6 ms·

Now i'm just an excited but casual bystander in all of this, so don't take anything i say as anything more than rumour. That being said... I read that Blue Ori

Now i'm just an excited but casual bystander in all of this, so don't take anything i say as anything more than rumour. That being said... I read that Blue Origin (specifically Bezos) has a lot more funding to throw at this problem than SpaceX did/does (IIRC Bezos has something like 6x the net worth of Musk. That alone might not say much, but it's obvious that if push comes to shove, Bezos can throw more money at the problem). And if you look at some of the numbers (not sure if they are completely "confirmed" yet), New Glenn still won't quite have the lifting power of Falcon Heavy (despite it's larger size). Also, if you look at the timeline of Falcon 9 (Funded in 2006, first launched in 2010), Blue Origin's looks very similar, so it's not exactly impossible. To me it just looks like they are going in a different direction. SpaceX wanted to get to reusability with an orbital rocket first, then scale up. Blue Origin is nailing down the extreme reusability in sub-orbital land for now, and will apply that to an orbital rocket. And the simpler design (one massive booster VS 3 separate stage-1 boosters) seems like a simpler plan (i'm not trying to imply in any way that any of this is easy, it's still rocket science!) It's looking like we are going to have another space race in the next decade. And I can't wait!

k_lander 10y ago
are blue origins rockets any more reusable than spacex's?
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Their sub-orbital rocket "New Shepard" has launched and landed 4 times (i think, could be 3 times), with very minimal refurb in between each launch so far. So from that perspective, very reusable. But that's also a sub-orbital rocket. It's only a little bigger than SpaceX's landing legs without a payload[0]. So it might not be the most accurate comparison. Also, they have yet to launch anything else. So it's clearly still early for them as a company. [0]https://imgur.com/a/gLqsy https://imgur.com/a/gLqsy New Shepard is shown in this image in between Delta IV Heavy and New Glenn near the middle.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Making a reusable sub-orbital rocket is a solved problem. We call them airplanes. There are probably two orders of magnitude in complexity between making a reusable sub-orbital, and a reusable orbital rocket.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      Yes, but an airplane is fundamentally different. This is a VTVL system. Aside from an obvious size and complexity difference, the launching and landing parts are very similar in suborbital and orbital land (for the most liberal use of the words "very similar"). Hell, if you want to argue semantics, Falcon-9's Stage-1 never gets to orbital velocities. So it's really just that "turning around" part that is the major difference (obviously a massive part, and again, i'm not trying to imply that ANY of this is easy in any way!) Nobody is saying that they will make a bigger New Shepard with no changes and call it a day. But the knowledge they are learning through the suborbital rockets is going to be useful going forward. And they have a lot of time to learn and experiment here, they are looking at a first launch in the next 4 years (no mention of landing), and they have been developing the engine for this new rocket for a few years already.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      An airplane isn't a rocket. New Origins is clearly a rocket, not an airplane. Your comment is waaaaaaay off base. The most salient difference here is that a rocket propels itself forward by using the exhaust gases from burning its fuel as the reaction mass, whereas an airplane uses surrounding air as its reaction mass. New Shepherd can generate thrust just fine in a vacuum (because it's a rocket), whereas an airplane isn't going anywhere. > There are probably two orders of magnitude in complexity between making a reusable sub-orbital, and a reusable orbital rocket. Hardly. They've already built all of the necessary control systems, and had multiple successful test flights. Now they just need to scale them up. Admittedly this is not trivial, and I'd put SpaceX as far ahead for this reason alone, but it's definitely not an order of magnitude more difficult, probably just around twice as difficult. And nowhere close to two orders of magnitude!
      - deleted 10y ago
snowwrestler 10y ago
Bezos has more wealth than Musk, but SpaceX has paying customers. I believe Musk has said that they have about $10 billion committed from customers already. That generates cashflow, plus gives them a good story to tell when they pitch seek outside investors.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  While not in the same realm, Blue Origin is hoping to start making some money via "space tourism" very soon. They also make money via manufacturing for other companies. IIRC the engine for New Glenn is going to be used in an upcoming ULA rocket. It's very early for them, and it's clear that SpaceX has a good decade or so on them, but it's exciting to have the possibility of real competition in this area again.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > While not in the same realm, Blue Origin is hoping to start making some money via "space tourism" very soon. How realistic is this hope? Do they have an assembly line for a fleet of them and are these anywhere close to being certified for travel by the general public?
    - DasIch 10y ago
      You're being incredibly generous assuming that it is possible to make space tourism affordable for enough people to become a viable product.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      I don't know, but that's been the plan for New Shepard since the beginning. IIRC it's more of something for millionaires that want to be "among the first" to get into "space". Again, i'm not sure how viable it is, but that's been their public message. They even have a few videos on youtube advertising it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJhymiZjqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJhymiZjqc
stcredzero 10y ago
New Glenn still won't quite have the lifting power of Falcon Heavy (despite it's larger size). If that's true then perhaps they are going the route outlined in The Rocket Company -- Fuel is cheap, so make a really freakin huge rocket that holds a freakin huge amount of fuel and go ahead and send up a relatively small payload, so long as they have true re-usability.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  (complete speculation here with nothing to back it up). That's what i'd bet they are going for. Every launch (even GTO launches) will be RTLS. Plenty of fuel on board to avoid the suicide-burns that SpaceX is doing, lots left over to give some wiggle room in case corrections are needed. If they can maintain the same level of reusability that New Shepard is expected/hoped to have (basically rivaling that of airplanes), then the additional cost of the rocket itself can be amortized over many many launches.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    SpaceX does suicide burns because of engine throttling issues; that's a separate issue from margin, and a separate issue from landing on a barge vs landing on land. It remains to be seen which of these are dangerous enough that you don't want to do them with a rocket you want to land many times.
- caconym_ 10y ago
  There's also the aspect of the density of the fuel. Blue Origin may be going with a less dense option and dealing with the overhead of a larger rocket to see payoffs elsewhere, e.g. fuel cost, technical difficulty of fueling the vehicle, flexibility with launch schedules, and so on.
- fbender 10y ago
  > Fuel is cheap No, you pay with weight. Just using more fuel means your efficiency may(!) go down, with an ultimately worse outcome. But I'm lacking info on the design vs. other designs, so that general rule might be couterbalanced by other gains.
jstanley 10y ago
Of course, the rocket equation[1] means you still need to be somewhat efficient, regardless of how much fuel you want to carry. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

k_lander 10y ago

are blue origins rockets any more reusable than spacex's?

Klathmon 10y ago
Their sub-orbital rocket "New Shepard" has launched and landed 4 times (i think, could be 3 times), with very minimal refurb in between each launch so far. So from that perspective, very reusable. But that's also a sub-orbital rocket. It's only a little bigger than SpaceX's landing legs without a payload[0]. So it might not be the most accurate comparison. Also, they have yet to launch anything else. So it's clearly still early for them as a company. [0]https://imgur.com/a/gLqsy https://imgur.com/a/gLqsy New Shepard is shown in this image in between Delta IV Heavy and New Glenn near the middle.
- vkou 10y ago
  Making a reusable sub-orbital rocket is a solved problem. We call them airplanes. There are probably two orders of magnitude in complexity between making a reusable sub-orbital, and a reusable orbital rocket.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    Yes, but an airplane is fundamentally different. This is a VTVL system. Aside from an obvious size and complexity difference, the launching and landing parts are very similar in suborbital and orbital land (for the most liberal use of the words "very similar"). Hell, if you want to argue semantics, Falcon-9's Stage-1 never gets to orbital velocities. So it's really just that "turning around" part that is the major difference (obviously a massive part, and again, i'm not trying to imply that ANY of this is easy in any way!) Nobody is saying that they will make a bigger New Shepard with no changes and call it a day. But the knowledge they are learning through the suborbital rockets is going to be useful going forward. And they have a lot of time to learn and experiment here, they are looking at a first launch in the next 4 years (no mention of landing), and they have been developing the engine for this new rocket for a few years already.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    An airplane isn't a rocket. New Origins is clearly a rocket, not an airplane. Your comment is waaaaaaay off base. The most salient difference here is that a rocket propels itself forward by using the exhaust gases from burning its fuel as the reaction mass, whereas an airplane uses surrounding air as its reaction mass. New Shepherd can generate thrust just fine in a vacuum (because it's a rocket), whereas an airplane isn't going anywhere. > There are probably two orders of magnitude in complexity between making a reusable sub-orbital, and a reusable orbital rocket. Hardly. They've already built all of the necessary control systems, and had multiple successful test flights. Now they just need to scale them up. Admittedly this is not trivial, and I'd put SpaceX as far ahead for this reason alone, but it's definitely not an order of magnitude more difficult, probably just around twice as difficult. And nowhere close to two orders of magnitude!
    - deleted 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

Bezos has more wealth than Musk, but SpaceX has paying customers. I believe Musk has said that they have about $10 billion committed from customers already. That generates cashflow, plus gives them a good story to tell when they pitch seek outside investors.

Klathmon 10y ago
While not in the same realm, Blue Origin is hoping to start making some money via "space tourism" very soon. They also make money via manufacturing for other companies. IIRC the engine for New Glenn is going to be used in an upcoming ULA rocket. It's very early for them, and it's clear that SpaceX has a good decade or so on them, but it's exciting to have the possibility of real competition in this area again.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > While not in the same realm, Blue Origin is hoping to start making some money via "space tourism" very soon. How realistic is this hope? Do they have an assembly line for a fleet of them and are these anywhere close to being certified for travel by the general public?
  - DasIch 10y ago
    You're being incredibly generous assuming that it is possible to make space tourism affordable for enough people to become a viable product.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    I don't know, but that's been the plan for New Shepard since the beginning. IIRC it's more of something for millionaires that want to be "among the first" to get into "space". Again, i'm not sure how viable it is, but that's been their public message. They even have a few videos on youtube advertising it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJhymiZjqc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJhymiZjqc

stcredzero 10y ago

New Glenn still won't quite have the lifting power of Falcon Heavy (despite it's larger size). If that's true then perhaps they are going the route outlined in The Rocket Company -- Fuel is cheap, so make a really freakin huge rocket that holds a freakin huge amount of fuel and go ahead and send up a relatively small payload, so long as they have true re-usability.

Klathmon 10y ago
(complete speculation here with nothing to back it up). That's what i'd bet they are going for. Every launch (even GTO launches) will be RTLS. Plenty of fuel on board to avoid the suicide-burns that SpaceX is doing, lots left over to give some wiggle room in case corrections are needed. If they can maintain the same level of reusability that New Shepard is expected/hoped to have (basically rivaling that of airplanes), then the additional cost of the rocket itself can be amortized over many many launches.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  SpaceX does suicide burns because of engine throttling issues; that's a separate issue from margin, and a separate issue from landing on a barge vs landing on land. It remains to be seen which of these are dangerous enough that you don't want to do them with a rocket you want to land many times.
caconym_ 10y ago
There's also the aspect of the density of the fuel. Blue Origin may be going with a less dense option and dealing with the overhead of a larger rocket to see payoffs elsewhere, e.g. fuel cost, technical difficulty of fueling the vehicle, flexibility with launch schedules, and so on.
fbender 10y ago
> Fuel is cheap No, you pay with weight. Just using more fuel means your efficiency may(!) go down, with an ultimately worse outcome. But I'm lacking info on the design vs. other designs, so that general rule might be couterbalanced by other gains.

jstanley 10y ago

Of course, the rocket equation[1] means you still need to be somewhat efficient, regardless of how much fuel you want to carry. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation