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

Blue Origin: Future Plans

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I too am very glad they have different visions. I think both are important goals. Someone recently did some math on spinning up a big cylinder or an asteroid and it is an insane amount of energy needed. It's not impossible so I want it to happen. Past my lifetime for sure but I'd love to see the initial steps taken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bxr140
Good interview with Bezos. I admire his spirt, and support the mission he has set out for Blue Origin. It’s interesting to contrast his goal with Elon’s goal.

Bezos says: “we go to space to protect this planet...we also don’t want to face a civilization of stasis, and that is the real issue if we just stay on this planet,,,The solar system can support a trillion humans” and he envisions them living and working in space, not on the surface of planets or moons, but in something like O’Neil cylinders. It’s an extraordinarily bold, long term vision, perhaps even bolder than the SpaceX mission of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.

Bezos says “One thing that I find very unmotivating is the kind of Plan B argument: when Earth gets destroyed, you want to be somewhere else. That doesn’t work for me. We have sent robotic probes now to every place in the solar system, and this is the best one. It’s not close. My friends who want to move to Mars, I say, do me a favor and go live on the top of Mount Everest for a year first, and see if you like it, because it’s a garden paradise compared to Mars.”

And that is where I disagree with him. Yes, Mars is certainly quite inhospitable to human life, but there is good reason to believe that humans can live and work on Mars long term, in my opinion. I also think it will be somewhat easier to accomplish the SpaceX goal than building large structures in space, like an O’Neil cylinder or similar, where large numbers of humans can live out their lives.

And I think Bezos is minimizing the existential short and long term risks that human civilization is facing. The risks are very real: just in my lifetime, for the first time in human history, people created two existential risks; nuclear war and climate change. Before I was born there were no human-created existential risks. And in the relative blink of an eye there are now two. In this century there is likely to be another; general AI, and there may well be more that I cannot even begin to envision, given the rapid pace of technological change. We need to get establish a self-sustaining large-scale human colony off Earth as soon as possible! Mars is one option, living in space is another, but I think more difficult, option.

I support the goals of both companies, and I think it’s fantastic to have two companies focusing on radically decreasing the cost of getting to space. That is the key first step. How lucky am I to be alive to witness the efforts of Musk and Bezos!

Always good to see a reference to my childhood inspiration Gerard O'Neill. I agree with the threats that you mention, its amazing when you consider that either of those could eliminate the human race pretty quickly in geologic terms. Surely Mars is an easier and less costly short term goal than space colonies. Cutting the cost to space access is the necessary first step no matter what.

The colony shown below is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude more expensive than a moderately sized Mars base. I think Bezos is right about the solar system being able to support a trillion humans. Thats not going to happen on Mars or any other planet/asteroid/rock or combination of them. The cylinders provide an expansive shirt sleeve environment, versus living in a small enclosure on Mars/etc. You can't get the costs down for the below until you have self replicating systems and can mine material from the moon as feed stock for the construction (i.e. solar power satellites, lunar mass drivers, orbital catchers, smelting, etc.). The whole ecosystem was described in "The High Frontier". If O'Neill were still around he would be working for/with Elon or Bezos as we speak.

RT

oneill%20cylinders_zpsqdb3n8lq.jpg
 
Blue Origin's "Gradatim Ferociter" pace of rocket development may not be well suited to todays world of issuing space contracts. BO's insistence on proceeding at "Virgin Galactic Speed" could end up costing Jeff more of his personal wealth. Not that that's usually a problem. However, apparently even Jeff has limits as to how much he's willing to risk unless he gets a bidding delay from the Air Force.
Blue Origin urging Air Force to postpone launch competition - SpaceNews.com
 
Not sure if its been thrown around here yet, but it sounds like New Glenn pricing is going to be on the order of $90M (or $45Mx2). That price is comparable to Ariane 6 but with more GTO capacity (13T vs 11.5T)...and of course, NG will be reusable.

For reference, a ~$90m FH puts ~8T into GTO, which is apples to apples to NG's $90M for 13T. That's impressive if Blue actually delivers. Of course, TBD the price and capacity of Super Heavy, and one has to assume it will beat all others.

Interestingly, Long March 5 (which has actually flown...sort of...and will again this summer) claims 14T to GTO and, while I'm not exactly sure what it costs, I'd bet it falls in line with the sub-$100M price point. While not exactly a direct competitor to SpaceX [because of US state department restrictions] LM5 is definitely something to watch relative to the growth of FH as some other global space players don't share the same restrictions the US has relative to trade with China.

Just to round out, other heavies (A5, A5, D4/H, H2) are way more expensive at ~equivalent capacities. Of course, those programs are all 20+ years old so its not really a fair fight with all the new kids.
 
For reference, a ~$90m FH puts ~8T into GTO, which is apples to apples to NG's $90M for 13T. That's impressive if Blue actually delivers.
Might make sense to include the Falcon Heavy pricing with expended center core. If you expend the center core, you're talking more like $110m for 16T to GTO. That's cheaper per ton, which is a quite important metric.

And full expendable mode you're talking $150m for 26.7T. Cheaper still, per ton.

Of course, it's a bit of an open question to what degree SpaceX can make use of this capacity. Ideally, SpaceX should have had dual-launch capability.

I also think BO still has some lessons to learn regarding costs of actually running a launch business. I hope they succeed, but at this point, that cost is based on spreadsheets and guesswork.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Might make sense to include the Falcon Heavy pricing with expended center core.

Yeah, that one was a toss up--folks are often quick to criticize non-spaceX launchers for their lack of reusability, so I figured I'd stick with the fully-vs-fully reusable. :cool:

I also think BO still has some lessons to learn regarding costs of actually running a launch business.

Agree, any new company has lessons to be learned. The good news is that, if SpaceX didn't exist, BO would be the poster child of 'doing it right' in the rocket biz. They have the right people, they're going at a managable speed, they're maximizing their budget, they have the right balance between technical and business, etc. Bezos' Roy O. (Bob Smith) is also very qualified, so the day-to-day operations are well under control.

The interesting variable is going to be how Bezos' maniacal and seemingly singular motivation for profit affects year-to-year progress at BO. It's just about polar opposite to Musk's maniacal approach to pushing technical and programmatic boundaries at all cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Yeah, that one was a toss up--folks are often quick to criticize non-spaceX launchers for their lack of reusability, so I figured I'd stick with the fully-vs-fully reusable. :cool:
Yeah, it isn't entirely straight forward to do the comparison. Recovering the center core of a Falcon Heavy is a bit like recovering the second stage of a different rocket. By the time it's out of fuel, it's gotten so much speed that landing it is a real challenge. You will land far out at sea, the core will use significantly more fuel for reentry burn, it will see a lot more heating and performance hit for landing legs/grid fins/etc is much higher.

It is nice that SpaceX can offer all three configuration - fully reusable, expendable center core and fully expendable. As well as Falcon 9 reusable and expendable. This allows SpaceX a lot of flexibility in tailoring the launch to each payload. Basically, to GTO:

0-5.5T: Falcon 9 reusable, $62 million
5.5-8T: Falcon Heavy fully reusable, $90 million
5.5-8.3T: Falcon 9 expendable, ~$82 million
8-16T: Falcon Heavy expended center core, ~$110 million
16-26.7T: Falcon Heavy fully expendable, $150 million

As you can see, the fully reusable Falcon Heavy doesn't make too much sense compared to an expended Falcon 9. It's more expensive and has lower performance. I think that for most launches of the Falcon Heavy, you will see the center core expended.

But the New Glenn would make sense, you would basically have:

0-6.5T: New Glenn fully reuseable shared launch, $45 million
6.5-13T: New Glenn fully reuseable, $90 million
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bxr140
As you can see, the fully reusable Falcon Heavy doesn't make too much sense compared to an expended Falcon 9. It's more expensive and has lower performance. I think that for most launches of the Falcon Heavy, you will see the center core expended
I just hate to see rockets thrown away! Such waste, and trash in the ocean.

Looking forward to Starship.
 
I just hate to see rockets thrown away! Such waste, and trash in the ocean.

The unfortunate reality is that its not actually about trash for any of the players involved. Marketing spin not withstanding, its about the bottom line, SpaceX included. SpaceX just happens to be the only company with the kay-jones to flip off the bean counters and their whining about cashflow and then dump a ton of money into write-offable development in an effort to significantly reduce recurring cost.

In any case, it sounds like Blue is your team. They will be the only rocket company in history--including the foreseeable future--to have never purposely thrown a stage into the drink.
 
In any case, it sounds like Blue is your team. They will be the only rocket company in history--including the foreseeable future--to have never purposely thrown a stage into the drink.
While I admire BO for that ambition, they have yet to fly an orbital-class vehicle, and their goals are a bit fuzzy, in my opinion.

I realize that SpaceX has to generate cash to fund ongoing ops and new vehicle development, and that means that for the next several years some missions may be expendable. But SpaceX does not have the luxury that BO has: a billion free bucks every year from Bezos.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: bxr140 and Grendal
While I admire BO for that ambition, they have yet to fly an orbital-class vehicle, and their goals are a bit fuzzy, in my opinion.

I realize that SpaceX has to generate cash to fund ongoing ops and new vehicle development, and that means that for the next several years some missions may be expendable. But SpaceX does not have the luxury that BO has: a billion free bucks every year from Bezos.

And that's why, paradoxically, SpaceX has been more successful.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bxr140
Looks like we are going to learn more about Blue Origin’s future plans today. Maybe.

Blue Origin is making a mysterious Moon-related announcement today

Loren Grush on theverge, quote: “This afternoon, Jeff Bezos’ spaceflight venture Blue Origin is set to make a big announcement about... something. The company hasn’t provided any details yet, but speculation is high that the announcement will be related to Blue Origin’s plans to explore the Moon.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: ggies07
Here's Jeff showing he knows how to take a page out of the Musk playbook. A two minute segment from his press conference.

Impressive that he's been able to keep the development of this vehicle on the QT for 3 years. In February NASA stated they wanted a signed contract for a manned lunar lander between May and July. If BO wins out with their larger manned variant of this lander, it's going to require some hurry up Gradatim Ferociter to achieve 2024. Also, besides NASA getting budget approval and then clearing other major hurdles, the path they intend to take flying between the earth and the moon still seems a little fuzzy.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Grendal