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

Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 259 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#71

Post by babesh »

kelnos wrote: post #30
krapp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "current space race" as far as the US is concerned. Americans put a man on the moon fifty years ago, and no one is worried that China or Russia are going to "gain the high ground" and nuke Washington from orbit. No one cares.

I think you're underestimating things here. These days we have two new milestones: a crewed mission to Mars, and a permanent moon base. The fervor to get there is of course nowhere near what it was like in the 50s and 60s, and I probably wouldn't even call this a new "space race", but the US doesn't want to look weak in matters like this, especially with China's general technological and economic rise over the past d…

small satellites, Internet access to remote areas (both military and commercial uses), space tourism, space habitats, competitors to GPS (both military and commercial uses) etc…

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#72

Post by Kinrany »

inglor_cz wrote: post #48
pmoriarty wrote: post #7

Why can't they cooperate instead of compete? It's not like they don't already have all the money they'd ever need or could use, and wouldn't the world be better off if they worked together than against each other?

Would it be better if C, Java and Rust were integrated into a single überlanguage with one central committee to drive further development? From a layman's perspective, an idea like that would make superficial sense; they are all programming languages, after all. From a programmer's perspective, that would be a nightmare. I think the companies are so far apart that extensive technical cooperation would slow them both…

> Would it be better if C, Java and Rust were integrated into a single überlanguage with one central committee to drive further development?

Yes!

They need different runtimes, but there's a lot of infractructure they could have been reusing. It's a shame we have a couple dozen language silos that have to reinvent everything.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#73

Post by pmoriarty »

marcinzm wrote: post #21
breakfastduck wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's no ego benefit there. That's all these companies exist for.

SpaceX is a functioning business that actually launches things into space at a lower cost than competitors. Basically every successful company has a massive amount of ego behind it but the question is if they actually achieve anything tangible and, eventually, profitable.

"SpaceX is a functioning business that actually launches things into space at a lower cost than competitors."

This might actually lead to a greatly increased risk of creating an impenetrable field of space junk if the thousands more satellites that SpaceX launches collide in to one another.

If that happens expect SpaceX supporters to start singing a different tune.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#74

Post by marcinzm »

tayo42 wrote: post #51
marcinzm wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies aren't going to the moon, the US government is going to the moon using these companies. These companies are significantly lowering the cost of going into space and eventually going to Mars. That is moving the world forward.

So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation. > SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded to the GAO decision on Twitter with a flexed-biceps emoji. This sounds like billionaires and their egos fighting with each other. Not really trying to make the world better

>So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation.

You said going to the Moon isn't innovation. You can't have it both ways.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#75

Post by simcop2387 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #48
pmoriarty wrote: post #7

Why can't they cooperate instead of compete? It's not like they don't already have all the money they'd ever need or could use, and wouldn't the world be better off if they worked together than against each other?

Would it be better if C, Java and Rust were integrated into a single überlanguage with one central committee to drive further development? From a layman's perspective, an idea like that would make superficial sense; they are all programming languages, after all. From a programmer's perspective, that would be a nightmare. I think the companies are so far apart that extensive technical cooperation would slow them both…

For an example of this, see the Parrot VM from the Raku/Perl 6 development.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#76

Post by nickik »

jccooper wrote: post #70
FreakyT wrote: post #3

It's really a shame what has happened to Blue Origin. They've gone from a promising space startup to yet another purveyor of perpetual vaporware. Where is the BE-4 engine? Delayed, again and again. New Glenn, the rocket that could actually go into orbit? Same. So far their only functioning hardware (New Shephard) is, in effect, a glorified amusement park ride. Considering that SpaceX has actually made it to orbit mul…

Blue Origin isn't vaporware. They have engines, they have rocket bodies, they have tooling, etc. But they are, apparently, firmly in development hell, with no public indication of trying to change that.

The definition of vapoware is things that are delayed continously after they should have been released.

The BE-4 fits into that.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#77

Post by marcinzm »

pmoriarty wrote: post #73
marcinzm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is a functioning business that actually launches things into space at a lower cost than competitors. Basically every successful company has a massive amount of ego behind it but the question is if they actually achieve anything tangible and, eventually, profitable.

"SpaceX is a functioning business that actually launches things into space at a lower cost than competitors." This might actually lead to a greatly increased risk of creating an impenetrable field of space junk if the thousands more satellites that SpaceX launches collide in to one another. If that happens expect SpaceX supporters to start singing a different tune.

SpaceX is launching its own internet satellites into low orbit so their satellites will only burn up in a decade without boosting. If your argument is "don't progress or change in any way because something bad might happen" then I suspect you'll find few takers on this site.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#78

Post by sterlind »

tayo42 wrote: post #62
B4CKlash wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly small minded perspective. Difficult challenges require new technologies, new processes and new ways of thinking. More specifically, technologies developed through the race to land on the moon (and space flight generally) are integral to almost every aspect of 'your' life and define what most of us consider human flourishing. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~:t..…

These companies are just trying to shoot rockets further then each other. They're not science pr research companies. We're not learning more about space and the universe thanks to the them. What spin off tech have we gotten from them?

Starlink?

But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are engineering and logistics problems more than science problems, but I think they're very important.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#79

Post by Hayvok »

Multiple providers has been the “name of the game” for a long time now, so it’s not surprising that Blue Origin or ULA got caught off guard. They had to know this Day was coming, but maybe not so quickly.

This should be a wake up call to established space players: the days of cost-plus contracts, multiple bid winners, and endless cost and time overruns - are over. There’s no purpose to those anymore.

For the past fifty years this all made sense: going to space was hard, and the financial risks were astronomical. This decision highlights how much progress we’ve made toward establishing a “space economy”. Space has been de-risked enough that the corporations can take on the (previously fatal) risk of a fixed-price contract. De-risked enough that the government is reasonably certain of achieving a strategic objective with a single provider.

BO, ULA, et. al - the game just changed. Adapt, or die.

Re: Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

#80

Post by meepmorp »

elif wrote: post #68
FreakyT wrote: post #3

It's really a shame what has happened to Blue Origin. They've gone from a promising space startup to yet another purveyor of perpetual vaporware. Where is the BE-4 engine? Delayed, again and again. New Glenn, the rocket that could actually go into orbit? Same. So far their only functioning hardware (New Shephard) is, in effect, a glorified amusement park ride. Considering that SpaceX has actually made it to orbit mul…

Forget orbit, SpaceX has paid for it's ISS contract about 3x in savings over Soyuz. Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now.

> Congress would be dumb to pick a new horse now.

You're not optimizing for the same outcomes as Congress. NASA is a jobs agency.

Post reply on HN