There's a lot more going on, Blue Origin employees comprise experienced SpaceX, NASA engineers, whereas SpaceX is mostly young, fresh out of university engineers.
blue origin can't sustain that price if they don't land their boosters. and afaik, there aren't any flight ready new glenns waiting. so unless BO can land it 99% of the time and drastically improve their production time, even with their higher payload to orbit, they still can't compete with f9.
Also Falcon Heavy can lift 60 tons to LEO with a similar cost to New Glenn, or less payload for closer to $90 million. Heavy and New Glenn are the actual competitors, and FH is a proven launch vehicle.
Falcon Heavy yeeted the 6 ton Europa Clipper to Jupiter, which is a very energy expensive launch, for something like 10 times less what the SLS would have cost for the same mission.
IMO, this is too early to reach a comparison between the two companies. Any company in a field that has a high level of barrier to entry and is innovative is necessarily going to have a long lead over any other competitor. If, however, the marketplace is rational (doesn't discriminate against newcomers) than eventually competitors will start to take away market share from the initial leader in the market. Also, the private rocket business is now worldwide. Focussing only on one of SpaceX's competitors misses the point of how competitive this field has become.
@@flytoday If LEO is that easy, why there is no other successful space company like them. SpaceX Launched Over 80% of All Orbital Payload Mass in 2024. Every astronaut from the Western world who has traveled to the International Space Station in the last five years has had to use SpaceX's Crew Dragon. SpaceX’s Falcon series rockets are the only reusable space rockets in the world and in the history of mankind. No one has yet succeeded in first-stage landings like SpaceX-not China, not Russia, not Blue Origin.
I used to struggle financially feeling lost and overwhelmed I prayed for a breakthrough and opened my heart to new opportunities One day I saw testimony about Elizabeth I decided to give it a try Miraculously within weeks I started earning $15,000 a week! This wasn't just a financial blessing but a confirmation of God's presence in my life. I realized that with faith and perseverance anything is possible
"Wow, what an inspiring testimony It shows the power of faith, hard work, and following your passion. It’s amazing to see how God can turn challenges into incredible opportunities. Truly motivating
"That's truly uplifting! Your journey highlights how faith and dedication can lead to unexpected blessings. It's a great reminder to pursue our passions and trust the process. Thank you for sharing your inspiring story
Your ending comparison of $100B NG launch vs $70M F9 launch, isn't really comparable. Preface, im not bashing Blue Origins New Glen rocket. Just facts as i understand. Im eager for NG to progress to launching 10s or hundreds of times per year. MOAR SPACE MOAR BETTER!! 😉👍 F9's cost to customers is what it is, because SpaceX can charge that and still be cheaper than current competition. F9's internal cost has been calculated to be $20M, including pad, personel, refurbishment, expended 2nd stage, and amortized cost of the reusable 1st stage and the actual development of the rocket. BO's NG rocket main financial detractor is as you stated - it took $14B dollars to get here. The amortized cost of the development alone, ignoring hardware, people, pad, fuel, etc -means it will take many hundreds or perhaps 1k+ rocket launches sold and many many years to turn a profit. In regards to NG's mass to orbit being greater, you cant ignore that SpaceX has Falcon Heavy. NG can put 45T into LEO (reusabke 1st stage design goal, unproven). FH can put 50T when recovering all 3 1st stage boosters (for apple to apple comparison). Most of all customers value reliability. They dont want their $100M to $10B cargo to Kablooiey. BO's NG doesnt yet have the pedigree.
off subject but if Elon and DOGE really can make the government more efficient, than I'm fine with Elon making his cake and eating it to. and SpaceX is just the start. watch his boring company get massive government contracts or neuralink get government research grants.
@@DemPilafian a quick google suggests Russian launches (that the US used after retiring the shuttle) cost the same as these private companies. which is probably why these private companies use that price. it's not really saving NASA anything - but it is reducing/eliminating a dependency on Russia
@ The U.S. purchased rocket engines from Russia after the Cold War to prevent Russian scientists and engineers from working with rogue states and terrorist groups. Russian engines were very good, but they are no longer competitive. SpaceX Starship could never happen with Russian engines -- wrong technology. The Raptor engines are far more flexible (both figuratively and literally).
The U.S. purchased rocket engines from Russia after the Cold War to prevent Russian scientists and engineers from working with rogue states and terrorist groups. Russian engines were very good, but they are no longer competitive. SpaceX Starship could never happen with Russian engines -- wrong technology. The Raptor engines are far more flexible (both figuratively and literally).
The U.S. purchased rocket engines from Russia after the Cold War to prevent Russian scientists and engineers from working with rogue states. Russian engines were very good, but they are no longer competitive. SpaceX Starship could never happen with Russian engines -- wrong technology. The Raptor engines are far more flexible (both figuratively and literally).
Before SpaceX, American taxpayers were getting charged by ULA (Lockheed + Boeing) for satellites launches that were ten times more expensive for the same service. Prior to that, the Space Shuttle cost $450 million per launch in 2011 just to resupply and travel to the ISS. Today, SpaceX can do the same job for just $69 million in 2024. Between 2011 and 2020, before the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule, the U.S. relied on Russia's spacecraft to send astronauts to the ISS.
@@ThomasJacobz spacex charges nasa 55 million per seat to the iss. so about 150 million per launch. soyuz cost 55-85 million per seat. so its a bit cheaper to the exact same price. what spacex CAN charge and what they DO charge are completely different things.
There's a lot more going on, Blue Origin employees comprise experienced SpaceX, NASA engineers, whereas SpaceX is mostly young, fresh out of university engineers.
Not sure who needs to hear this but The Censored Guide to Wealth on Bovolorus might just be what you've been searching for
blue origin can't sustain that price if they don't land their boosters. and afaik, there aren't any flight ready new glenns waiting. so unless BO can land it 99% of the time and drastically improve their production time, even with their higher payload to orbit, they still can't compete with f9.
4:29 In what world is 110 million cheaper than 70 million?
That makes Space X cheaper than Blue Origin, not the other way around
F9 can deliver around 18 tons to LEO while New Glenn can lift 45t to the same orbit. More than twice the payload of F9 for a slightly bigger price
@ falcon heavy is still cheaper per kg and more reliable solution for the customers. New Glenn is still not operational.
Also Falcon Heavy can lift 60 tons to LEO with a similar cost to New Glenn, or less payload for closer to $90 million. Heavy and New Glenn are the actual competitors, and FH is a proven launch vehicle.
Falcon Heavy yeeted the 6 ton Europa Clipper to Jupiter, which is a very energy expensive launch, for something like 10 times less what the SLS would have cost for the same mission.
@@ArtyomYamshchikov but after repeated reuse, falcon 9 launch cost drop significantly, 70 million is only for the first one before any reuse
Fail fast and learn. Love it
Bezos too busy w Sanchez 😂 / eyes on the prize man !!
Because SpaceX is the most innovative company in the world and it’s leaders choice have proven to be right at every turn.
Superior vision, methodology, and leadership. Those are all the principle factors of exceptional success. Just add Elon, and stir gently.
IMO, this is too early to reach a comparison between the two companies. Any company in a field that has a high level of barrier to entry and is innovative is necessarily going to have a long lead over any other competitor. If, however, the marketplace is rational (doesn't discriminate against newcomers) than eventually competitors will start to take away market share from the initial leader in the market. Also, the private rocket business is now worldwide. Focussing only on one of SpaceX's competitors misses the point of how competitive this field has become.
Right now, in the moment, who is leading the space industry?
Too early? Both companies are more than 20 years old. How old is old enough?
Well this was fun
Elon is Him😇
Blue Origin costs $110 million and SpaceX costs $70 million, and SpaceX has HIGHER costs? huh?
spaceX is like $15 million after multiple reuse of the same booster
SpaceX completes 400th Falcon booster landing from 438 successful Falcon9/Heavy launches.
LEO is entry level stuff
@@flytoday If LEO is that easy, why there is no other successful space company like them. SpaceX Launched Over 80% of All Orbital Payload Mass in 2024. Every astronaut from the Western world who has traveled to the International Space Station in the last five years has had to use SpaceX's Crew Dragon. SpaceX’s Falcon series rockets are the only reusable space rockets in the world and in the history of mankind. No one has yet succeeded in first-stage landings like SpaceX-not China, not Russia, not Blue Origin.
@@flytoday🤦 SpaceX has sent crafts to the moon
@@flytodayand rescued astronauts from ISS
@@flytodaynot for Bo. Took them 25 years
Simple, BO never launched an actual paying satellite to orbit ever in its decades of exsitence.
They just did recently I believe.
Still, SpaceX is years ahead.
@@adamb8317 was on a test payload
@@jacksonfallon-wilson8080 ah I couldn’t remember what payload was
I used to struggle financially feeling lost and overwhelmed I prayed for a breakthrough and opened my heart to new opportunities One day I saw testimony about Elizabeth I decided to give it a try Miraculously within weeks I started earning $15,000 a week! This wasn't just a financial blessing but a confirmation of God's presence in my life. I realized that with faith and perseverance anything is possible
"Wow, what an inspiring testimony It shows the power of faith, hard work, and following your passion. It’s amazing to see how God can turn challenges into incredible opportunities. Truly motivating
"That's truly uplifting! Your journey highlights how faith and dedication can lead to unexpected blessings. It's a great reminder to pursue our passions and trust the process. Thank you for sharing your inspiring story
I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
Sure, the investment-advisor that guides me is..
Elizabeth stark
i side with jeff bezos, i think he will win
Not a single word about rocket lab ? RKLB 🚀
i own 1400 shares of rklb
Your ending comparison of $100B NG launch vs $70M F9 launch, isn't really comparable.
Preface, im not bashing Blue Origins New Glen rocket. Just facts as i understand. Im eager for NG to progress to launching 10s or hundreds of times per year. MOAR SPACE MOAR BETTER!! 😉👍
F9's cost to customers is what it is, because SpaceX can charge that and still be cheaper than current competition. F9's internal cost has been calculated to be $20M, including pad, personel, refurbishment, expended 2nd stage, and amortized cost of the reusable 1st stage and the actual development of the rocket.
BO's NG rocket main financial detractor is as you stated - it took $14B dollars to get here. The amortized cost of the development alone, ignoring hardware, people, pad, fuel, etc -means it will take many hundreds or perhaps 1k+ rocket launches sold and many many years to turn a profit.
In regards to NG's mass to orbit being greater, you cant ignore that SpaceX has Falcon Heavy. NG can put 45T into LEO (reusabke 1st stage design goal, unproven). FH can put 50T when recovering all 3 1st stage boosters (for apple to apple comparison).
Most of all customers value reliability. They dont want their $100M to $10B cargo to Kablooiey. BO's NG doesnt yet have the pedigree.
Is this an AI audio?
Sounds like.
Nah, just his voice.
@ Its voice *
AI copy human voice. Human copy AI voice.
No, it's a real person. I've been listening to him for years
Hi
Forbes the answer to "Here's Why Musk's SpaceX Has Grown Bigger, Faster And Cheaper Than Bezos' Blue Origin"
DUH.
Government contracts? The fox is now in the white hen house in charge of the golden eggs.
A smell a musk 😂
off subject but if Elon and DOGE really can make the government more efficient, than I'm fine with Elon making his cake and eating it to. and SpaceX is just the start. watch his boring company get massive government contracts or neuralink get government research grants.
The reason is simple ellon fakes it better and cheaper😂😂😂😂
It's called government funding
It's called SpaceX is saving U.S. taxpayers literally billions of dollars.
@@DemPilafian a quick google suggests Russian launches (that the US used after retiring the shuttle) cost the same as these private companies.
which is probably why these private companies use that price.
it's not really saving NASA anything - but it is reducing/eliminating a dependency on Russia
@ The U.S. purchased rocket engines from Russia after the Cold War to prevent Russian scientists and engineers from working with rogue states and terrorist groups.
Russian engines were very good, but they are no longer competitive. SpaceX Starship could never happen with Russian engines -- wrong technology. The Raptor engines are far more flexible (both figuratively and literally).
The U.S. purchased rocket engines from Russia after the Cold War to prevent Russian scientists and engineers from working with rogue states and terrorist groups.
Russian engines were very good, but they are no longer competitive. SpaceX Starship could never happen with Russian engines -- wrong technology. The Raptor engines are far more flexible (both figuratively and literally).
The U.S. purchased rocket engines from Russia after the Cold War to prevent Russian scientists and engineers from working with rogue states.
Russian engines were very good, but they are no longer competitive. SpaceX Starship could never happen with Russian engines -- wrong technology. The Raptor engines are far more flexible (both figuratively and literally).
Spoiler: the American taxpayer bailed him out
Before SpaceX, American taxpayers were getting charged by ULA (Lockheed + Boeing) for satellites launches that were ten times more expensive for the same service. Prior to that, the Space Shuttle cost $450 million per launch in 2011 just to resupply and travel to the ISS. Today, SpaceX can do the same job for just $69 million in 2024. Between 2011 and 2020, before the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule, the U.S. relied on Russia's spacecraft to send astronauts to the ISS.
SpaceX bailed out NASA.
@@ThomasJacobz spacex charges nasa 55 million per seat to the iss. so about 150 million per launch. soyuz cost 55-85 million per seat. so its a bit cheaper to the exact same price. what spacex CAN charge and what they DO charge are completely different things.
The SLS has already cost the government $50billion dollars
@@oliverronquillo1971 lol no it hasnt 🤣🤣🤣
Musk to run NASA
GO BLUE ORGIN ❤ after the whole nazi salute from spacex/ elon I am a jeff bezos supporter NOW❤❤❤❤❤❤
If you actually think he did a nazi salute then you've been brainwashed by MSM.
Did you know that every beauty pageant winner waving to the crowd is doing the evil salute?
They are nothing without Russian engines
Spacex makes it's own engines
Spacex, blue origin and even NASA make their own engines. None of them need Russia's
Seems like you haven't been updated since 2011
What are you on?
American no 1 billionaire businessman world no 1 money machine unimaginable wealth 😎🤑😇🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🇲🇾😎🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🚀🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
He's actually from South Africa