14 ms·

Jeff Bezos loses attempt to block the Moon-landing contract NASA gave to SpaceX

245 points by _Microft 5y ago

thrower123 5y ago
The Asteroid Wars in 20 or 30 years between Musk and Bezos is going to be right out of Ben Bova.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Won't be much of a war if Bezos can't get Blue Origin working. They can't operate at 5% of the speed of SpaceX or even 100% of the speed of SpaceX. They have to operate faster than SpaceX because SpaceX is in the lead.
  - thrower123 5y ago
    Or lobby successfully enough to criminalize their competition. With the weight of Amazon on their side, I wouldn't rule that path out.
    - babesh 5y ago
      The US won’t allow that for now because of external competition from China and Russia. That would result in the US losing the current Space Race. EDIT: Probably India as well If SpaceX were Russian, Indian, or Chinese, the US would shit its pants.
      - krapp 5y ago
        There is no "current space race" as far as the US is concerned. Americans put a man on the moon fifty years ago, and no one is worried that China or Russia are going to "gain the high ground" and nuke Washington from orbit. No one cares.
        kelnos 5y ago
        I think you're underestimating things here. These days we have two new milestones: a crewed mission to Mars, and a permanent moon base. The fervor to get there is of course nowhere near what it was like in the 50s and 60s, and I probably wouldn't even call this a new "space race", but the US doesn't want to look weak in matters like this, especially with China's general technological and economic rise over the past decades. I actually think the US hasn't made such a big deal about Mars and the moon because they're afraid China will latch onto that and make it a big deal, and more likely "win". So instead we focus on LEO, ISS, Mars rovers, probes, telescopes, etc. And if China does eventually build a permanent moon base or get a crew to Mars before the US does, the US can claim "cool, good job, but we didn't think it was all that important, so we didn't pursue it as hard as they did". (Note that I believe that Musk pushing hard for Mars is not the same as the US pushing hard for Mars. The US seems more outwardly excited about Musk's ability to cheaply ferry things to and from orbit than anything much farther.)
        babesh 5y ago
        small satellites, Internet access to remote areas (both military and commercial uses), space tourism, space habitats, competitors to GPS (both military and commercial uses) etc…
        T-A 5y ago
        Here are a few links for you from the last couple of months: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA943-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA943-1.html https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/nato-leaders-extend-article-5-mutual-defence-clause-to-space-domain https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/nato-leaders-... https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/updating-space-doctrine-how-to-avoid-world-war-iii/ https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/updating-space-doctrine-ho... https://www.politico.eu/article/us-space-forces-seeks-allies-in-europe-guard-orbit/ https://www.politico.eu/article/us-space-forces-seeks-allies... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g7-nations-commit-to-the-safe-and-sustainable-use-of-space https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g7-nations-commit-to-the-... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/world/asia/china-russia-space.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/world/asia/china-russia-s... https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/21/china/china-us-space-race-mic-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/21/china/china-us-space-race... https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/the-us-military-is-starting-to-get-really-interested-in-starship/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/the-us-military-is-s...
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Indeed. Best watch out for Bezos trying to sabotage SpaceX… or NASA.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
FreakyT 5y ago
It's really a shame what has happened to Blue Origin. They've gone from a promising space startup to yet another purveyor of perpetual vaporware. Where is the BE-4 engine? Delayed, again and again. New Glenn, the rocket that could actually go into orbit? Same. So far their only functioning hardware (New Shephard) is, in effect, a glorified amusement park ride. Considering that SpaceX has actually made it to orbit multiple times, any rational actor would clearly choose SpaceX over BO.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Slow and steady wins the race. I'm not counting them out, Bezos is so immensely wealthy that if he wants Blue Origin to succeed then it will succeed.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Slow and steady wins the race against fast and transient, not, as SpaceX has been, fast and persistent.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - adventured 5y ago
    > Slow and steady wins the race. Not if it's a 100m or 200m sprint. Try that and you'll finish dead last. If SpaceX had gone with slow and steady, it would have merely given their monopolistic competition - competition particularly well connected in DC - that much more time to try to wipe them out using their preferred approach of avoiding competition via government protection. Blue Origin may yet make something of itself via slow and steady pacing (which Bezos can afford), however it's not winning the race.
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    That is like saying that the meek shall inherit the earth - or what is left of it when the bold have taken all they wanted. Slow and steady is just that, slow. There is a place for it, e.g. when refining an established practice like mining or internal combustion engines. Commercial space exploration is a place where rapid advances can be made by visionary explorers, only once you can buy an off-the-shelf space minivan for the whole family the time has come for 'slow and steady'.
pmoriarty 5y ago
Why can't they cooperate instead of compete? It's not like they don't already have all the money they'd ever need or could use, and wouldn't the world be better off if they worked together than against each other?
- thrill 5y ago
  No.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- krapp 5y ago
  These companies are run by billionaire sociopath narcissists who live to crush and dominate the competition and who want all of the glory (and money) for themselves.
  - joshsyn 5y ago
    Call them what you want. They pushed the world forward, period.
    - krapp 5y ago
      They pushed the world, certainly. Whether they pushed it "forward" is debatable.
    - tayo42 5y ago
      Going to the moon again is pushing the world forward? Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back
      - 5y ago
dna_polymerase 5y ago
Blue Origin makes Bezos look like a sad little boy that wants to fit in with he big boys but fails miserably. BO feels like a cheap SpaceX knock-off. His ride over the Karman line (which they tried to point out as the border to to space so bad on their channels) really convinced me of that. Bezos lacks a vision for space, it's just a hobby for him and he fails at executing the Amazon playbook there.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Just keep in mind that there are regular engineers like any of us working at Blue Origin and giving their best to achieve something, make a living and tackle really hard problems. Some viewpoints expressed on HN feel like social media fed hatred, people often forget that there is a massive army of brilliant people doing stuff that most engineers would dream of. There are Facebook/Google engineers working on advertisement tech and we generally don't scorn at them. Adtech is far more "uncool" than space exploration. I say kudos to Blue Origin to lift a building sized socket up to space with humans in it.
  - __d 5y ago
    I agree that the current fanboi bucketing on Blue Origin is dumb, herd-mentality, kicking-the-weakest, bs. People need to grow up. I think it's genuinely interesting to compare two well-funded, privately-led space companies and their results. What is it that has allowed one to make such substantially better progress than the other? It's clear that SpaceX is a tough place to work, and Musk has very high expectations that go well beyond a hard-worked 9-5 5 days a week. That said, Amazon is not an easy place to work either ... so is Blue Origin a driven workplace culture? Perhaps it's just that BO got distracted by the sub-orbital hop goal, and should have ditched that (like SpaceX and the Falcon 1 and Falcon 5) and just gone straight into New Glenn? There's something to be said for aiming high. Perhaps it's just bad luck? BE3 seems ok, but BE4 appears to have some issues. Maybe SpaceX got lucky with Raptor? Or perhaps the difference is just the staff -- one good hire could be the difference between the fairly quick success of Raptor vs. the delays with BE4? Ironic as it is, I will give Musk some credit for keeping his ego out of the cockpit. Not that he's short of ego, but (so far) he's resisted the urge to launch himself.
cratermoon 5y ago
Is Jeffy still going with the "here's $2 billion, pick me instead" attempt? https://www.inputmag.com/culture/jeff-bezos-is-straight-up-trying-to-bribe-nasa-now https://www.inputmag.com/culture/jeff-bezos-is-straight-up-t...
mastrsushi 5y ago
I know this is completely random, but I just love how HN posters rarely communicate with each other past one or two comments.
- mfgs 5y ago
  It probably has something to do with not getting notified when someone replies to your post.
  - mastrsushi 5y ago
    I think it's more to do with lack of social engagement. It's not difficult to figure out how to refresh your accounts comment page.
    - dillondoyle 5y ago
      Maybe selfishly some clout at play too? I don't think sub comments add to profile upvote scores.
      - zamadatix 5y ago
        I think they count, never really checked specifically though and the karma system isn't exactly spelled out in detail anywhere. I'm pretty sure your downvotes to the parent and children of a comment you make don't count though - or at least I read that a few times while looking into the site initially. I bumped your comment up, if you want to find out I should be able to un-up it once you check your current number... if I remember to refresh my comment history ;).
        dillondoyle 5y ago
        It's probably a good thing points aren't the main thing. HA that's exactly the main reason I keep an eye on it up top to know if I should check my comments to respond to someone. I'm at 1631 right now but also a couple other recent comments in the mix. Though also with that lately I've noticed more random downvotes for what I don't see any reason for.
jollybean 5y ago
I actually like the fact there's a review of large, single supplier government contracts. They should do this even without grievances from losing bidders.
Hayvok 5y ago
Multiple providers has been the “name of the game” for a long time now, so it’s not surprising that Blue Origin or ULA got caught off guard. They had to know this Day was coming, but maybe not so quickly. This should be a wake up call to established space players: the days of cost-plus contracts, multiple bid winners, and endless cost and time overruns - are over. There’s no purpose to those anymore. For the past fifty years this all made sense: going to space was hard, and the financial risks were astronomical. This decision highlights how much progress we’ve made toward establishing a “space economy”. Space has been de-risked enough that the corporations can take on the (previously fatal) risk of a fixed-price contract. De-risked enough that the government is reasonably certain of achieving a strategic objective with a single provider. BO, ULA, et. al - the game just changed. Adapt, or die.
- nickik 5y ago
  Mutlbile providers wasn't really a thing until Commercial Cargo and that was with fixed price. But this wasn't always true. For Commercial Lunar resupply they went with SpaceX only as well. The traditional was one supplier with cost plus.
fnord77 5y ago
Was this ever about progress? Or ego?
sprkwd 5y ago
Good. They can’t have everything. Where would they put it?
baron816 5y ago
One thing you have to remember about NASA is that it’s packed with professional space nerds. You know what space nerd love? SpaceX. You know what they don’t love? Blue Origin.
JulianMorrison 5y ago
SpaceX has two tried and tested orbital delivery systems and is making its typical iterate-and-explosions progress on a third. It is basically the only company doing this. The idea NASA would plunk down money for imaginary spaceships is silly. They have their own one of those already.
jakear 5y ago
Between this and JEDI I get the impression Jeff feels he simply deserves things, regardless of the established protocols which decide he does not, and he’s more than willing to take the government to court to prove it. Maybe that’s just the kind of attitude it takes to be the richest person alive, but it definitely rubs me the wrong way. Not like he cares who it rubs or in which way, of course.
- ganghacker 5y ago
  One thing he who can not be named did right was calling this dude by his correct surname
f0xytr0xy 5y ago
Tl;dr: Two billionaires fighting over who gets gifted our tax dollars to launch spy satellites.
cronix 5y ago
Maybe BO will one day actually do something noteworthy on their own, rather than trying to prevent SpaceX from moving ahead because they actually do things. Bezos also recently tried to block Starlink's modified expansion plans[1] saying it was unfair to his conceptual Project Kuiper (conceptual because it doesn't yet physically exist vs Starlink which is in beta service and expanding). Amazon isn't even using BO to launch their own Project Kuipers first satellites (they're going to use ULA)[2]. That says a lot. > Amazon did not say when the first launch will occur, but the company said it had contracted with United Launch Alliance for nine launches to begin building out its constellation of 3,236 satellites in low Earth orbit. [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink-modification-despite-objections.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink... [2]https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/amazons-first-internet-satellites-will-not-launch-on-blue-origin-rockets/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/amazons-first-intern...
- trhway 5y ago
  Dealing with and relying on ULA will be the Bezos' space endeavors undoing. Similarly as if Russians agreed to the original Musk idea back then - there wouldn't be SpaceX today. Technically going hydrogen way Bezos cornered himself - the turbine would be extremely expensive and reliability is an issue, and by not doing it so far they are very limited by expander and tap-off.
- tzs 5y ago
  > Maybe BO will one day actually do something noteworthy on their own, rather than trying to prevent SpaceX from moving ahead because they actually do things. You don't consider being the first to successfully launch and land a VTOL booster noteworthy [1]? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/the-first-reusable-rocket/417525/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/the-f...
  - ctdonath 5y ago
    Laudable yes, but that’s as far as BO has gone. SpaceX does the same while putting stage 2 in orbit. It’s “what have you done lately?”
cletus 5y ago
So there have been two stories for me recently that just show how important and powerful leadership is. Perhaps more importantly, it seems like the culture that develops with bad or absent leadership can be really hard to correct to the point where it seems like cleaning house and starting over is the only way forward. The first is obviously Blue Origin. Some important points: - SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin in 2000; - Blue Origin may have achieved a vertical landing first but it was for a rocket that basically went straight up and came straight down as opposed to going near-orbital speeds (Mach 30), which is unquestionably much more technically challenging; - While SpaceX had delays in shipping (eg Falcon Heavy, Crew Dragon) the track record of the Falcon 9 at this point is undeniable; - Bezos made an extremely odd (to me) choice for leader of Blue Origin: the former CEO of Honeywell (to the point that I've read insiders call the company "Blue Honeywell"). The result seems to be that things are done incredibly slowly and the delays keep piling up. I wonder if the company is now so risk-averse they'd rather do nothing than risk doing something that will fail. Now compare that to SpaceX's Starship prototypes. Whatever magic touch Bezos has hasn't rubbed off on Blue Origin and I honestly think they're at risk of sliding into irrelevance. So the second example is of course (Activision) Blizzard. We actually have a good data point in how another company, Square Enix, handles Final Fantasy XIV (vs Blizzard and World of Warcraft). Some interesting points: - Blizzard doesn't engage with the WoW community. Compare this to Square Enix explaining the issues and timelines for bringing new servers online to alleviate queues; - It seems like Square Enix is still player-focused whereas all of Activision is clearly financially-focused at this point; - The horrific allegations against Blizzard fit into a narrative that Blizzard leadership and employees disdain their audience and almost certainly don't even play their own game; I could go on. So the reason I bring this up in the context of Blue Origin is because to me there's some striking similarities here. Blizzard is run by non-gamers. Blue Origin is run by Wall Street financial types not rocket men (or even engineers). Boeing is another data point in how horribly that can go wrong. A fish rots from the head they say. If leaders want to claim credit and get the rewards for good performance (eg Bobby Kotick's $150m bonus) then the buck stops with them with regards to the culture they've created or allowed to fester on their watch. But just virtue signaling to the market by replacing the head of the company isn't enough at this point (in either case). The fish doesn't reverse the rot when the head is cut off. It's going to take cleaning house to save Blue Origin (or Blizzard).
AYBABTME 5y ago
Anyone has insight into what BO's problems are? I heard that they had leadership problems but otherwise a top notch staff. People love to flame Jeff Bezos but if you look at his management of Amazon, I wouldn't dismiss him casually with regard to BO. He might not have the engineering chops of Musk but I'm sure he can put the right leadership in place to turn this ship around, now that he'll be focusing on this full time. The industry needs a 2nd new generation provider. I don't harbour any fuzzy feelings for Bezos but I do hope BO will get somewhere, or that another company will. Perhaps RocketLab or Relativity Space?
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Talking to some friends who work at Blue Origin, one of the ways they compete for talent from SpaceX is by promoting a healthier, sustainable work culture. While this is great for individuals, it also attracts a lot of people looking to coast. And of course the highly motivated, intelligent people who are willing to put in more time to make cool shit happen aren't going to settle for a distant runner up. I suppose the real question is, will the SpaceX hare or the Blue Origin tortoise win the race in the long run. SpaceX might make amazing strides quickly, but if they burn out their workforce and fail to keep talent long term, they might suffer in coming years and decades.
  - brag 5y ago
    They replace the workforce with all the eager new grads. They will continue to use employees till they burn out indefinitely
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Which works to get you started fast, but something as complicated as rockets requires a lot of institutional knowledge. And if you lose too many employees too fast, you'll start to suffer from institutional alsheimers.
- heymijo 5y ago
  Brad Stone's newest book about Amazon goes into it. In short, Bezos hired leadership poorly. Those hires led to a culture akin to a legacy rocket company like ULA. You know the meme about devs going to Google to rest and vest? That's the reputation Blue Origin has in the space industry according to Stone.
r00tanon 5y ago
I was recently watching Kal Penn's "The Giant Beast That is The Global Economy", and the episode that covers the "Rent Seeking" behavior of large, entrenched, companies, rings fairly close to the kind of play Bezos was pulling out - maybe he's become too acclimated to the book and retail business.
hiyer 5y ago
Well, if $3 billion is all it costs to send someone to the moon why doesn't he do it himself instead of asking NASA to buy his services? Probably NASA probably has some other hardware, know-how, and people that Blue Origins doesn't. But how much would that cost? Another 10 billion? 30 billion? Bezos has plenty to spare for that too.
- moogly 5y ago
  Bezos didn't get to where he is today by spending his own money. Why do that when you can spend tax payer's money instead, and keep on amassing his immense fortune.

245 points by _Microft 5y ago

thrower123 5y ago

The Asteroid Wars in 20 or 30 years between Musk and Bezos is going to be right out of Ben Bova.

whatshisface 5y ago
Won't be much of a war if Bezos can't get Blue Origin working. They can't operate at 5% of the speed of SpaceX or even 100% of the speed of SpaceX. They have to operate faster than SpaceX because SpaceX is in the lead.
- thrower123 5y ago
  Or lobby successfully enough to criminalize their competition. With the weight of Amazon on their side, I wouldn't rule that path out.
  - babesh 5y ago
    The US won’t allow that for now because of external competition from China and Russia. That would result in the US losing the current Space Race. EDIT: Probably India as well If SpaceX were Russian, Indian, or Chinese, the US would shit its pants.
    - krapp 5y ago
      There is no "current space race" as far as the US is concerned. Americans put a man on the moon fifty years ago, and no one is worried that China or Russia are going to "gain the high ground" and nuke Washington from orbit. No one cares.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        I think you're underestimating things here. These days we have two new milestones: a crewed mission to Mars, and a permanent moon base. The fervor to get there is of course nowhere near what it was like in the 50s and 60s, and I probably wouldn't even call this a new "space race", but the US doesn't want to look weak in matters like this, especially with China's general technological and economic rise over the past decades. I actually think the US hasn't made such a big deal about Mars and the moon because they're afraid China will latch onto that and make it a big deal, and more likely "win". So instead we focus on LEO, ISS, Mars rovers, probes, telescopes, etc. And if China does eventually build a permanent moon base or get a crew to Mars before the US does, the US can claim "cool, good job, but we didn't think it was all that important, so we didn't pursue it as hard as they did". (Note that I believe that Musk pushing hard for Mars is not the same as the US pushing hard for Mars. The US seems more outwardly excited about Musk's ability to cheaply ferry things to and from orbit than anything much farther.)
        babesh 5y ago
        small satellites, Internet access to remote areas (both military and commercial uses), space tourism, space habitats, competitors to GPS (both military and commercial uses) etc…
      - T-A 5y ago
        Here are a few links for you from the last couple of months: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA943-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA943-1.html https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/nato-leaders-extend-article-5-mutual-defence-clause-to-space-domain https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/nato-leaders-... https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/updating-space-doctrine-how-to-avoid-world-war-iii/ https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/updating-space-doctrine-ho... https://www.politico.eu/article/us-space-forces-seeks-allies-in-europe-guard-orbit/ https://www.politico.eu/article/us-space-forces-seeks-allies... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g7-nations-commit-to-the-safe-and-sustainable-use-of-space https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g7-nations-commit-to-the-... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/world/asia/china-russia-space.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/world/asia/china-russia-s... https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/21/china/china-us-space-race-mic-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/21/china/china-us-space-race... https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/the-us-military-is-starting-to-get-really-interested-in-starship/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/the-us-military-is-s...
Applejinx 5y ago
Indeed. Best watch out for Bezos trying to sabotage SpaceX… or NASA.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

FreakyT 5y ago

It's really a shame what has happened to Blue Origin. They've gone from a promising space startup to yet another purveyor of perpetual vaporware. Where is the BE-4 engine? Delayed, again and again. New Glenn, the rocket that could actually go into orbit? Same. So far their only functioning hardware (New Shephard) is, in effect, a glorified amusement park ride. Considering that SpaceX has actually made it to orbit multiple times, any rational actor would clearly choose SpaceX over BO.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Slow and steady wins the race. I'm not counting them out, Bezos is so immensely wealthy that if he wants Blue Origin to succeed then it will succeed.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Slow and steady wins the race against fast and transient, not, as SpaceX has been, fast and persistent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 5y ago
  > Slow and steady wins the race. Not if it's a 100m or 200m sprint. Try that and you'll finish dead last. If SpaceX had gone with slow and steady, it would have merely given their monopolistic competition - competition particularly well connected in DC - that much more time to try to wipe them out using their preferred approach of avoiding competition via government protection. Blue Origin may yet make something of itself via slow and steady pacing (which Bezos can afford), however it's not winning the race.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  That is like saying that the meek shall inherit the earth - or what is left of it when the bold have taken all they wanted. Slow and steady is just that, slow. There is a place for it, e.g. when refining an established practice like mining or internal combustion engines. Commercial space exploration is a place where rapid advances can be made by visionary explorers, only once you can buy an off-the-shelf space minivan for the whole family the time has come for 'slow and steady'.

pmoriarty 5y ago

Why can't they cooperate instead of compete? It's not like they don't already have all the money they'd ever need or could use, and wouldn't the world be better off if they worked together than against each other?

thrill 5y ago
No.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
krapp 5y ago
These companies are run by billionaire sociopath narcissists who live to crush and dominate the competition and who want all of the glory (and money) for themselves.
- joshsyn 5y ago
  Call them what you want. They pushed the world forward, period.
  - krapp 5y ago
    They pushed the world, certainly. Whether they pushed it "forward" is debatable.
  - tayo42 5y ago
    Going to the moon again is pushing the world forward? Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back
    - 5y ago

dna_polymerase 5y ago

Blue Origin makes Bezos look like a sad little boy that wants to fit in with he big boys but fails miserably. BO feels like a cheap SpaceX knock-off. His ride over the Karman line (which they tried to point out as the border to to space so bad on their channels) really convinced me of that. Bezos lacks a vision for space, it's just a hobby for him and he fails at executing the Amazon playbook there.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Just keep in mind that there are regular engineers like any of us working at Blue Origin and giving their best to achieve something, make a living and tackle really hard problems. Some viewpoints expressed on HN feel like social media fed hatred, people often forget that there is a massive army of brilliant people doing stuff that most engineers would dream of. There are Facebook/Google engineers working on advertisement tech and we generally don't scorn at them. Adtech is far more "uncool" than space exploration. I say kudos to Blue Origin to lift a building sized socket up to space with humans in it.
- __d 5y ago
  I agree that the current fanboi bucketing on Blue Origin is dumb, herd-mentality, kicking-the-weakest, bs. People need to grow up. I think it's genuinely interesting to compare two well-funded, privately-led space companies and their results. What is it that has allowed one to make such substantially better progress than the other? It's clear that SpaceX is a tough place to work, and Musk has very high expectations that go well beyond a hard-worked 9-5 5 days a week. That said, Amazon is not an easy place to work either ... so is Blue Origin a driven workplace culture? Perhaps it's just that BO got distracted by the sub-orbital hop goal, and should have ditched that (like SpaceX and the Falcon 1 and Falcon 5) and just gone straight into New Glenn? There's something to be said for aiming high. Perhaps it's just bad luck? BE3 seems ok, but BE4 appears to have some issues. Maybe SpaceX got lucky with Raptor? Or perhaps the difference is just the staff -- one good hire could be the difference between the fairly quick success of Raptor vs. the delays with BE4? Ironic as it is, I will give Musk some credit for keeping his ego out of the cockpit. Not that he's short of ego, but (so far) he's resisted the urge to launch himself.

cratermoon 5y ago

Is Jeffy still going with the "here's $2 billion, pick me instead" attempt? https://www.inputmag.com/culture/jeff-bezos-is-straight-up-trying-to-bribe-nasa-now https://www.inputmag.com/culture/jeff-bezos-is-straight-up-t...

mastrsushi 5y ago

I know this is completely random, but I just love how HN posters rarely communicate with each other past one or two comments.

mfgs 5y ago
It probably has something to do with not getting notified when someone replies to your post.
- mastrsushi 5y ago
  I think it's more to do with lack of social engagement. It's not difficult to figure out how to refresh your accounts comment page.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    Maybe selfishly some clout at play too? I don't think sub comments add to profile upvote scores.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      I think they count, never really checked specifically though and the karma system isn't exactly spelled out in detail anywhere. I'm pretty sure your downvotes to the parent and children of a comment you make don't count though - or at least I read that a few times while looking into the site initially. I bumped your comment up, if you want to find out I should be able to un-up it once you check your current number... if I remember to refresh my comment history ;).
      - dillondoyle 5y ago
        It's probably a good thing points aren't the main thing. HA that's exactly the main reason I keep an eye on it up top to know if I should check my comments to respond to someone. I'm at 1631 right now but also a couple other recent comments in the mix. Though also with that lately I've noticed more random downvotes for what I don't see any reason for.

jollybean 5y ago

I actually like the fact there's a review of large, single supplier government contracts. They should do this even without grievances from losing bidders.

Hayvok 5y ago

Multiple providers has been the “name of the game” for a long time now, so it’s not surprising that Blue Origin or ULA got caught off guard. They had to know this Day was coming, but maybe not so quickly. This should be a wake up call to established space players: the days of cost-plus contracts, multiple bid winners, and endless cost and time overruns - are over. There’s no purpose to those anymore. For the past fifty years this all made sense: going to space was hard, and the financial risks were astronomical. This decision highlights how much progress we’ve made toward establishing a “space economy”. Space has been de-risked enough that the corporations can take on the (previously fatal) risk of a fixed-price contract. De-risked enough that the government is reasonably certain of achieving a strategic objective with a single provider. BO, ULA, et. al - the game just changed. Adapt, or die.

nickik 5y ago
Mutlbile providers wasn't really a thing until Commercial Cargo and that was with fixed price. But this wasn't always true. For Commercial Lunar resupply they went with SpaceX only as well. The traditional was one supplier with cost plus.

fnord77 5y ago

Was this ever about progress? Or ego?

sprkwd 5y ago

Good. They can’t have everything. Where would they put it?

baron816 5y ago

One thing you have to remember about NASA is that it’s packed with professional space nerds. You know what space nerd love? SpaceX. You know what they don’t love? Blue Origin.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

SpaceX has two tried and tested orbital delivery systems and is making its typical iterate-and-explosions progress on a third. It is basically the only company doing this. The idea NASA would plunk down money for imaginary spaceships is silly. They have their own one of those already.

jakear 5y ago

Between this and JEDI I get the impression Jeff feels he simply deserves things, regardless of the established protocols which decide he does not, and he’s more than willing to take the government to court to prove it. Maybe that’s just the kind of attitude it takes to be the richest person alive, but it definitely rubs me the wrong way. Not like he cares who it rubs or in which way, of course.

ganghacker 5y ago
One thing he who can not be named did right was calling this dude by his correct surname

f0xytr0xy 5y ago

Tl;dr: Two billionaires fighting over who gets gifted our tax dollars to launch spy satellites.

cronix 5y ago

Maybe BO will one day actually do something noteworthy on their own, rather than trying to prevent SpaceX from moving ahead because they actually do things. Bezos also recently tried to block Starlink's modified expansion plans[1] saying it was unfair to his conceptual Project Kuiper (conceptual because it doesn't yet physically exist vs Starlink which is in beta service and expanding). Amazon isn't even using BO to launch their own Project Kuipers first satellites (they're going to use ULA)[2]. That says a lot. > Amazon did not say when the first launch will occur, but the company said it had contracted with United Launch Alliance for nine launches to begin building out its constellation of 3,236 satellites in low Earth orbit. [1]https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink-modification-despite-objections.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/27/fcc-approves-spacex-starlink... [2]https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/amazons-first-internet-satellites-will-not-launch-on-blue-origin-rockets/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/amazons-first-intern...

trhway 5y ago
Dealing with and relying on ULA will be the Bezos' space endeavors undoing. Similarly as if Russians agreed to the original Musk idea back then - there wouldn't be SpaceX today. Technically going hydrogen way Bezos cornered himself - the turbine would be extremely expensive and reliability is an issue, and by not doing it so far they are very limited by expander and tap-off.
tzs 5y ago
> Maybe BO will one day actually do something noteworthy on their own, rather than trying to prevent SpaceX from moving ahead because they actually do things. You don't consider being the first to successfully launch and land a VTOL booster noteworthy [1]? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/the-first-reusable-rocket/417525/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/the-f...
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Laudable yes, but that’s as far as BO has gone. SpaceX does the same while putting stage 2 in orbit. It’s “what have you done lately?”

cletus 5y ago

So there have been two stories for me recently that just show how important and powerful leadership is. Perhaps more importantly, it seems like the culture that develops with bad or absent leadership can be really hard to correct to the point where it seems like cleaning house and starting over is the only way forward. The first is obviously Blue Origin. Some important points: - SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin in 2000; - Blue Origin may have achieved a vertical landing first but it was for a rocket that basically went straight up and came straight down as opposed to going near-orbital speeds (Mach 30), which is unquestionably much more technically challenging; - While SpaceX had delays in shipping (eg Falcon Heavy, Crew Dragon) the track record of the Falcon 9 at this point is undeniable; - Bezos made an extremely odd (to me) choice for leader of Blue Origin: the former CEO of Honeywell (to the point that I've read insiders call the company "Blue Honeywell"). The result seems to be that things are done incredibly slowly and the delays keep piling up. I wonder if the company is now so risk-averse they'd rather do nothing than risk doing something that will fail. Now compare that to SpaceX's Starship prototypes. Whatever magic touch Bezos has hasn't rubbed off on Blue Origin and I honestly think they're at risk of sliding into irrelevance. So the second example is of course (Activision) Blizzard. We actually have a good data point in how another company, Square Enix, handles Final Fantasy XIV (vs Blizzard and World of Warcraft). Some interesting points: - Blizzard doesn't engage with the WoW community. Compare this to Square Enix explaining the issues and timelines for bringing new servers online to alleviate queues; - It seems like Square Enix is still player-focused whereas all of Activision is clearly financially-focused at this point; - The horrific allegations against Blizzard fit into a narrative that Blizzard leadership and employees disdain their audience and almost certainly don't even play their own game; I could go on. So the reason I bring this up in the context of Blue Origin is because to me there's some striking similarities here. Blizzard is run by non-gamers. Blue Origin is run by Wall Street financial types not rocket men (or even engineers). Boeing is another data point in how horribly that can go wrong. A fish rots from the head they say. If leaders want to claim credit and get the rewards for good performance (eg Bobby Kotick's $150m bonus) then the buck stops with them with regards to the culture they've created or allowed to fester on their watch. But just virtue signaling to the market by replacing the head of the company isn't enough at this point (in either case). The fish doesn't reverse the rot when the head is cut off. It's going to take cleaning house to save Blue Origin (or Blizzard).

AYBABTME 5y ago

Anyone has insight into what BO's problems are? I heard that they had leadership problems but otherwise a top notch staff. People love to flame Jeff Bezos but if you look at his management of Amazon, I wouldn't dismiss him casually with regard to BO. He might not have the engineering chops of Musk but I'm sure he can put the right leadership in place to turn this ship around, now that he'll be focusing on this full time. The industry needs a 2nd new generation provider. I don't harbour any fuzzy feelings for Bezos but I do hope BO will get somewhere, or that another company will. Perhaps RocketLab or Relativity Space?

anonporridge 5y ago
Talking to some friends who work at Blue Origin, one of the ways they compete for talent from SpaceX is by promoting a healthier, sustainable work culture. While this is great for individuals, it also attracts a lot of people looking to coast. And of course the highly motivated, intelligent people who are willing to put in more time to make cool shit happen aren't going to settle for a distant runner up. I suppose the real question is, will the SpaceX hare or the Blue Origin tortoise win the race in the long run. SpaceX might make amazing strides quickly, but if they burn out their workforce and fail to keep talent long term, they might suffer in coming years and decades.
- brag 5y ago
  They replace the workforce with all the eager new grads. They will continue to use employees till they burn out indefinitely
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Which works to get you started fast, but something as complicated as rockets requires a lot of institutional knowledge. And if you lose too many employees too fast, you'll start to suffer from institutional alsheimers.
heymijo 5y ago
Brad Stone's newest book about Amazon goes into it. In short, Bezos hired leadership poorly. Those hires led to a culture akin to a legacy rocket company like ULA. You know the meme about devs going to Google to rest and vest? That's the reputation Blue Origin has in the space industry according to Stone.

r00tanon 5y ago

I was recently watching Kal Penn's "The Giant Beast That is The Global Economy", and the episode that covers the "Rent Seeking" behavior of large, entrenched, companies, rings fairly close to the kind of play Bezos was pulling out - maybe he's become too acclimated to the book and retail business.

hiyer 5y ago

Well, if $3 billion is all it costs to send someone to the moon why doesn't he do it himself instead of asking NASA to buy his services? Probably NASA probably has some other hardware, know-how, and people that Blue Origins doesn't. But how much would that cost? Another 10 billion? 30 billion? Bezos has plenty to spare for that too.

moogly 5y ago
Bezos didn't get to where he is today by spending his own money. Why do that when you can spend tax payer's money instead, and keep on amassing his immense fortune.