6 ms·

I'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo (uncrewed variant of whose lander could land about 5 tons). A really high deck making egress

I'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo (uncrewed variant of whose lander could land about 5 tons). A really high deck making egress difficult. Apparently expendable. Given Blue Origin's resources, they should be shooting far higher. There's a bunch of small companies pursuing expendable lunar landers of similar capabilities. I worry Blue Origin will just crowd them out. A reusable upper stage or reusable lander (or both) would be more interesting and more important. Bezos is/was the richest man and Blue origin is given roughly a billion dollars of capital every year, and a relatively modest expendable lunar lander is their big announcement? And even that they may have difficulty executing on in a timely manner. I don't think Blue Origin can't do this. I just think it's far too modest of a goal for a company with free rein over a billion dollars in additional annual capital. ...and I'm also skeptical of mass drivers (of the typical type) and lunar mining. Plenty of shade thrown at Mars, but Mars has vastly more resources. Additionally, the architecture of the lander is disappointing. A crasher stage (ala the Surveyor spacecraft which used a kick stage for deorbiting) for most of descent would be far more efficient. It'd allow a much smaller and cheaper descent stage and much lower to the ground, making egress much easier.

azernik 8y ago
Of course it's less capable than Apollo - we don't have anywhere near the lift capability of Saturn V anymore, and this program's budget is a rounding error in the $200B (inflation-adjusted) that went into Apollo. I think people underestimate just how insane the investment was in that program: in the neighborhood of 0.25% of GDP for a decade.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  I think people underestimate the rocket equation. In the last fifty years very little progress has been made on the basic ratios between rocket fuel, size and payload. If you want to land on the moon, in 1960 or 2026, you are still going to need the same amounts of fuel and supplies. Your landers will by necessity be similar too.
  - azernik 8y ago
    At least for launch, I doubt we'll improve those mass ratios for a long time to come - chemical rockets hit theoretical limits at exhaust velocities/specific impulses of e.g. ~5.5km/s for hydrolox, and SSME already got within 10-20% of that theoretical maximum. All of the systems that can get better specific impulse, like thermal rockets or electric thrusters, have thrust:mass ratios waaaaay too low to get off of Earth on their own. (Possibly nuclear thermal rockets? But I don't think people will be overjoyed firing those off in an atmosphere.)
    - grey-area 8y ago
      If you reuse vehicles and refuel in orbit, you don't need to be more efficient.
  - maccam94 8y ago
    Sure, but rocket launch costs are orders of magnitude higher than the cost of fuel to launch payloads. Once we nail down reusability, then we'll see space access become much more affordable. And once we have ships that only operate in space, we'll be able to carry much more fuel along (aerodynamics and structural strength are much less important).
    - azernik 8y ago
      The problem is that, no matter how cheap your fuel is, you have to build a launcher that can lift off while carrying all that fuel. It's expensive to make a pressure vessel that strong and light and large, engines that powerful, etc. If launch gets cheap enough given current launcher sizes, you can get into in-orbit assembly, but that requires immense investment into robotics or a lot of spending to support (machine-assisted) human construction workers. i.e. you can't launch Apollo as a single package on Falcon 9s no matter how many you can afford, and if you want to send it up in multiple packages you need to either make the spacecraft bigger and bulkier and more expensive so that it's modular, or send up a few times the mass of the resulting spacecraft in assembly robots or construction workers' habitats. (That's why Starship is so exciting even if it doesn't end up meeting Musk's cost targets, and why SLS has been so enticing for NASA despite its shitshow of a development process - putting up a single large payload in one launch is an advantage in and of itself.)
- peterlk 8y ago
  I think most people (myself included) do not understand how much technological improvement costs. Anecdote: I once had a conversation with a guy who worked at ITER, and he was pretty bullish (and he had no reason to bullshit me) on the prospect of fusion as a viable energy source, but frustrated with the internal politics of ITER. So I asked, "well, what would it take? If I could call up a bunch of rich people to get funding, how much would it take?" He casually said, "oh, probably 1.2 to 1.5 trillion dollars". And then I understood why it was a multinational conglomerate that was funding it, and not a bunch of rich people.
  - BronSteeDiam 8y ago
    Isn’t that just another way of saying the ITER approach is infeasible? So it’s basically a jobs program
    - godelski 8y ago
      I haven't met a fusion scientist that thinks ITER isn't going to work. Ones that don't like ITER just think there are better ways.
    - lmm 8y ago
      Compared to the world's energy costs, it's small potatoes. Fusion will be ready when the world needs it.
      - usrusr 8y ago
        > Fusion will be ready when the world needs it. 50 years ago?
  - rak00n 8y ago
    2016 estimation for the project was $20B [1]. Your number is over 50 times larger. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/world-s-biggest-science-experiment-seeks-more-time-and-money https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/world-s-b...
ArekDymalski 8y ago
> I just think it's far too modest of a goal for a company with free rein over a billion dollars in additional annual capital When you look at it as an investment not as a research project it makes much more sense.
simonh 8y ago
It is reusable if it can be refuelled with hydrolox from a surface ISRU installation, while a kicker stage would lock them into a non-reusable architecture. Also a reusable upper stage is a separate problem. I'm always disappointed when I read comments along the lines of 'lets not bother solving this problem, because I have this other favourite problem instead'. So what? That doesn't make this particular problem go away.
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  No, a crasher stage can do a flip and burn after separation, allowing the crasher stage to put itself back in orbit. And empty stage with only itself as a payload requires just a tiny amount of fuel to do this. ...and this would all be easier to reuse than the descent stage here.
  - chipsa 8y ago
    I think part of the reason why crasher stages aren't in any program of record is that you have to consider abort scenarios where the staging fails.
nickik 8y ago
> I'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo You underwhelmed by a privately financed moon program? You underwhelmed by the completely new Hydrolox engine that can also produce power threw fuel cells? This engine can be reused for other landers as well if NASA wants to finance something bigger. You are not easy to please. Just because he has billions doesn't mean he want to put all his money into this project, he is planning for 20-40 years.
Tepix 8y ago
This is their proposal that is in line with the 2024 manned return to the Moon. In the longer term I'm sure they have much more ambitious ideas.

azernik 8y ago

Of course it's less capable than Apollo - we don't have anywhere near the lift capability of Saturn V anymore, and this program's budget is a rounding error in the $200B (inflation-adjusted) that went into Apollo. I think people underestimate just how insane the investment was in that program: in the neighborhood of 0.25% of GDP for a decade.

sandworm101 8y ago
I think people underestimate the rocket equation. In the last fifty years very little progress has been made on the basic ratios between rocket fuel, size and payload. If you want to land on the moon, in 1960 or 2026, you are still going to need the same amounts of fuel and supplies. Your landers will by necessity be similar too.
- azernik 8y ago
  At least for launch, I doubt we'll improve those mass ratios for a long time to come - chemical rockets hit theoretical limits at exhaust velocities/specific impulses of e.g. ~5.5km/s for hydrolox, and SSME already got within 10-20% of that theoretical maximum. All of the systems that can get better specific impulse, like thermal rockets or electric thrusters, have thrust:mass ratios waaaaay too low to get off of Earth on their own. (Possibly nuclear thermal rockets? But I don't think people will be overjoyed firing those off in an atmosphere.)
  - grey-area 8y ago
    If you reuse vehicles and refuel in orbit, you don't need to be more efficient.
- maccam94 8y ago
  Sure, but rocket launch costs are orders of magnitude higher than the cost of fuel to launch payloads. Once we nail down reusability, then we'll see space access become much more affordable. And once we have ships that only operate in space, we'll be able to carry much more fuel along (aerodynamics and structural strength are much less important).
  - azernik 8y ago
    The problem is that, no matter how cheap your fuel is, you have to build a launcher that can lift off while carrying all that fuel. It's expensive to make a pressure vessel that strong and light and large, engines that powerful, etc. If launch gets cheap enough given current launcher sizes, you can get into in-orbit assembly, but that requires immense investment into robotics or a lot of spending to support (machine-assisted) human construction workers. i.e. you can't launch Apollo as a single package on Falcon 9s no matter how many you can afford, and if you want to send it up in multiple packages you need to either make the spacecraft bigger and bulkier and more expensive so that it's modular, or send up a few times the mass of the resulting spacecraft in assembly robots or construction workers' habitats. (That's why Starship is so exciting even if it doesn't end up meeting Musk's cost targets, and why SLS has been so enticing for NASA despite its shitshow of a development process - putting up a single large payload in one launch is an advantage in and of itself.)
peterlk 8y ago
I think most people (myself included) do not understand how much technological improvement costs. Anecdote: I once had a conversation with a guy who worked at ITER, and he was pretty bullish (and he had no reason to bullshit me) on the prospect of fusion as a viable energy source, but frustrated with the internal politics of ITER. So I asked, "well, what would it take? If I could call up a bunch of rich people to get funding, how much would it take?" He casually said, "oh, probably 1.2 to 1.5 trillion dollars". And then I understood why it was a multinational conglomerate that was funding it, and not a bunch of rich people.
- BronSteeDiam 8y ago
  Isn’t that just another way of saying the ITER approach is infeasible? So it’s basically a jobs program
  - godelski 8y ago
    I haven't met a fusion scientist that thinks ITER isn't going to work. Ones that don't like ITER just think there are better ways.
  - lmm 8y ago
    Compared to the world's energy costs, it's small potatoes. Fusion will be ready when the world needs it.
    - usrusr 8y ago
      > Fusion will be ready when the world needs it. 50 years ago?
- rak00n 8y ago
  2016 estimation for the project was $20B [1]. Your number is over 50 times larger. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/world-s-biggest-science-experiment-seeks-more-time-and-money https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/world-s-b...

ArekDymalski 8y ago

> I just think it's far too modest of a goal for a company with free rein over a billion dollars in additional annual capital When you look at it as an investment not as a research project it makes much more sense.

simonh 8y ago

It is reusable if it can be refuelled with hydrolox from a surface ISRU installation, while a kicker stage would lock them into a non-reusable architecture. Also a reusable upper stage is a separate problem. I'm always disappointed when I read comments along the lines of 'lets not bother solving this problem, because I have this other favourite problem instead'. So what? That doesn't make this particular problem go away.

Robotbeat 8y ago
No, a crasher stage can do a flip and burn after separation, allowing the crasher stage to put itself back in orbit. And empty stage with only itself as a payload requires just a tiny amount of fuel to do this. ...and this would all be easier to reuse than the descent stage here.
- chipsa 8y ago
  I think part of the reason why crasher stages aren't in any program of record is that you have to consider abort scenarios where the staging fails.

nickik 8y ago

> I'm honestly underwhelmed. This is not more capability than Apollo You underwhelmed by a privately financed moon program? You underwhelmed by the completely new Hydrolox engine that can also produce power threw fuel cells? This engine can be reused for other landers as well if NASA wants to finance something bigger. You are not easy to please. Just because he has billions doesn't mean he want to put all his money into this project, he is planning for 20-40 years.

Tepix 8y ago

This is their proposal that is in line with the 2024 manned return to the Moon. In the longer term I'm sure they have much more ambitious ideas.