This is not to say that Space X’s achievements are not incredible. They are. It is just that Elon Musk projection timelines are pretty much always bunk, while Jeff Bezos seems to be better at projecting achievement timelines.
Again, what Space X and Blue Origin have achieved are incredible, and yes Space X has an entirely different set of technology that is capable of sending huge payloads to deep space...
I’m just saying Musk’s timelines are completely unreliable. Bezos’ aren’t (historically).
That's not to mention all the blatant patent trolling and lobbying that Blue Origin/Bezos is engaged in which constantly tries to hinder SpaceX. (Ex: Trying to patent landing on a barge to stop SpaceX doing it. Ex: Successfully lobbying several congresspeople to delay down selection of launch vehicles for military launches (but failed to delay it).)
Blue Origin is big on talk and little on action.
I'm a little surprised on this. I see Blue Origin as being small on talk. They have been mostly operating in stealth mode. Public isn't really that aware of them, at least no where near the level of SpaceX. They only get publicity when they meet a milestone. Which the thing is that they haven't promised much, but met those milestones on time.
> Bezos hasn't given any timelines for New Glenn (their first orbital rocket)
2021[0]
[0] https://www.geekwire.com/2018/blue-origin-resets-schedule-fi...
This is such absurdly reductionist take. Its a whole different level, just having something that can reach space compared to a reliable reusable rocket that can fly real costumers.
There is a reason SpaceShipOne was never used in production, its a tech demo.
> Bezos hasn't given any timelines for New Glenn (their first orbital rocket). People give way too much praise to Bezos.
They do have a timeline and they have actual costumers already signed.
And furthermore we have seen highly advanced engines, the BE-4 tested. That is a huge achievement.
> People give way too much praise to Bezos.
You are giving way to little. Do you know how few advanced rocket engines like that have been designed in the US? Not since the Space Shuttle. It might also very likely be the first ever methane engine to reach orbit.
As a betting gal, I disagree.
source: $2MM investment in Amazon from back in 2014 has performed extremely well. Stock price isn’t exactly a golden metric, but Bezos knows how and what to prioritize and when to deliver. I would trust Bezos over Elon Musk with real money any day.
Your post makes it appear as if Bezos is devoting the majority of his time to one specific company or venture, and therefore not being the industry leader is some sort of failure. That’s extremely short sighted from my perspective.
The little hopper rocket you described is a better investment from my perspective than anything Musk touches. Hell, if all Bezos had was a literal tin can and merely a promise of using material from that tin can as part of a lunar lander 10 years out, I would still put more faith in Bezos.
My only experience with Tesla is with purchasing a Model S, which was horrible. I no longer have that vehicle. Good riddance.
>> Blue Origin is big on talk and little on action.
The parent comment is definitely correct. Unless you mean patent trolling. Then Bezos has Musk crushed.
Fascinating. As a potential Tesla buyer, would you care to share your experience? Email welcome.
However, a quick Googling suggests that Space X has ~3 times the number of employees Blue Origin has and may also have had more money ploughed into it.
The point here is that Elon Musk is infamous for his widely optimistic forecasts while Bezos is more down to Earth (so to speak).
Blue origin is 19 years old and hasn't achieved orbit.
The BFR is a whole different class that is gone be more in line with the hidden BO project the New Armstrong, but we don't really know what that is gone be.
That said, SpaceX is ahead in rockets but this moon lander is something SpaceX doesn't have or is even working on.
On the other hand, Blue Origin hasn't yet reached orbit (something SpaceX did in 2008.) I do believe Blue Origin will be able to execute on Blue Moon, but they also need to demonstrate a _lot_ of hardware before boots on the moon.
But I do share skepticism on Blue Origin. It's hard to develop rockets in total secrecy. If New Glenn was anywhere close to flying, even in an expendable test configuration, we'd at least know that much even if they chose to keep the details confidential.
It was “only” 12 years between Sputnik and Apollo 11.
You’d think we’d be able to do things faster now.
12 years, and 4.4% of the federal budget (in the peak). In 2007 dollars they spend around $136 billion to get to the moon.
Instead we have multiple moonshots, bringing diverse approaches, and constrained by a budget. Since we know from Apollo that “if money were no object”, we can do this, it’s a good approach.
The reason we never moved on from Apollo is because economics matter. We were able to beat the tyranny of the rocket equation; now we are seeing if we can do it for a much smaller amount. And we have multiple bets on different approaches.
In the past they've talked about launching Blue Moon on SLS. Not that I expect that to launch real payloads by 2024...
The second successful FHeavy flight cut into the potential demand for New Glenn so the challenge is to remain relevant while building nation-state level infrastructure. Exciting to watch!