3 ms·
While that's certainly not a stellar take on things, none of those points seem to be indicating that "Blue Origin is not doing well". Those seem like pretty sta
by tidepod12 6y ago
While that's certainly not a stellar take on things, none of those points seem to be indicating that "Blue Origin is not doing well". Those seem like pretty standard occurrences for anyone who's worked on a large iterative engineering team. I remember reading similar stuff about SpaceX back in the Falcon9 1.0 days.
- Klinky 6y agoIf you're comparing their rocket to Falcon 9 1.0 from 7 - 10 years ago, that is concerning, especially when they were founded 2~ years earlier.
- mikeyouse 6y agoRight and a lot of SpaceX's scrappiness and scrambling was due to funding constraints in the early days - if you're running your rocket program like a broke startup when you get $1B/year from daddy Bezos, something's amiss. But broadly, they've been around for 20 years and haven't put anything into orbit yet, so it's hard to call it a serious program. I know the goals and scale are different, but Astra's on the cusp of orbit after only 5 years and orders of magnitude less investment. Something at BlueOrigin is seriously broken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_(aerospace) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_(aerospace)
- rlt 6y agoIt feels like Blue Origin is Jeff Bezo’s hobby. A very, very, very expensive hobby.