bezos-retired-to-file-lawsuits-against-spacex-says-elon-musk-121082700846_1.html
pmMeAllofIt t1_j82ng6k wrote
Who cares how Musk words it. It's literally the 1 lunar lander lawsuit, and 1 letter filed to the FCC(along side many others from other telecoms).
Musk has more lawsuits, and more public letters to the FCC against other companies than anyone.
[deleted] t1_j80x8a0 wrote
[deleted]
LordBrandon t1_j80yjvu wrote
They awarded the Apollo rockets to companies that had never been to the moon before as well. Pure corruption.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments