Live data from Hacker News

Blue Moon

blueorigin.com

131–140 of 236 posts

Re: Blue Moon

#131
post #49

Why does everything BO build have to be so fugly? Don't they care, are they not good enough that they can make it pretty and achieve their technical goals at the same time or are there hard constraints that dictate the ugliness?

classic trilemma, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma good, beautiful, real

Yeah, but then SpaceX.

Re: Blue Moon

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn’t that just another way of saying the ITER approach is infeasible? So it’s basically a jobs program

Re: Blue Moon

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

2016 estimation for the project was $20B [1]. Your number is over 50 times larger.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/world-s-b...

Re: Blue Moon

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, Waymo has paying customers that ride in cars that have demonstrated the capability to navigate populated city streets without a driver. I think calling Waymo the market leader is a fair assessment.

Re: Blue Moon

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but rocket launch costs are orders of magnitude higher than the cost of fuel to launch payloads. Once we nail down reusability, then we'll see space access become much more affordable. And once we have ships that only operate in space, we'll be able to carry much more fuel along (aerodynamics and structural strength are much less important).

Re: Blue Moon

#136
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…

Unlike Bezos, Elon Musk actually gets things done. Bezos still hasn't done anything that SpaceShipOne didn't do in 2004 (and that carried people, unlike their current rocket). Their little hopper rocket is leagues away from a proper orbital vehicle. Bezos hasn't given any timelines for New Glenn (their first orbital rocket). People give way too much praise to Bezos. That's not to mention all the blatant patent trolli…

>Unlike Bezos, Elon Musk actually gets things done.

As a betting gal, I disagree.

source: $2MM investment in Amazon from back in 2014 has performed extremely well. Stock price isn’t exactly a golden metric, but Bezos knows how and what to prioritize and when to deliver. I would trust Bezos over Elon Musk with real money any day.

Your post makes it appear as if Bezos is devoting the majority of his time to one specific company or venture, and therefore not being the industry leader is some sort of failure. That’s extremely short sighted from my perspective.

The little hopper rocket you described is a better investment from my perspective than anything Musk touches. Hell, if all Bezos had was a literal tin can and merely a promise of using material from that tin can as part of a lunar lander 10 years out, I would still put more faith in Bezos.

My only experience with Tesla is with purchasing a Model S, which was horrible. I no longer have that vehicle. Good riddance.

Re: Blue Moon

#137
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joking aside...man, the antialiasing on those leg shadows...pay for a rendering team, guys!

The cargo unloading sounded familiar: https://youtu.be/hmk1oHzvNKA?t=68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0nlO87evhY&t=949

I thought I was about to hear a Wilhelm scream but that's even better! Funny.

Re: Blue Moon

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn’t that just another way of saying the ITER approach is infeasible? So it’s basically a jobs program

I haven't met a fusion scientist that thinks ITER isn't going to work. Ones that don't like ITER just think there are better ways.

Re: Blue Moon

#139
post #92
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…

But SpaceX still moves faster than Blue Origin, even though SpaceX promises to move much faster and then fails to do that.

They're going about it very different ways so I think from a typical bystander it is hard to see. We won't really know how accurate your statement is until we see New Glenn and if BFR ever becomes a reality. But historically BO has been right on the mark with their timelines while SpaceX (and a lot of other Musk stuff) is at least a year behind schedule.

Re: Blue Moon

#140
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

2016 estimation for the project was $20B [1]. Your number is over 50 times larger. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/world-s-b...

Ah, maybe that's why it's taking so long...
Post reply on HN