7 ms·
Blue Origin has emerged as the likely buyer for United Launch Alliance
- callalex 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- arbaz123 3y ago[flagged]
- arbaz123 3y ago[flagged]
- justaguyonline 3y agoThey were always the most likely buyer if you were paying attention. I admit to being pretty disappointed at the confirmation though. Blue Origin would of done just fine without this merger and 3+ companies competing for US space launches instead of 2 would of been healthier. Maybe Tony Bruno will launch his own space company? I always thought Boeing and Lockheed were holding him back.
- pinewurst 3y agoI think ULA did a good enough job of that on its own. They’re like the US Steel of space. A great combination with Blue Origin’s own massive expenditures on recapitulating aerospace sclerosis. :)
- imglorp 3y agoWhy would BO have done fine? In 24 years, they haven’t gotten one gram to orbit. Something appears very wrong over there.
- quartesixte 3y agoYeah happy hour stories about their very methodical, glacial pace of development + decision to make a really big engine from Day 1 abound. BO is Old Space wrapped in New Space.
- cubefox 3y agoThey are close to finishing New Glenn, their next rocket that is better than ULA's Vulcan in pretty much every way. They will probably launch this year. Currently they are testing the launch hardware. There is an update from today: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-debuts-new-glenn-on-our-launch-pad https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blue-origin-debuts-new-glenn... Yes, ULA will have finished Vulcan about a year earlier, but otherwise Blue Origin seems way ahead of ULA in terms of technology. ULA didn't even develop the Vulcan first stage engines, the most complex part of a rocket. I really don't see what Blue Origin expects to get out of ULA. Blue Origin doesn't need Vulcan, they will soon have something that is better in every way: New Glenn will have a reusable first stage and a higher launch mass. > In 24 years, they haven’t gotten one gram to orbit. ULA has launched a lot, but mostly with over 20 year old rocket designs that are based on even older rockets.
- blkhawk 3y ago>> In 24 years, they haven’t gotten one gram to orbit. > ULA has launched a lot, but mostly with over 20 year old rocket designs that are > based on even older rockets. by that metric the butcher around the corner here is better than ULA. He makes model rockets as a hobby and just tested one he just build and designed last year. And since it was designed last year and not a decade ago its also a newer design than New Glen. so its better? Yes if New Glen works as designed and they can launch it it will probably better than what ULA now has. But that doesn't change the fact that BO has nothing yet.
- photonbeam 3y agoI hope Tory goes to rocketlab and works on their neutron rocket
- philwelch 3y agoBlue isn’t doing fine on their own and part of me suspects this is Jeff’s elaborate ploy to hire Tory Bruno.
- aerophilic 3y agoThis is overall a good, and needed thing. While the BE-4 engines from Blue Origin are fantastic, they need the level of system maturity that is represented by ULA. Together, I see a real chance to be competitive with SpaceX long term. Yes, they have work to go before they could do reusable launch, but the combined company probably has the best chance to do so. The more reusable launch providers the better for the industry and for human kind.
- panick21_ 3y ago> BE-4 engines from Blue Origin are fantastic Are they? Outside of being staged combustion they aren't that impressive. Their chamber-pressure is still really low. The TWR isn't that great. For a staged engine they are entry level. Their re-usability is theoretical at this point. The early engines the delivered to ULA are not the reusable version that will later go on New Glenn. > I see a real chance to be competitive with SpaceX long term. 'competitive' as in actually peer competition, not really. But I guess they can 'compete' by 'Jeff Bezos is gone finance the company for many 100s of million of $ every month' for the next decade.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dotnet00 3y agoThe reusability on BE-4 is not theoretical. Yes, the ones flown on Vulcan do not do relighting. However, we do know of engines BO has test fired where they have tested restart capability. https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204214084796416 https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1521204214084796416
- panick21_ 3y agoMany engines that are not reusable can be started multiple times. Actually having the certification that you can relaunch with the engine after you have done a reentry and landing is required.
- sidcool 3y agoThat's why Jeff is selling his AMZN stock
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- downrightmike 3y agoHe sells a billion a year to fund BO
- sidcool 3y agoSo far he has sold some 4 billion worth shares in past few weeks.
- downrightmike 3y agoGood time to buy a bunch of spaceships
- chihuahua 3y ago[flagged]
- edgyquant 3y agoWhat other shape do you believe they should take? I hate this quip, it’s ignorant.
- imtringued 3y agoIt's not the shape that is the problem, but the obsession with it's size. Most rockets don't need to be as big as possible, hence the comparison.
- panick21_ 3y ago
- perlgeek 3y agoHuh, my mental model was always that Blue Origin is a small-ish company, and ULA is a behemoth made from merging two already-behemoth launch companies. I guess I never validated these assumptions, and I didn't really count the amount of money that Bezos might put into such a deal.
- AnarchismIsCool 3y agoThey've made essentially zero dollars over two and a half decades but when your founders have infinite money, you can be as big of a fish as you want.
- panick21_ 3y agoBecause you assume outcomes are related to how many people a company have. This isn't the case. Blue Origin is basically the size of SpaceX, just without actual doing much. Bezos is literally just burning like 2 billion $ every single year on that company. And they are pretty vertically integrated. ULA on the other hand is the opposite, they are just the launcher, they don't build their own engine and in general get most things from suppliers. But based on revenue of course, BO is nowhere near able to buy ULA. Its literally just more billion directly out of Bezos pocket.
- NoahKAndrews 3y agoNote that Boeing and Lockheed own ULA jointly, they're not a part of ULA.
- cubefox 3y agoI don't see how this would be beneficial for Blue Origin. Their next rocket, New Glenn, is planned to be finished this year. Unlike ULA's smaller Vulcan rocket, its lower stage will be reusable. It seems likely that New Glenn will be cheaper than Vulcan once they are able reuse the stage a couple of times. Especially per ton of launch mass. Then they have no reason to keep operating Vulcan.
- panick21_ 3y agoIt will benefit Blue Origin because ULA actually has costumers (mostly the military). They also have launch facilities and people who know how to launch something. New Glenn will take years to ramp up to any real launch rate. Blue Origin will go from kind of a joke to being a big military contractor. Making New Glenn essentially a favorite for the next big military procurement cycle. They are basically buying their way into being a big military contractor.
- cubefox 3y agoWhat strange logic of some company "having" customers instead of the customers choosing the best product, which includes price.
- panick21_ 3y agoULA was selected for large contract by the Dod. This contract amounts to 30+ launches and will take years to complete. Rocket launches are booked years in advanced. ULA also has many launch contracts 30+ from Amazon. This will again take many years to complete. So that's why they 'have' costumers, because the selection process has already happened. When you buy ULA you are effectively buying their years long launch backlog. In addition its really hard to become a Airforce costumer, and once you get there, its very hard to fall out of that group. So even while the next big batch of launches has not yet been selected for by the SpaceForce, its a virtual certainty that ULA will receive a large part of that contract.
- AnarchismIsCool 3y agoIs anyone else getting kinda unnerved that the biggest billionaires are starting to shift focus towards owning, and importantly, calling the shots at large military contractors?
- meinheld111 3y agoNot news
- ScoobleDoodle 3y agoEchoes of early 2000s USA Vice President Dick Cheney, and former CEO of oil company and defense contractor Halliburton, constructing a decision to invade Iraq based on false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction. Giving that same company no bid contracts on the both Iraqi oil projects and military spending.
- sitkack 3y agoBezos is going to lose another billion a year at least with the combined BO + ULA and will need to manipulate geopolitics to ensure a large enough market to recoup those losses. We are not going to see competition between Blue Oula and spacex but tacit complicity.
- wazoox 3y agoWelcome your monopolistic, plutocratic overlords.