Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blue Moon

blueorigin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 236 posts

Re: Blue Moon

#121

Post by azernik »

Robotbeat wrote: post #86

I'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo (uncrewed variant of whose lander could land about 5 tons). A really high deck making egress difficult. Apparently expendable. Given Blue Origin's resources, they should be shooting far higher. There's a bunch of small companies pursuing expendable lunar landers of similar capabilities. I worry Blue Origin will just crowd them out. A reusable upper st…

Of course it's less capable than Apollo - we don't have anywhere near the lift capability of Saturn V anymore, and this program's budget is a rounding error in the $200B (inflation-adjusted) that went into Apollo.

I think people underestimate just how insane the investment was in that program: in the neighborhood of 0.25% of GDP for a decade.

Re: Blue Moon

#122

Post by ghufran_syed »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #107
Robotbeat wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was Red Stone, Atlas, titan, Saturn I, Ib, and V. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. multiple contractors at each phase.

I understand, I wasn't arguing that there weren't multiple contractors, only pointing out that NASA had all of its resources making one system at a time. If we combined the space launch R&D budgets of SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Boeing into one pool and focused on one system, it might go faster.

You mean like NASA for the last 40 years?

Re: Blue Moon

#123

Post by goshx »

hodder wrote: post #50
ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

I was waiting for this announcement. It is unclear to me how "real" this is; Bezo's claims they can meet the timeline of people on the moon in 2024. Since they aren't flying a heavy booster like the Delta IV heavy or the Falcon Heavy yet, and those platforms took about 10 years to go from concept to first flight. Bezos is suggesting he can do that in 5 years. Perhaps he's considering using the Delta for FHeavy as the…

Unlike Elon Musk, Bezos has a tendency to set more accurate timelines. This is not to say that Space X’s achievements are not incredible. They are. It is just that Elon Musk projection timelines are pretty much always bunk, while Jeff Bezos seems to be better at projecting achievement timelines. Again, what Space X and Blue Origin have achieved are incredible, and yes Space X has an entirely different set of technolo…

I guess it is a lot easier to set more accurate timelines if you only reveal something after working on it for 3 years, like Blue Moon.

Re: Blue Moon

#124

Post by sidcool »

gdsdfe wrote: post #55

wait how can they claim having precise landing etc. if the thing have never been tested? did they land it on the moon before ?

Testing here on Earth could give them some idea I believe.

Re: Blue Moon

#125

Post by kermitismyhero »

zlsa wrote: post #103
hodder wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike Elon Musk, Bezos has a tendency to set more accurate timelines. This is not to say that Space X’s achievements are not incredible. They are. It is just that Elon Musk projection timelines are pretty much always bunk, while Jeff Bezos seems to be better at projecting achievement timelines. Again, what Space X and Blue Origin have achieved are incredible, and yes Space X has an entirely different set of technolo…

In 2011, SpaceX said they'd fly Falcon Heavy in 2013. It actually first flew in 2018. On the other hand, Blue Origin hasn't yet reached orbit (something SpaceX did in 2008.) I do believe Blue Origin will be able to execute on Blue Moon, but they also need to demonstrate a _lot_ of hardware before boots on the moon.

In fairness to SpaceX, Falcon Heavy's long delays weren't a result of mismanagement or false claims. The delays were due to Heavy turning out to be largely unnecessary for routine operations and development being put on the back burner. Falcon 9's capabilities (particularly in the engines) were improved to the point where it could handle missions once thought to require Heavy. Those same continual improvements meant that it was a more efficient use of engineers' time to wait for the more-or-less final Falcon 9 design before starting serious work on Heavy.

But I do share skepticism on Blue Origin. It's hard to develop rockets in total secrecy. If New Glenn was anywhere close to flying, even in an expendable test configuration, we'd at least know that much even if they chose to keep the details confidential.

Re: Blue Moon

#126

Post by kermitismyhero »

zeristor wrote: post #43
Rebelgecko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably their New Glenn rocket

They've got New Armstrong pencilled in after New Glenn for taking people to the Moon. I suppose after that would be New Sagan

>I suppose after that would be New Sagan

Oh, I don't know. Sounds like that sort of rocket would cost billions and billions of dollars.

Re: Blue Moon

#127

Post by erikpukinskis »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #39
mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m glad to see a different approach. SpaceX has the “outrageously audacious” space well covered. It’s good to have a competitor working on something more incremental in case it turns out that the giant leap isn’t viable.

Blue Origin is somewhat like the Waymo of space tech. They'll continue plodding methodically, indefinitely. And you can bet their safety/reliability record will be nigh near perfect. Yes, Waymo is the market leader in self-driving technology (unlike Blue Origin). And there's currently no analogue to SpaceX in the self-driving car market. The incredible, complementary leadership duo that Musk and Shotwell present is u…

Wait, does Waymo have paying customers?

Their fleet size is way smaller than Tesla.

They're the leader in features for sure, but that's not what market leader means I don't think.

Re: Blue Moon

#128

Post by sandworm101 »

azernik wrote: post #121
Robotbeat wrote: post #86

I'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo (uncrewed variant of whose lander could land about 5 tons). A really high deck making egress difficult. Apparently expendable. Given Blue Origin's resources, they should be shooting far higher. There's a bunch of small companies pursuing expendable lunar landers of similar capabilities. I worry Blue Origin will just crowd them out. A reusable upper st…

Of course it's less capable than Apollo - we don't have anywhere near the lift capability of Saturn V anymore, and this program's budget is a rounding error in the $200B (inflation-adjusted) that went into Apollo. I think people underestimate just how insane the investment was in that program: in the neighborhood of 0.25% of GDP for a decade.

I think people underestimate the rocket equation. In the last fifty years very little progress has been made on the basic ratios between rocket fuel, size and payload. If you want to land on the moon, in 1960 or 2026, you are still going to need the same amounts of fuel and supplies. Your landers will by necessity be similar too.

Re: Blue Moon

#129

Post by peterlk »

azernik wrote: post #121
Robotbeat wrote: post #86

I'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo (uncrewed variant of whose lander could land about 5 tons). A really high deck making egress difficult. Apparently expendable. Given Blue Origin's resources, they should be shooting far higher. There's a bunch of small companies pursuing expendable lunar landers of similar capabilities. I worry Blue Origin will just crowd them out. A reusable upper st…

Of course it's less capable than Apollo - we don't have anywhere near the lift capability of Saturn V anymore, and this program's budget is a rounding error in the $200B (inflation-adjusted) that went into Apollo. I think people underestimate just how insane the investment was in that program: in the neighborhood of 0.25% of GDP for a decade.

I think most people (myself included) do not understand how much technological improvement costs.

Anecdote: I once had a conversation with a guy who worked at ITER, and he was pretty bullish (and he had no reason to bullshit me) on the prospect of fusion as a viable energy source, but frustrated with the internal politics of ITER. So I asked, "well, what would it take? If I could call up a bunch of rich people to get funding, how much would it take?" He casually said, "oh, probably 1.2 to 1.5 trillion dollars". And then I understood why it was a multinational conglomerate that was funding it, and not a bunch of rich people.

Post reply on HN