5 ms·

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket is delayed for years. What went wrong?

28 points by stoicanalyst 6y ago

Nekhrimah 6y ago
I do wonder if Blue Origin's funding model of wealthy benefactor has affected delivery as well. I don't doubt that Blue has fantastic, committed, and talented engineers. But there is something to be said about "We need this in X weeks, or the company might fold" motivation.
nickik 6y ago
Things are really not looking so hot for BlueOrigin if they do not get the Human Landing System for the Moon contract. They seem to focus on that, but I think most space fans, don't want them to get it. The Dynetics lander and the SpaceX lander are far more popular. BlueOrigin plan seems very politically focused, the literally put together a group of the most powerful companies in terms of lobbying. But partnering with these old space companies, basically also lead to their bid being almost as expensive as the other two together. Unfortunately for them, NASA has the authority to do the selection, not congress. So the influence is not that direct. However, congress can of course still try to influence the results with back channels, they could just tell NASA, pick this or you will not get the funding. Arguably congress influence Crew selection, SerraNevada was both cheaper and arguably better for NASA. Based on performance score SerraNevada should have gotten it. Back then it was still viable to claim that Boeing had higher 'mission assurance'. I have no problem with BlueOrigin, but I don't think they deserve a human lander contact. Their design is not that amazing, their cost is high and they don't have a history of amazing performance that would recommend them, neither does their main partner (the opposite actually). Bezos will still have to spend a number of billions on this, even when New Glenn flies, BlueOrigin will continue to bleed money for quite a while.
- sitkack 6y ago
  > design is not that amazing gross understatement. Most people playing Kerbal design something better.
  - nickik 6y ago
    Well, I mean its basically what NASA originally asked for. A few changes could make it Ok, the real problem is the cost. This kind of architecture should be very cheap. If it isn't, its just pointless.
    - sitkack 6y ago
      No, if a customer asks for a sht sandwich you don't just make them one.
fiftyfifty 6y ago
Blue Origin should have iterated on New Shepard until it was an orbital rocket. They could have lengthened it, increased the diameter and added engines to make it a functional orbital rocket and potentially had an orbital capsule with a parachute recovery system to boot. They've spent a lot of time and money developing New Shepard just to throw it all away.
avmich 6y ago
> Since Smith arrived in the fall of 2017, some employees have struggled with his leadership style and complained that he has acted too slowly, pushing Blue Origin to become more like a traditional aerospace company than a nimble new-space startup. But from Smith's perspective, he's trying to implement a culture transformation, from a hobby-shop atmosphere to that of a major aerospace contractor that can go out and win major NASA and Defense Department contracts. If it's true, it looks like a complete failure of the leadership. The manager should first and foremost articulate what he's trying to do, and explain well why, and it's hard to imagine competent BO personnel not understanding - so the difference in positions means it wasn't explained well enough.
- sschueller 6y ago
  How is this a failure if it makes flight safer? Look at what happened at Boeing when they stopped focusing on proper engineering and switches to systematically cutting corners in all departments. Would you feel safer on a space x rocket or a blue origin one?
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > How is this a failure if it makes flight safer? It is one possible way to make flight safer, but most likely not the only one. The same traditional aerospace approach also created the 737 MAX and the CST-100.
  - avmich 6y ago
    I can't believe that Smith not explaining to his team that he's doing culture change leads to safer flights. Also I think that lately hobby shops - SpaceX was quite recently an extreme version of it - were producing more reliable results than many traditional organizations. I'm not sure about this particular case though, but I wouldn't discount hobby shops just so.

28 points by stoicanalyst 6y ago

I do wonder if Blue Origin's funding model of wealthy benefactor has affected delivery as well. I don't doubt that Blue has fantastic, committed, and talented engineers. But there is something to be said about "We need this in X weeks, or the company might fold" motivation.

nickik 6y ago

Things are really not looking so hot for BlueOrigin if they do not get the Human Landing System for the Moon contract. They seem to focus on that, but I think most space fans, don't want them to get it. The Dynetics lander and the SpaceX lander are far more popular. BlueOrigin plan seems very politically focused, the literally put together a group of the most powerful companies in terms of lobbying. But partnering with these old space companies, basically also lead to their bid being almost as expensive as the other two together. Unfortunately for them, NASA has the authority to do the selection, not congress. So the influence is not that direct. However, congress can of course still try to influence the results with back channels, they could just tell NASA, pick this or you will not get the funding. Arguably congress influence Crew selection, SerraNevada was both cheaper and arguably better for NASA. Based on performance score SerraNevada should have gotten it. Back then it was still viable to claim that Boeing had higher 'mission assurance'. I have no problem with BlueOrigin, but I don't think they deserve a human lander contact. Their design is not that amazing, their cost is high and they don't have a history of amazing performance that would recommend them, neither does their main partner (the opposite actually). Bezos will still have to spend a number of billions on this, even when New Glenn flies, BlueOrigin will continue to bleed money for quite a while.

sitkack 6y ago
> design is not that amazing gross understatement. Most people playing Kerbal design something better.
- nickik 6y ago
  Well, I mean its basically what NASA originally asked for. A few changes could make it Ok, the real problem is the cost. This kind of architecture should be very cheap. If it isn't, its just pointless.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    No, if a customer asks for a sht sandwich you don't just make them one.

fiftyfifty 6y ago

Blue Origin should have iterated on New Shepard until it was an orbital rocket. They could have lengthened it, increased the diameter and added engines to make it a functional orbital rocket and potentially had an orbital capsule with a parachute recovery system to boot. They've spent a lot of time and money developing New Shepard just to throw it all away.

avmich 6y ago

> Since Smith arrived in the fall of 2017, some employees have struggled with his leadership style and complained that he has acted too slowly, pushing Blue Origin to become more like a traditional aerospace company than a nimble new-space startup. But from Smith's perspective, he's trying to implement a culture transformation, from a hobby-shop atmosphere to that of a major aerospace contractor that can go out and win major NASA and Defense Department contracts. If it's true, it looks like a complete failure of the leadership. The manager should first and foremost articulate what he's trying to do, and explain well why, and it's hard to imagine competent BO personnel not understanding - so the difference in positions means it wasn't explained well enough.

sschueller 6y ago
How is this a failure if it makes flight safer? Look at what happened at Boeing when they stopped focusing on proper engineering and switches to systematically cutting corners in all departments. Would you feel safer on a space x rocket or a blue origin one?
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > How is this a failure if it makes flight safer? It is one possible way to make flight safer, but most likely not the only one. The same traditional aerospace approach also created the 737 MAX and the CST-100.
- avmich 6y ago
  I can't believe that Smith not explaining to his team that he's doing culture change leads to safer flights. Also I think that lately hobby shops - SpaceX was quite recently an extreme version of it - were producing more reliable results than many traditional organizations. I'm not sure about this particular case though, but I wouldn't discount hobby shops just so.