21–30 of 59 posts
In a few years, amazon may also be dominating the defense industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be interesting to see how the market share affects the profits and how these two companies plan to compete in long term. If Blue Origin and SpaceX compete in the same segment and divide the market, development and manufacturing costs per launch will increase for both. Assuming each will price the launch price so low that they get roughly 50 percent of the market they would get without the other, both lose ha…
Several buyers are uninstered in a launch monopoly developing which is likely to prevent such a strategy from working. A more likely scenario is for a major player to gain a process advantage and leverage that into higher profits for decades like Intel vs AMD etc.
In a few years, amazon may also be dominating the defense industry.
If this is claimed only because of the engine then I doubt it -- the defense industry uses solid-fuel rocket engines in almost all cases except large missiles like IBCMs. Although, anyone who manages to mass-produce cheap, reliable, high-performance solid-fuel engines may indeed gain a huge defense market.
I'm curious which one will launch first, BFR or New Glenn. My money is on the BFR, so far with 1200 s Raptor engine fire and full size cryo tank they seem to be making progress. It's good to have Blue Origin breathing down SpaceX's neck though, hopefully it will provide them with sustained motivation.
Just imagine what things would look like if SpaceX has a serious failure again. It could drop them back six months, and Blue Origin would get that much closer. Must be a really good motivator for SpaceX.
Then again, if BO has some setbacks like SpaceX has had (delays, launch failures, etc) then it might not shake up the industry as much as we hope.
Biggest thing to me is the use of fuel here. Liquified natural gas has a lot of benefits. Simpler pressurization system, less soot etc The future is exciting.
If this new rocket turned out better, I suppose SpaceX could license the tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several buyers are uninstered in a launch monopoly developing which is likely to prevent such a strategy from working. A more likely scenario is for a major player to gain a process advantage and leverage that into higher profits for decades like Intel vs AMD etc.
Intel leveraged monopolostic deals to hold the lead, not process advantage
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just imagine what things would look like if SpaceX has a serious failure again. It could drop them back six months, and Blue Origin would get that much closer. Must be a really good motivator for SpaceX.
Why would a Falcon 9 failure set the BFR back six months? The teams working the BFR parts are probably not strongly involved and could just continue working. It would set them back somewhat, but I don't see why it would be that long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel leveraged monopolostic deals to hold the lead, not process advantage
Good point, but to be fair. Intel cpus are better.