5 ms·

I've been puzzled at Blue Origins lack of progress, particularly with orbital class vehicles. they've got an engine developed (BE-4) that's pretty good, and goi

I've been puzzled at Blue Origins lack of progress, particularly with orbital class vehicles. they've got an engine developed (BE-4) that's pretty good, and going to be used by ULA apparently. But otherwise, development on New Glenn seems to be stagnant. Are they making progress, only not publicly, like Spacex? Seems Spacex is executing at a tremendous level, easy to believe a competitor could have trouble keeping the pace.

travisporter 5y ago
Eric Berger has an article on this. He is definitely a big spacex fan but does fairly objective reporting imo. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/so-what-really-happened-with-blue-origins-new-glenn-rocket/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/so-what-really-happe...
Beached 5y ago
they aren't really making progress behind closed doors. there was a video tour of their new glenn factory floor when they were showing off the hls mock up, it looked mostly the se.as it did years ago, before spacex even launched heavy or even announced starship. I think the main difference is that spacex had a do or die mentality I. the beginning. Elon had money, but not endless amounts like besos or like he has currently. they literally were going to close up shop due to money, and got a last minute one last attempt to make falcon 1 lunch work. blue origin has never had the need to test things, it's just a bunch of engineers gooing over cad files and no need to go to orbit because they will never go bust.
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  I'm not sure that, that "succeed or die" mentality/necessity is really a bad thing, at least in the beginning. I can't speak to space programs, per se, but as far as software start ups, so many of them are great as slim companies who have to produce but fail to transition once they are bought out and become an overlarge, corporate goliath with deep pockets and room to fail. Without the sword of Damocles, as it were, the finish line can continue to be pushed back and the specs can be changed. It can stay academic.
Veedrac 5y ago
People have a really weird idea of the timelines here. Blue Origin's first serious rocket was New Shepard, launched in 2015. It has been six years since then, and New Glenn, a rocket more ambitious than SLS or Vulcan Centaur or even Falcon 9, is due in under two years. The rocket has been delayed, but only by two years, which is typical for rockets of any sort, even SpaceX rockets. This is not a weirdly slow pace. The reason Blue Origin is behind SpaceX is that SpaceX built their first serious rocket in 2006, 9 years before New Shepard. Blue Origin was founded a long time ago but they spent most of that as a low-budget think-tank style operation. Timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/n6a1dd/sn15_nails_the_landing_amazing_moment_for_all/gx9ngem/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/n6a1dd/sn15_nai...
- freshair 5y ago
  As a "serious rocket", New Shepard falls well short of Falcon 1, which made orbit 13 years ago. Blue Origin still hasn't put anything into space. Of New Shepard development, wikipedia tells me "Prototype engine and vehicle flights began in 2006, while full-scale engine development started in the early 2010s and was complete by 2015.[5] Uncrewed flight testing of the complete New Shepard vehicle (propulsion module and space capsule) began in 2015." Well SpaceX was founded in 2002, giving them what, a 4 year head start on New Shepard? That 4 year gap has grown much wider since then.. SpaceX got to orbit 6 years after they were founded, while Blue Origin is at 21 years and counting.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - neaanopri 5y ago
    I'm not sure if I agree that New Shepard isn't a "serious rocket". Falcon 1 has a low payload (small satellite) with medium energy (LEO). New Shepard has a medium payload (crew capsule) with low energy (suborbital). As far as "similar to a large orbital launch vehicle", you can rank them as: New Shepard < Falcon 1 < Falcon 9 < New Glenn BO is definitely trying to "skip steps", but I think that the US space industry as a whole is certainly better off for Blue Origin existing. As far as the BE-4, the single largest technical risk for a launch vehicle is the engine, and using an engine which will already be in use (for Vulcan) looks smart to me. Yes there are delays, but aren't there always?
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I can't help but think their slow and steady wins the race philosophy has led to their stagnation. Blue Origin's motto is "Gradatim Ferociter", Latin for "Step by Step, Ferociously". And I suspect having Jeff Bezos's massive hoard of cash takes away some of the pressure to perform or perish.
- raister 5y ago
  I don't want to be 'that guy', but a slight better translation is "Ferociously gradual".
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I just pulled it from an article on Wikipedia. I speak no Latin.
- freshair 5y ago
  > slow and steady wins the race It's a popular saying but a lot of people don't seem to recall the parable. A slow and steady tortoise only wins the race if the rabbit sprints a little bit but then gets too cocky and decides to take a nap and rest for a while (or gets stuck for some other reason.) If the fast rabbit keeps moving forward unrelentingly, then the slow tortoise doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. So far, SpaceX has been a rabbit that doesn't stop to take breaks. In scenarios like this, "slow and steady" becomes little more than a lame excuse for moving slow, not a legitimate plan to get ahead.
- philwelch 5y ago
  I actually don’t think Blue’s process has actually followed their motto though. Building a reusable Saturn V-class rocket as your first orbital vehicle is not “step by step”. Step by step is how I’d describe the process for Starship; the first prototypes looked suspiciously like stainless steel grain silos, and their development progress is measured by how much they can do with the thing before it blows up.
pinewurst 5y ago
What I've heard is that Blue Origin is much more Big Aerospace in hiring, philosophy, and process than SpaceX. Being faster than Boeing, sadly, isn't the same as being fast.

travisporter 5y ago

Eric Berger has an article on this. He is definitely a big spacex fan but does fairly objective reporting imo. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/so-what-really-happened-with-blue-origins-new-glenn-rocket/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/so-what-really-happe...

Beached 5y ago

they aren't really making progress behind closed doors. there was a video tour of their new glenn factory floor when they were showing off the hls mock up, it looked mostly the se.as it did years ago, before spacex even launched heavy or even announced starship. I think the main difference is that spacex had a do or die mentality I. the beginning. Elon had money, but not endless amounts like besos or like he has currently. they literally were going to close up shop due to money, and got a last minute one last attempt to make falcon 1 lunch work. blue origin has never had the need to test things, it's just a bunch of engineers gooing over cad files and no need to go to orbit because they will never go bust.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago
I'm not sure that, that "succeed or die" mentality/necessity is really a bad thing, at least in the beginning. I can't speak to space programs, per se, but as far as software start ups, so many of them are great as slim companies who have to produce but fail to transition once they are bought out and become an overlarge, corporate goliath with deep pockets and room to fail. Without the sword of Damocles, as it were, the finish line can continue to be pushed back and the specs can be changed. It can stay academic.

Veedrac 5y ago

People have a really weird idea of the timelines here. Blue Origin's first serious rocket was New Shepard, launched in 2015. It has been six years since then, and New Glenn, a rocket more ambitious than SLS or Vulcan Centaur or even Falcon 9, is due in under two years. The rocket has been delayed, but only by two years, which is typical for rockets of any sort, even SpaceX rockets. This is not a weirdly slow pace. The reason Blue Origin is behind SpaceX is that SpaceX built their first serious rocket in 2006, 9 years before New Shepard. Blue Origin was founded a long time ago but they spent most of that as a low-budget think-tank style operation. Timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/n6a1dd/sn15_nails_the_landing_amazing_moment_for_all/gx9ngem/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/n6a1dd/sn15_nai...

freshair 5y ago
As a "serious rocket", New Shepard falls well short of Falcon 1, which made orbit 13 years ago. Blue Origin still hasn't put anything into space. Of New Shepard development, wikipedia tells me "Prototype engine and vehicle flights began in 2006, while full-scale engine development started in the early 2010s and was complete by 2015.[5] Uncrewed flight testing of the complete New Shepard vehicle (propulsion module and space capsule) began in 2015." Well SpaceX was founded in 2002, giving them what, a 4 year head start on New Shepard? That 4 year gap has grown much wider since then.. SpaceX got to orbit 6 years after they were founded, while Blue Origin is at 21 years and counting.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- neaanopri 5y ago
  I'm not sure if I agree that New Shepard isn't a "serious rocket". Falcon 1 has a low payload (small satellite) with medium energy (LEO). New Shepard has a medium payload (crew capsule) with low energy (suborbital). As far as "similar to a large orbital launch vehicle", you can rank them as: New Shepard < Falcon 1 < Falcon 9 < New Glenn BO is definitely trying to "skip steps", but I think that the US space industry as a whole is certainly better off for Blue Origin existing. As far as the BE-4, the single largest technical risk for a launch vehicle is the engine, and using an engine which will already be in use (for Vulcan) looks smart to me. Yes there are delays, but aren't there always?

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I can't help but think their slow and steady wins the race philosophy has led to their stagnation. Blue Origin's motto is "Gradatim Ferociter", Latin for "Step by Step, Ferociously". And I suspect having Jeff Bezos's massive hoard of cash takes away some of the pressure to perform or perish.

raister 5y ago
I don't want to be 'that guy', but a slight better translation is "Ferociously gradual".
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I just pulled it from an article on Wikipedia. I speak no Latin.
freshair 5y ago
> slow and steady wins the race It's a popular saying but a lot of people don't seem to recall the parable. A slow and steady tortoise only wins the race if the rabbit sprints a little bit but then gets too cocky and decides to take a nap and rest for a while (or gets stuck for some other reason.) If the fast rabbit keeps moving forward unrelentingly, then the slow tortoise doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. So far, SpaceX has been a rabbit that doesn't stop to take breaks. In scenarios like this, "slow and steady" becomes little more than a lame excuse for moving slow, not a legitimate plan to get ahead.
philwelch 5y ago
I actually don’t think Blue’s process has actually followed their motto though. Building a reusable Saturn V-class rocket as your first orbital vehicle is not “step by step”. Step by step is how I’d describe the process for Starship; the first prototypes looked suspiciously like stainless steel grain silos, and their development progress is measured by how much they can do with the thing before it blows up.

pinewurst 5y ago

What I've heard is that Blue Origin is much more Big Aerospace in hiring, philosophy, and process than SpaceX. Being faster than Boeing, sadly, isn't the same as being fast.