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

151–160 of 236 posts

Re: Blue Moon

#151

Post by moccachino »

peterlk wrote: post #129
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 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…

To put that number into perspective, the 2015 US Military budget was --4 trillion-- 600 billion dollars [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

Re: Blue Moon

#152

Post by simonh »

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…

It is reusable if it can be refuelled with hydrolox from a surface ISRU installation, while a kicker stage would lock them into a non-reusable architecture.

Also a reusable upper stage is a separate problem. I'm always disappointed when I read comments along the lines of 'lets not bother solving this problem, because I have this other favourite problem instead'. So what? That doesn't make this particular problem go away.

Re: Blue Moon

#153

Post by brycesbeard »

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.

Strongly disagree. If they were all combined, we would likely have the same level as any given Company’s progress, but no more due to the mythical man month factor.

Instead we have multiple moonshots, bringing diverse approaches, and constrained by a budget. Since we know from Apollo that “if money were no object”, we can do this, it’s a good approach.

The reason we never moved on from Apollo is because economics matter. We were able to beat the tyranny of the rocket equation; now we are seeing if we can do it for a much smaller amount. And we have multiple bets on different approaches.

Re: Blue Moon

#154

Post by neuronic »

rak00n wrote: post #133
peterlk wrote: post #129

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...

The number is $20B for a "technology of the future" project because if you would propose a number 20x larger the project would never get started.

How are you going to justify $1.2 trillion to tax payers for something ephemeral that might work or not, all while their kids cannot get toilet paper in school?

$20bn is kind of "normal" in government spending and those numbers are quickly forgotten.

On the other hand, the yearly US defense budget is already half of that amount and the loud voices do not care.

Re: Blue Moon

#155

Post by jacobush »

bemmu wrote: post #113
themodelplumber wrote: post #89

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

That did a 180 for me. I'm now a Blue Moon fan!

Re: Blue Moon

#156

Post by oblio »

moccachino wrote: post #151
peterlk wrote: post #129

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…

To put that number into perspective, the 2015 US Military budget was --4 trillion-- 600 billion dollars [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

Defense Budget (Billions) 637bn

Total Budget (Trillions) 3.97tn

I think you used the wrong number.

Re: Blue Moon

#157

Post by jacobush »

sixothree wrote: post #29
markdown wrote: post #19

OT, but their web dev is an inconsiderate jerk. https://i.imgur.com/OCpESVs.png

I am still surprised by how often devs put full size images into thumbnails.

I have yet to gotten used to that 500x500 pictures are "thumbnail". I unconsciously expect them to be 32x32 or something... :-D

Re: Blue Moon

#158

Post by moccachino »

oblio wrote: post #156
moccachino wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put that number into perspective, the 2015 US Military budget was --4 trillion-- 600 billion dollars [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

Defense Budget (Billions) 637bn Total Budget (Trillions) 3.97tn I think you used the wrong number.

Oops, you are right!

Re: Blue Moon

#159

Post by nickik »

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'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo

You underwhelmed by a privately financed moon program?

You underwhelmed by the completely new Hydrolox engine that can also produce power threw fuel cells? This engine can be reused for other landers as well if NASA wants to finance something bigger.

You are not easy to please. Just because he has billions doesn't mean he want to put all his money into this project, he is planning for 20-40 years.

Re: Blue Moon

#160

Post by grey-area »

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.

If you have large reusable rockets and refuelling, you can carry a lot more. Thankfully SpaceX is working on just such a plan, which would mean landing far more mass on the moon and being able to take a lot back.

Their lander will look completely different (starship).

Post reply on HN