3 ms·

Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and SpaceX wasn't founded until 2002 so I think you have that a little backwards. A more accurate comparison would be that Elon

Blue Origin was founded in 2000 and SpaceX wasn't founded until 2002 so I think you have that a little backwards. A more accurate comparison would be that Elon is like the little brother who one-ups the older brother at his own game. Also, Bezos isn't the CEO at Amazon anymore and hasn't been since mid 2021, so blaming any Amazon decisions in the last two years on him is just misinformed.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> Also, Bezos isn't the CEO at Amazon anymore and hasn't been since mid 2021, so blaming any Amazon decisions in the last two years on him is just misinformed. More than 20 years of leadership leaves a mark that doesn't fade so fast as that. Most of Amazon's present management and leadership was hired and advanced during Bezos's tenure.
- giobox 3y ago
  Right, and he still owns ~12 percent of Amazon's shares regardless of not being CEO anymore - of course he still has some degree of influence, and his strong dislike of Musk and SpaceX isn't exactly a secret. I suspect we will not be seeing Kuiper cargo on a SpaceX rocket ever, costs be damned, if it can be avoided...
  - basementcat 3y ago
    There is currently a shareholder lawsuit concerning Amazon choices of launch providers. There are arguments for and against Amazon paying SpaceX for launch services. For: * SpaceX is very price competitive * SpaceX may be able to launch sooner than other launch providers (Amazon may be able to "outbid" other customers for Falcon payload capacity) * Every Falcon (or Starship) carrying KuiperSats is _not_ carrying Starlink satellites. SpaceX uses Starlink launches as a way to tune and optimize the Falcon launch platform. Launching KuiperSats potentially hurts the SpaceX launch vehicle and Starlink businesses in subtle ways. Against: * Social media trolling * SpaceX does not have a reputation for working well with other companies https://spacenews.com/darpa-satellites-damaged-at-processing-facility-ahead-of-spacex-launch/ https://spacenews.com/darpa-satellites-damaged-at-processing...
    - kiratp 3y ago
      > Every Falcon (or Starship) carrying KuiperSats is _not_ carrying Starlink satellites. SpaceX uses Starlink launched as a way to tune and optimize the Falcon launch platform. Launching KuiperSats potentially hurts the SpaceX launch vehicle and Starlink programs in subtle ways. SpaceX will not remain constrained by launch cadence. Also, very Kuoper launch would make money for them funding further Starlink launches. Space X is the one direct competitor. You never find your competitor.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        > SpaceX is the one direct competitor. You never [fund] your competitor. This would be astonishing to Apple (which buys phone components from Samsung), Google (which pays Mozilla and Apple to be the default search engine on their browsers), or indeed Amazon itself (which sells Apple and Google products that directly compete with their own, buys software from Microsoft, licenses Microsoft software for some of their cloud services, etc.) On the other hand, you’d be surprised to see Apple launch an entirely new product and then select, as a primary supplier, a side business owned by Tim Cook with zero track record of delivering the necessary service. Jeff Bezos’ side business, Blue Origin, has been unsuccessfully trying to compete with SpaceX for years. This unsuccessful competition rose to the level of public feuding and lawsuits against NASA for selecting SpaceX over Blue Origin for their moon lander contract. Suddenly, Bezos’ main business, Amazon, launches Project Kuiper to directly compete with Starlink, and contracts with Blue Origin for launch services that Blue has zero track record of successfully delivering on, as well as ULA for launch services using Blue Origin rocket engines that Blue has zero track record of actually delivering. This is an obvious case of conflict-of-interest and self-dealing. Amazon does not need to launch new products and services for the purposes of satisfying Jeff Bezos’ personal rivalries and grudges in the first place, let alone shifting Amazon’s cash flows into his struggling side business.
    - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
      Con: - Dependence on a mercurial billionaire’s company for a vital service - these satellites will eventually need to be replaced. The same billionaire also operates a rival service, it will be a conflict of interest not in your favor.
panick21_ 3y ago
BlueOrigin in 2000 wasn't a real company. It was basically just a thinktank. They didn't really do anything until much later. And it was not well know that it even existed or what it does.

mcpackieh 3y ago

> Also, Bezos isn't the CEO at Amazon anymore and hasn't been since mid 2021, so blaming any Amazon decisions in the last two years on him is just misinformed. More than 20 years of leadership leaves a mark that doesn't fade so fast as that. Most of Amazon's present management and leadership was hired and advanced during Bezos's tenure.

giobox 3y ago
Right, and he still owns ~12 percent of Amazon's shares regardless of not being CEO anymore - of course he still has some degree of influence, and his strong dislike of Musk and SpaceX isn't exactly a secret. I suspect we will not be seeing Kuiper cargo on a SpaceX rocket ever, costs be damned, if it can be avoided...
- basementcat 3y ago
  There is currently a shareholder lawsuit concerning Amazon choices of launch providers. There are arguments for and against Amazon paying SpaceX for launch services. For: * SpaceX is very price competitive * SpaceX may be able to launch sooner than other launch providers (Amazon may be able to "outbid" other customers for Falcon payload capacity) * Every Falcon (or Starship) carrying KuiperSats is _not_ carrying Starlink satellites. SpaceX uses Starlink launches as a way to tune and optimize the Falcon launch platform. Launching KuiperSats potentially hurts the SpaceX launch vehicle and Starlink businesses in subtle ways. Against: * Social media trolling * SpaceX does not have a reputation for working well with other companies https://spacenews.com/darpa-satellites-damaged-at-processing-facility-ahead-of-spacex-launch/ https://spacenews.com/darpa-satellites-damaged-at-processing...
  - kiratp 3y ago
    > Every Falcon (or Starship) carrying KuiperSats is _not_ carrying Starlink satellites. SpaceX uses Starlink launched as a way to tune and optimize the Falcon launch platform. Launching KuiperSats potentially hurts the SpaceX launch vehicle and Starlink programs in subtle ways. SpaceX will not remain constrained by launch cadence. Also, very Kuoper launch would make money for them funding further Starlink launches. Space X is the one direct competitor. You never find your competitor.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      > SpaceX is the one direct competitor. You never [fund] your competitor. This would be astonishing to Apple (which buys phone components from Samsung), Google (which pays Mozilla and Apple to be the default search engine on their browsers), or indeed Amazon itself (which sells Apple and Google products that directly compete with their own, buys software from Microsoft, licenses Microsoft software for some of their cloud services, etc.) On the other hand, you’d be surprised to see Apple launch an entirely new product and then select, as a primary supplier, a side business owned by Tim Cook with zero track record of delivering the necessary service. Jeff Bezos’ side business, Blue Origin, has been unsuccessfully trying to compete with SpaceX for years. This unsuccessful competition rose to the level of public feuding and lawsuits against NASA for selecting SpaceX over Blue Origin for their moon lander contract. Suddenly, Bezos’ main business, Amazon, launches Project Kuiper to directly compete with Starlink, and contracts with Blue Origin for launch services that Blue has zero track record of successfully delivering on, as well as ULA for launch services using Blue Origin rocket engines that Blue has zero track record of actually delivering. This is an obvious case of conflict-of-interest and self-dealing. Amazon does not need to launch new products and services for the purposes of satisfying Jeff Bezos’ personal rivalries and grudges in the first place, let alone shifting Amazon’s cash flows into his struggling side business.
  - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
    Con: - Dependence on a mercurial billionaire’s company for a vital service - these satellites will eventually need to be replaced. The same billionaire also operates a rival service, it will be a conflict of interest not in your favor.

panick21_ 3y ago

BlueOrigin in 2000 wasn't a real company. It was basically just a thinktank. They didn't really do anything until much later. And it was not well know that it even existed or what it does.