Valid criticism: "Blue Origin has not reached orbit (yet)" Vision: "Millions of people living and working in space to benefit earth" Action: "Let's build a suborbital jumping dil... ah, I mean rocket..." Context matters :)
If their goal truly is having millions living and working in space. The plan is three steps. 1. Industrialize the moon 2. Build Lunar Orbital Ring 3. Build Earth Orbital Ring
@@rexmann1984 I think a mass driver is a way better option for the moon as the moon doesnt have an atmosphere and therefore the mass driver can be a ground level and doesnt need a vacum tube. Also are you a fellow follower of our lord and saviour Issac Arthur?
@@fallencrow6718 yes I am. The reason we need the Orbital Ring around the moon is to learn the finer points of building one before we try it around earth. Moreover, for materials a mass driver is no big deal for humans you need it to be big enough to not turn them into jelly from the Gs.
Blue Origin is incredibly frustrating to watch as a fan of spaceflight. Being 20 years old and started by a silicon valley titan, it was poised to be at the forefront of NewSpace companies, and with a virtually unlimited budget behind it, capable of great things. But despite being nominally NewSpace, every decision they've made has been fully OldSpace in mindset and action. Even worse, they are incredibly litigious, bringing down the entire industry and reducing technological innovation across the board. Despite their slow development pace and dinosaur management, you can't help but look at them and see so much potential! If they overhauled their management and started aggressively testing and developing New Glenn (and actually delivered BE-4), they could be on track for great things! But based on their track record, I doubt that happens any time soon...
It's almost as painful as being a fan of the DCEU, you know it can be as big or bigger than the MCU but poor decision making plagues it at every turn. With nothing really getting off the ground despite it having an amazing product with the potential to be spectacular
Blue Origin doesn't seem to have the right people in charge. The fact that they haven't reached orbit yet is inexcusable. How can they even be eligible for the NASA moon landing? I think Elon eluded to the idea that blue origin is going to waste taxpayers money and show nothing for it. Borderline scam. If Blue Origin hasn't demonstrated their orbital spacecraft in 5 years the hatred toward Jeff will be real.
Great video! Blue Origin is a really interesting case in the aerospace industry, and it's also the most depressing in my opinion. They could have been a great new space company but instead decided to adopt the attitudes and strategies of old space, leading to their stagnation.
It's frustrating to watch their motto be such an ironic show of the arrogance, rather than have a more modest view and being tight for cash It's giving them a bad image in the industry, more so than the older companies
@@sirmiles1820 bingo. You can add envy, spiteful and self-absorbed to the 'mix'. Notice his 'projects' are targeting the Elites.. There's not a tinge of 'service to humanity', but a means of 'entertainment' for the 1% of Earthling who are awash with Moolah and let the 'ordinary humans' drown in their own drool..
One of those strategies was to depend on profit by gouging the government--i.e. the taxpayer. Musk designed Spacex from the very beginning to be cost effective in the private marketplace. Suddenly everybody is talking about sustainabilty/reusability but where were they for decades?
They have not reached orbit yet, okay that might be a bad criticism considering the engine for their orbital rocket, however their suborbital program is also slow as hell.
Not ever reaching orbit is definitely a valid argument. They bid on a Lunar Lander project for which they have zero experience in space for, then protest when they don't win the contract? I don't care how great you think New Shepard is, it is in "space" for seconds then re-enters the atmosphere. Their lack of urgency and their arrogance just rubs me the wrong way. Cannot be a fan of this company as it currently exists.
I bet Blue Origin was given anything just to be token competition for SpaceX, purely for politics and appearances. They aren't trying because they've already done their job.
BO`s biggest thread is time. It will eat them alive. Jeff won`t last forever. What will happen when he is gone? Time is their biggest enemy and they just don`t see it. SpaceX is moving so fast, that they actually have a chance beating time. Their momentum is what keeps them alive in the long run.
I’m on Team Space, but I’m also on team creative destruction. Blue sucks and I don’t want them propped up by the government so they can railroad Artemis. I just don’t have any faith in that company anymore
I agree. Blue Origin seems to have no urgency. Must be weird to work there. Now, soon Jeff is going to fly New Shepard with his brother and a wealthy bidder. Great, and he may indeed come back a changed man (the Overview Effect) and start to work seriously from then on. But I am not confident that will happen. It may as well turn out to just be an item checked off of his bucket-list, and Jeff is back on his yacht. He can be satisfied that he went to space before Elon, and lose interest. Jeff Bezos runs the risk of single-handed repeating the whole Apollo arc of brimming promise and disappointing fade-out.
The idea of Blue Origin buying ULA would be interesting, however due to the state of it, ULA is more likely to buy Blue Origin to ensure they get their engines for Vulcan Centaur.
Lockheed Martin moved to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne in Dec 2020 and the Rocketdyne shareholders approved the acquistion in Mar 2021. So would Lockheed Martin provide engines to ULA in the future via their Rocketdyne acquistion?
@@steveaustin2686 Problem is that Vulcan has been built as a methane fueled system which Rocketdyne doesn't have. They would do better to talk to SpaceX to build a Raptor properly resized to fit the Vulcan. Musk might like the idea.
@@vapoet I wasn't necessarily talking about for Vulcan Centaur in the near term. ULA is pretty much stuck with the BE-4 for now. A future variant of the Vulcan Centaur, or even better, a new reusable launcher is more what I was thinking. Musk did bet ULA's Tory Bruno that he would eat his hat if Vulcan Centaur flew a NSSL payload before 2023. Since the Q4 2022 USSF-51 launch was moved to an Atlas-V, Musk's hat is safe. I think that it is more if ULA would go to SpaceX. The Raptor is still in development, so it may not be ready for export to ULA. The Vulcan Centaur only uses two engines, so it shouldn't be too much to pull a few out of the Starship queue. I'm sure re-engineering the Vulcan Centaur to accept Raptors is easier said than done though.
@@steveaustin2686 The problem is that the Vulcan was designed around a Methane engine. As far as I know, there is only one working methane engine and it belongs to Musk. Frankly, at this point, ULA should be suing to take over the engine building portion of Blue Origin.
@@cameronh3260 nah, Elon will EXPAND SpaceX and HIRE over all the good workers, and leave the executive scumbags out of the equation. Why buy a dogshit company when you can just hire its dissatisfied workers?
Authorising, but not appropriating funds for a second HLS is the perfect way to block the entire programme. Stretching the development period guarantees higher costs, and this can be used as an excuse to terminate the project.
It's not like the second Artemis HLS would ever see use anyway, given that it would also require building another SLS-Orion stack. Who's going to fund that after the flag-planting is done?
Space payments would be extended over a much longer time, resulting in a very delayed landing. Although, I would not be surprised if Spacex would accept delayed payments and continue anyway.
@@davidhenry5128 They already did. The payment modification BO and Dynetics keep referring to, doesn't change the total amount it changes which milestones are paid and how much, this shifted payment down the line. SpaceX basically said pay us later. So the Lunar Starship won't cost NASA much the next 1-2 years.
What i dont get is the military consumes 10x or more money than nasa but still always gets more funding each year, but nasa is always seen as the big money eater.
Excellent video! Blue Origin is such a disappointment, like a petulant child. We need as many companies as possible competing and driving innovation, but they just want to sit on their hands and complain how it's "not fair".
What makes BO so unique is that they suck at everything they do They suck at space tourism(VG is cheaper for experiencing less g forces) They suck at landers(obviously) They suck at building rocket engines(where are ULA's engines Jeff?) They suck at building orbital rockets(new glenn is more expensive and less capable than falcon heavy) SO JEFF WHO?? Also good video
if his goal was to build the space habitat isn't that much faster if he helping funded the spacex development and used theirs spaceship rocket instead as method to transport the logistics to build space habitat.
@@OccupyMarsJune The very idea of Asking SpaceX to launch your habitat infrastructure would never even cross Bezos's synapses as it would offend his very being. Bezos doesn't ask for help. He buys the help. However he knows SpaceX cannot be bought or litigated into submission. It would be a valid option for everyone else on the planet but not for Bezos. He could buy ULA somehow sure, but bring in all of the aerospace engineers from NASA, Europe, China, wherever and he would still know he is picking from the second string as most of all the ambitious engineers have gone to SpaceX already.
My cousin worked there. After SpaceX was announced as the winner of the Lunar Lander contract, he moved to SpaceX. I do not have much confidence in them.
@@alexanderkenway Well for one, he'd worked at SpaceX before. He moved in the first place so he could focus more on raising his kids. He's gone back now because they offered him a big promotion - he's a senior simulation propulsion engineer. It means he won't have to move back to Texas.
I wonder if this is a sign of people beginning to jump ship from BO? I hope not because I want all the rocket companies to succeed (or at least contribute), but that is not a good sign. I suspect that morale at BO has gotten much worse over the past year.
My contention, and why the critique that they haven't reached space yet is a *good* criticism, is that BO *has* acted as if they are regularly reaching orbit and are a contender in that market It's all well and good to be a space tourism/hotel company, but don't then start making proposals for Lunar landers, or gigantic cargo rockets, or start Twitter beefs with a company that actually *has* real plans for those types of missions Blue Origin shot themselves in the foot by focusing on tourism and then acting like it is on the same field as ULA, Boeing or SpaceX purely because it has partnered with some of them It would be like if Mitsubishi, BMW and Toyota took shots at Tesla for making a whole fleet of varied electric cars- like, hello, who has actually been selling and making them for two decades compared to making concepts that are never developed beyond show models to wow car journalists? You either pursue your vision or not, don't pretend to be pursuing several while not actually making any meaningful progress with it and then acting like you have Bezos and Musk could have been great partners in space exploration and resource extraction, but instead Bezos is the old-guard from the 70s and 80s pretending he's the new wave while doing all in his power to make sure it's nothing more than a splash
Getting to orbit is not a prerequisite for building a lunar lander. Grumman had never been to orbit and they developed and built the Apollo LM. It's more about Blue's glacial development than them not getting to orbit. New Shepard is a good sub-orbital spacecraft, it just took too long to develop and build.
@@steveaustin2686 The difference is Grumman wasn't proposing to launch their lander on their own rocket before ever even launching one into orbit or real space. Grumman specialized on the lander and left the launching to someone else.
@@steveaustin2686 Grumman was already, like most other Gemini/Apollo designers, experienced in either spacecraft or at minimum aircraft development with numerous successful and commercially sought after models Blue Origin has neither customers nor production for anything but their space hopping craft, which is useless for anything but sightseeing They are proposing to launch a lander, which hasn't been built outside of inert models, on a rocket that hasn't even had its engines tested, and all this needing to be by 2024 Its a scummy company too, exemplified by competing for contracts with their "partners" ULA despite agreeing not to, *when they do not even have a launcher and ULA does* Honestly, Blue Origin just boggles my mind with all the shit they pull
@@lewisyeadon4046 After watching this vid, my wife and I were discussing the orbit tours concepts from Branson and Bezos. Now the BO capsule has a fetching design and kudos for putting windows that can actually be used to look out at. But if I am spending $XXX,XXX dollars to float around for 15 minutes, I would put my dollars down on flying under the spindly-looking Virgin plane, the dropping out and rocketing up on the even more spindly-looking orbital component. I want to fear death when I go up that high and fast. Otherwise, I'll just strap on my Oculus VR helmet and get airsick in the comfort on of my own couch.
@@josephastier7421 Eh, not really. SpaceShipTwo is not reaching the Karman line and is still in testing. Blue is ready for the New Shepard to fly crew on Jul 20th, 2021. Both systems took a LONG time to develop. Now smaller startups like Rocket Lab have done as more than Blue has done in less time. Comparing SX and Blue is just ridiculously in favor of SX.
Quality is generally good. You really need to start running your on screen text through a spell checker as all your episodes have numerous spelling errors.
It's crazy, Bezos doesn't have his CH4 LOX engine, he paralyzes Ula and his Vulcan launcher, the Artemis program etc, in short, selfishness and his narcissism will lose him. You can not admit it, the beautiful presentations of Blue Origin are only fictions
Not having achieved orbit is a valid criticism. It shows blue origin's lack of drive and commitment from the very outset to have concentrated on sub orbital tourism instead of orbital manufacturing and this shows that they aren't serious about colonising space. A space launch company that's ultimate goal is the creation of O'Neil cylinders who hasn't even built an orbital rocket let alone attempted an orbital flight is a valid criticism.
That is fair, as I said. I think if the criticism is "suborbit was the wrong choice" or "they should have already finished New Glenn by now" then that is fair.
@@AHHHHHHHH21 Yes I get it. Either way, they barely have a single operational rocket. It doesn't matter if new shepherd is orbital or not. Its only just now becoming an operational rocket. They have a pretty slow development process compared with the "disruptors" of this video.
Blue Origin's target isn't the creation of O'Neill cylinders, their target is access to space for later generations. The more closer target is the moon because the moon is the gateway to space. Something completely different from SpaceX, SpaceX's target isn't access to space but the return to another planet.
"They don't need the money" - that may be the problem right there. Talk to any rags to riches entrepeneur and they'll tell you that if it doesn't hurt, you'll never have the focus and determination to succeed.
Take SpaceX out of the equation and Blue Origin would have been looking pretty good (well, reasonable). They've just been savagely outcompeted by SpaceX - but they're not exactly alone in that regard.
What I am worried about is that New Glenn is too costly to fail at all. That means they will have to land their first launch which I don’t see happening cause it is extremely hard
@@ThisNoName STS was a wing and a prayer held together by scotch tape It's a wonder it flew at all, and it virtually didn't at some points due to grounding Overall, it failed it's mission anyway, and I think BO will be following that path
@@jesusmora9379 maybe is would have been better if nasa had not been limited by money and not had to buy there parts from several different companies Maybe it would have been reusable
And yet it is so logical, from the BO point of view. I smiled as soon as I saw it, because that is precisely what I have been thinking - regrettably, without saying it, so I can't prove it! But if ULA have any sense, they won't sell.
It is valid that they havent reached orbit, it shows their slow progress. “step by step, ferociously” is looking a lot more like “step by step, while theyre asleep” Now it may be that true that it is low hanging fruit or doesnt contribute much to conversation, but eh, opinions differ
Eh, getting to orbit is not a prerequisite for making a lander. Grumman had not been to orbit when they developed and built the Apollo LM. You are right on that their “step by step, ferociously” is taking the steps WAY too far apart as their development is very slow.
So drawings of rockets and the idea of living on space stations came way before blue origin. Even as a think tank they were just copy pasta in that regard. Whether a think tank or a rocket company their production and value are still zero. Don’t get me wrong there’s nothing more than I want then a starship and the new Glenn regularly launching into space to explore and build new architecture. Oh but the last thing I want is more presentations and CG renderings. Let’s also keep in mind this company was formed in the year 2000 formally announced in 2003. Then in 2005 announcing they wanted to build a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. I think they’ve had some time. Also buying a $500 million megayacht well he still has yet to produce any hardware is a clear sign of Jeff’s priorities.
"buying a $500 million megayacht well he still has yet to produce any hardware is a clear sign of Jeff’s priorities." That line. ... is the main reason I liked your comment.
Imagine starting a space company but we're not focusing on obit. This is like starting a car company without building a car that can drive more than 50km lolz
Surface to surface rocketry will be a billion dollar industry. The military will especially be interested look at the recent taliban Afghan disaster. Biden orders the military to return to the embassy and it takes days and hours to get there. With a rocket they could land near a US aircraft carrier and then fly to the embassy. This would take a couple days otherwise.
Changing design management philosophy, as suggested, which really is company culture, is next to impossible. Anyway, there won't be time. SpaceX is just crushing the entire space launch business, unless Starship fundamentally doesn't work, which appears unlikely. SpaceX with 9, 9 Heavy and Starship will make everything else look years, if not decades behind, and everyone else will need to re-think everything they are doing. New Glenn is just way too late without anywhere near the pace needed to catch anything useful. Every month, every year, they get further behind.
@@Apogeespace You should also do a video about which one of these startups, which have yet to get to orbit, is the most promising. Feel like buying some stock. lol
Meh. First of all: Jeff Bezos doesn't owe you, or me, or any space cadet a goddamned thing in terms of fulfilling our dreams. I get it. SpaceX has been doing one amazing thing after another. All the space geek frustration is giving way to uncritical rapture. As a space fan who has been frustrated for 50 years now, I understand. But it's Bezos' company, and what he does and how fast, is up to him. If it's been merely a side interest, if it's going to get to market too late, that's his business. Bezos chose a more traditional approach than SpaceX, including an emphasis on winning government business in order to make profits. Surprise: even the world's richest man doesn't go into a business to lose money. (He'd probably even less inclined than others. You don't get rich throwing away your money.) He appears to have invested billions of his own money into this already, which is more than contractors like Boeing or Lockheed Martin would do. You recklessly claim that Blue Origin is 'lying' in their protest about how things went down. That's something s space fanboy who believes NASA is utterly infallible and guileless would say. Even if SpaceX were far and away the best choice, Blue Origin makes a perfectly valid point that the competition changed, and all bidders should have notified in order to rework bids to the changed circumstances. Even if it were unrealistic that the outcome would have changed, it's astonishing that NASA secretly "selected" a winner on a government procurement, and then negotiated with them afterward. What NASA says was a "selection" was very arguably not. Given that Doug Loverro lost his job by inappropriate discussions with Boeing in the first HLS phase, NASA should have been far more circumspect, much more careful. But as their own source selection statement makes clear, the evaporating 2024 goal was the big driver in this - despite the plain fact that Congress drove a stake through its heart with its HLS appropriation. We'll see what the GAO says. I'm sure SpaceX will put a Lunar Starship on the Moon, and I will be very happy for it. But dismissing Blue's point with a wave of your hand as a 'lie' is just obnoxious. As for Sen. Cantwell working on behalf of a constituent, to bring money to her own state: welcome to the real world. You might do well to google "SpaceX flyers Capitol Hill" to see what happens when billions of dollars are at stake. (Billions SpaceX would seem not to need for completing Starship, and billions that the World's Usually Second Richest Man could arguably pull out of his respective pocket.) Good luck with Patreon and such. You might at least use some funds to have someone proofread your text. I personally am not inclined to pay for some faceless amateur to spout his naive opinions; my money already goes to better informed, more circumspect video pundits
5:15 I have to criticize this defense of Blue Origin. You don't START a space company with the name like Blue Origin - i.e. "coming from the blue planet" without intentions of, you know, actually leaving the planet. You cannot say that an orbit-capable vehicle was not part of their vision until 2011. It's like starting a company called... Space Exploration Technologies and, 11 years later, *only then* realizing, "oh, to explore space we need to *go* to space? We'd better get started on that!" Just because they didn't begin plans for an orbital rocket until 11 years after their founding isn't an excuse. It's something else to criticize- why the hell did it take them 11 years to realize that a space company SHOULD ACTUALLY TRY TO GO TO SPACE? It's absolutely ridiculous to assume they did not have "GO TO SPACE" as a fundamental core value within the company. Even if they started suborbital as their first project, that should only be seen as a small stepping stone they decided was the best way to eventually reach orbit (and beyond).
probably many reasons for your questions but I would suggest BO was begun by being a tax shelter for Amazon corporately or JB personally. After a decade it became a put-up or shut-up situation. At least Branson's orbit tourism side hustle doesn't pretend to be a cutting edge planet colonizing venture. Also, he has developed an interesting technology to get into orbit.
Excellent video, most likely the best sum up on Blue Origin. Your channel is now among the great space-themed TH-cam channels, possibly the best one. On the way to 100k subs!
Criticism that BO has not gone orbital might be dismissed as irrelevant. However, BO has bid on contracts and programs which require an orbital class booster: space station resupply, Amazon internet, and HLS.
HLS does not require an orbital class booster by the winning bid, as you put your lander on an orbital class booster to get it to the Moon. The Blue Origin lead National Team's Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) would do just fine getting to LEO on a Vulcan Centaur or Atlas V. The transfer stage being built by Northrop Grumman would get the ILV to the Moon. It also starts the Moon landing burn, before being discarded. If Dynetics' Alpaca lander was not overweight, it would get to the Moon on an orbital class booster. SpaceX is unique as the lander would be part of an orbital class booster.
It'll be funny if SpaceX yeets a permanent mining colony and foundry onto the Moon then uses those to construct O'Neill Cylinders, beating Blue Origin to the punch. Putting them on Aldrin Cycler orbits on Earth-Moon and Earth-Mars transfers would create the foundation we need for all our interplanetary exploration and colonization infrastructure.
I have to say, "yeets a permanent mining colony" made me laugh. If Starship can deliver 100-150 tons to orbit and doesn't cost too much to refuel, 'yeeting' stuff around the system may just be what SpaceX does in the future.
That would be a great path, but I think Elon is too Mars obsessed to go that route. The one thing I do agree with Bezos about is the practicality of O'neill cylinders over Mars colonies. Even a lunar base makes more sense than Mars.
This is the most underrated channel I have ever seen , just imagine how much research goes into just one vid you have previously earned my sub but now you have earned all the subs form my family lol
"Harmony of Crew Dragon and Starliner. Uhm, what? As for BO, their opportunity has passed. If Bezos wasn't riding his ego, he'd abandon the Glenn and just make engines. He's so far behind the curve, he can't see the tunnel.
You want more players in the field? What's the point if a player can't even show they can hit at HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL, much less Major League Level? BO's entire philosophy and system is as flawed as that kid we've all known who had an erroneous and overinflated view of himself. I think you're way overestimating their 'achievement" of learning how to put humans in space. That's been done. A Lot. Their Achievements seem to be geared toward "it's not OUR fault, reality is really mean to us". They seem more interested in PR than progress.
It is likely that BE4 delays are holding up ULA Vulcan first launch. ULA is substituting Atlas to cover their first several military launches. This is costing ULA a bundle.
If BE-4 delays are at fault, BO could potentially end up in breach of contract, depending on the contract's details. Even if it's not breach of contract, if ULA gets screwed by not being able to use Vulcans due to BE-4 delays, there would be a very strong case for ULA to sue BO for damages. I really do hope that BO is able to deliver the BE-4s soon and that the above scenario doesn't happen, but it is possible. Frankly, it would probably kill BO, not because of any financial penalties, but rather the massive hit to their reputation if they screw over their first customer that badly.
@@Quantorful Looks like a Jun 2021 GAO report is stating that the BE-4 is having troubles and may delay the Vulcan Centaur flight certification. It looks like the first Vulcan Centaur launch has already been pushed to Jan 2022 from the earlier late 2021 delay from the initially planned summer 2021 date. ULA still blaming payload issues, but GAO report says that their engine is in trouble as well. Vulcan Centaur NET Jan 2022 nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2425 GAO: Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Technical Issues Threaten ULA’s Vulcan Booster Schedule www.parabolicarc.com/2021/06/21/gao-blue-origin-be-4-engine-technical-issues-threaten-ulas-vulcan-booster-schedule/
@@steveaustin2686 Yeah, I just saw that a couple hours ago, though in a different publication. Problems with the igniter and "booster capabilities", which like means reaching the performance specs. Beyond being more evidence that BO lacks urgency and is slow as a result, it also shows that they're bad at estimating and sticking to timelines, and are also inefficient with the resources they have. BO has no lack of good engineers and funding (both from Bezos, plus some of the funding ULA received for Vulcan development from the NSSL program), so inability to produce results with those resources is evidence of poor utilization.
I think the heart of this is caution (Blue Origin) versus rashness (SpaceX). Blue Origin are going step-by-painful-step, going sub-orbital before starting on orbital flight. SpaceX started out with Falcon-1 trying for orbit at the get-go. This was a super-risky move. They only had funding for four rockets - and all four failed. The scraped together spare parts and managed a fifth launch - which worked...opening the doors to money from NASA. Had SpaceX failed on that 5th launch - which they easily could - then that would have been the end of the company. By going slow and carefully, and not overreaching - that was unlikely to happen with Blue Origin. However, going slow doesn't win any races - you have to take risks if you want to win big. That's what SpaceX did - and continue to do - and they've gone from struggling to put together a last ditch effort from scraps and spare parts - to being the biggest launch company in the world - lifting more payload than all of the other launcher added together. So - "Go slowly and get there in the end." Or is it "He who dares, wins!"...so far, the latter!
You may be right. And I meant to include that it is actually something I don't want to see happen personally. But hopefully it gets them thinking of some possibilities. Maybe buy Axiom to get a foothold into LEO Commercial Space Stations.
@@Apogeespace what I DO think might be good is if Blue Origin buys Bigelow, since Bigelow's future is uncertain at best at this point, but the technology is proven
great videos; good content; thoughtfully presented. You are in the @EverydayAstronaut realm of videos. Spell check everything! Experience not Experiance ... There you go ... my biggest criticism over 5? videos ;) Keep up the good work!!
The point of "bo haven't reach orbit" is very valid. Its simple results are needed to win competitions. When they became a sore loser asking why they lost, now that point is even more valid then before. Its not valid if they arent trying to chase anything. You cant win when results are absent and your competition are making tech history. Hence why the point keeps coming up. Valid or not other company have already produce results
Eh, reaching orbit is not a prerequisite for building a lunar lander. Grumman built the Apollo LM without reaching orbit. Now Blue Origin's glacial development is a problem.
@@steveaustin2686 well you're right but bo hasn't show anything. All they have shown so far is cg and a model of the lunar lander. But so far other companies has lower prices and has shown significant results. And they have the balls to say space x is cheating.
@@last5902 Blue Origin has the New Shepard, which is a good, man-rated, sub-orbital vehicle. It just took way too long to develop. With how little Blue has to show for New Glenn, I see why NASA was concerned with the maturity of the ILV. You can get the details here. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf The Air Force (USSF) has some pretty harsh criticism of both Blue Origin's New Glenn and Northrop Grumman's OmegA. From this Aug 2020 article Despite political pressure to not end the LSAs, the agreements will be terminated, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition Will Roper said Aug. 7 during a video conference with reporters. “We will work with those two companies to determine the right point to tie off their work under the LSA agreements,” Roper said. The intent of the LSAs “was to create a more competitive environment leading into Phase 2,” he said. “The point is not to carry them indefinitely.” spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
Everyone needs to cut Bezos some slack. How would you deal with the realization that you are doomed to spend eternity being unfavorably compared to Musk?
What differentiates both companies (Blue Origin and SpaceX) most is the specific vision that lead to all the developement. For SpaceX, the vision was always clear (bring people to Mars, therefore you need big rockets). Everything else followed from there. Blue's vision was simply more murky (and it shows)
blue origin dreams too small.. and they cant iterate quickly.. Theres a bunch of issues.. If earth is decimated by an event everyone in the orbit would eventually be dead also.
I can confirm from a very private discord channel of engineer's , Jeff Bezos is actually in ongoing discussion with Boeing to PERSONALLY, purchase it's 50% share of ULA. This give's BO Atlas V for Amazon Satellites, BO engines and almost ready Vulcan Centaur. Without HLS contract, they need Spaceforce contracts
Excellent analysis your graphics made it very easy to see why SpaceX as where they are. In the words of Elon Musk you don't get to Mars working 40 hours a week unfortunately blue origin is working 37 it seems apparent that they just don't have the drive that it takes to push the envelope. Unfortunately the idea of purchasing ULA doesnt solve that problem, it only delays it. Thank you for your time and well-thought-out Analysis I thought it was fair an unbiased. I look forward to you reviewing Sierra Nevada and the dream chaser. Congratulations on your 10K success
I think Blue Origin probably has a bad company culture at this point, it's probably best to pretty much clean house except the most important people, particularly engineers. If they think Starship looks like it's going to be operational within the next few years they should really cancel New Glenn and refocus on a fully reusable design. There's no sense in continuing on their current path unless Bezos just wants to burn money treading water. Maybe they could use that Amazon money to do something really crazy, like develop a launch loop or rotovator, or at least begin working towards that goal. I'm not sure buying ULA is a good move, it seems more of a way to spend many billions of dollars to still be way behind SpaceX. I could see value in their factories and some of their knowledge but it's not like ULA is on the path towards competing in the future of space, at least not with anything publicly announced.
@@snuffeldjuret Burn energy - yes. Burn money - no. The notes would get all soggy and refuse to light. You have to be real careful with mixed metaphors. :-)
@@johnswift8757 hm, not sure how much you've been swimming in lakes or the ocean, but I can definitely keep my head and arms (only hands needed really) above water with just my legs :).
Here's my criticism: 1) BO has never delivered on a single big project or promise. Not one. They still have not put any tourists into space, or delivered a finished, production BE-4 engine for their customer. New Glenn is little more than blueprints and CGI renders, and their lunar lander is nothing but mockups. They haven't put a single gram into orbit. They pivot from one thing to the next without ever completing anything, and expecting giant sums of government cash for it. 2) They pretend to be an innovative commercial NewSpace company but their behavior says they just want to be the newest OldSpace pig getting fat off the government teat, and their only "innovations" are lobbying and lawsuits. BO got by far the largest development award in HSL phase 1, and I believe they also got the largest award in the development round of NSSL 2. They actually patented "rocket landing on ocean barge" and tried to prevent SpaceX from doing it. SpaceX said "lulz you can't patent an idea that you didn't invent and which has been around for decades, in fact here's an old science fiction movie showing this exact thing". The court decided in favor of SpaceX and BO's patent was revoked. BO also complained when SpaceX leased pad 39a, claiming absurdly that the pad should be made available for all launch providers to somehow "share". 3) Given all the above, it's really annoying when Bezos makes grandiose, presumptuous speeches about what is needed for a return to the moon, or reducing the cost to access space, or developing a space economy, or what the aerospace industry needs, or what America needs to do to remain competitive, or when he denigrates Mars colonization in favor of his powerpoint slides about "millions of people living in space". He hasn't followed through on ONE. SINGLE. THING. He really should try to get One Damn Accomplishment under his belt before pontificating on his soapbox and dissing other ideas. That's what the "BO has never reached orbit" criticism really means. It means "put up or shut up". It means "stop suing and complaining and actually PRODUCE something."
Blue Origin.... The problem is very simple ..... Bezo is simple a store manager......not an Engineer not a Scientist not a mechanical minded person He realizes totally on others to think for himself and design ......He maybe a bit of a leader but he is waaaay out of his league if he wants to compete in this industry.... He will never make it in this industry He is years behind ......he has spent 1/2 of his remaining life on this earth waisting time ..... I give him 2 yrs before he throws in the towels .....good luck......unless of course he buys another company that has flying rockets...
The Nasa spending bill has not passed, as stated at 11:57. It has only passed the Senate, not the House and is not signed into law. So, as of now, NASA isn't stuck with an unfunded mandate, at least not yet.
Jeff Bezos is to rockets as Jerry Jones is to football. They can't get beyond their egos to let gifted visionaries take them to the promised land. Tim Dodd's recent interview of Elon gave me a respect for Elon's "giftedness" at engineering. Thus, he is the gifted visionary that also happens to own the company. A rare convergence of dollars and intellect.
An apparent reason may be that Bezos treated Blue Origin as his hobby while Musk almost went bankrupt for SpaceX. Bezos prefers playing safe and being a copy-cat.
Just want to point out that New Glenn's second stage is not reusable either, so that comparison of New Shepard's reusability compared to Falcon 9 isn't really valid. In fact an argument that Crew Dragon/Falcon 9 is just as reusable as NS can be made.
New Glenn, when it flies, would be comparable to Falcon 9 as both would reuse the booster and expend the second stage. New Shepard is fully reusable as they refly the booster and capsule.
@@steveaustin2686 , but doesn't make it to orbit or spend any sustained time in space. Crew Dragon launches on the other hand achieve both of these and reuses both booster and crew capsule (same as New Shepard). My point is comparisons between the two are essentially pointless as they are completely different classes of vehicle.
@@johnreid2851 The time spent in space does not change the fact that New Shepard is fully reusable. Crew Dragon is not fully reusable. The booster and capsule are recovered, but the second stage is expended. When cargo flies, the fairings are recovered, but again, the second stage is not recovered. New Glenn is like the Falcon 9 in that the second stage is not recovered. Evidently, Blue will not recover fairings either. The class of vehicle does not make a difference if something is reusable or not. Based on the payload a New Shepard can carry, it is a small lift vehicle of 2,000kg or less. Starship is a super heavy lift vehicle of 100,000kg or more. Both are fully reusable. This has nothing to do with the payload mass of New Shepard compared to Falcon 9 or the payload mass of New Glenn to Starship. Whether a vehicle is sub-orbital or orbital. Those are seperate discussions. The quick rundown is a comparison of the lift capabilities of Blue vs SX is laughably in SX's favor. So is the speed of development and the difficultly of the flight profiles.
@@steveaustin2686 And I never specifically said I was only talking about the 'Landing' from orbital velocity. I said the 2 difficulties concerning reuse are not comparable. In one option you are reusing a lift that stops at its highest floor (only just touching space), in the other option you are not able to reuse a lift stopping at orbit whilst still travelling at 27 thousand km/h. The two are no way comparable when stating the BO rocket is completely reusable whilst the Falcon 9 upper stage is not! Apples and Pears or Oranges no comparison at all! And there is NOT a New Glenn to even talk about when trying to compare this to anything!
@@steveaustin2686 You actually said 'New Glenn, when it flies, would be comparable to Falcon 9 as both would reuse the booster and expend the second stage. New Shepard is fully reusable as they re-fly the booster and capsule.' I was pointing out that New Shepard cannot be compared to Falcon 9 as far a reusability is concerned because it's a lift with a terminal velocity of 0km/h at both ends of its flight. You are therefore trying to defend the indefensible! It's a rich man's toy that should have been consigned to the scrap heap years ago, so as to be able to concentrate on his BE-4's and New Glenn! Quite frankly it's a joke!
Sorry to say this:- I respect blue but, their goal is winning some position and not human development, I agree contracts are important for money but come on He is Jeff is money a problem there ?? I am sure I will die until they at least get their space home ideas on paper. And these dirty politics making Artemis delay I. am losing my interest in blue Awesome video
sorry but bezos dont have a vision he has a desire to pump as much cash into his pocket as possible whilst providing ridiculously disgusting working enviroments and mis treatment of those who work for him
Blue Origin is 10+ years old and should already have 2 or 3 flight proven rockets but instead we only get to see 1 rocket constantly going suborbital with no crew over and over again
It's not just that Jeff bough ULA flights. It's that he bought Atlas 5 flights, which oddly enough are both more expensive than Vulcan, but also doesn't depend on the Blue Origin engine that ULA bet their future on. Which apparently Blue Origin can't actually supply to ULA. Want to bet Tory Bruno is wishing he'd gone with Aerojet Rocketdyne for the Vulcan main engine?
Lockheed Martin moved to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne in Dec 2020 and the Rocketdyne shareholders approved in Mar 2021. I wonder if Lockheed will provide ULA with engines in the future? ULA is kind of stuck with the BE-4 for now as the USSF-112 mission is set for Q2 2023 on a Vulcan Centaur and the VC has to fly two certification flights, before it can fly a national security payload. ULA already had to move the Q4 2022 USSF-51 mission to an Atlas V and eat the cost difference. By law, the Atlas V can't be used for national security payloads after Dec 31st, 2022 as it uses Russian engines. ULA will be in a hard place if the BE-4 isn't delivered on the revised schedule. BTW, moving the USSF-51 flight saves Elon from having to eat his hat with mustard on the side.
@@steveaustin2686 "moving the USSF-51 flight saves Elon from having to eat his hat with mustard on the side" I'm missing something here. Could you explain what you're referring to? Did Musk making a comment that Vulcan wouldn't deliver USSF-51 before 2023, or is this about Falcon Heavy's new fairing not being ready?
@@Quantorful When ULA and SX got the USSF Phase 2 national security payload contracts there was some smack talk passed back and forth, on twitter I believe, between Elon Musk and ULA CEO Tory Bruno about the Vulcan Centaur launch vehicle. Apparently, Musk said that he would eat his hat with a side of mustard if the Vulcan Centaur flew a national security payload before 2023 with the Vulcan Centaur. Some background is needed. In reference to Russian sanctions I believe, a law was passed that after Dec 31st, 2022, launch vehicles with Russian engines can not be used for national security payloads. Commercial and/or NASA missions would be fine to fly with Russian engines. It may also restrict other components as well. ULA flies national security payloads on the Delta IV Heavy & Atlas V currently I believe and plans to add Vulcan Centaur to that list. The Delta IV Heavy uses US engines and is going to be retired when the last one flies. The Atlas V uses the Russian RD-180 engine, so it can't fly national security payloads in 2023 and after by law. The Vulcan Centaur has not flown yet and needs 2 successful flights before the USSF will certify it for national security payloads. The VC was going to fly the Peregrine Moon lander in the summer of 2021 and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser for its CRS demo mission in Q2 2022. So then it could be certified to fly the Q4 2022 USSF-51 national security payload. Apparently, the Blue Origin BE-4 engine for the VC first stage has been delayed and the Peregrine launch has been moved back to late 2021 and the Dream Chaser launch has likely been moved as well. This evidently impacted when the VC could be certified for the USSF-51 launch, so it was moved to the Atlas V as it is flying before Dec 31st 2022. So the next national security payload for VC is in Q2 2023 and that means that Musk was right that the VC would not fly a USSF mission until 2023 and his hat is saved. :) Note, the Atlas V is more expensive than the Vulcan Centaur. The Phase 2 contract is a fixed price contract, so ULA has to cover the diffence in cost. ULA claims that the payloads are what is delaying the VC, but that smells fishy. The national security payload contracts are lucrative and highly sought after when they come up for bidding. If the VC was truly ready, you would think that ULA would launch a demo payload to satisfy one of the successful launches required like SX did with the roadster in the first Falcon Heavy launch. That way ULA would not imperil their USSF launches on VC. So the reported delays of the BE-4 seem like they could be true.
@@steveaustin2686 Thanks. I knew all the background info, though good summaries like yours are always appreciated, but didn't know (or forgot) the back and forth banter. And I agree that it seems unlikely that the payloads are delaying VC.
@@Quantorful I saw your other posts after this and figured I may have given you info you already knew. Either way, someone else coming along who doesn't know will have the basics. Yeah, the payload story just seems fishy.
I think there major problem is the people working for them, every kid out of school want to work for spaceX there is a drive to get somewhere and people work to that goal BO gets people because of good paycheck, that doestn't give people the drive to work. In my opinion it makes people lazy.
potentially one of the best videos around BO in the last month. I absolutely agree with your point that the non-iterative approach ist the one sole biggest issue they have. Not only in spaceflight - the speed of technological innovations nearly do not allow a waterfall system anymore. This way you will most likely always be outpaced by your competitiors. As well as losing the ability to react fast. A team that has perfected waterfall must completely reshape to become iterative. This is not done overnight. So - I think your solution to buy ULA makes perfect sense - and potentially is the only chance to leap forward and give Elon a run for his money.
Yeah, making a culture change will be hard and take time. When people complain that the legacy companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman haven't followed SpaceX down the road to reusability don't seem to realize that first the culture there will need to change and it takes time to design something new. SpaceX has been working on Starship for a while before finally settling on a design and starting testing, so why would other companies just roll out something new in a few years?
@@steveaustin2686 Your last sentence is not really accurate, SpaceX has flown Starship multiple times now and is still making major changes to the design, even scrapping nearly fully built prototypes that have become obsolete. Earlier, before they switched to Stainless Steel and when when the basic design was barely an idea they were building hardware (that big carbon fibre tank) that got scrapped when a better idea came along. The trouble is the old space companies seem to see testing only as a way to validate the final design and not a way to find out what works or doesn't. They could relatively easily and quickly make a "flying water tower", stick an engine on the bottom and do some tests, OK, it would fireball the first few times but that doesn't matter if you have not spent years trying to perfect the design first. I think part of this comes from the Shuttle which was the great white hope of reusability but ended up horrendously expensive and created the assumption that real reusability was nearly impossible and expensive.
@@chrisglen-smith7662 I was talking about the design changes from when it was announced in 2016 until they started testing in 2019. You know BFR, MCT, ITS, BFR, and then Starship. Yep, SN12-SN14 were scrapped as the first few test flights did so well. With SN15 sticking the landing, SN17-SN19 were scrapped. SN15 looks to be saved as a display model for now and SN16 may be used again, maybe for landing leg tests if it doesn't go supersonic instead? The legacy space companies test like crazy and then only finally assemble the expensive production pieces for final testing. SpaceX is going against the current standard with the rapid prototyping. It's not surprising as SpaceX did that with the Falcon 9 series until NASA was like, pick a final design and run with it. Yeah, the Shuttle was part of it and another part was the capability needed, as you give up roughly 1/3 of your lift capacity for reusability. Most companies didn't seem to want to take that much of a payload hit on something that was so difficult. An expended F9 lifts 22.8 tons, so it can lift 15.6 tons while being recovered. They needed that large capacity to be able to still launch most payloads and recover the booster for reusability. Not to mention, the cheap onboard computing for self landing just wasn't there in the 80's.
The Blue Origin lead National Team's Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) came in second in the HLS Option A bid process. Dynetics Alpaca lander came in a distant third as the lander came in over the design weight. The Opton A contract is for the unmanned landing in 2023 and the Artemis III manned landing in late 2024. If two companies are selected, they would both likely do the unmanned landing, but only one would do the manned landing. The HLS Option B missions upgrade the landers from 2 crew to 4 crew to the surface. They will reopen the process for the Option B contract(s), so Dynetics, Boeing, and the rest can try again. Lunar Starship would likely have the inside track as upgrading from 2 to 4 crew will be trivial. The ILV will need major design changes per NASA to get to 4 crew and the Alpaca needs a complete overhaul. If Blue is still slow with their development, they could end up losing out again, this time as the third option if Dynetics or someone else steps up their game. If you want more details on the strengths and weaknesses of the three Option A bids, the 24 page Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement is a good read. www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf
Elon Musk is clearly the Henry Ford of the 21st. Bezos hasn't launched an orbital flight, let alone placed a car into interplanetary orbit. And as far as New Sheppard is concerned, even Virgin Galactic is head of Blue Origin despite VG's set back with lost of craft.
@@OccupyMarsJune Sorry for snapping, I'm tired of people linking powerful people as if they invented shit that's existed forever. Like, they have all the money in the world and random stans will credit them for inventing the concept of trial and error, and it just drives me fucking insane.
@@OccupyMarsJune Oof, yeah, sorry. Same, I should really be more understanding. And its not even a big deal topic, just general assholery getting to me. And jeez, you sound pretty awesome. Sorry for making your day any harder.
I think "hasn't even gotten to orbit" is a valid complaint mostly because it aligns with the old guard Aerospace waterfall development mentality. Nobody else does development this way anymore and it is the reason why 15 years after the SLS design was started (called Constellation at that time), it still has not made it to orbit. SpaceX and other modern Aerospace startups use an Agile/RAD approach. Using this approach, SpaceX was able to get from design to orbit for the Falcon 9 in only 4 years. Also, SpaceX as reported Falcon 9 cost $300Million where NASA estimated it would cost $4Billion to have developed the Falcon 9 rocket using traditional (waterfall) contracting methods. The Blue Origin mascot is even a Tortoise and the only place a Tortoise ever won a race was in a fairy tale and I expect the same will be true of Blue Origin. If Bezos wants to invest his own money in this endeavor (just like Elon Musk did), that is fine by me, just please don't waste my tax dollars on his fairy tale.
BTW, I wrote this as I was starting to watch the video. I was super glad to see you made this same point at the end of the video. I am so glad you get it. I was even hesitant to use the term waterfall as it is such an old methodology, almost no one know what it is.
Blue Origins' Motto is literally "Gradatim Ferociter", which is Latin for "Step by step, ferociously". They're not in a rush. They've never been in a rush. Going slow and perfecting every step is (frustratingly) a core pillar of their business.
It would be nice if they just took their steps more frequently. If they are not careful, Rocket Lab will get something in the low end of the heavy lift category before Blue gets the New Glenn going. Neutron is said to have an 8,000kg payload (medium lift) and the heavy category is 20,000-50,000 kg.
Buying ULA would not create competition or innovation, but might stifle both. While it may be a viable way forward, it is very much an "old space" move, and would only change the names, not the substance. Tory Bruno would be a definite win as CEO, but I can't see him wanting the merger. He already has an experienced team, a great reputation, and solid contracts. He doesn't need anything that Blue Origin has to offer. Oh wait: except BE-4, which seems to be less ready than we were led to believe. It's nice that SpaceX allows us to see their ferocious struggles. Jeff would be appalled to let the public see engineers replace an engine that wasn't flight-ready. Blue shows about as much ferocity as a spoiled house cat. Only the legal team seems to have any teeth. :-(
I actually agree, and should’ve hedged that I don’t actually want Blue Origin to buy ULA (nor do I think it will happen). But it makes a lot of sense for them. If not ULA than perhaps Axiom to give them a leg up in the Space Station LEO market. Couldn’t go too deep into it because it was already getting long.
NASA should pick somebody like Rocket Lab or Astra for the second HLS contract, give them a few thousand dollars, and basically put on a charade with a second lander failing to materialize.
NASA opened the Appendix P competition for the second lander open to everyone, but SpaceX. NASA is negotiating with SpaceX for HLS Option B. Both HLS Option B and Appendix P will be for sustainable lander operations. SpaceX's Lunar Starship in HLS Option A, already does a lot of what would be in HLS Option B, so it shouldn't be a stretch for SpaceX. Both the Dynetics Alpaca and Blue Origin led National Team would have had to make a LOT of changes to their HLS Option A design to fit under Appendix P. Since the Artemis III manned landing is tied to the HLS Option A Lunar Starship, I have a feeling that Appendix P will be the one given up for horse trading when it comes to funding in Congress.
It is important to realize that, while Apogee was being optimistic in the video, even just in the time between this video and now, Blue has completely f***ed up their reputation. He's said in the discord that he'd have a lot of different stuff to say now, and will in future videos.
I don't care what BO is doing because it really is amazing but please do it a little faster. They won't survive even if Bezos threw all his fortune to BO if they won't start doing services. 200B is not enough for making these free space colonies. I want them to grow but it needs to be a little faster.
Eh, I don't think the GAO complaint is delaying SpaceX all that much, if at all. They were already funding Starship out of their own pocket and the HLS Option A Source Selection Statement said that SpaceX was funding half of the development of Lunar Starship. So basically, NASA is providing money and experience. And SpaceX has a lot of experience themselves.
Valid criticism: "Blue Origin has not reached orbit (yet)"
Vision: "Millions of people living and working in space to benefit earth"
Action: "Let's build a suborbital jumping dil... ah, I mean rocket..."
Context matters :)
I'm simply can't unseen this. Every time I saw their rocket, It's a giant dilxx... 😂
If their goal truly is having millions living and working in space. The plan is three steps.
1. Industrialize the moon
2. Build Lunar Orbital Ring
3. Build Earth Orbital Ring
@@rexmann1984 I think a mass driver is a way better option for the moon as the moon doesnt have an atmosphere and therefore the mass driver can be a ground level and doesnt need a vacum tube. Also are you a fellow follower of our lord and saviour Issac Arthur?
@@fallencrow6718 yes I am. The reason we need the Orbital Ring around the moon is to learn the finer points of building one before we try it around earth. Moreover, for materials a mass driver is no big deal for humans you need it to be big enough to not turn them into jelly from the Gs.
@@user-pz6mc2oj3f Blue origin is older than space x and yet they havent even reach orbit. Also fortune favours the brave.
Blue Origin is incredibly frustrating to watch as a fan of spaceflight. Being 20 years old and started by a silicon valley titan, it was poised to be at the forefront of NewSpace companies, and with a virtually unlimited budget behind it, capable of great things. But despite being nominally NewSpace, every decision they've made has been fully OldSpace in mindset and action. Even worse, they are incredibly litigious, bringing down the entire industry and reducing technological innovation across the board. Despite their slow development pace and dinosaur management, you can't help but look at them and see so much potential! If they overhauled their management and started aggressively testing and developing New Glenn (and actually delivered BE-4), they could be on track for great things! But based on their track record, I doubt that happens any time soon...
Yep its true
It's almost as painful as being a fan of the DCEU, you know it can be as big or bigger than the MCU but poor decision making plagues it at every turn. With nothing really getting off the ground despite it having an amazing product with the potential to be spectacular
Damn straight man.
Blue Origin doesn't seem to have the right people in charge.
The fact that they haven't reached orbit yet is inexcusable. How can they even be eligible for the NASA moon landing?
I think Elon eluded to the idea that blue origin is going to waste taxpayers money and show nothing for it. Borderline scam.
If Blue Origin hasn't demonstrated their orbital spacecraft in 5 years the hatred toward Jeff will be real.
@@RobertLutece909 Then they in the wrong game and NASA should not be funding them.
Great video! Blue Origin is a really interesting case in the aerospace industry, and it's also the most depressing in my opinion. They could have been a great new space company but instead decided to adopt the attitudes and strategies of old space, leading to their stagnation.
It's frustrating to watch their motto be such an ironic show of the arrogance, rather than have a more modest view and being tight for cash
It's giving them a bad image in the industry, more so than the older companies
American greed destroying America. Lol
@@sirmiles1820 bingo. You can add envy, spiteful and self-absorbed to the 'mix'. Notice his 'projects' are targeting the Elites.. There's not a tinge of 'service to humanity', but a means of 'entertainment' for the 1% of Earthling who are awash with Moolah and let the 'ordinary humans' drown in their own drool..
Well, they could be a better, but not faster Aerojet Rocketdyne.
One of those strategies was to depend on profit by gouging the government--i.e. the taxpayer. Musk designed Spacex from the very beginning to be cost effective in the private marketplace. Suddenly everybody is talking about sustainabilty/reusability but where were they for decades?
They have not reached orbit yet, okay that might be a bad criticism considering the engine for their orbital rocket, however their suborbital program is also slow as hell.
They just can't get it up
@@NURDVEVO Elon added: (to orbit) Lol
@@JCStaling who said that was what I meant.
Not ever reaching orbit is definitely a valid argument. They bid on a Lunar Lander project for which they have zero experience in space for, then protest when they don't win the contract? I don't care how great you think New Shepard is, it is in "space" for seconds then re-enters the atmosphere. Their lack of urgency and their arrogance just rubs me the wrong way. Cannot be a fan of this company as it currently exists.
I bet Blue Origin was given anything just to be token competition for SpaceX, purely for politics and appearances. They aren't trying because they've already done their job.
Meh, if it was owned by anyone else, no one would even be talking about Blue Origin.
Is just the HATE directed to Jeff Bezos...maybe he is not as good looking as Musk....or they just hate Amazon
@@javierderivero9299 he is a villain..how come he is gonna be a good looking 😂
BO`s biggest thread is time. It will eat them alive. Jeff won`t last forever. What will happen when he is gone? Time is their biggest enemy and they just don`t see it. SpaceX is moving so fast, that they actually have a chance beating time. Their momentum is what keeps them alive in the long run.
Jeff who? Is it the Jeff who can't get it up?
spacex already beat them
I’m on Team Space, but I’m also on team creative destruction. Blue sucks and I don’t want them propped up by the government so they can railroad Artemis.
I just don’t have any faith in that company anymore
I agree. Blue Origin seems to have no urgency. Must be weird to work there. Now, soon Jeff is going to fly New Shepard with his brother and a wealthy bidder. Great, and he may indeed come back a changed man (the Overview Effect) and start to work seriously from then on. But I am not confident that will happen. It may as well turn out to just be an item checked off of his bucket-list, and Jeff is back on his yacht. He can be satisfied that he went to space before Elon, and lose interest.
Jeff Bezos runs the risk of single-handed repeating the whole Apollo arc of brimming promise and disappointing fade-out.
quality content
The idea of Blue Origin buying ULA would be interesting, however due to the state of it, ULA is more likely to buy Blue Origin to ensure they get their engines for Vulcan Centaur.
Lockheed Martin moved to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne in Dec 2020 and the Rocketdyne shareholders approved the acquistion in Mar 2021. So would Lockheed Martin provide engines to ULA in the future via their Rocketdyne acquistion?
🤣😂, this is a violation
@@steveaustin2686 Problem is that Vulcan has been built as a methane fueled system which Rocketdyne doesn't have. They would do better to talk to SpaceX to build a Raptor properly resized to fit the Vulcan. Musk might like the idea.
@@vapoet I wasn't necessarily talking about for Vulcan Centaur in the near term. ULA is pretty much stuck with the BE-4 for now. A future variant of the Vulcan Centaur, or even better, a new reusable launcher is more what I was thinking.
Musk did bet ULA's Tory Bruno that he would eat his hat if Vulcan Centaur flew a NSSL payload before 2023. Since the Q4 2022 USSF-51 launch was moved to an Atlas-V, Musk's hat is safe.
I think that it is more if ULA would go to SpaceX. The Raptor is still in development, so it may not be ready for export to ULA. The Vulcan Centaur only uses two engines, so it shouldn't be too much to pull a few out of the Starship queue. I'm sure re-engineering the Vulcan Centaur to accept Raptors is easier said than done though.
@@steveaustin2686 The problem is that the Vulcan was designed around a Methane engine. As far as I know, there is only one working methane engine and it belongs to Musk. Frankly, at this point, ULA should be suing to take over the engine building portion of Blue Origin.
Step 1) Blue Origin buys ULA
Step 2) ULA dies
The END!
Step 3) Elon Buys Blue Origin/ULA
Step 4) SpaceX becomes a space superpower
ROARING APPLAUSE!!! LOL
@@cameronh3260 nah, Elon will EXPAND SpaceX and HIRE over all the good workers, and leave the executive scumbags out of the equation. Why buy a dogshit company when you can just hire its dissatisfied workers?
I was thinking about that
Authorising, but not appropriating funds for a second HLS is the perfect way to block the entire programme. Stretching the development period guarantees higher costs, and this can be used as an excuse to terminate the project.
It's not like the second Artemis HLS would ever see use anyway, given that it would also require building another SLS-Orion stack. Who's going to fund that after the flag-planting is done?
They sped up the timeline of the program by 4 years, and cut the budget by 75%
23:00 "Blue origins ceo is from a defence contractor" well that explains everything
Has the bill actually passed Congress? I thought it had only passed the Senate and was still be voted on and likely modified in the House....
This is a good clarification. I believe at this point it has only passed the senate.
@@Apogeespace You forgot to mention that the bill also says the awarding of the lunar lander contract to SpaceX cannot be rescinded.
Space payments would be extended over a much longer time, resulting in a very delayed landing.
Although, I would not be surprised if Spacex would accept delayed payments and continue anyway.
@@davidhenry5128 They already did. The payment modification BO and Dynetics keep referring to, doesn't change the total amount it changes which milestones are paid and how much, this shifted payment down the line. SpaceX basically said pay us later. So the Lunar Starship won't cost NASA much the next 1-2 years.
What i dont get is the military consumes 10x or more money than nasa but still always gets more funding each year, but nasa is always seen as the big money eater.
Apogee: "i cannot believe i already have ten thousand subscribers"
i can.
keep making solid content and they will keep coming.
Excellent video! Blue Origin is such a disappointment, like a petulant child. We need as many companies as possible competing and driving innovation, but they just want to sit on their hands and complain how it's "not fair".
Great video as always.
Thank you!
Indeed, I think this is the first Apogee video I've seen, just subscribed on the back of it.
What makes BO so unique is that they suck at everything they do
They suck at space tourism(VG is cheaper for experiencing less g forces)
They suck at landers(obviously)
They suck at building rocket engines(where are ULA's engines Jeff?)
They suck at building orbital rockets(new glenn is more expensive and less capable than falcon heavy)
SO
JEFF WHO??
Also good video
@@OccupyMarsJune I think The Jeff who can't get it up HAHA
if his goal was to build the space habitat isn't that much faster if he helping funded the spacex development and used theirs spaceship rocket instead as method to transport the logistics to build space habitat.
@@OccupyMarsJune The very idea of Asking SpaceX to launch your habitat infrastructure would never even cross Bezos's synapses as it would offend his very being. Bezos doesn't ask for help. He buys the help. However he knows SpaceX cannot be bought or litigated into submission. It would be a valid option for everyone else on the planet but not for Bezos. He could buy ULA somehow sure, but bring in all of the aerospace engineers from NASA, Europe, China, wherever and he would still know he is picking from the second string as most of all the ambitious engineers have gone to SpaceX already.
My cousin worked there. After SpaceX was announced as the winner of the Lunar Lander contract, he moved to SpaceX.
I do not have much confidence in them.
Wow first I've heard of someone moving from BO to SpaceX. What made him switch?
@@alexanderkenway Well for one, he'd worked at SpaceX before. He moved in the first place so he could focus more on raising his kids.
He's gone back now because they offered him a big promotion - he's a senior simulation propulsion engineer. It means he won't have to move back to Texas.
I wonder if this is a sign of people beginning to jump ship from BO? I hope not because I want all the rocket companies to succeed (or at least contribute), but that is not a good sign. I suspect that morale at BO has gotten much worse over the past year.
My contention, and why the critique that they haven't reached space yet is a *good* criticism, is that BO *has* acted as if they are regularly reaching orbit and are a contender in that market
It's all well and good to be a space tourism/hotel company, but don't then start making proposals for Lunar landers, or gigantic cargo rockets, or start Twitter beefs with a company that actually *has* real plans for those types of missions
Blue Origin shot themselves in the foot by focusing on tourism and then acting like it is on the same field as ULA, Boeing or SpaceX purely because it has partnered with some of them
It would be like if Mitsubishi, BMW and Toyota took shots at Tesla for making a whole fleet of varied electric cars- like, hello, who has actually been selling and making them for two decades compared to making concepts that are never developed beyond show models to wow car journalists?
You either pursue your vision or not, don't pretend to be pursuing several while not actually making any meaningful progress with it and then acting like you have
Bezos and Musk could have been great partners in space exploration and resource extraction, but instead Bezos is the old-guard from the 70s and 80s pretending he's the new wave while doing all in his power to make sure it's nothing more than a splash
Getting to orbit is not a prerequisite for building a lunar lander. Grumman had never been to orbit and they developed and built the Apollo LM. It's more about Blue's glacial development than them not getting to orbit. New Shepard is a good sub-orbital spacecraft, it just took too long to develop and build.
@@steveaustin2686 The difference is Grumman wasn't proposing to launch their lander on their own rocket before ever even launching one into orbit or real space. Grumman specialized on the lander and left the launching to someone else.
@@steveaustin2686 Grumman was already, like most other Gemini/Apollo designers, experienced in either spacecraft or at minimum aircraft development with numerous successful and commercially sought after models
Blue Origin has neither customers nor production for anything but their space hopping craft, which is useless for anything but sightseeing
They are proposing to launch a lander, which hasn't been built outside of inert models, on a rocket that hasn't even had its engines tested, and all this needing to be by 2024
Its a scummy company too, exemplified by competing for contracts with their "partners" ULA despite agreeing not to, *when they do not even have a launcher and ULA does*
Honestly, Blue Origin just boggles my mind with all the shit they pull
@@lewisyeadon4046 After watching this vid, my wife and I were discussing the orbit tours concepts from Branson and Bezos. Now the BO capsule has a fetching design and kudos for putting windows that can actually be used to look out at. But if I am spending $XXX,XXX dollars to float around for 15 minutes, I would put my dollars down on flying under the spindly-looking Virgin plane, the dropping out and rocketing up on the even more spindly-looking orbital component.
I want to fear death when I go up that high and fast. Otherwise, I'll just strap on my Oculus VR helmet and get airsick in the comfort on of my own couch.
@@MrWaldorfian The ILV is planned to launch on the Vulcan Centaur, so they are leaving the launching to someone else as well.
Rocket lab is about to pass BO. Lol
Rocket lab have all ready passed Body Odor.
In my oppinion they already have passed them
Imagine if RL makes orbit with their Neutron rocket before BO with New Glenn 😂
Virgin Galactic passed Blue Origin years ago.
@@josephastier7421 Eh, not really. SpaceShipTwo is not reaching the Karman line and is still in testing. Blue is ready for the New Shepard to fly crew on Jul 20th, 2021. Both systems took a LONG time to develop. Now smaller startups like Rocket Lab have done as more than Blue has done in less time. Comparing SX and Blue is just ridiculously in favor of SX.
Quality is generally good. You really need to start running your on screen text through a spell checker as all your episodes have numerous spelling errors.
It's crazy, Bezos doesn't have his CH4 LOX engine, he paralyzes Ula and his Vulcan launcher, the Artemis program etc, in short, selfishness and his narcissism will lose him. You can not admit it, the beautiful presentations of Blue Origin are only fictions
Not having achieved orbit is a valid criticism. It shows blue origin's lack of drive and commitment from the very outset to have concentrated on sub orbital tourism instead of orbital manufacturing and this shows that they aren't serious about colonising space.
A space launch company that's ultimate goal is the creation of O'Neil cylinders who hasn't even built an orbital rocket let alone attempted an orbital flight is a valid criticism.
With 21 years of experience...
Its slow, waaaay too slow. 🤷♂️
@@jackmerry1972 did you watch the vid?
That is fair, as I said. I think if the criticism is "suborbit was the wrong choice" or "they should have already finished New Glenn by now" then that is fair.
@@AHHHHHHHH21 Yes I get it. Either way, they barely have a single operational rocket.
It doesn't matter if new shepherd is orbital or not. Its only just now becoming an operational rocket. They have a pretty slow development process compared with the "disruptors" of this video.
Blue Origin's target isn't the creation of O'Neill cylinders, their target is access to space for later generations. The more closer target is the moon because the moon is the gateway to space. Something completely different from SpaceX, SpaceX's target isn't access to space but the return to another planet.
For such a small channel, this is one of the best production quality videos I’ve seen, earned my sub
I read this comment and subbed.
don't forget the bell 👍
@@DodgeI :D
"They don't need the money" - that may be the problem right there. Talk to any rags to riches entrepeneur and they'll tell you that if it doesn't hurt, you'll never have the focus and determination to succeed.
Ever notice the richest people in the world are the ones getting the heaviest government subsidies?
@@wschmrdr apart from Musk, who will get there with or without subsidies!
There's a big difference between a scientific grant and milking the actual taxpayer for all they have.
Take SpaceX out of the equation and Blue Origin would have been looking pretty good (well, reasonable). They've just been savagely outcompeted by SpaceX - but they're not exactly alone in that regard.
You also have to take Rocket Lab out of the equation
@@KhurramJhumra And possibly Astra, Firefly, and Relativity space now
Blue Origin: *the blue balls of the space industry.*
What I am worried about is that New Glenn is too costly to fail at all. That means they will have to land their first launch which I don’t see happening cause it is extremely hard
Well, Space Shuttle succeeded on its first try, did it? John is wonderful, if Elon never born
@@ThisNoName the space shuttle was held together by magic and the hopes and dreams of children.
@@jesusmora9379 May America wake up from nightmares before it's too late ...
@@ThisNoName STS was a wing and a prayer held together by scotch tape
It's a wonder it flew at all, and it virtually didn't at some points due to grounding
Overall, it failed it's mission anyway, and I think BO will be following that path
@@jesusmora9379 maybe is would have been better if nasa had not been limited by money and not had to buy there parts from several different companies
Maybe it would have been reusable
Cool I can order a spacex tshirt on amazon also thanks jeff!!
Man, when you said " buy ULA" my jaw dropped. I wasn't expecting for that in any way shape or form '0 '
And yet it is so logical, from the BO point of view. I smiled as soon as I saw it, because that is precisely what I have been thinking - regrettably, without saying it, so I can't prove it! But if ULA have any sense, they won't sell.
BO doesn’t even have a flight qualify BE-4. BO is a hobby and tax write-off for Jeff Who?
I think the Jeff who can't get it up HAHA
It is valid that they havent reached orbit, it shows their slow progress. “step by step, ferociously” is looking a lot more like “step by step, while theyre asleep”
Now it may be that true that it is low hanging fruit or doesnt contribute much to conversation, but eh, opinions differ
Eh, getting to orbit is not a prerequisite for making a lander. Grumman had not been to orbit when they developed and built the Apollo LM.
You are right on that their “step by step, ferociously” is taking the steps WAY too far apart as their development is very slow.
SpaceX kicks Blue Origin in the balls every other week.
Everyday if you count starbase development
So drawings of rockets and the idea of living on space stations came way before blue origin. Even as a think tank they were just copy pasta in that regard. Whether a think tank or a rocket company their production and value are still zero. Don’t get me wrong there’s nothing more than I want then a starship and the new Glenn regularly launching into space to explore and build new architecture. Oh but the last thing I want is more presentations and CG renderings. Let’s also keep in mind this company was formed in the year 2000 formally announced in 2003. Then in 2005 announcing they wanted to build a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. I think they’ve had some time.
Also buying a $500 million megayacht well he still has yet to produce any hardware is a clear sign of Jeff’s priorities.
"buying a $500 million megayacht well he still has yet to produce any hardware is a clear sign of Jeff’s priorities."
That line. ... is the main reason I liked your comment.
Imagine starting a space company but we're not focusing on obit. This is like starting a car company without building a car that can drive more than 50km lolz
Surface to surface rocketry will be a billion dollar industry. The military will especially be interested look at the recent taliban Afghan disaster. Biden orders the military to return to the embassy and it takes days and hours to get there. With a rocket they could land near a US aircraft carrier and then fly to the embassy. This would take a couple days otherwise.
Changing design management philosophy, as suggested, which really is company culture, is next to impossible. Anyway, there won't be time. SpaceX is just crushing the entire space launch business, unless Starship fundamentally doesn't work, which appears unlikely. SpaceX with 9, 9 Heavy and Starship will make everything else look years, if not decades behind, and everyone else will need to re-think everything they are doing. New Glenn is just way too late without anywhere near the pace needed to catch anything useful. Every month, every year, they get further behind.
I am consistently impressed by the quality of your presentations.
Cool! I just ordered a spacex starship model from amazon plus a short THANKS JEFF!!
it will show " lost in transit " ¬‿¬
ago lovit
Fantastic video. It is obvious you research things well. Can't wait for what you make next. Maybe something on Terran R and Neutron?
That’s exactly the topic of an upcoming video! If not the next video then the one after. So stay tuned!
@@Apogeespace Fantastic. I'm really excited for the growth of the medium lift market - especially because it can support human flights.
@@Apogeespace You should also do a video about which one of these startups, which have yet to get to orbit, is the most promising. Feel like buying some stock. lol
Meh.
First of all: Jeff Bezos doesn't owe you, or me, or any space cadet a goddamned thing in terms of fulfilling our dreams.
I get it. SpaceX has been doing one amazing thing after another. All the space geek frustration is giving way to uncritical rapture. As a space fan who has been frustrated for 50 years now, I understand.
But it's Bezos' company, and what he does and how fast, is up to him. If it's been merely a side interest, if it's going to get to market too late, that's his business.
Bezos chose a more traditional approach than SpaceX, including an emphasis on winning government business in order to make profits. Surprise: even the world's richest man doesn't go into a business to lose money. (He'd probably even less inclined than others. You don't get rich throwing away your money.) He appears to have invested billions of his own money into this already, which is more than contractors like Boeing or Lockheed Martin would do.
You recklessly claim that Blue Origin is 'lying' in their protest about how things went down. That's something s space fanboy who believes NASA is utterly infallible and guileless would say.
Even if SpaceX were far and away the best choice, Blue Origin makes a perfectly valid point that the competition changed, and all bidders should have notified in order to rework bids to the changed circumstances. Even if it were unrealistic that the outcome would have changed, it's astonishing that NASA secretly "selected" a winner on a government procurement, and then negotiated with them afterward. What NASA says was a "selection" was very arguably not.
Given that Doug Loverro lost his job by inappropriate discussions with Boeing in the first HLS phase, NASA should have been far more circumspect, much more careful. But as their own source selection statement makes clear, the evaporating 2024 goal was the big driver in this - despite the plain fact that Congress drove a stake through its heart with its HLS appropriation.
We'll see what the GAO says. I'm sure SpaceX will put a Lunar Starship on the Moon, and I will be very happy for it. But dismissing Blue's point with a wave of your hand as a 'lie' is just obnoxious.
As for Sen. Cantwell working on behalf of a constituent, to bring money to her own state: welcome to the real world. You might do well to google "SpaceX flyers Capitol Hill" to see what happens when billions of dollars are at stake. (Billions SpaceX would seem not to need for completing Starship, and billions that the World's Usually Second Richest Man could arguably pull out of his respective pocket.)
Good luck with Patreon and such. You might at least use some funds to have someone proofread your text. I personally am not inclined to pay for some faceless amateur to spout his naive opinions; my money already goes to better informed, more circumspect video pundits
@@gregzsidisin My gosh. Okay... You latching on my comment in the hopes of getting more attention?
Also, love your videos, but you misspelled experience at 25:30 :)
Other than that, great video. Lots of stuff I had never really considered.
5:15 I have to criticize this defense of Blue Origin. You don't START a space company with the name like Blue Origin - i.e. "coming from the blue planet" without intentions of, you know, actually leaving the planet. You cannot say that an orbit-capable vehicle was not part of their vision until 2011. It's like starting a company called... Space Exploration Technologies and, 11 years later, *only then* realizing, "oh, to explore space we need to *go* to space? We'd better get started on that!"
Just because they didn't begin plans for an orbital rocket until 11 years after their founding isn't an excuse. It's something else to criticize- why the hell did it take them 11 years to realize that a space company SHOULD ACTUALLY TRY TO GO TO SPACE? It's absolutely ridiculous to assume they did not have "GO TO SPACE" as a fundamental core value within the company. Even if they started suborbital as their first project, that should only be seen as a small stepping stone they decided was the best way to eventually reach orbit (and beyond).
probably many reasons for your questions but I would suggest BO was begun by being a tax shelter for Amazon corporately or JB personally. After a decade it became a put-up or shut-up situation.
At least Branson's orbit tourism side hustle doesn't pretend to be a cutting edge planet colonizing venture. Also, he has developed an interesting technology to get into orbit.
Excellent video, most likely the best sum up on Blue Origin. Your channel is now among the great space-themed TH-cam channels, possibly the best one. On the way to 100k subs!
Thanks!
Criticism that BO has not gone orbital might be dismissed as irrelevant. However, BO has bid on contracts and programs which require an orbital class booster: space station resupply, Amazon internet, and HLS.
HLS does not require an orbital class booster by the winning bid, as you put your lander on an orbital class booster to get it to the Moon. The Blue Origin lead National Team's Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) would do just fine getting to LEO on a Vulcan Centaur or Atlas V. The transfer stage being built by Northrop Grumman would get the ILV to the Moon. It also starts the Moon landing burn, before being discarded.
If Dynetics' Alpaca lander was not overweight, it would get to the Moon on an orbital class booster. SpaceX is unique as the lander would be part of an orbital class booster.
Jeff Who?
25:50 my heart stopped for a second there
Jeff Bezos: *instantly purchases ULA on Amazon Prime*
It'll be funny if SpaceX yeets a permanent mining colony and foundry onto the Moon then uses those to construct O'Neill Cylinders, beating Blue Origin to the punch. Putting them on Aldrin Cycler orbits on Earth-Moon and Earth-Mars transfers would create the foundation we need for all our interplanetary exploration and colonization infrastructure.
I have to say, "yeets a permanent mining colony" made me laugh. If Starship can deliver 100-150 tons to orbit and doesn't cost too much to refuel, 'yeeting' stuff around the system may just be what SpaceX does in the future.
That would be a great path, but I think Elon is too Mars obsessed to go that route. The one thing I do agree with Bezos about is the practicality of O'neill cylinders over Mars colonies. Even a lunar base makes more sense than Mars.
@@OccupyMarsJune Europa?
@@OccupyMarsJune Oh nevermind I searched Europa up...how do you think will reach it first?
@@OccupyMarsJune yes thank you!!! When you wake up can you tell me if you see NASA and Spacex come together?
This is the most underrated channel I have ever seen , just imagine how much research goes into just one vid you have previously earned my sub but now you have earned all the subs form my family lol
It's only because he's relatively new; the content quality is to the moon and back, he's gonna be big I reckon.
@@jasonlast7091 yep and we will be his true fans
Indeed
"Harmony of Crew Dragon and Starliner.
Uhm, what?
As for BO, their opportunity has passed. If Bezos wasn't riding his ego, he'd abandon the Glenn and just make engines. He's so far behind the curve, he can't see the tunnel.
Well, i see a good vision for Bezos to become a second Aerojet Rocketdyne, if he can increase engine output cadence.
You want more players in the field? What's the point if a player can't even show they can hit at HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL, much less Major League Level? BO's entire philosophy and system is as flawed as that kid we've all known who had an erroneous and overinflated view of himself. I think you're way overestimating their 'achievement" of learning how to put humans in space. That's been done. A Lot. Their Achievements seem to be geared toward "it's not OUR fault, reality is really mean to us". They seem more interested in PR than progress.
There is absolutely no harmony between starliner and dragon. Have you been living under a rock
It is likely that BE4 delays are holding up ULA Vulcan first launch. ULA is substituting Atlas to cover their first several military launches. This is costing ULA a bundle.
Yep, a few million to tens of millions depending on the configuration needed for the launch.
If BE-4 delays are at fault, BO could potentially end up in breach of contract, depending on the contract's details. Even if it's not breach of contract, if ULA gets screwed by not being able to use Vulcans due to BE-4 delays, there would be a very strong case for ULA to sue BO for damages.
I really do hope that BO is able to deliver the BE-4s soon and that the above scenario doesn't happen, but it is possible. Frankly, it would probably kill BO, not because of any financial penalties, but rather the massive hit to their reputation if they screw over their first customer that badly.
@@Quantorful Looks like a Jun 2021 GAO report is stating that the BE-4 is having troubles and may delay the Vulcan Centaur flight certification. It looks like the first Vulcan Centaur launch has already been pushed to Jan 2022 from the earlier late 2021 delay from the initially planned summer 2021 date. ULA still blaming payload issues, but GAO report says that their engine is in trouble as well.
Vulcan Centaur NET Jan 2022
nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2425
GAO: Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Technical Issues Threaten ULA’s Vulcan Booster Schedule
www.parabolicarc.com/2021/06/21/gao-blue-origin-be-4-engine-technical-issues-threaten-ulas-vulcan-booster-schedule/
@@steveaustin2686 Yeah, I just saw that a couple hours ago, though in a different publication. Problems with the igniter and "booster capabilities", which like means reaching the performance specs.
Beyond being more evidence that BO lacks urgency and is slow as a result, it also shows that they're bad at estimating and sticking to timelines, and are also inefficient with the resources they have. BO has no lack of good engineers and funding (both from Bezos, plus some of the funding ULA received for Vulcan development from the NSSL program), so inability to produce results with those resources is evidence of poor utilization.
@@Quantorful I agree
This was a great video and a thoughtful analysis of the state of Blue Origin! My only criticism is the fact that there were multiple spelling errors
I think the heart of this is caution (Blue Origin) versus rashness (SpaceX). Blue Origin are going step-by-painful-step, going sub-orbital before starting on orbital flight. SpaceX started out with Falcon-1 trying for orbit at the get-go. This was a super-risky move. They only had funding for four rockets - and all four failed. The scraped together spare parts and managed a fifth launch - which worked...opening the doors to money from NASA. Had SpaceX failed on that 5th launch - which they easily could - then that would have been the end of the company. By going slow and carefully, and not overreaching - that was unlikely to happen with Blue Origin. However, going slow doesn't win any races - you have to take risks if you want to win big. That's what SpaceX did - and continue to do - and they've gone from struggling to put together a last ditch effort from scraps and spare parts - to being the biggest launch company in the world - lifting more payload than all of the other launcher added together. So - "Go slowly and get there in the end." Or is it "He who dares, wins!"...so far, the latter!
I really think that blue origin buying Ula would do nothing but slow down both companies
You may be right. And I meant to include that it is actually something I don't want to see happen personally. But hopefully it gets them thinking of some possibilities. Maybe buy Axiom to get a foothold into LEO Commercial Space Stations.
@@Apogeespace what I DO think might be good is if Blue Origin buys Bigelow, since Bigelow's future is uncertain at best at this point, but the technology is proven
Please use a spell checker.
I am very bad at spelling. Hopefully the message still gets across.
great videos; good content; thoughtfully presented. You are in the @EverydayAstronaut realm of videos.
Spell check everything! Experience not Experiance ...
There you go ... my biggest criticism over 5? videos ;) Keep up the good work!!
Out of all of your videos, this is by far my favorite.
New Shepard is an amusement park ride… nothing more. Welcome to Barnum and Bezos… only for the VERY rich.
The point of "bo haven't reach orbit" is very valid. Its simple results are needed to win competitions. When they became a sore loser asking why they lost, now that point is even more valid then before. Its not valid if they arent trying to chase anything. You cant win when results are absent and your competition are making tech history. Hence why the point keeps coming up. Valid or not other company have already produce results
Eh, reaching orbit is not a prerequisite for building a lunar lander. Grumman built the Apollo LM without reaching orbit. Now Blue Origin's glacial development is a problem.
@@steveaustin2686 well you're right but bo hasn't show anything. All they have shown so far is cg and a model of the lunar lander. But so far other companies has lower prices and has shown significant results. And they have the balls to say space x is cheating.
@@last5902 Blue Origin has the New Shepard, which is a good, man-rated, sub-orbital vehicle. It just took way too long to develop.
With how little Blue has to show for New Glenn, I see why NASA was concerned with the maturity of the ILV. You can get the details here.
www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf
The Air Force (USSF) has some pretty harsh criticism of both Blue Origin's New Glenn and Northrop Grumman's OmegA. From this Aug 2020 article
Despite political pressure to not end the LSAs, the agreements will be terminated, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition Will Roper said Aug. 7 during a video conference with reporters. “We will work with those two companies to determine the right point to tie off their work under the LSA agreements,” Roper said. The intent of the LSAs “was to create a more competitive environment leading into Phase 2,” he said. “The point is not to carry them indefinitely.”
spacenews.com/air-force-to-end-agreements-with-blue-origin-and-northrop-grumman-prepares-for-launch-contract-protests/
@@steveaustin2686 yeah i see what you mean😅. Its just BO is just way too slow and i hate that they use political power to get their way.😂
@@last5902 Corporations using political power to get their way is an old and 'honored' (among thieves) tradition. ;) ;)
Everyone needs to cut Bezos some slack. How would you deal with the realization that you are doomed to spend eternity being unfavorably compared to Musk?
Bezos needs to get BO off it's slack A55 and get it to work, delivering on it's contractual obligations it already has!
What differentiates both companies (Blue Origin and SpaceX) most is the specific vision that lead to all the developement. For SpaceX, the vision was always clear (bring people to Mars, therefore you need big rockets). Everything else followed from there. Blue's vision was simply more murky (and it shows)
blue origin dreams too small.. and they cant iterate quickly.. Theres a bunch of issues.. If earth is decimated by an event everyone in the orbit would eventually be dead also.
I can confirm from a very private discord channel of engineer's , Jeff Bezos is actually in ongoing discussion with Boeing to PERSONALLY, purchase it's 50% share of ULA. This give's BO Atlas V for Amazon Satellites, BO engines and almost ready Vulcan Centaur. Without HLS contract, they need Spaceforce contracts
Looks like his prediction may have been correct!
Excellent analysis your graphics made it very easy to see why SpaceX as where they are. In the words of Elon Musk you don't get to Mars working 40 hours a week unfortunately blue origin is working 37 it seems apparent that they just don't have the drive that it takes to push the envelope. Unfortunately the idea of purchasing ULA doesnt solve that problem, it only delays it.
Thank you for your time and well-thought-out Analysis I thought it was fair an unbiased.
I look forward to you reviewing Sierra Nevada and the dream chaser.
Congratulations on your 10K success
I think Blue Origin probably has a bad company culture at this point, it's probably best to pretty much clean house except the most important people, particularly engineers. If they think Starship looks like it's going to be operational within the next few years they should really cancel New Glenn and refocus on a fully reusable design. There's no sense in continuing on their current path unless Bezos just wants to burn money treading water. Maybe they could use that Amazon money to do something really crazy, like develop a launch loop or rotovator, or at least begin working towards that goal.
I'm not sure buying ULA is a good move, it seems more of a way to spend many billions of dollars to still be way behind SpaceX. I could see value in their factories and some of their knowledge but it's not like ULA is on the path towards competing in the future of space, at least not with anything publicly announced.
You cannot burn money while treading water.
@@johnswift8757 hm, really? I would have assumed so as you burn energy while treading water :).
@@snuffeldjuret Burn energy - yes. Burn money - no. The notes would get all soggy and refuse to light. You have to be real careful with mixed metaphors. :-)
@@johnswift8757 you can tread water while having your arms above the water line though :)
@@johnswift8757 hm, not sure how much you've been swimming in lakes or the ocean, but I can definitely keep my head and arms (only hands needed really) above water with just my legs :).
Here's my criticism:
1) BO has never delivered on a single big project or promise. Not one. They still have not put any tourists into space, or delivered a finished, production BE-4 engine for their customer. New Glenn is little more than blueprints and CGI renders, and their lunar lander is nothing but mockups. They haven't put a single gram into orbit. They pivot from one thing to the next without ever completing anything, and expecting giant sums of government cash for it.
2) They pretend to be an innovative commercial NewSpace company but their behavior says they just want to be the newest OldSpace pig getting fat off the government teat, and their only "innovations" are lobbying and lawsuits. BO got by far the largest development award in HSL phase 1, and I believe they also got the largest award in the development round of NSSL 2. They actually patented "rocket landing on ocean barge" and tried to prevent SpaceX from doing it. SpaceX said "lulz you can't patent an idea that you didn't invent and which has been around for decades, in fact here's an old science fiction movie showing this exact thing". The court decided in favor of SpaceX and BO's patent was revoked. BO also complained when SpaceX leased pad 39a, claiming absurdly that the pad should be made available for all launch providers to somehow "share".
3) Given all the above, it's really annoying when Bezos makes grandiose, presumptuous speeches about what is needed for a return to the moon, or reducing the cost to access space, or developing a space economy, or what the aerospace industry needs, or what America needs to do to remain competitive, or when he denigrates Mars colonization in favor of his powerpoint slides about "millions of people living in space". He hasn't followed through on ONE. SINGLE. THING. He really should try to get One Damn Accomplishment under his belt before pontificating on his soapbox and dissing other ideas. That's what the "BO has never reached orbit" criticism really means. It means "put up or shut up". It means "stop suing and complaining and actually PRODUCE something."
I love this channel. Such quality content and it’s great to have a new voice in the space TH-cam community.
Blue Origin.... The problem is very simple ..... Bezo is simple a store manager......not an Engineer not a Scientist not a mechanical minded person
He realizes totally on others to think for himself and design ......He maybe a bit of a leader but he is waaaay out of his league if he wants to compete in this industry....
He will never make it in this industry
He is years behind ......he has spent 1/2 of his remaining life on this earth waisting time .....
I give him 2 yrs before he throws in the towels .....good luck......unless of course he buys another company that has flying rockets...
The Nasa spending bill has not passed, as stated at 11:57. It has only passed the Senate, not the House and is not signed into law. So, as of now, NASA isn't stuck with an unfunded mandate, at least not yet.
Yeah, if Congress had given NASA the money they asked for in 2020, Blue Origin would already be the second choice for a lander contract.
Jeff Bezos is to rockets as Jerry Jones is to football. They can't get beyond their egos to let gifted visionaries take them to the promised land. Tim Dodd's recent interview of Elon gave me a respect for Elon's "giftedness" at engineering. Thus, he is the gifted visionary that also happens to own the company. A rare convergence of dollars and intellect.
Well thought out and presented! Agree that the problem is outdated management theory. (sucking up government contracts instead of innovation)
An apparent reason may be that Bezos treated Blue Origin as his hobby while Musk almost went bankrupt for SpaceX. Bezos prefers playing safe and being a copy-cat.
Just want to point out that New Glenn's second stage is not reusable either, so that comparison of New Shepard's reusability compared to Falcon 9 isn't really valid. In fact an argument that Crew Dragon/Falcon 9 is just as reusable as NS can be made.
New Glenn, when it flies, would be comparable to Falcon 9 as both would reuse the booster and expend the second stage.
New Shepard is fully reusable as they refly the booster and capsule.
@@steveaustin2686 , but doesn't make it to orbit or spend any sustained time in space. Crew Dragon launches on the other hand achieve both of these and reuses both booster and crew capsule (same as New Shepard). My point is comparisons between the two are essentially pointless as they are completely different classes of vehicle.
@@johnreid2851 The time spent in space does not change the fact that New Shepard is fully reusable.
Crew Dragon is not fully reusable. The booster and capsule are recovered, but the second stage is expended. When cargo flies, the fairings are recovered, but again, the second stage is not recovered.
New Glenn is like the Falcon 9 in that the second stage is not recovered. Evidently, Blue will not recover fairings either.
The class of vehicle does not make a difference if something is reusable or not. Based on the payload a New Shepard can carry, it is a small lift vehicle of 2,000kg or less. Starship is a super heavy lift vehicle of 100,000kg or more. Both are fully reusable.
This has nothing to do with the payload mass of New Shepard compared to Falcon 9 or the payload mass of New Glenn to Starship. Whether a vehicle is sub-orbital or orbital. Those are seperate discussions. The quick rundown is a comparison of the lift capabilities of Blue vs SX is laughably in SX's favor. So is the speed of development and the difficultly of the flight profiles.
@@steveaustin2686 And I never specifically said I was only talking about the 'Landing' from orbital velocity. I said the 2 difficulties concerning reuse are not comparable. In one option you are reusing a lift that stops at its highest floor (only just touching space), in the other option you are not able to reuse a lift stopping at orbit whilst still travelling at 27 thousand km/h. The two are no way comparable when stating the BO rocket is completely reusable whilst the Falcon 9 upper stage is not! Apples and Pears or Oranges no comparison at all!
And there is NOT a New Glenn to even talk about when trying to compare this to anything!
@@steveaustin2686 You actually said 'New Glenn, when it flies, would be comparable to Falcon 9 as both would reuse the booster and expend the second stage.
New Shepard is fully reusable as they re-fly the booster and capsule.'
I was pointing out that New Shepard cannot be compared to Falcon 9 as far a reusability is concerned because it's a lift with a terminal velocity of 0km/h at both ends of its flight.
You are therefore trying to defend the indefensible! It's a rich man's toy that should have been consigned to the scrap heap years ago, so as to be able to concentrate on his BE-4's and New Glenn! Quite frankly it's a joke!
Sorry to say this:- I respect blue but, their goal is winning some position and not human development, I agree contracts are important for money but come on He is Jeff is money a problem there ?? I am sure I will die until they at least get their space home ideas on paper. And these dirty politics making Artemis delay I. am losing my interest in blue Awesome video
sorry but bezos dont have a vision he has a desire to pump as much cash into his pocket as possible whilst providing ridiculously disgusting working enviroments and mis treatment of those who work for him
Blue Origin is 10+ years old and should already have 2 or 3 flight proven rockets but instead we only get to see 1 rocket constantly going suborbital with no crew over and over again
It's not just that Jeff bough ULA flights. It's that he bought Atlas 5 flights, which oddly enough are both more expensive than Vulcan, but also doesn't depend on the Blue Origin engine that ULA bet their future on. Which apparently Blue Origin can't actually supply to ULA. Want to bet Tory Bruno is wishing he'd gone with Aerojet Rocketdyne for the Vulcan main engine?
Lockheed Martin moved to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne in Dec 2020 and the Rocketdyne shareholders approved in Mar 2021. I wonder if Lockheed will provide ULA with engines in the future? ULA is kind of stuck with the BE-4 for now as the USSF-112 mission is set for Q2 2023 on a Vulcan Centaur and the VC has to fly two certification flights, before it can fly a national security payload. ULA already had to move the Q4 2022 USSF-51 mission to an Atlas V and eat the cost difference. By law, the Atlas V can't be used for national security payloads after Dec 31st, 2022 as it uses Russian engines. ULA will be in a hard place if the BE-4 isn't delivered on the revised schedule. BTW, moving the USSF-51 flight saves Elon from having to eat his hat with mustard on the side.
@@steveaustin2686 "moving the USSF-51 flight saves Elon from having to eat his hat with mustard on the side"
I'm missing something here. Could you explain what you're referring to? Did Musk making a comment that Vulcan wouldn't deliver USSF-51 before 2023, or is this about Falcon Heavy's new fairing not being ready?
@@Quantorful When ULA and SX got the USSF Phase 2 national security payload contracts there was some smack talk passed back and forth, on twitter I believe, between Elon Musk and ULA CEO Tory Bruno about the Vulcan Centaur launch vehicle. Apparently, Musk said that he would eat his hat with a side of mustard if the Vulcan Centaur flew a national security payload before 2023 with the Vulcan Centaur. Some background is needed.
In reference to Russian sanctions I believe, a law was passed that after Dec 31st, 2022, launch vehicles with Russian engines can not be used for national security payloads. Commercial and/or NASA missions would be fine to fly with Russian engines. It may also restrict other components as well. ULA flies national security payloads on the Delta IV Heavy & Atlas V currently I believe and plans to add Vulcan Centaur to that list. The Delta IV Heavy uses US engines and is going to be retired when the last one flies. The Atlas V uses the Russian RD-180 engine, so it can't fly national security payloads in 2023 and after by law.
The Vulcan Centaur has not flown yet and needs 2 successful flights before the USSF will certify it for national security payloads. The VC was going to fly the Peregrine Moon lander in the summer of 2021 and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser for its CRS demo mission in Q2 2022. So then it could be certified to fly the Q4 2022 USSF-51 national security payload. Apparently, the Blue Origin BE-4 engine for the VC first stage has been delayed and the Peregrine launch has been moved back to late 2021 and the Dream Chaser launch has likely been moved as well. This evidently impacted when the VC could be certified for the USSF-51 launch, so it was moved to the Atlas V as it is flying before Dec 31st 2022. So the next national security payload for VC is in Q2 2023 and that means that Musk was right that the VC would not fly a USSF mission until 2023 and his hat is saved. :)
Note, the Atlas V is more expensive than the Vulcan Centaur. The Phase 2 contract is a fixed price contract, so ULA has to cover the diffence in cost. ULA claims that the payloads are what is delaying the VC, but that smells fishy. The national security payload contracts are lucrative and highly sought after when they come up for bidding. If the VC was truly ready, you would think that ULA would launch a demo payload to satisfy one of the successful launches required like SX did with the roadster in the first Falcon Heavy launch. That way ULA would not imperil their USSF launches on VC. So the reported delays of the BE-4 seem like they could be true.
@@steveaustin2686 Thanks. I knew all the background info, though good summaries like yours are always appreciated, but didn't know (or forgot) the back and forth banter. And I agree that it seems unlikely that the payloads are delaying VC.
@@Quantorful I saw your other posts after this and figured I may have given you info you already knew. Either way, someone else coming along who doesn't know will have the basics.
Yeah, the payload story just seems fishy.
they need a management overhaul.
Imagine if they could've just made a contract with china to make the new Glenn?
I think there major problem is the people working for them, every kid out of school want to work for spaceX there is a drive to get somewhere and people work to that goal
BO gets people because of good paycheck, that doestn't give people the drive to work. In my opinion it makes people lazy.
potentially one of the best videos around BO in the last month.
I absolutely agree with your point that the non-iterative approach ist the one sole biggest issue they have.
Not only in spaceflight - the speed of technological innovations nearly do not allow a waterfall system anymore. This way you will most likely always be outpaced by your competitiors.
As well as losing the ability to react fast. A team that has perfected waterfall must completely reshape to become iterative. This is not done overnight.
So - I think your solution to buy ULA makes perfect sense - and potentially is the only chance to leap forward and give Elon a run for his money.
Yeah, making a culture change will be hard and take time. When people complain that the legacy companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman haven't followed SpaceX down the road to reusability don't seem to realize that first the culture there will need to change and it takes time to design something new. SpaceX has been working on Starship for a while before finally settling on a design and starting testing, so why would other companies just roll out something new in a few years?
@@steveaustin2686 Your last sentence is not really accurate, SpaceX has flown Starship multiple times now and is still making major changes to the design, even scrapping nearly fully built prototypes that have become obsolete. Earlier, before they switched to Stainless Steel and when when the basic design was barely an idea they were building hardware (that big carbon fibre tank) that got scrapped when a better idea came along. The trouble is the old space companies seem to see testing only as a way to validate the final design and not a way to find out what works or doesn't. They could relatively easily and quickly make a "flying water tower", stick an engine on the bottom and do some tests, OK, it would fireball the first few times but that doesn't matter if you have not spent years trying to perfect the design first.
I think part of this comes from the Shuttle which was the great white hope of reusability but ended up horrendously expensive and created the assumption that real reusability was nearly impossible and expensive.
@@chrisglen-smith7662 I was talking about the design changes from when it was announced in 2016 until they started testing in 2019. You know BFR, MCT, ITS, BFR, and then Starship.
Yep, SN12-SN14 were scrapped as the first few test flights did so well. With SN15 sticking the landing, SN17-SN19 were scrapped. SN15 looks to be saved as a display model for now and SN16 may be used again, maybe for landing leg tests if it doesn't go supersonic instead?
The legacy space companies test like crazy and then only finally assemble the expensive production pieces for final testing. SpaceX is going against the current standard with the rapid prototyping. It's not surprising as SpaceX did that with the Falcon 9 series until NASA was like, pick a final design and run with it.
Yeah, the Shuttle was part of it and another part was the capability needed, as you give up roughly 1/3 of your lift capacity for reusability. Most companies didn't seem to want to take that much of a payload hit on something that was so difficult. An expended F9 lifts 22.8 tons, so it can lift 15.6 tons while being recovered. They needed that large capacity to be able to still launch most payloads and recover the booster for reusability. Not to mention, the cheap onboard computing for self landing just wasn't there in the 80's.
Great analysis, I’ve been wondering what has been going on with BO. This puts it into perspective and it’s a fair assessment. Cool:)
does it require that the second lander must be blue origin? or could nasa do spacex and dynetics?
The Blue Origin lead National Team's Integrated Lander Vehicle (ILV) came in second in the HLS Option A bid process. Dynetics Alpaca lander came in a distant third as the lander came in over the design weight. The Opton A contract is for the unmanned landing in 2023 and the Artemis III manned landing in late 2024. If two companies are selected, they would both likely do the unmanned landing, but only one would do the manned landing.
The HLS Option B missions upgrade the landers from 2 crew to 4 crew to the surface. They will reopen the process for the Option B contract(s), so Dynetics, Boeing, and the rest can try again. Lunar Starship would likely have the inside track as upgrading from 2 to 4 crew will be trivial. The ILV will need major design changes per NASA to get to 4 crew and the Alpaca needs a complete overhaul. If Blue is still slow with their development, they could end up losing out again, this time as the third option if Dynetics or someone else steps up their game.
If you want more details on the strengths and weaknesses of the three Option A bids, the 24 page Apr 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement is a good read.
www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf
Elon Musk is clearly the Henry Ford of the 21st. Bezos hasn't launched an orbital flight, let alone placed a car into interplanetary orbit. And as far as New Sheppard is concerned, even Virgin Galactic is head of Blue Origin despite VG's set back with lost of craft.
Good video, awesome content, and incredible graphics but your spelling needs work.
SpaceX has failed more times than Blue Origin has tried.
@@OccupyMarsJune I just paraphrased an ancient saying, one that is much, much, much older than the USA or Gwynn Shotwell.
@@OccupyMarsJune Sorry for snapping, I'm tired of people linking powerful people as if they invented shit that's existed forever. Like, they have all the money in the world and random stans will credit them for inventing the concept of trial and error, and it just drives me fucking insane.
@@OccupyMarsJune Oof, yeah, sorry. Same, I should really be more understanding. And its not even a big deal topic, just general assholery getting to me.
And jeez, you sound pretty awesome. Sorry for making your day any harder.
I think "hasn't even gotten to orbit" is a valid complaint mostly because it aligns with the old guard Aerospace waterfall development mentality. Nobody else does development this way anymore and it is the reason why 15 years after the SLS design was started (called Constellation at that time), it still has not made it to orbit. SpaceX and other modern Aerospace startups use an Agile/RAD approach. Using this approach, SpaceX was able to get from design to orbit for the Falcon 9 in only 4 years. Also, SpaceX as reported Falcon 9 cost $300Million where NASA estimated it would cost $4Billion to have developed the Falcon 9 rocket using traditional (waterfall) contracting methods.
The Blue Origin mascot is even a Tortoise and the only place a Tortoise ever won a race was in a fairy tale and I expect the same will be true of Blue Origin.
If Bezos wants to invest his own money in this endeavor (just like Elon Musk did), that is fine by me, just please don't waste my tax dollars on his fairy tale.
BTW, I wrote this as I was starting to watch the video. I was super glad to see you made this same point at the end of the video. I am so glad you get it. I was even hesitant to use the term waterfall as it is such an old methodology, almost no one know what it is.
Blue Origins' Motto is literally "Gradatim Ferociter", which is Latin for "Step by step, ferociously". They're not in a rush. They've never been in a rush.
Going slow and perfecting every step is (frustratingly) a core pillar of their business.
It would be nice if they just took their steps more frequently. If they are not careful, Rocket Lab will get something in the low end of the heavy lift category before Blue gets the New Glenn going. Neutron is said to have an 8,000kg payload (medium lift) and the heavy category is 20,000-50,000 kg.
@@steveaustin2686 I wouldn't be surprised if Rocket Lab put something notable in orbit around Venus by the time Blue Origin have New Glenn online.
Mm 288 dislikes.. I smell a rat. Videos are great!!
Buying ULA would not create competition or innovation, but might stifle both. While it may be a viable way forward, it is very much an "old space" move, and would only change the names, not the substance.
Tory Bruno would be a definite win as CEO, but I can't see him wanting the merger. He already has an experienced team, a great reputation, and solid contracts. He doesn't need anything that Blue Origin has to offer. Oh wait: except BE-4, which seems to be less ready than we were led to believe.
It's nice that SpaceX allows us to see their ferocious struggles. Jeff would be appalled to let the public see engineers replace an engine that wasn't flight-ready.
Blue shows about as much ferocity as a spoiled house cat. Only the legal team seems to have any teeth. :-(
I actually agree, and should’ve hedged that I don’t actually want Blue Origin to buy ULA (nor do I think it will happen).
But it makes a lot of sense for them. If not ULA than perhaps Axiom to give them a leg up in the Space Station LEO market.
Couldn’t go too deep into it because it was already getting long.
@@Apogeespace If Blue bought ULA, it might be McDonnell Douglas/Boeing all over again, which would be very sad.
NASA should pick somebody like Rocket Lab or Astra for the second HLS contract, give them a few thousand dollars, and basically put on a charade with a second lander failing to materialize.
NASA opened the Appendix P competition for the second lander open to everyone, but SpaceX. NASA is negotiating with SpaceX for HLS Option B. Both HLS Option B and Appendix P will be for sustainable lander operations. SpaceX's Lunar Starship in HLS Option A, already does a lot of what would be in HLS Option B, so it shouldn't be a stretch for SpaceX. Both the Dynetics Alpaca and Blue Origin led National Team would have had to make a LOT of changes to their HLS Option A design to fit under Appendix P. Since the Artemis III manned landing is tied to the HLS Option A Lunar Starship, I have a feeling that Appendix P will be the one given up for horse trading when it comes to funding in Congress.
Great delivery and content. Keep up the quality, this channel will take off.
Buying ULA wouldn’t solve Blue’s problem. The poor leadership and underperforming culture at Blue would likely undermine ULA’s strengths.
It is important to realize that, while Apogee was being optimistic in the video, even just in the time between this video and now, Blue has completely f***ed up their reputation. He's said in the discord that he'd have a lot of different stuff to say now, and will in future videos.
I don't care what BO is doing because it really is amazing but please do it a little faster. They won't survive even if Bezos threw all his fortune to BO if they won't start doing services. 200B is not enough for making these free space colonies. I want them to grow but it needs to be a little faster.
"Assuming the next starliner mission goes well"
You need to listen to your own presentation. Blue Origin is great at making CGI videos, long on promises, and short on achievements.
Yeah they will succeed by delaying others contract just like the LUNAR LANDER contract
Eh, I don't think the GAO complaint is delaying SpaceX all that much, if at all. They were already funding Starship out of their own pocket and the HLS Option A Source Selection Statement said that SpaceX was funding half of the development of Lunar Starship. So basically, NASA is providing money and experience. And SpaceX has a lot of experience themselves.
I had no idea how new you channel is, holy shit you’ve done well
New Shepard will mess up your spine with thar deceleration right at landing. So much spinal compression.
Evidently, there are rockets on the base of the capsule that fire to cushion the landing. It apparently is much less violent that it looks.