5 ms·

Looking forward to this! SpaceX needs to feel domestic competition.

rbanffy 2y ago
New Glenn is competing with Falcon Heavy much more than with Starship, and also looks a lot closer to operational readiness than Starship will be in 2025. Will be an interesting week.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  how is it a lot closer to readiness if it has never had a successful launch?
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    Different development processes. New Glenn is ready to deploy a payload on its first flight. Starship as it is can’t deploy anything. It has the “pez dispenser” that is designed to release Starlink satellites one at a time, but it’s not ready.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
[flagged]
- jmpman 2y ago
  Hasn’t Spacex driven down the launch price for the government? A zero-margin government program isn’t necessarily cheaper for society. Much evidence shows that state owned competitions are significantly less efficient than the free market.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > Much evidence shows that state owned competitions are significantly less efficient than the free market. How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient. Privatizing the production of rockets just penalizes american citizens with no benefit. Privatization necessarily makes less efficient markets, especially compared with a zero-margin competitor.
    - TinkersW 2y ago
      Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient, it depends on the motive, I don't know why people insist on pretending one is always superior. In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program, it is intended to provide employment in as many states as possible, not produce efficient and affordable rockets. Congress dictates which rockets they are allowed to build, where they will build them, who will build them, and overrides them, forcing them to build nonsense rockets such as SLS.
      - Ajedi32 2y ago
        > Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient That's true. The difference is that inefficient private organizations go out of business, while inefficient government organizations tell congress it's because they "don't have enough funding" and get their budget increased.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program NASA is a jobs program in order to hamstring it relatively to SpaceX? Can you cite some evidence?
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient Profit offloads risk from taxpayers by attracting private investment, rather than state investment. This means investors can lose all their money and taxpayers are totally insulated. Profit also means bad ideas are discarded. The space shuttle costing $1.5bn per flight in 2010 dollars[0] must surely at least give you some inkling that profit is not the only inefficiency, and definitely isn't the biggest one. People won't make a profit on things that are just boring and everything's been sufficiently worked out. This will be a race to the bottom regardless of whether something is privately owned or publically owned. However we want people to be able to be successful on things that benefit us and have a decent chance of going wrong. Otherwise you just lumber everyone with debt that needs paying back via taxes over a couple of generations, or you never try at all. [0] https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-...
- richwater 2y ago
  The only group bleeding customers dry _are_ the government competition. Have you any idea the launch costs of NASA/ESA versus SpaceX? Artemis/SLS is a complete boondoggle disaster. No redeeming factors at all when you look at the costs, the goals and the potential results.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > Have you any idea the launch costs of NASA/ESA versus SpaceX? This seems to be the result of intentional incompetency by our own politicians and refusal to fund the program in any comparable way than a serious sign of inability to compete with Space X. They've been trying to get private spaceflight going for like four decades now and sitting on their hands the entire time.
    - richwater 2y ago
      Regardless of who you want to assign "fault" to, the fact remains. > fund the program in any comparable way OIG has predicted the program will spend practically $100 billion dollars with only a single launch so far and a cost of $4 billion/launch thereafter. Don't tell me the program "isnt funded". https://oig.nasa.gov/office-of-inspector-general-oig/ig-22-003/ https://oig.nasa.gov/office-of-inspector-general-oig/ig-22-0...
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > They've been trying to get private spaceflight going for like four decades now and sitting on their hands the entire time I'll take "borderline inevitable situations resulting from thinking the government will somehow do a better job, when in fact they get free money and are not motivated to accomplish things" for 500 points, Alex.
      - Teever 2y ago
        If the government is so inept at developing space stuff how come they were able to accomplish the apollo program?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Ajedi32 2y ago
I agree, though I do think it says a lot that some variation of this comment gets posted every time the subject of Blue Origin comes up, to the point where it's almost a cliche. It's a little unfortunate that New Glenn is merely "competition for SpaceX"; not innovative enough to stand on its own as a marked improvement to private spaceflight capabilities the way something like Starship (or even Stoke Space's Nova, if it comes to fruition) will be. But everyone has to start somewhere. New Glenn should be a great competitor to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy at least, and SpaceX does indeed desperately need competition right now (lest they risk becoming a monopoly).
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > will be It's a big if. I personally don't believe starship will ever get as far as carrying humans.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    Even if Starship never carries humans (something I would debate you on) it would still qualify as a "marked improvement to private spaceflight capabilities". It may well clear that bar in a few months in fact, after they demonstrate orbital refueling in March[1] (or a bit later). All the other important parts (engines, heat shield, landing) have already been demonstrated as viable, and humans are a tiny percentage of all launches. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/01/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/01/
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      I disagree :) But I don't want to argue. Time will tell! I hope I'm wrong, it'll be incredible to see it all come together.
      - influx 2y ago
        Can you expand a little bit why you think that?
- 2y ago

New Glenn is competing with Falcon Heavy much more than with Starship, and also looks a lot closer to operational readiness than Starship will be in 2025. Will be an interesting week.

whimsicalism 2y ago
how is it a lot closer to readiness if it has never had a successful launch?
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Different development processes. New Glenn is ready to deploy a payload on its first flight. Starship as it is can’t deploy anything. It has the “pez dispenser” that is designed to release Starlink satellites one at a time, but it’s not ready.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

[flagged]

jmpman 2y ago
Hasn’t Spacex driven down the launch price for the government? A zero-margin government program isn’t necessarily cheaper for society. Much evidence shows that state owned competitions are significantly less efficient than the free market.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > Much evidence shows that state owned competitions are significantly less efficient than the free market. How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient. Privatizing the production of rockets just penalizes american citizens with no benefit. Privatization necessarily makes less efficient markets, especially compared with a zero-margin competitor.
  - TinkersW 2y ago
    Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient, it depends on the motive, I don't know why people insist on pretending one is always superior. In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program, it is intended to provide employment in as many states as possible, not produce efficient and affordable rockets. Congress dictates which rockets they are allowed to build, where they will build them, who will build them, and overrides them, forcing them to build nonsense rockets such as SLS.
    - Ajedi32 2y ago
      > Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient That's true. The difference is that inefficient private organizations go out of business, while inefficient government organizations tell congress it's because they "don't have enough funding" and get their budget increased.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > In the case of SpaceX they are more efficient because NASA is intentionally hamstrung relative to them, this is done by congress because they treat NASA as a jobs program NASA is a jobs program in order to hamstring it relatively to SpaceX? Can you cite some evidence?
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > How is this possible? Profit, by definition, inefficient Profit offloads risk from taxpayers by attracting private investment, rather than state investment. This means investors can lose all their money and taxpayers are totally insulated. Profit also means bad ideas are discarded. The space shuttle costing $1.5bn per flight in 2010 dollars[0] must surely at least give you some inkling that profit is not the only inefficiency, and definitely isn't the biggest one. People won't make a profit on things that are just boring and everything's been sufficiently worked out. This will be a race to the bottom regardless of whether something is privately owned or publically owned. However we want people to be able to be successful on things that benefit us and have a decent chance of going wrong. Otherwise you just lumber everyone with debt that needs paying back via taxes over a couple of generations, or you never try at all. [0] https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-30-years.html https://www.space.com/11358-nasa-space-shuttle-program-cost-...
richwater 2y ago
The only group bleeding customers dry _are_ the government competition. Have you any idea the launch costs of NASA/ESA versus SpaceX? Artemis/SLS is a complete boondoggle disaster. No redeeming factors at all when you look at the costs, the goals and the potential results.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > Have you any idea the launch costs of NASA/ESA versus SpaceX? This seems to be the result of intentional incompetency by our own politicians and refusal to fund the program in any comparable way than a serious sign of inability to compete with Space X. They've been trying to get private spaceflight going for like four decades now and sitting on their hands the entire time.
  - richwater 2y ago
    Regardless of who you want to assign "fault" to, the fact remains. > fund the program in any comparable way OIG has predicted the program will spend practically $100 billion dollars with only a single launch so far and a cost of $4 billion/launch thereafter. Don't tell me the program "isnt funded". https://oig.nasa.gov/office-of-inspector-general-oig/ig-22-003/ https://oig.nasa.gov/office-of-inspector-general-oig/ig-22-0...
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > They've been trying to get private spaceflight going for like four decades now and sitting on their hands the entire time I'll take "borderline inevitable situations resulting from thinking the government will somehow do a better job, when in fact they get free money and are not motivated to accomplish things" for 500 points, Alex.
    - Teever 2y ago
      If the government is so inept at developing space stuff how come they were able to accomplish the apollo program?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Ajedi32 2y ago

I agree, though I do think it says a lot that some variation of this comment gets posted every time the subject of Blue Origin comes up, to the point where it's almost a cliche. It's a little unfortunate that New Glenn is merely "competition for SpaceX"; not innovative enough to stand on its own as a marked improvement to private spaceflight capabilities the way something like Starship (or even Stoke Space's Nova, if it comes to fruition) will be. But everyone has to start somewhere. New Glenn should be a great competitor to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy at least, and SpaceX does indeed desperately need competition right now (lest they risk becoming a monopoly).

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> will be It's a big if. I personally don't believe starship will ever get as far as carrying humans.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  Even if Starship never carries humans (something I would debate you on) it would still qualify as a "marked improvement to private spaceflight capabilities". It may well clear that bar in a few months in fact, after they demonstrate orbital refueling in March[1] (or a bit later). All the other important parts (engines, heat shield, landing) have already been demonstrated as viable, and humans are a tiny percentage of all launches. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/01/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/01/
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    I disagree :) But I don't want to argue. Time will tell! I hope I'm wrong, it'll be incredible to see it all come together.
    - influx 2y ago
      Can you expand a little bit why you think that?
2y ago