3 ms·

First, Blue Moon is doing some really interesting things with regularizing access to the Moon. Clear adapters, clear pricing, it's as much a leap forward as wha

First, Blue Moon is doing some really interesting things with regularizing access to the Moon. Clear adapters, clear pricing, it's as much a leap forward as what SpaceX has done with regularizing access to orbit. From a scale standpoint, it also plays it safe. No exponential increase in tonnage over Apollo, but an exponential increase in costs and private access. That's all interesting as all hell, and props to the Blue Origin team. Second, Starship is just insanely fucking cool. It's maybe one of the most ambitious generation on generation leaps ever attempted, by any team of human beings ever. It's aiming to skip from the Bronze Age to the Industrial Age overnight. The sheer scale of ambition is just breathtaking. Dynetics, on the gripping hand, is... yet another government contractor. Taking a government contract. Developing a paint by numbers solution. Again. Just like SLS. And the Space Shuttle. And Constellation. And Ares. And every other slab of corporate welfare has doled out over the past 40 years. To project my opinions onto OP, I can't imagine Dynetics' contribution here is getting anyone too hot and bothered.

teqnologiq 6y ago
What are you basing your judgement on Dynetics from?
- colinplamondon 6y ago
  15m of Googling after seeing the press on this announce - definitely not pretending to be an expert. But - let's assume that cursory look at primary clients is correct. It appears they're all government agencies. They don't sell much to private business. The things that make SpaceX and Blue Origin so interesting is that it utterly bucks the government procurement model, making them riskier ventures. SpaceX and Blue Origin maintain their own product roadmaps, based on their own reading of the marketplace, what technology can do, and their long-term vision. These other contractors, like Lockheed, General Dynamics, and apparently Dynetics, have an inherently mercenary business model. They only respond to contracts already out on the market - there's little to no incentive for them to blaze a path forward. They win on graft, running up the bill on cost-plus contracts, and taking advantage of the procurement process that wastes trillions. The defining question to me - why didn't Boeing or Lockheed build reusable rockets? Blue Moon started work far before this contract awarded a dime. Same with Starship. These guys have made their money off SLS - a snakepit of corruption and waste. I'd feel the same way about any company that's primarily a government contractor. There's a big difference in approach between the military-industrial companies, and "New Space" companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX.
chasd00 6y ago
I couldn't find total mass for Blue Moon but could they just put it on top of Falcon Heavy and call it done? This article about using Falcon Heavy for Orion seems to imply it's at least plausible. https://hackaday.com/2019/03/25/could-orion-ride-falcon-heavy-to-the-moon/ https://hackaday.com/2019/03/25/could-orion-ride-falcon-heav...
- colinplamondon 6y ago
  This also implies New Glenn won't be ready in time, or human rated in time, for 2024. New Glenn is supposed to be even more powerful than the Falcon Heavy. That said, even if they could have New Glenn ready , it's probably super smart to tie themselves to some of the legacy aerospace companies. It aligns a whole lot of lobbyists behind Blue Origin's bids, and brings with it a lot of expertise on the bidding process. Blue Origin's relationship with legacy aerospace feels a lot like Microsoft and IBM.
  - greglindahl 6y ago
    This proposal doesn't involve launching humans on New Glenn.
  - Symmetry 6y ago
    I bet it'll be ready but par for the course is to lose 2 out of the first 10 launches on a new system. I'd guess that Blue will be flying insurable commsats at that point but not irreplaceable payloads.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    Blue Origin's timelines have been even more inspirational than Musk's. Like.. Blue Origin hasn't even reached orbit yet. But to Blue Origin's credit, they're less shy about working with others. They're developing the engine for ULA's new rocket (presumably their own competition!), and I doubt they'd have major qualms about launching Blue Moon on a ULA or even SpaceX rocket, once congress is finally able to admit that SLS isn't happening.
- greglindahl 6y ago
pjscott 6y ago
> No exponential increase in tonnage over Apollo, but an exponential increase in costs and private access. When you say "exponential" here, are you using it as a confusing synonym for "really big"? Or is there something increasing exponentially, i.e. at a rate proportional to its current value? If it's the second one, it would be incredibly interesting to see where the exponential nature of that growth is coming from.

teqnologiq 6y ago

What are you basing your judgement on Dynetics from?

colinplamondon 6y ago
15m of Googling after seeing the press on this announce - definitely not pretending to be an expert. But - let's assume that cursory look at primary clients is correct. It appears they're all government agencies. They don't sell much to private business. The things that make SpaceX and Blue Origin so interesting is that it utterly bucks the government procurement model, making them riskier ventures. SpaceX and Blue Origin maintain their own product roadmaps, based on their own reading of the marketplace, what technology can do, and their long-term vision. These other contractors, like Lockheed, General Dynamics, and apparently Dynetics, have an inherently mercenary business model. They only respond to contracts already out on the market - there's little to no incentive for them to blaze a path forward. They win on graft, running up the bill on cost-plus contracts, and taking advantage of the procurement process that wastes trillions. The defining question to me - why didn't Boeing or Lockheed build reusable rockets? Blue Moon started work far before this contract awarded a dime. Same with Starship. These guys have made their money off SLS - a snakepit of corruption and waste. I'd feel the same way about any company that's primarily a government contractor. There's a big difference in approach between the military-industrial companies, and "New Space" companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX.

chasd00 6y ago

I couldn't find total mass for Blue Moon but could they just put it on top of Falcon Heavy and call it done? This article about using Falcon Heavy for Orion seems to imply it's at least plausible. https://hackaday.com/2019/03/25/could-orion-ride-falcon-heavy-to-the-moon/ https://hackaday.com/2019/03/25/could-orion-ride-falcon-heav...

colinplamondon 6y ago
This also implies New Glenn won't be ready in time, or human rated in time, for 2024. New Glenn is supposed to be even more powerful than the Falcon Heavy. That said, even if they could have New Glenn ready , it's probably super smart to tie themselves to some of the legacy aerospace companies. It aligns a whole lot of lobbyists behind Blue Origin's bids, and brings with it a lot of expertise on the bidding process. Blue Origin's relationship with legacy aerospace feels a lot like Microsoft and IBM.
- greglindahl 6y ago
  This proposal doesn't involve launching humans on New Glenn.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  I bet it'll be ready but par for the course is to lose 2 out of the first 10 launches on a new system. I'd guess that Blue will be flying insurable commsats at that point but not irreplaceable payloads.
- garmaine 6y ago
  Blue Origin's timelines have been even more inspirational than Musk's. Like.. Blue Origin hasn't even reached orbit yet. But to Blue Origin's credit, they're less shy about working with others. They're developing the engine for ULA's new rocket (presumably their own competition!), and I doubt they'd have major qualms about launching Blue Moon on a ULA or even SpaceX rocket, once congress is finally able to admit that SLS isn't happening.
greglindahl 6y ago

pjscott 6y ago

> No exponential increase in tonnage over Apollo, but an exponential increase in costs and private access. When you say "exponential" here, are you using it as a confusing synonym for "really big"? Or is there something increasing exponentially, i.e. at a rate proportional to its current value? If it's the second one, it would be incredibly interesting to see where the exponential nature of that growth is coming from.