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

141–150 of 236 posts

Re: Blue Moon

#141

Post by godelski »

mlindner wrote: post #111
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…

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…

> Blue Origin is big on talk and little on action.

I'm a little surprised on this. I see Blue Origin as being small on talk. They have been mostly operating in stealth mode. Public isn't really that aware of them, at least no where near the level of SpaceX. They only get publicity when they meet a milestone. Which the thing is that they haven't promised much, but met those milestones on time.

> Bezos hasn't given any timelines for New Glenn (their first orbital rocket)

2021[0]

[0] https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-resets-schedule-fi...

Re: Blue Moon

#142

Post by archgoon »

asaph wrote: post #117
pacificmint wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was “only” 12 years between Sputnik and Apollo 11. 12 years, and 4.4% of the federal budget (in the peak). In 2007 dollars they spend around $136 billion to get to the moon.

How much is that in 2019 dollars?

About 166 billion, based off of CPI.

Re: Blue Moon

#143

Post by azernik »

maccam94 wrote: post #135
sandworm101 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The problem is that, no matter how cheap your fuel is, you have to build a launcher that can lift off while carrying all that fuel. It's expensive to make a pressure vessel that strong and light and large, engines that powerful, etc.

If launch gets cheap enough given current launcher sizes, you can get into in-orbit assembly, but that requires immense investment into robotics or a lot of spending to support (machine-assisted) human construction workers. i.e. you can't launch Apollo as a single package on Falcon 9s no matter how many you can afford, and if you want to send it up in multiple packages you need to either make the spacecraft bigger and bulkier and more expensive so that it's modular, or send up a few times the mass of the resulting spacecraft in assembly robots or construction workers' habitats.

(That's why Starship is so exciting even if it doesn't end up meeting Musk's cost targets, and why SLS has been so enticing for NASA despite its shitshow of a development process - putting up a single large payload in one launch is an advantage in and of itself.)

Re: Blue Moon

#144

Post by azernik »

sandworm101 wrote: post #128
azernik wrote: post #121

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.

At least for launch, I doubt we'll improve those mass ratios for a long time to come - chemical rockets hit theoretical limits at exhaust velocities/specific impulses of e.g. ~5.5km/s for hydrolox, and SSME already got within 10-20% of that theoretical maximum. All of the systems that can get better specific impulse, like thermal rockets or electric thrusters, have thrust:mass ratios waaaaay too low to get off of Earth on their own. (Possibly nuclear thermal rockets? But I don't think people will be overjoyed firing those off in an atmosphere.)

Re: Blue Moon

#145

Post by killjoywashere »

tracer4201 wrote: post #136
mlindner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 specifi…

> I no longer have that vehicle.

Fascinating. As a potential Tesla buyer, would you care to share your experience? Email welcome.

Re: Blue Moon

#146

Post by icelancer »

tracer4201 wrote: post #136
mlindner wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 specifi…

Amazon is not Blue Origin. SpaceX is not Tesla. The Musk/Bezos comparison is regarding spaceflight. And in that regard:

>> Blue Origin is big on talk and little on action.

The parent comment is definitely correct. Unless you mean patent trolling. Then Bezos has Musk crushed.

Re: Blue Moon

#147

Post by dvdbloc »

muricula wrote: post #42

Blue origin can't build a moon rocket by 2024, so maybe they can settle for the lander. Here's the vision I bet they're aiming for: a Spacex rocket, a United Launch Alliance capsule, a Blue Origin lander, and a round of pork barrel in every Congressional district.

Why can’t they use New Glenn?

Re: Blue Moon

#148

Post by icelancer »

Aeolun wrote: post #74

Is there anyone else that feels like Blue Origin actually has a chance of making their own timelines, as opposed to SpaceX? Don’t get me wrong, I love SpaceX, but the down to earth way in which Blue Origin appears to be working also appeals to me.

Blue Origin is more likely to hit their targets, but SpaceX is more likely to actually do anything relevant.

Re: Blue Moon

#149

Post by ArekDymalski »

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…

> I just think it's far too modest of a goal for a company with free rein over a billion dollars in additional annual capital

When you look at it as an investment not as a research project it makes much more sense.

Re: Blue Moon

#150

Post by icelancer »

username223 wrote: post #82
T-A wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish Bezos, Allen, Musk, etc. weren't burning their piles of cash Allen did many things with his pile of cash (though none that I know of directly involved moon trips), but no longer: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/paul-allen-microsoft-spacesh...

RIP. Allen doesn't seem to have been going for the moon (yet), but I wish the billionaires would not spend their hoards on private rocket companies. It's a bit gross that the article you linked calls them "philanthropists" for doing it. Andrew Carnegie was a real bastard, but he funded many wonderful small-town libraries, which remain valuable community centers over 100 years later. Bill Gates took his shot at world…

>> Andrew Carnegie was a real bastard, but he funded many wonderful small-town libraries, which remain valuable community centers over 100 years later.

That's a bit of an understatement of one of the worst monopolists and union-busters (even locking out employees and bringing in non-union immigrants to operate his factories) in America's history, but alright. [0]

Why didn't you mention Elon Musk and the Flint, Michigan water problem? (not to mention laptops and other donations he's made on two occasions now)

I think that's a real-world problem.

[0]: Also, he significantly contributed to the deaths of thousands through neglect of environmental standards for his own personal vacation and hunting spot. "South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club" will get you more information on him.

Post reply on HN