Blue Moon
blueorigin.com
Blue Moon
1–10 of 236 posts
Re: Blue Moon
#2I was waiting for this announcement. It is unclear to me how "real" this is; Bezo's claims they can meet the timeline of people on the moon in 2024. Since they aren't flying a heavy booster like the Delta IV heavy or the Falcon Heavy yet, and those platforms took about 10 years to go from concept to first flight. Bezos is suggesting he can do that in 5 years. Perhaps he's considering using the Delta for FHeavy as the first stage booster and building the upper stage{s} himself. Either way, its great to have someone pushing for more progress.
The second successful FHeavy flight cut into the potential demand for New Glenn so the challenge is to remain relevant while building nation-state level infrastructure. Exciting to watch!
Re: Blue Moon
#3Hmm, no https?
Re: Blue Moon
#4Hmm, no https?
budget cuts.
Re: Blue Moon
#5Welp, then I am going to say it: it looks underwhelming, both in capability and looks.
6.5t of soft-landed payload to surface of moon and 2.5kW of power via fuel cells if Twitter can be trusted. A grand vision of O'Neill cylinders and whatever in space is nice but how? How? Less gradatim and more ferociter would be nice.
Re: Blue Moon
#6Wondering why this was posted. They are a known rocket company and owned by Jeff Bezos. Does he run this organization as mercilessly as he does Amazon? Are they using sawhorses and doors for desks?
Re: Blue Moon
#7If this is a lander what will they use to deliver the lander to lunar orbit? I'll admit I don't follow this sort of news very closely, but it seems quite exciting.
Re: Blue Moon
#8I'll take soft-serve over a soft landing any day:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/blue-moon-ice-cream-midwe...
Re: Blue Moon
#9Welp, then I am going to say it: it looks underwhelming, both in capability and looks. 6.5t of soft-landed payload to surface of moon and 2.5kW of power via fuel cells if Twitter can be trusted. A grand vision of O'Neill cylinders and whatever in space is nice but how? How? Less gradatim and more ferociter would be nice.
Do looks matter for a lunar lander?
Of course it doesn't look as good as the awesome streamlined rocketship concept art I grew up with in the 1950s, I will grant you that.
Re: Blue Moon
#10Welp, then I am going to say it: it looks underwhelming, both in capability and looks. 6.5t of soft-landed payload to surface of moon and 2.5kW of power via fuel cells if Twitter can be trusted. A grand vision of O'Neill cylinders and whatever in space is nice but how? How? Less gradatim and more ferociter would be nice.
Do looks matter for a lunar lander? Of course it doesn't look as good as the awesome streamlined rocketship concept art I grew up with in the 1950s, I will grant you that.
Of course it doesn't look as good as the awesome streamlined rocketship concept art I grew up with in the 1950s, I will grant you that.
While SpaceX's concept for Starship does look that awesome. (In the form of animations and concept art, not in the form of steel water tower construction blown over on its side.)