38 ms·

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 t

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.

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.