Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Blue Origin and ULA Merger/Buyout Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

JB47394

Active Member
Mar 11, 2022
2,829
6,134
Virginia
Personally did more to kill NASA than any other person. Just a pork barrel hog.
People like Shelby also made NASA what it is. Remember that the whole Apollo thing was about national prestige. That's why it shut down as soon as it served that purpose; the West won the race to the Moon and that was the end of that. The Apollo program set up the pork infrastructure, and politicians have been milking it ever since. They know nothing about spaceflight, have no interest in doing anything off planet (there are no voters out there), and spaceflight is just a convenient way to add some jobs for their constituents. (I wonder how many national endeavors fall into that same pattern)

Apollo should never have happened. Spaceflight should have been an organic thing, building up capabilities as there was clear return on investment. That's what capitalism is supposed to be good at - allocation of resources. If there's no return for a society by going to space, it won't be pursued. It is the involvement of politicians like Shelby that so often messes things up because their priorities are political.

SpaceX and Blue Origin are capitalist anomalies. They exist because of a couple of breathtakingly-wealthy and determined men are interested in spaceflight. It's entirely possible that this is another round of premature spaceflight because of how artificial the whole situation is. It'll probably take decades before the world will find out if this approach has legs.
 
In addition to the technical aspects being discussed here in merging the two companies, it will be interesting to see what the organizational effects will be.

B.O. strikes me as an organization that wants to be agile and innovative (in both product and process), but has thus far struggled with doing that as well as Jeffrey might like... with some thought that recently ousted Bob Smith was a significant contributor to that, having come from "old space".

Whereas ULA seems very much the child of it's parents, both of whom are well entrenched in the "traditional" space methodology of cost-plus contracts, interminable delays, and conservative approach. Certainly, it seems to get the job done (eventually), as the recent flawless Vulcan launch demonstrates, but it's a vastly different approach.

So, it will be interesting is seeing what happens should B.O. buy ULA. If they attempt to merge the orgs completely, it's hard to imagine the pace picking up. If B.O. runs ULA as a separate "division", for the sake of securing use for the BE-4, incorporating some technical capability, etc... and then slowly migrating things to their own systems and vehicles over time, then it will also be interesting to see how well that works.
 
In addition to the technical aspects being discussed here in merging the two companies, it will be interesting to see what the organizational effects will be.

B.O. strikes me as an organization that wants to be agile and innovative (in both product and process), but has thus far struggled with doing that as well as Jeffrey might like... with some thought that recently ousted Bob Smith was a significant contributor to that, having come from "old space".

Whereas ULA seems very much the child of it's parents, both of whom are well entrenched in the "traditional" space methodology of cost-plus contracts, interminable delays, and conservative approach. Certainly, it seems to get the job done (eventually), as the recent flawless Vulcan launch demonstrates, but it's a vastly different approach.

So, it will be interesting is seeing what happens should B.O. buy ULA. If they attempt to merge the orgs completely, it's hard to imagine the pace picking up. If B.O. runs ULA as a separate "division", for the sake of securing use for the BE-4, incorporating some technical capability, etc... and then slowly migrating things to their own systems and vehicles over time, then it will also be interesting to see how well that works.
Tony Bruno has been a significant factor in pushing the "cost plus" ideology of old space into competing with SpaceX. If Bezos buys ULA and gets Tony on board with the deal then I can see Tony very good things with the combined companies. There is no way that the combined BO would suddenly become the rapidly innovative SpaceX type of company but Tony could make BO a very good counterpoint to SpaceX. I personally think this would be a good move for Bezos to see his vision of a rocket company reach fruition. There's no way it will be better than SpaceX but it will begin to accomplish the bigger things that Bezos wants to see done.
 
People like Shelby also made NASA what it is. Remember that the whole Apollo thing was about national prestige. That's why it shut down as soon as it served that purpose; the West won the race to the Moon and that was the end of that. The Apollo program set up the pork infrastructure, and politicians have been milking it ever since. They know nothing about spaceflight, have no interest in doing anything off planet (there are no voters out there), and spaceflight is just a convenient way to add some jobs for their constituents. (I wonder how many national endeavors fall into that same pattern)

Apollo should never have happened. Spaceflight should have been an organic thing, building up capabilities as there was clear return on investment. That's what capitalism is supposed to be good at - allocation of resources. If there's no return for a society by going to space, it won't be pursued. It is the involvement of politicians like Shelby that so often messes things up because their priorities are political.

SpaceX and Blue Origin are capitalist anomalies. They exist because of a couple of breathtakingly-wealthy and determined men are interested in spaceflight. It's entirely possible that this is another round of premature spaceflight because of how artificial the whole situation is. It'll probably take decades before the world will find out if this approach has legs.
I will disagree with you on two points. First is that exploration and the pursuit of boundaries and the safety of humankind are only worthy if supported by near term capitalism. Secondly that the USA political realities of the 1960s has any relevance to the death of NASA.

To the first. No. Art, the understanding of our deep oceans, astronomy in general, the understanding of our atmosphere , basic and critical deep research into human diseases, basic science at all. NONE of this is every tied to capitalisms need of a return on investment. It's why the government is a funder. What price to put on our understanding of the big bang theory. Virtually nothing that Stephen Hawking worked on will ever be associated with $ unless it is a biography. Changed how we think, but had nothing to do with $. The apollo missions were just an extension of a military competition that didn't need anything to do with $. However, it showed people that we could actually go to space, a barrier was destroyed (helped create and support new industries but that is besides the point). It's odd actually that it has taken so long for private space companies to evolve and that is because folks like Shelby allowed NASA to suck all the oxygen out of the room. NASA made it seem so expensive that it was impossible for private initiatives to take place. Fortunately in health our NIH funding process is much more benign and the impacts of deep research into health often have quick (20-30 years) impacts on real products going to real people. Fortunately artists still make art despite it being a completely silly economic proposition.

To the second, No, again. In a democracy politicians can be effective in responding to national needs and creating mechanisms to accomplish them. The creation of NASA was such an outcome due to the competition with the USSR. Folks like Shelby did nothing to make NASA what it is. Instead of NASA concentrated in one central area (Coast of FL) we have centers spread across the USA, California, AL, TX, MD, VA, etc. It is just spreading pork. It is what destroys the effectiveness of USA agencies. Admin spread out all over the place, agencies centers competing in politics rather than agency focus and success. Shelby is a bad person. Period. He has not created any good. I am not trashing the system of representative politics but Shelby is useless. He is the embodiment of the problem.

USA and USSR had a space flight competition and this consumed a staggeringly massive amount of the national budgets in the USA and I suppose USSR as well. The politicians competed to bring that spending home to their districts, it didn't mean they cared anything at all about the success of the mission. Witness Shelby whose huntsville center never did anything once Shelby became a Senator despite spending billions in the state of AL year after F'ing year. Nothing. Completely useless. The only reason it did something early on was that Shelby had nothing to do with it then.

But go on, ask me how I feel about Shelby.
 
Last edited:
First is that exploration and the pursuit of boundaries and the safety of humankind are only worthy if supported by near term capitalism.
Not that it is "worthy" but that it is "sustainable". If capitalism isn't behind the push, it won't be organic, it won't continue, it won't survive. Well, I suppose an existential need would make sure that it'll continue, such as needing to stop dangerous impactors such as comets and asteroids.

Secondly that the USA political realities of the 1960s has any relevance to the death of NASA.
This just follows from the first. Without the organic push from capitalism (a desire by the society as a whole to allocate resources to a project) then the effort is going to fade away and die. That's what happened with NASA; there was an artificial push to go to the Moon for political reasons. When that short term and artificial desire was met, the effort faded. We all know how capricious politicians can be. If there had been an organic need - something that came from society as a whole - then we'd have continued on with space stations, moon colonies and so on.

Your comments on Shelby are the reason that NASA has limped along for decades. Despite NASA's manned program having no reason to exist, it has continued because of political reasons - a desire for pork spending. In contrast, the unmanned side has done well, despite the drag of people like Shelby, cost-plus contracting and such. That's because there's an organic push behind it. Not from society as a whole, but from the sizeable scientific community. The fact that we get to see neat pictures certainly helps extend the appeal. It may be the real reason that we have a NASA science program - because it's an organic desire.
 
You guys both make good points about the historical evolution of the space program and how we got to where we are today.

I guess my thought is: Shelby and his ilk perhaps provided the impetus for space programs to continue despite the lack of commercial payback or political will being present (as was mentioned.. largely pork programs)... so while I'm glad they are still alive, I'm bummed that they are what they are today (seemingly lethargic, stodgy orgs fleeced by contractors) as a result of his type of influence...
 
Tony Bruno has been a significant factor in pushing the "cost plus" ideology of old space into competing with SpaceX. If Bezos buys ULA and gets Tony on board with the deal then I can see Tony very good things with the combined companies. There is no way that the combined BO would suddenly become the rapidly innovative SpaceX type of company but Tony could make BO a very good counterpoint to SpaceX. I personally think this would be a good move for Bezos to see his vision of a rocket company reach fruition. There's no way it will be better than SpaceX but it will begin to accomplish the bigger things that Bezos wants to see done.

I wonder what the organizational hierarchy would be between limb and Bruno... and if they would work well together.
 
Not that it is "worthy" but that it is "sustainable". If capitalism isn't behind the push, it won't be organic, it won't continue, it won't survive. Well, I suppose an existential need would make sure that it'll continue, such as needing to stop dangerous impactors such as comets and asteroids.


This just follows from the first. Without the organic push from capitalism (a desire by the society as a whole to allocate resources to a project) then the effort is going to fade away and die. That's what happened with NASA; there was an artificial push to go to the Moon for political reasons. When that short term and artificial desire was met, the effort faded. We all know how capricious politicians can be. If there had been an organic need - something that came from society as a whole - then we'd have continued on with space stations, moon colonies and so on.

Your comments on Shelby are the reason that NASA has limped along for decades. Despite NASA's manned program having no reason to exist, it has continued because of political reasons - a desire for pork spending. In contrast, the unmanned side has done well, despite the drag of people like Shelby, cost-plus contracting and such. That's because there's an organic push behind it. Not from society as a whole, but from the sizeable scientific community. The fact that we get to see neat pictures certainly helps extend the appeal. It may be the real reason that we have a NASA science program - because it's an organic desire.
The study of Astronomy has literally been at the core of every civilization, from Korea, to Bablyon, to Mayans, to England, to ancient greeks. It is one of the most sustainable and continuous scientific pursuits every. As sustainable a science and practice ever was. OH, and it has never been about money. Art, not about money. Go look at Aboriginal art in the outback and convince me that was not sustainable or about money.

Then you bring up some...organic desire? Is that capitalistic organic desire or some vegan organic desire? Did the USDA certify this organic desire (could not resist)? What the heck. Shelby helped kill NASA. Now NASA is slowly getting dismantled. Good. It served it's purpose. The USSR space agency and NASA broke the barriers that space had put on humanity. Now we have for profit companies like Planet Labs and the like working to find a profit in space and that will have interesting implications for humanity. Note: read the great book from Ashlee Vance " When the heavens went for sale" . Great read.

What happens now, I have no idea. What I do know is that humanity will continue to expand and push against the barriers of space. This desire is as old as humanity itself. It will do so regardless of any capitalistic intent. Far better to replace "capitalism" in your view of things with economic realities which would allow one to say utility instead of $. Far easier to understand why we have spent thousands of years studying space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
You guys both make good points about the historical evolution of the space program and how we got to where we are today.

I guess my thought is: Shelby and his ilk perhaps provided the impetus for space programs to continue despite the lack of commercial payback or political will being present (as was mentioned.. largely pork programs)... so while I'm glad they are still alive, I'm bummed that they are what they are today (seemingly lethargic, stodgy orgs fleeced by contractors) as a result of his type of influence...
I'm bummed NASA was relegated to a terrible govt agency. Did you read Ashlee Vances book? Pretty interesting that an airforce general goes to NASA lab in CA and single handedly mentored or served as the reference to anybody that received VC funding, from Rocket Labs to Planet Labs. Almost the last great thing NASA did and it was by accident of the director of the lab getting appointed form outside NASA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
I'm bummed NASA was relegated to a terrible govt agency. Did you read Ashlee Vances book? Pretty interesting that an airforce general goes to NASA lab in CA and single handedly mentored or served as the reference to anybody that received VC funding, from Rocket Labs to Planet Labs. Almost the last great thing NASA did and it was by accident of the director of the lab getting appointed form outside NASA.

I haven't... I'll have to check it out...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
I wonder if Jeff would cut Bruno loose.

I wonder if the Ragin’ Cajun’s twin brother is actually one of ULA’s most significant assets? If nothing else, he knows better than anyone else how to navigate “the way things work” for American rockets. He knows the rules of the game, he has good relationships with the players in the game, and he’s clearly navigated the playing field successfully.

He could be a very useful differentiator to SX, whose approach to the game (as is generally the case with ElonCo at large) is “**** the rules and **** the game, we’re going to do what we want”.

Clearly nobody let alone Blue is going to be able to go head to head with that approach [that has resulted in an unbeatable cadence and price] so Blue and the other competitors need something else onto which they can anchor their future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal and JB47394