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

251–259 of 259 posts

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

#251

Post by lizmat »

simcop2387 wrote: post #75
inglor_cz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please note that the Raku Programming Language currently has 3 backends (MoarVM, JVM and Javascript) and that Parrot was dropped as a backend target in 2015.

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

#252

Post by nickik »

kiba wrote: post #97
krapp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Elon Musk gave Jeff Bezos advice on building rockets, which Bezos flatly rejected. He also hoped that Bezos work on Blue Origin or otherwise Bezos will die before he gets anywhere. Of course, Musk also mocks Blue Origin.

If Bezos had been clever he would have just said 'oh you have rockets covered, amazing, let me invest any my company faces on in space infrastructure'.

With the billions and billions BlueOrigin spend they could have done amazing things in space. But instead they are building inferior version of rockets.

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

#253

Post by jjeaff »

brag wrote: post #228
anonporridge wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking to some friends who work at Blue Origin, one of the ways they compete for talent from SpaceX is by promoting a healthier, sustainable work culture. While this is great for individuals, it also attracts a lot of people looking to coast. And of course the highly motivated, intelligent people who are willing to put in more time to make cool shit happen aren't going to settle for a distant runner up. I suppose th…

They replace the workforce with all the eager new grads. They will continue to use employees till they burn out indefinitely

Which works to get you started fast, but something as complicated as rockets requires a lot of institutional knowledge. And if you lose too many employees too fast, you'll start to suffer from institutional alsheimers.

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

#254

Post by peterkos »

yborg wrote: post #102
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…

It's telling that Bezos has chosen to take this fight to Washington DC - his only real hope is to kneecap SpaceX politically. It's not that Blue Origin lacks engineering know-how, it's that they brought in a ULA executive to run things and so he's running the ULA playbook - maximize profits by delaying things indefinitely to keep that taxpayer money flowing. Blue Origin wants SpaceX to play by its rules and slow to a…

Reminds me of a quote from the WeWork documentary: "When you can land two rockets concurrently on barges and you smoke pot, you're seen as 'quirky and likeable'. When you don't go public and your investors lose money, all of a sudden they decide that smoking pot is a criminal activity." [1:30:30]

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

#255

Post by the_third_wave »

zhdc1 wrote: post #155
the_third_wave wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is like saying that the meek shall inherit the earth - or what is left of it when the bold have taken all they wanted. Slow and steady is just that, slow. There is a place for it, e.g. when refining an established practice like mining or internal combustion engines. Commercial space exploration is a place where rapid advances can be made by visionary explorers, only once you can buy an off-the-shelf space miniva…

The actual saying is closer to "the disciplined shall inherit the earth".

The original saying is 'μακάριοι οἱ πραεῖς, ὅτι αὐτοὶ κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν' [1] which refers to 'οι πραείς' - 'the meek'.

[1] taken from Novum Testamentum Graece, κατά ματθαίον 5,5 (pp.9/26X - 28th ed, 2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

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

#256

Post by zhdc1 »

labster wrote: post #195
zhdc1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual saying is closer to "the disciplined shall inherit the earth".

Can you give a citation on that? I’ve seen rather, well, creative interpretations of Bible verses online before, and I’m wondering if the text actually supports this translation.

Biblehub gives a good overview for alternative translations of πραεῖς in English. See https://biblehub.com/greek/4239.htm

From them "This difficult-to-translate root (pra-) means more than "meek." Biblical meekness is not weakness but rather refers to exercising God's strength under His control – i.e. demonstrating power without undue harshness."

There's also a good discussion at https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2/what-does...

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

#257

Post by vanattab »

squarefoot wrote: post #103
jccooper wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 point is that Blue Origin isn't going to have anything ready by 2023 which is the year the crewed Artemis 2 mission should get the go. They might not be vaporware, but they're still several years behind SpaceX.

What 2023? Is there even a lunar lander prototype built yet? Launching a manned mission to the moon next year does not seem realistic to me.

Edit: lol forgot it was 2021 not 2022, still seems unreasonable to me though.

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

#258

Post by joshsyn »

cratermoon wrote: post #34
joshsyn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call them what you want. They pushed the world forward, period.

They have certainly pushed the world. Whether the direction we're going is 'forward' is extremely debatable. It certainly might look that way from certain positions, but not all points of view agree, and there's no clear way to determine which should be privileged.

Exactly most of the complaints I find are simply out of jealousy of their accomplishments and the need for power among people who want to put limits on their achievements. Can we revert back to its none of your business what they do?

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

#259

Post by bigbob2 »

smabie wrote: post #138
bigbob2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's civil to engage in anti-competitive behavior which arguably sets back the progress of humanity ("pushing the world forward"), but not civil to use the word 'sociopath' in reference to such actions? I was always taught that actions speak louder than words.

I mean sociopath has a real definition you can't just call everyone you don't like sociopaths.

That's fine, but you also can't just call someone uncivil for using a hyperbole you don't agree with.
Post reply on HN