20 ms·

Jeff Bezos Is Selling $1B a Year in Amazon Stock to Finance Race to Space

310 points by sndean 10y ago

itchyjunk 10y ago
I think spacex getting some competition is good and healthy for the space market. Even though I like spacex a lot, monopoly isn't the preferred choice. I was trying to find difference between blue origin and F9 and found these old articles. [0] [1] ------------- [0]http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-spacex-rocket-landing-jeff-bezos-elon-musk http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-sp... [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18711/blue-origin-vs-spacex/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18711/blue-or...
- WalterBright 10y ago
  I'm rooting for both teams!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- fsloth 10y ago
  Space X 'getting competition'? You do realize the 'old' rocket companies haven't gone anywhere. Yes, Space X:s success is astounding but let's not get myopic about it.
  - DavidSJ 10y ago
    They are competition for the present market, but they are not even trying to compete for the (possibly illusory) market opened up by (also possibly illusory) 100x cheaper spaceflight.
  - nickik 10y ago
    They haven't gone anywhere but none of them can compete in price. Even the new vehicles, ULA Vulcan and Arianspace Arian 6 will be vastly overpriced, even if they reach the goal price they have set for themselfes. For SpaceX reuse and the price saving are already a reality, ULA and Arianspace are only in the concept phase for these things. Their rockets are only planned for first flight in 2020 and maybe reuse a couple of years after that. The only reason Arianspace can compete at all is that they don't amortize the development of the rocket.
    - sandGorgon 10y ago
      Yeah well - there are others who can compete on price as well. http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6838079/india-mars-mangalyaan http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6838079/india-mars-mangalyaan https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/15/india-launches-record-breaking-104-satellites-from-single-rocket https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/15/india-launch...
      - mrkgnao 10y ago
        They'd certainly be served better with fewer (at least not ~90%) old "management"-looking people on their webcasts, which could've looked like they were made in the last five years (and less misleading people with talk of "hundreds of satellites" that in reality, IIRC, weigh just about the conventional PSLV cargo capacity[0]). The reason I'm not very gung-ho right now is because there is, just maybe, a future in which ISRO isn't just "one of the space agencies that have made it into orbit", but as important to the future of space as NASA was a decade or two earlier, and getting there involves not just doing good work, but being ambitious at the scale of SpaceX and such. ISRO is being funded well right now, but if they can't "make it" in the next decade, with NASA in a slightly precarious position and private companies with no history of going into space doing all manner of remarkable things, they are going to miss this shot, and that can be dangerous in a political climate where the "can such a poor country really afford to go into space" types might drown out more reasonable people and shutter things for good. I'm enthusiastic about ISRO being able to compete on price -- and it looks like they can go much further, considering that their labor costs are far less than they are for a private American space company, who I doubt can afford not to pay typical SF-style salaries to their engineers and designers. Good promotional material attracts talent: I seem to remember someone from SpaceX saying "our webcasts are actually recruitment propaganda", and, well, they work! Maybe the first step towards making young engineers want to work at ISRO is to not, e.g. name the Mars mission, of all things, "Mars Vehicle" in Hindi? [0]: Around 1.5 tons, and, no, I'm not discounting the challenges of actually releasing that many microsatellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C28
        sandGorgon 10y ago
  - paulsutter 10y ago
    Yes - you summed it up nicely. They really haven't gone anywhere, haven't made an ounce of progress. https://youtu.be/WCSt6Kobvzs https://youtu.be/WCSt6Kobvzs
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulgerhardt 10y ago
    One of their own executives said as much [1]. Yes, he may have lost his job for it but it's not myopic when ULA drops out of a competition leaving SpaceX as the only bidder and then announce a program to transistion to Blue Origin's systems. [1] http://www.denverpost.com/2016/03/17/ula-executive-resigns-after-inaccurate-remarks-made-at-cu-boulder/ http://www.denverpost.com/2016/03/17/ula-executive-resigns-a...
    - fsloth 10y ago
      Incumbents count as competition as long as they are in the same market. If we just look at NGO:s the list of competitors becomes shorter, of course. Falcon 9 launches (8 in 2016) were 9.5 % of the total global launches in 2016 (85) [0]. When appraising the future of spaceflight, It would be quite misleading to ignore e.g. Indian and Chinese efforts in this sphere, government funded or not. This is not to say I'm not silently cheering each time a Space X launch succeeds. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight
      - nickik 10y ago
        Most of the launches are simple not competitive. SpaceX can not bid on Government contracts in China. The actual commercial market for launches is getting taken over by SpaceX. The only thing that holding them back is launch cadence and their government contract requiring them to make launches (COTS, Commercial Crew, USAF and so on). They are building more launch sites as well, so they are really just pulling away from the competition in that area.
  - Shivetya 10y ago
    pretty sure China will become the most important competitor to Space X.
    - nickjarboe 10y ago
      Elon Musk believes this as well. In a 2012 interview by Chris Anderson published in Wired[1] on why SpaceX does not patent anything: Anderson: So what have all your creative people come up with, then? What’s different in your basic technology versus 50 years ago? Musk: I can’t tell you much. We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book. [1] https://www.wired.com/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/ https://www.wired.com/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/
- adventurer 10y ago
  Are they truly in competition when they aim at two entirely separate goals? Also, isn't NASA already in competition with them?
- zamalek 10y ago
  > difference between blue origin and F9 It's literally bottom-up vs. top-down respectively. If you consider how far ahead SpaceX is up-top, having even interacted with the ISS, Blue Origin is that much further ahead near the ground. Overall SpaceX does seem to have chosen an approach that provides more traction. However, the BE-4 (orbital engine from Blue Origin) is slated for testing this year. It's going to be interesting to compare apples-apples once Blue Origin reach orbit.
  - Robotbeat 10y ago
    I completely disagree. Blue Origin is not far ahead on the ground, either. SpaceX did a bunch of suborbital hops before retiring their Grasshopper/F9Rdev1 program. However, Blue Origin's technical approach with New Glenn is sound and could easily give SpaceX a run for its money (but SpaceX likes to run anyway). Blue Origin is the only real long-term competitor for SpaceX that we've seen so far. Even in spite of the fact that SpaceX is so far ahead, Blue Origin at least isn't making the same mistakes that 90% of SpaceX's competition is: using really outdated ideas that don't stand a chance at competing with SpaceX if first stage reuse works very well and /definitely/ no chance if upper stage reuse ends up working, too. Blue Origin is ultimately pursuing full reuse just like SpaceX, not partial gimmicks like engine pod reuse (which might be better than full expendable, but that isn't the standard any longer). Blue Origin can and will be able to compete not because they have any kind of technical edge (they don't) but because their launch technology is going in the right direction and because Jeff Bezos has more money than God and wants to use all that cash to open the space frontier. It's worth noting that Blue Origin was founded /before/ SpaceX and had been pursuing VTVL reuse while SpaceX was still messing with parachutes, but they basically squandered that initial lead and now are playing catch-up. But a billion dollars non-diluting investment each year certainly helps a lot, and I have no doubt that Blue Origin will succeed.
    - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
      >Blue Origin at least isn't making the same mistakes that 90% of SpaceX's competition is: using really outdated ideas that don't stand a chance at competing with SpaceX This is why BO is so behind. They went with new technology thus have a lot of catching up to do to the old designs and the guys running the old designs get an instant leg up, but ultimately will fail from a cost perspective. A bit like writing an OS and just using an established kernel or writing an OS with a new kernel. The latter will simply take longer but if your design is innovative it'll beat out the previous kernel designs. I think SpaceX is something of a freakshow of success. Elon has talent and drive and surrounds himself by similar personality types on top of entering the space game at the right time where the STS to SLS delay was significant the US was hungry for private rockets. As well as our cooling of relations with Russia and the various rockets, engines, and launch services they're been providing post-communism. BO being behind SpaceX is a bit like saying I can't outrun Usain Bolt but I can come within 5 seconds of his time. That's still incredibly impressive. I don't feel like the current private space race is necessarily zero sum. There's no big advantage to being #1 or hitting goals faster than the other guy. Practical concerns like scale, launch windows, economics, etc mean that SpaceX probably can't monopolize this market and competitors will always be able to land contracts as long as they're remotely competitive against the very expensive nation-state/public-private rockets we're so used to. I also think the market will open up to a more casual manned program and I think the people behind the Dreamchaser will find a nation state or even private buyer. The DC mounted on a low cost SpaceX or BO rocket is going to be able to launch humans into LEO for a incredible fraction the STS or Soyuz do. I think we're in for a lot of interesting developments and I doubt it'll be SpaceX trouncing the competition as much as a very busy and competitive space market with SpaceX at the top, for now.
- snarf21 10y ago
  In addition to all the existing competition, I find this news disheartening. Things like this seem like they are about legacy for people like Bezos. It would be nice if some of the multi billionaires started some not for profit companies to solve the existing problems we have like clean energy, clean water, sustainable agriculture, etc. Especially in this case since Musk has already spent a ton on this.
  - dflock 10y ago
    Tesla is, essentially, a clean energy company. Also Bill Gates is doing as you request.
    - snarf21 10y ago
      In general you are right but Gates is giving other people money to further their projects. I guess what I'm saying is that I wish he would run one of these companies for one of these specific purposes. There is a reason he is Bill Gates and they (random charity) are not.
adventured 10y ago
$78.4 billion in personal wealth. 94% held in Amazon, which is currently sporting a $433b market cap, up 50% in the last year and trading at a generous 200 times earnings. I hope he sells more than he needs, faster than he needs, before this latest bubble (slight or extreme is open for debate) gives out. I wouldn't have guessed that Blue Origin could cost him ~$1 billion per year to subsidize. I'm glad he's doing it, very few people on the planet could afford to; of those that could, fewer still would care to.
- jaxomlotus 10y ago
  He's a huge fan of Star Trek - he named his family investment office Zefram LLC after Zefram Cochran, a fictional character who invented the warp drive. If anyone on the planet wants to see the future of Star Trek become a reality, it's him.
  - marak830 10y ago
    Before you said this, I was wondering if he was making this announcent so that h could liquidate his stock without popping the bubble mid sale.
  - jtraffic 10y ago
    The concept of Life Imitating Art isn't exactly about trying to make parts of Star Trek a reality, but I think it still applies here. Bezos probably would have been obsessed with space without Star Trek, but it still seems possible that it influenced him. I'm going out on a limb, but based on this alone, I rank the Star Trek franchise as one of the most influential bodies of fiction ever created. I think of it as a catalyst, rather than a cause, but still. This article suggests Musk is a big fan of Star Trek as well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/without-star-trek-there-would-be-no-spacex-or-blue-origins/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/without-star-trek-th... (Forgive the click-bait title, it doesn't reflect my view.)
myroon5 10y ago
When he talks about millions of people working in space, what jobs is he talking about? Primarily resource mining?
- adventured 10y ago
  Manufacturing for one thing. He has spoken on numerous occasions about wanting to offplanet manufacturing to space for multiple reasons. The question of course, is whether by the time we could be doing large volume manufacturing in space, if it isn't far more likely to be done by robots.
  - synaesthesisx 10y ago
    I'm having difficulty picturing anything we could manufacture on Mars that would be cheaper vs terrestrial manufacturing.
    - jstandard 10y ago
      Manufacturing and processing materials to sustain martian colonies, exploration, or satellites. The cost will be high initially, but if we're ever to have any permanent foothold, local manufacturing will be needed.
      - oblib 10y ago
        That is science and tech for knowledge's sake, not a plan to make a profit. Certainly there are some things that will benefit from being manufactured in a low or zero gravity environment but so far nothing that will turn a profit off of setup costs that I'm aware off. It's not that I don't admire the ambition. I do. But I really don't think that unfettered commercialization of even low missiles into space is a good idea. From what I've read we do not know the potential effects this could have on the Ozone and upper atmosphere. We seem to be ignoring the precautionary principal with these projects.
        Judgmentality 10y ago
oblib 10y ago
I appreciate the tech very much, but the visions of "Millions of people working in space"? I have no desire to be a part of that but I do wonder what they'll be working on? And "Living on Mars". No thanks, I'll pass on that too. I can certainly see the thrill of the ride described though and who wouldn't want to be weightless for 4-5 minutes? But the market for that carnival ride is about as big as the number of cars Ferrari sells each year so I don't get that. One can call this a "steppingstone" tech for now if they choose but it's more likely to be a cliff unless there's something of real value here. Even if we go out on a limb and say all this is really a way for the wealthy to escape the planet they'll find there's no place close enough to go so even that doesn't make sense. No, none of the above makes sense to me yet so there must be something more fueling this race than what's being said. And hey, isn't there also a downside to poking holes in the upper atmosphere and/or ozone depletion? How long do we let someone profit off the effects of that? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions but I do wonder about them.
- GuiA 10y ago
  > I do wonder what they'll be working on? Why, they'll be driving SpaceUbers, doing the laundry, delivering food, walking the dogs, etc of all the techies debugging the asteroid mining robots, of course.
  - oblib 10y ago
    Ok. That makes sense because somebody will have to do all that. If I do have to go I'm gonna want Pizza.
- ganfortran 10y ago
  Yeah, that is my question. Why living on Mars, where you don't even have drinking water available? Human population in a lot countries, such as Japan/China/Korea is going to shrink pretty soon. In US, without immigrants, the population is on the same track with those eastern asian countries as well. And working in space...for what reason? For certain industry maybe, but is it a really a worthy goal to chase after? I don't know.
rokhayakebe 10y ago
I just hope that these planets to get to do not become first come first serve and these individuals claiming ownership of the vast majority of them.
- nol13 10y ago
  Descendants of the first space farers will probably make up the majority of the genetic pool that goes on to dominate the galaxy. Ah well at least we got nature and stuff down here, for now at least. :/ Slightly extrapolating of course.
chrismealy 10y ago
Low earth orbit, meh.
nyxtom 10y ago
Blue Origins seems pretty likely to tap into a much lower cost market for panoramic views of earth at high altitudes, similar to Virgin Galactic (had they not completely messed things up). Developing something that will get them into LEO is massively more difficult, with significant funding at $1B a year however (which is about 5% the total NASA yearly budget), hopefully they can make up their lag. I would love to see more and more ventures enter this market. The more the better!
skdotdan 10y ago
Imagine a reusable rocket, like the SpaceX one, but bigger and being able to reflight in, say, one week. If in every flight there were a satellite + space tourists, going to the space would be much more cheaper, and it's feasible I'm the near term. I see both SpaceX and Blue Origin offering "cheap" traveling to Space in less than a decade.
- simonh 10y ago
  The concept video for the MCT launcher showed it landing on the launch pad, having a new second stage craned on to it, refuelling and launching in the same day.
  - robryan 10y ago
    The stated SpaceX goal is for 24 hour turnaround times. Right now their turnaround times are around 2 weeks, assuming that they can get a slot for the range. This will improve once the pad that was destroyed is rebuilt mid/late this year.
    - lorenzhs 10y ago
      Their current turnaround time is 2 weeks for launching two different rockets, while their goal is to launch the same booster twice within 24 hours. That's a bit different and even more ambitious. The first "flight-proven" booster (to use Elon's phrase) took 4 months to refurbish, and the lessons learned from that are incorporated into the next version of Falcon 9 (Block 5) in order to simplify and speed up the process (and probably fix some things they noticed on the landed boosters to improve the number of times they can be flown).
      - simonh 10y ago
        Given the lead time it takes to develop a satellite project and have it ready to launch, there may even be a danger that within a year or two SpaceX will have so many boosters on hand and ready to go that there won't be enough demand around to meet their capacity. They already have a handful of re-flyable boosters lying around. The limiting factor on SpaceX will be their ability to churn out second stages. I'm sure that would balance out eventually, but it could take years for the customer demand to catch up with them.
OrwellianChild 10y ago
I'm impressed by the burn-rate of $1B for a company that isn't actively launching on a regular basis... Does anyone have any idea how much capital SpaceX sunk before it got its Falcon 1 up and running?
- simonh 10y ago
  I think it was under a billion. Elon Musk recently estimated that just developing the re-use capability for F9 probably cost about a billion dollars. Not the whole rocket, just the extra cost of development, testing and infrastructure to make it reusable. New Glenn might be able to beat that if it goes directly to reusability, but then again it's a much bigger rocket.
- acover 10y ago
  From PayPal musk got $185 million. $100 million went to SpaceX which paid for the 4 falcon 1 launches. Musk was nearly bankrupt due to SpaceX and Tesla but now they've made him a billionaire. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
  - adventured 10y ago
    Founders Fund also put $20m in, in 2008, before the Falcon 1 reached orbit for the first time.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Reading the headline my first impression was that the rocketry hobby now serves as a pretext to pull out of Amazon without making investors nervous. Does not really add up though, as Amazon isn't really bubbly enough and Bezos can't possibly want that much cash for other reasons than for shooting stuff into the sky.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Do we have evidence that they have already been spending $1B per year?
chki 10y ago
I'm not really sure about the amount of money needed to have an actual impact on a stock like Amazon but maybe somebody more knowledgeable might have an idea: Does this measurably lower the market valuation of Amazon? If there is constantly someone selling shares in those volumes there should be some effect, even if Bezos is obviously not selling $1B in one day but over the course of the whole year?
- grondilu 10y ago
  > Does this measurably lower the market valuation of Amazon? Only if this sale generates a significant drop in price, which it probably doesn't (after all that price has continuously risen in the last few years). I'm no expert but I believe if you sell in small quantities at a time and at market price, you won't lower that price.
  - temp246810 10y ago
    I think this is what OP is asking - in other words, does Bezos selling 1BN in stock per year lead to a drop in price.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
franny 10y ago
dis poooooooiiop
seaghost 10y ago
Fucking billionaires.
- knorker 10y ago
  Yeah! They think they can spend their money on whatever they want just because it's theirs!
- sctb 10y ago
  Please don't post like this on Hacker News.
good_vibes 10y ago
He will be the richest man in the world by 2020 I think.
- adventured 10y ago
  He's $8 billion away from Gates at this point and moving a lot faster. It'll happen in the next 12 months. When Amazon hits $500 billion, he'll be the richest person on earth. That's about 15% up from here, a gain likely to occur before a correction does.
Pica_soO 10y ago
Rich guy Escapism reaching escape velocity
zeristor 10y ago
To be honest, what else would one do with untold billions?
- hueving 10y ago
  Focus on acute issues in developing nations that will save thousands of lives like Bill Gates is doing.
  - niketdesai 10y ago
    I believe his foundation is allowing other people to contribute in the way he and Melinda have setup so well. With that said, I like that our largest influencers are tackling problems at various stages. Finding the ideal mix will take time (this is all in the last 15 years for the names being dropped).
appleflaxen 10y ago
Space should be a much lower priority than climate change. There's not as much excitement or fun in it, but it's about a million times more pressing.
- Kalroth 10y ago
  But we are going to need good spaceships for when the planet is no longer inhabitable.
- PierreRochard 10y ago
  I could not disagree more. We should adapt to climate change as it happens. Besides, all of the resources we pour into forcing the climate to not change (which would be unprecedented!) are all for naught when that asteroid hits.
  - danielpatrick 10y ago
    "unprecedented" ...actually precedented by all the resources we pour into forcing the climate TO change. And, asteroid, seriously? This is the best we can do now? May as well not eat meals anymore because hey I could get hit by a bus on the way to work.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    >are all for naught when that asteroid hits. Hiding in space from an asteroid strike is a bad plan. Earth during an impact winter is still much much more habitable than anywhere else in the solar system.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I think you are approaching the problem the wrong way. If we are in space we can prevent the strike entirely.
      - rhino369 10y ago
        Good point.
tryitnow 10y ago
Is this perhaps a signal that it might be a good time for others to start selling Amazon stock? I know if I were Bezos I would sell when I thought the stock was overpriced. I wonder if this is an indication that Bezos and his team were brilliant for selling a bunch of convertible debt right before the 2000 crash. And let's not forget Bezos got his start at the quant fund DE Shaw.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  > I know if I were Bezos I would sell when I thought the stock was overpriced. You're thinking of the stock as an investment. To Bezos, though, it's an asset - something that can be sold when he needs liquid funds to finance an operation like Blue Origin. Perhaps he thinks it will be more profitable, or more fulfilling, or more fun. What's the point of having investments if you can't sell them unless they're overpriced?
peter303 10y ago
I wonder why Bezos is spending so much of his own money (OK less than 2% a year). Musk has perfected the art of spending Other People Money- government loans, green subsidies, IPO. Plus he has good customer revenue stream in two of his companies.
- e40 10y ago
  I wonder if Bezos will own more of the result?
- jmeister 10y ago
  Bezos is a lot richer and is on his way to making a ton more.
kakarot 10y ago
I always figured Amazon and SpaceX would just grow to be sister companies. Let SpaceX handle hardware and negotiations and let Amazon handle logistics and sales. Instant 45-minite Anywhere-On-Earth delivery service. I think there would be enough cash for them to share. I have no doubt that Amazon wants to dig deep into space mining and being the backbone of the early solar economy. Who doesn't. It's gonna take a series of extremely smart investments for whoever does manage to pull that off. The barrier to a sustainable space economy is quite high.

310 points by sndean 10y ago

I think spacex getting some competition is good and healthy for the space market. Even though I like spacex a lot, monopoly isn't the preferred choice. I was trying to find difference between blue origin and F9 and found these old articles. [0] [1] ------------- [0]http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-spacex-rocket-landing-jeff-bezos-elon-musk http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-sp... [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18711/blue-origin-vs-spacex/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18711/blue-or...

WalterBright 10y ago
I'm rooting for both teams!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fsloth 10y ago
Space X 'getting competition'? You do realize the 'old' rocket companies haven't gone anywhere. Yes, Space X:s success is astounding but let's not get myopic about it.
- DavidSJ 10y ago
  They are competition for the present market, but they are not even trying to compete for the (possibly illusory) market opened up by (also possibly illusory) 100x cheaper spaceflight.
- nickik 10y ago
  They haven't gone anywhere but none of them can compete in price. Even the new vehicles, ULA Vulcan and Arianspace Arian 6 will be vastly overpriced, even if they reach the goal price they have set for themselfes. For SpaceX reuse and the price saving are already a reality, ULA and Arianspace are only in the concept phase for these things. Their rockets are only planned for first flight in 2020 and maybe reuse a couple of years after that. The only reason Arianspace can compete at all is that they don't amortize the development of the rocket.
  - sandGorgon 10y ago
    Yeah well - there are others who can compete on price as well. http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6838079/india-mars-mangalyaan http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6838079/india-mars-mangalyaan https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/15/india-launches-record-breaking-104-satellites-from-single-rocket https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/15/india-launch...
    - mrkgnao 10y ago
      They'd certainly be served better with fewer (at least not ~90%) old "management"-looking people on their webcasts, which could've looked like they were made in the last five years (and less misleading people with talk of "hundreds of satellites" that in reality, IIRC, weigh just about the conventional PSLV cargo capacity[0]). The reason I'm not very gung-ho right now is because there is, just maybe, a future in which ISRO isn't just "one of the space agencies that have made it into orbit", but as important to the future of space as NASA was a decade or two earlier, and getting there involves not just doing good work, but being ambitious at the scale of SpaceX and such. ISRO is being funded well right now, but if they can't "make it" in the next decade, with NASA in a slightly precarious position and private companies with no history of going into space doing all manner of remarkable things, they are going to miss this shot, and that can be dangerous in a political climate where the "can such a poor country really afford to go into space" types might drown out more reasonable people and shutter things for good. I'm enthusiastic about ISRO being able to compete on price -- and it looks like they can go much further, considering that their labor costs are far less than they are for a private American space company, who I doubt can afford not to pay typical SF-style salaries to their engineers and designers. Good promotional material attracts talent: I seem to remember someone from SpaceX saying "our webcasts are actually recruitment propaganda", and, well, they work! Maybe the first step towards making young engineers want to work at ISRO is to not, e.g. name the Mars mission, of all things, "Mars Vehicle" in Hindi? [0]: Around 1.5 tons, and, no, I'm not discounting the challenges of actually releasing that many microsatellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C28
      - sandGorgon 10y ago
- paulsutter 10y ago
  Yes - you summed it up nicely. They really haven't gone anywhere, haven't made an ounce of progress. https://youtu.be/WCSt6Kobvzs https://youtu.be/WCSt6Kobvzs
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- paulgerhardt 10y ago
  One of their own executives said as much [1]. Yes, he may have lost his job for it but it's not myopic when ULA drops out of a competition leaving SpaceX as the only bidder and then announce a program to transistion to Blue Origin's systems. [1] http://www.denverpost.com/2016/03/17/ula-executive-resigns-after-inaccurate-remarks-made-at-cu-boulder/ http://www.denverpost.com/2016/03/17/ula-executive-resigns-a...
  - fsloth 10y ago
    Incumbents count as competition as long as they are in the same market. If we just look at NGO:s the list of competitors becomes shorter, of course. Falcon 9 launches (8 in 2016) were 9.5 % of the total global launches in 2016 (85) [0]. When appraising the future of spaceflight, It would be quite misleading to ignore e.g. Indian and Chinese efforts in this sphere, government funded or not. This is not to say I'm not silently cheering each time a Space X launch succeeds. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight
    - nickik 10y ago
      Most of the launches are simple not competitive. SpaceX can not bid on Government contracts in China. The actual commercial market for launches is getting taken over by SpaceX. The only thing that holding them back is launch cadence and their government contract requiring them to make launches (COTS, Commercial Crew, USAF and so on). They are building more launch sites as well, so they are really just pulling away from the competition in that area.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  pretty sure China will become the most important competitor to Space X.
  - nickjarboe 10y ago
    Elon Musk believes this as well. In a 2012 interview by Chris Anderson published in Wired[1] on why SpaceX does not patent anything: Anderson: So what have all your creative people come up with, then? What’s different in your basic technology versus 50 years ago? Musk: I can’t tell you much. We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book. [1] https://www.wired.com/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/ https://www.wired.com/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/
adventurer 10y ago
Are they truly in competition when they aim at two entirely separate goals? Also, isn't NASA already in competition with them?
zamalek 10y ago
> difference between blue origin and F9 It's literally bottom-up vs. top-down respectively. If you consider how far ahead SpaceX is up-top, having even interacted with the ISS, Blue Origin is that much further ahead near the ground. Overall SpaceX does seem to have chosen an approach that provides more traction. However, the BE-4 (orbital engine from Blue Origin) is slated for testing this year. It's going to be interesting to compare apples-apples once Blue Origin reach orbit.
- Robotbeat 10y ago
  I completely disagree. Blue Origin is not far ahead on the ground, either. SpaceX did a bunch of suborbital hops before retiring their Grasshopper/F9Rdev1 program. However, Blue Origin's technical approach with New Glenn is sound and could easily give SpaceX a run for its money (but SpaceX likes to run anyway). Blue Origin is the only real long-term competitor for SpaceX that we've seen so far. Even in spite of the fact that SpaceX is so far ahead, Blue Origin at least isn't making the same mistakes that 90% of SpaceX's competition is: using really outdated ideas that don't stand a chance at competing with SpaceX if first stage reuse works very well and /definitely/ no chance if upper stage reuse ends up working, too. Blue Origin is ultimately pursuing full reuse just like SpaceX, not partial gimmicks like engine pod reuse (which might be better than full expendable, but that isn't the standard any longer). Blue Origin can and will be able to compete not because they have any kind of technical edge (they don't) but because their launch technology is going in the right direction and because Jeff Bezos has more money than God and wants to use all that cash to open the space frontier. It's worth noting that Blue Origin was founded /before/ SpaceX and had been pursuing VTVL reuse while SpaceX was still messing with parachutes, but they basically squandered that initial lead and now are playing catch-up. But a billion dollars non-diluting investment each year certainly helps a lot, and I have no doubt that Blue Origin will succeed.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    >Blue Origin at least isn't making the same mistakes that 90% of SpaceX's competition is: using really outdated ideas that don't stand a chance at competing with SpaceX This is why BO is so behind. They went with new technology thus have a lot of catching up to do to the old designs and the guys running the old designs get an instant leg up, but ultimately will fail from a cost perspective. A bit like writing an OS and just using an established kernel or writing an OS with a new kernel. The latter will simply take longer but if your design is innovative it'll beat out the previous kernel designs. I think SpaceX is something of a freakshow of success. Elon has talent and drive and surrounds himself by similar personality types on top of entering the space game at the right time where the STS to SLS delay was significant the US was hungry for private rockets. As well as our cooling of relations with Russia and the various rockets, engines, and launch services they're been providing post-communism. BO being behind SpaceX is a bit like saying I can't outrun Usain Bolt but I can come within 5 seconds of his time. That's still incredibly impressive. I don't feel like the current private space race is necessarily zero sum. There's no big advantage to being #1 or hitting goals faster than the other guy. Practical concerns like scale, launch windows, economics, etc mean that SpaceX probably can't monopolize this market and competitors will always be able to land contracts as long as they're remotely competitive against the very expensive nation-state/public-private rockets we're so used to. I also think the market will open up to a more casual manned program and I think the people behind the Dreamchaser will find a nation state or even private buyer. The DC mounted on a low cost SpaceX or BO rocket is going to be able to launch humans into LEO for a incredible fraction the STS or Soyuz do. I think we're in for a lot of interesting developments and I doubt it'll be SpaceX trouncing the competition as much as a very busy and competitive space market with SpaceX at the top, for now.
snarf21 10y ago
In addition to all the existing competition, I find this news disheartening. Things like this seem like they are about legacy for people like Bezos. It would be nice if some of the multi billionaires started some not for profit companies to solve the existing problems we have like clean energy, clean water, sustainable agriculture, etc. Especially in this case since Musk has already spent a ton on this.
- dflock 10y ago
  Tesla is, essentially, a clean energy company. Also Bill Gates is doing as you request.
  - snarf21 10y ago
    In general you are right but Gates is giving other people money to further their projects. I guess what I'm saying is that I wish he would run one of these companies for one of these specific purposes. There is a reason he is Bill Gates and they (random charity) are not.

adventured 10y ago

$78.4 billion in personal wealth. 94% held in Amazon, which is currently sporting a $433b market cap, up 50% in the last year and trading at a generous 200 times earnings. I hope he sells more than he needs, faster than he needs, before this latest bubble (slight or extreme is open for debate) gives out. I wouldn't have guessed that Blue Origin could cost him ~$1 billion per year to subsidize. I'm glad he's doing it, very few people on the planet could afford to; of those that could, fewer still would care to.

jaxomlotus 10y ago
He's a huge fan of Star Trek - he named his family investment office Zefram LLC after Zefram Cochran, a fictional character who invented the warp drive. If anyone on the planet wants to see the future of Star Trek become a reality, it's him.
- marak830 10y ago
  Before you said this, I was wondering if he was making this announcent so that h could liquidate his stock without popping the bubble mid sale.
- jtraffic 10y ago
  The concept of Life Imitating Art isn't exactly about trying to make parts of Star Trek a reality, but I think it still applies here. Bezos probably would have been obsessed with space without Star Trek, but it still seems possible that it influenced him. I'm going out on a limb, but based on this alone, I rank the Star Trek franchise as one of the most influential bodies of fiction ever created. I think of it as a catalyst, rather than a cause, but still. This article suggests Musk is a big fan of Star Trek as well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/without-star-trek-there-would-be-no-spacex-or-blue-origins/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/without-star-trek-th... (Forgive the click-bait title, it doesn't reflect my view.)

myroon5 10y ago

When he talks about millions of people working in space, what jobs is he talking about? Primarily resource mining?

adventured 10y ago
Manufacturing for one thing. He has spoken on numerous occasions about wanting to offplanet manufacturing to space for multiple reasons. The question of course, is whether by the time we could be doing large volume manufacturing in space, if it isn't far more likely to be done by robots.
- synaesthesisx 10y ago
  I'm having difficulty picturing anything we could manufacture on Mars that would be cheaper vs terrestrial manufacturing.
  - jstandard 10y ago
    Manufacturing and processing materials to sustain martian colonies, exploration, or satellites. The cost will be high initially, but if we're ever to have any permanent foothold, local manufacturing will be needed.
    - oblib 10y ago
      That is science and tech for knowledge's sake, not a plan to make a profit. Certainly there are some things that will benefit from being manufactured in a low or zero gravity environment but so far nothing that will turn a profit off of setup costs that I'm aware off. It's not that I don't admire the ambition. I do. But I really don't think that unfettered commercialization of even low missiles into space is a good idea. From what I've read we do not know the potential effects this could have on the Ozone and upper atmosphere. We seem to be ignoring the precautionary principal with these projects.
      - Judgmentality 10y ago

oblib 10y ago

I appreciate the tech very much, but the visions of "Millions of people working in space"? I have no desire to be a part of that but I do wonder what they'll be working on? And "Living on Mars". No thanks, I'll pass on that too. I can certainly see the thrill of the ride described though and who wouldn't want to be weightless for 4-5 minutes? But the market for that carnival ride is about as big as the number of cars Ferrari sells each year so I don't get that. One can call this a "steppingstone" tech for now if they choose but it's more likely to be a cliff unless there's something of real value here. Even if we go out on a limb and say all this is really a way for the wealthy to escape the planet they'll find there's no place close enough to go so even that doesn't make sense. No, none of the above makes sense to me yet so there must be something more fueling this race than what's being said. And hey, isn't there also a downside to poking holes in the upper atmosphere and/or ozone depletion? How long do we let someone profit off the effects of that? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions but I do wonder about them.

GuiA 10y ago
> I do wonder what they'll be working on? Why, they'll be driving SpaceUbers, doing the laundry, delivering food, walking the dogs, etc of all the techies debugging the asteroid mining robots, of course.
- oblib 10y ago
  Ok. That makes sense because somebody will have to do all that. If I do have to go I'm gonna want Pizza.
ganfortran 10y ago
Yeah, that is my question. Why living on Mars, where you don't even have drinking water available? Human population in a lot countries, such as Japan/China/Korea is going to shrink pretty soon. In US, without immigrants, the population is on the same track with those eastern asian countries as well. And working in space...for what reason? For certain industry maybe, but is it a really a worthy goal to chase after? I don't know.

rokhayakebe 10y ago

I just hope that these planets to get to do not become first come first serve and these individuals claiming ownership of the vast majority of them.

nol13 10y ago
Descendants of the first space farers will probably make up the majority of the genetic pool that goes on to dominate the galaxy. Ah well at least we got nature and stuff down here, for now at least. :/ Slightly extrapolating of course.

chrismealy 10y ago

Low earth orbit, meh.

nyxtom 10y ago

Blue Origins seems pretty likely to tap into a much lower cost market for panoramic views of earth at high altitudes, similar to Virgin Galactic (had they not completely messed things up). Developing something that will get them into LEO is massively more difficult, with significant funding at $1B a year however (which is about 5% the total NASA yearly budget), hopefully they can make up their lag. I would love to see more and more ventures enter this market. The more the better!

skdotdan 10y ago

Imagine a reusable rocket, like the SpaceX one, but bigger and being able to reflight in, say, one week. If in every flight there were a satellite + space tourists, going to the space would be much more cheaper, and it's feasible I'm the near term. I see both SpaceX and Blue Origin offering "cheap" traveling to Space in less than a decade.

simonh 10y ago
The concept video for the MCT launcher showed it landing on the launch pad, having a new second stage craned on to it, refuelling and launching in the same day.
- robryan 10y ago
  The stated SpaceX goal is for 24 hour turnaround times. Right now their turnaround times are around 2 weeks, assuming that they can get a slot for the range. This will improve once the pad that was destroyed is rebuilt mid/late this year.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Their current turnaround time is 2 weeks for launching two different rockets, while their goal is to launch the same booster twice within 24 hours. That's a bit different and even more ambitious. The first "flight-proven" booster (to use Elon's phrase) took 4 months to refurbish, and the lessons learned from that are incorporated into the next version of Falcon 9 (Block 5) in order to simplify and speed up the process (and probably fix some things they noticed on the landed boosters to improve the number of times they can be flown).
    - simonh 10y ago
      Given the lead time it takes to develop a satellite project and have it ready to launch, there may even be a danger that within a year or two SpaceX will have so many boosters on hand and ready to go that there won't be enough demand around to meet their capacity. They already have a handful of re-flyable boosters lying around. The limiting factor on SpaceX will be their ability to churn out second stages. I'm sure that would balance out eventually, but it could take years for the customer demand to catch up with them.

OrwellianChild 10y ago

I'm impressed by the burn-rate of $1B for a company that isn't actively launching on a regular basis... Does anyone have any idea how much capital SpaceX sunk before it got its Falcon 1 up and running?

simonh 10y ago
I think it was under a billion. Elon Musk recently estimated that just developing the re-use capability for F9 probably cost about a billion dollars. Not the whole rocket, just the extra cost of development, testing and infrastructure to make it reusable. New Glenn might be able to beat that if it goes directly to reusability, but then again it's a much bigger rocket.
acover 10y ago
From PayPal musk got $185 million. $100 million went to SpaceX which paid for the 4 falcon 1 launches. Musk was nearly bankrupt due to SpaceX and Tesla but now they've made him a billionaire. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
- adventured 10y ago
  Founders Fund also put $20m in, in 2008, before the Falcon 1 reached orbit for the first time.
usrusr 10y ago
Reading the headline my first impression was that the rocketry hobby now serves as a pretext to pull out of Amazon without making investors nervous. Does not really add up though, as Amazon isn't really bubbly enough and Bezos can't possibly want that much cash for other reasons than for shooting stuff into the sky.
jessriedel 10y ago
Do we have evidence that they have already been spending $1B per year?

chki 10y ago

I'm not really sure about the amount of money needed to have an actual impact on a stock like Amazon but maybe somebody more knowledgeable might have an idea: Does this measurably lower the market valuation of Amazon? If there is constantly someone selling shares in those volumes there should be some effect, even if Bezos is obviously not selling $1B in one day but over the course of the whole year?

grondilu 10y ago
> Does this measurably lower the market valuation of Amazon? Only if this sale generates a significant drop in price, which it probably doesn't (after all that price has continuously risen in the last few years). I'm no expert but I believe if you sell in small quantities at a time and at market price, you won't lower that price.
- temp246810 10y ago
  I think this is what OP is asking - in other words, does Bezos selling 1BN in stock per year lead to a drop in price.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

franny 10y ago

dis poooooooiiop

seaghost 10y ago

Fucking billionaires.

knorker 10y ago
Yeah! They think they can spend their money on whatever they want just because it's theirs!
sctb 10y ago
Please don't post like this on Hacker News.

good_vibes 10y ago

He will be the richest man in the world by 2020 I think.

adventured 10y ago
He's $8 billion away from Gates at this point and moving a lot faster. It'll happen in the next 12 months. When Amazon hits $500 billion, he'll be the richest person on earth. That's about 15% up from here, a gain likely to occur before a correction does.

Pica_soO 10y ago

Rich guy Escapism reaching escape velocity

zeristor 10y ago

To be honest, what else would one do with untold billions?

hueving 10y ago
Focus on acute issues in developing nations that will save thousands of lives like Bill Gates is doing.
- niketdesai 10y ago
  I believe his foundation is allowing other people to contribute in the way he and Melinda have setup so well. With that said, I like that our largest influencers are tackling problems at various stages. Finding the ideal mix will take time (this is all in the last 15 years for the names being dropped).

appleflaxen 10y ago

Space should be a much lower priority than climate change. There's not as much excitement or fun in it, but it's about a million times more pressing.

Kalroth 10y ago
But we are going to need good spaceships for when the planet is no longer inhabitable.
PierreRochard 10y ago
I could not disagree more. We should adapt to climate change as it happens. Besides, all of the resources we pour into forcing the climate to not change (which would be unprecedented!) are all for naught when that asteroid hits.
- danielpatrick 10y ago
  "unprecedented" ...actually precedented by all the resources we pour into forcing the climate TO change. And, asteroid, seriously? This is the best we can do now? May as well not eat meals anymore because hey I could get hit by a bus on the way to work.
- rhino369 10y ago
  >are all for naught when that asteroid hits. Hiding in space from an asteroid strike is a bad plan. Earth during an impact winter is still much much more habitable than anywhere else in the solar system.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I think you are approaching the problem the wrong way. If we are in space we can prevent the strike entirely.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      Good point.

tryitnow 10y ago

Is this perhaps a signal that it might be a good time for others to start selling Amazon stock? I know if I were Bezos I would sell when I thought the stock was overpriced. I wonder if this is an indication that Bezos and his team were brilliant for selling a bunch of convertible debt right before the 2000 crash. And let's not forget Bezos got his start at the quant fund DE Shaw.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> I know if I were Bezos I would sell when I thought the stock was overpriced. You're thinking of the stock as an investment. To Bezos, though, it's an asset - something that can be sold when he needs liquid funds to finance an operation like Blue Origin. Perhaps he thinks it will be more profitable, or more fulfilling, or more fun. What's the point of having investments if you can't sell them unless they're overpriced?

peter303 10y ago

I wonder why Bezos is spending so much of his own money (OK less than 2% a year). Musk has perfected the art of spending Other People Money- government loans, green subsidies, IPO. Plus he has good customer revenue stream in two of his companies.

e40 10y ago
I wonder if Bezos will own more of the result?
jmeister 10y ago
Bezos is a lot richer and is on his way to making a ton more.

kakarot 10y ago

I always figured Amazon and SpaceX would just grow to be sister companies. Let SpaceX handle hardware and negotiations and let Amazon handle logistics and sales. Instant 45-minite Anywhere-On-Earth delivery service. I think there would be enough cash for them to share. I have no doubt that Amazon wants to dig deep into space mining and being the backbone of the early solar economy. Who doesn't. It's gonna take a series of extremely smart investments for whoever does manage to pull that off. The barrier to a sustainable space economy is quite high.