A new book, Amazon Unbound, reveals Jeff Bezos’ envy of SpaceX(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
A new book, Amazon Unbound, reveals Jeff Bezos’ envy of SpaceX
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/a-new-book-amazon-unbound-reveals-jeff-bezos-envy-of-spacex/
110 comments
"Additionally, Goldman highlighted that Amazon representatives have had “30 meetings to oppose SpaceX” but “no meetings to authorize its own system,” which he interpreted as an attempt to stifle competition."
I think the fact that Space X, and Elon himself, being loud grabs a lot of attention in social media, and that ends up amplifying everything.
I mean, they blew up some rockets while trying to make them land vertically, and was such a mind boggling achievement that people were - and still are - rooting for them.
They have a pretty solid brand that was forged by their perseverance and boldness. Their story is not even of being the underdog in a competitive environment, because the endeavor itself was enough to make them stand out.
Not to mention that there are 3 known brands in this industry, that don't overlap: NASA (the OG), Space X (the crazy guys that land rockets) and Blue Origin (which has no clear positioning).
Even if Blue Origin won NASA contracts, it wouldn't matter the'd still be the last ones in people's minds. They could be doing backflips, for style points ofc, before landing a standing rocket that still wouldn't matter.
I mean, they blew up some rockets while trying to make them land vertically, and was such a mind boggling achievement that people were - and still are - rooting for them.
They have a pretty solid brand that was forged by their perseverance and boldness. Their story is not even of being the underdog in a competitive environment, because the endeavor itself was enough to make them stand out.
Not to mention that there are 3 known brands in this industry, that don't overlap: NASA (the OG), Space X (the crazy guys that land rockets) and Blue Origin (which has no clear positioning).
Even if Blue Origin won NASA contracts, it wouldn't matter the'd still be the last ones in people's minds. They could be doing backflips, for style points ofc, before landing a standing rocket that still wouldn't matter.
The funny thing is I think you’re overrating Blue Origin’s place in the space industry. ULA and Rocket Lab both provide commercial launch services to orbit. Boeing is part of the Commercial Crew program, though their capsule doesn’t really seem to work that well. Even Virgin managed to launch satellites to orbit recently.
Actually I think he's overstating it in the average person's mindshare too.
I don't even know if the average person on the street could tell you what Blue Origin is, or name it if asked if they heard Jeff Bezos has a rocket company...
I don't even know if the average person on the street could tell you what Blue Origin is, or name it if asked if they heard Jeff Bezos has a rocket company...
> That's a problem. The average person on the street has likely never even heard of Blue Origin, or know what they do, while they most likely have some idea of what SpaceX is and does. There is a tangible excitement about SpaceX.
Why is this a problem? There is only one reason in business why you'd want to grab the attention of the average person...and that is advertising .
Will SpaceX start advertising during launches? Maybe...up until then being known to the average person is not an advantage.
Some people claim going public would enable SpaceX to cash in on its fame by offloading loads of stock to the aforementioned normies...but that practice scares away smart/value money so again...until SpaceX starts advertising during launches the only person benefiting from the social media fanfare is Musk who gets to be invited on SNL to show how socially akward he is.
Why is this a problem? There is only one reason in business why you'd want to grab the attention of the average person...and that is advertising .
Will SpaceX start advertising during launches? Maybe...up until then being known to the average person is not an advantage.
Some people claim going public would enable SpaceX to cash in on its fame by offloading loads of stock to the aforementioned normies...but that practice scares away smart/value money so again...until SpaceX starts advertising during launches the only person benefiting from the social media fanfare is Musk who gets to be invited on SNL to show how socially akward he is.
> Some people claim going public would enable SpaceX to cash in on its fame by offloading loads of stock to the aforementioned normies...but that practice scares away smart/value money so again...
This is the worst kind of investor to have. Not having them is a good thing. Look at Tesla
This is the worst kind of investor to have. Not having them is a good thing. Look at Tesla
It's a problem contributing to Bezos' enviousness that the article was talking about. SpaceX gets all of the glory because they are actually doing things, so they are in the news and building brand recognition (for free!!). Hardly anyone has even heard of Blue Origin except mostly for people who already had an interest and seek it out. How many times has Blue Origin made it to the front page of HN vs SpaceX, which is a niche news site of higher-than-average technical readers?
> Will SpaceX start advertising during launches? Maybe...up until then being known to the average person is not an advantage.
Each time SpaceX is talked about, it's effectively a free advertisement for SpaceX. Look at all the talk about StarLink. Have you seen any paid ads? They don't need to, because they have been building their brand recognition for free with every launch for several years and people are excited about it and talk about it. Bezos company just does not have the same caché.
> Will SpaceX start advertising during launches? Maybe...up until then being known to the average person is not an advantage.
Each time SpaceX is talked about, it's effectively a free advertisement for SpaceX. Look at all the talk about StarLink. Have you seen any paid ads? They don't need to, because they have been building their brand recognition for free with every launch for several years and people are excited about it and talk about it. Bezos company just does not have the same caché.
SpaceX doesn't sell to the public, it doesn't have normie consumers who make purchasing decisions based on brand, at least not as yet.
That can change when they start selling their internet services, but again up to now all the promotional energies to build a brand have not been monetized.
The Free Advertisement and brand rising that you mentioned is only valuable if you monetize upon it. As of NOW the only way they have to monetize is selling advertising space during launches and I suppose they get the ads on Youtube as well.
That can change when they start selling their internet services, but again up to now all the promotional energies to build a brand have not been monetized.
The Free Advertisement and brand rising that you mentioned is only valuable if you monetize upon it. As of NOW the only way they have to monetize is selling advertising space during launches and I suppose they get the ads on Youtube as well.
You can buy Starlink right now if you live in parts of the northern US or parts of Canada. They're expanding constantly. I've have one for a few months now and love it. Interest was so great they asked the FCC to expand licensing to 5M people. Search "starlink review" on youtube for many examples.
> "Despite the fact that SpaceX has yet to formally advertise this system's services, nearly 700,000 individuals represented in all 50 states signed up over a matter of just days to register their interest in said services at www.starlink.com. To ensure that SpaceX is able to accommodate the apparent demand for its broadband Internet access service, SpaceX Services requests a substantial increase in the number of authorized units."[1]
700k signups is pretty good for no advertising.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/space...
Linus Tech Tips review on Starlink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh1a2K9ZgNA
> "Despite the fact that SpaceX has yet to formally advertise this system's services, nearly 700,000 individuals represented in all 50 states signed up over a matter of just days to register their interest in said services at www.starlink.com. To ensure that SpaceX is able to accommodate the apparent demand for its broadband Internet access service, SpaceX Services requests a substantial increase in the number of authorized units."[1]
700k signups is pretty good for no advertising.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/space...
Linus Tech Tips review on Starlink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh1a2K9ZgNA
For what it's worth, Starlink is fulfilling beta orders in Arizona, New Mexico, and continental Europe, so it's much more than "northern US" by now.
It’s a big benefit for recruiting.
"Envy" makes it sound like it's bad or sinful. But it just makes total sense to me. Bezos is trying to start a rocket company and this other rocket company is more successful. Of course you want to try to hire away executives from SpaceX, of course you want to compete for the same contracts they are getting.
It's a hard business and many companies have failed. What makes Blue Origin relatively unique is that Bezos has billions more dollars and can keep trying. I hope he does, I think we would be better off in a world where SpaceX has an innovative competitor who vigorously competes with them. The legacy companies like ULA, I don't know if they can reorient themselves to actually compete with SpaceX.
It's a hard business and many companies have failed. What makes Blue Origin relatively unique is that Bezos has billions more dollars and can keep trying. I hope he does, I think we would be better off in a world where SpaceX has an innovative competitor who vigorously competes with them. The legacy companies like ULA, I don't know if they can reorient themselves to actually compete with SpaceX.
I don't agree, although that is a charitable interpretation. Bezos was also "envious" [1] of Tesla's tax breaks from jurisdictions courting new gigafactories, which is why he demanded a road show to court breaks for HQ2.
This is obnoxiously wealthy people handling the situations like you'd expect (and yet, in a very unhealthy way). My two cents is that Musk (being on the spectrum) is driven in a different way than Bezos (and therefore, being obsessive to a greater degree [2] [3], making him more involved "on the ground", leading to SpaceX's success). Being "relentless" (Bezos) is what you do, being obsessed (Musk) is who you are. Bezos is going to chill on his mega yacht with the new lady friend while Musk is overseeing construction of Starship SNs in the Texas desert.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/behind-amazon-hq2-fiasco-jeff... (Behind Amazon’s HQ2 Fiasco: Jeff Bezos Was Jealous of Elon Musk)
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/20/elon-musks-ex-wife-on-secret... (Elon Musk’s ex-wife on secret to getting rich: ‘Be obsessed’)
[3] https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-as-great-as-Bill-Gates-St... (Answer at top of page by Justine Musk)
This is obnoxiously wealthy people handling the situations like you'd expect (and yet, in a very unhealthy way). My two cents is that Musk (being on the spectrum) is driven in a different way than Bezos (and therefore, being obsessive to a greater degree [2] [3], making him more involved "on the ground", leading to SpaceX's success). Being "relentless" (Bezos) is what you do, being obsessed (Musk) is who you are. Bezos is going to chill on his mega yacht with the new lady friend while Musk is overseeing construction of Starship SNs in the Texas desert.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/behind-amazon-hq2-fiasco-jeff... (Behind Amazon’s HQ2 Fiasco: Jeff Bezos Was Jealous of Elon Musk)
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/20/elon-musks-ex-wife-on-secret... (Elon Musk’s ex-wife on secret to getting rich: ‘Be obsessed’)
[3] https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-as-great-as-Bill-Gates-St... (Answer at top of page by Justine Musk)
> My two cents is that Musk (being on the spectrum) is driven in a different way than Bezos (and therefore, being obsessive to a greater degree [1], making him more involved "on the ground", leading to SpaceX's success).
My perspective, having watched multiple interviews of Elon and Bezos, is that Musk is just really passionate about tech. He's an engineer at heart, that's why he's directly involved in the development of the tech, which is central to all of his businesses. He's also a risk taker and a pioneer, he's not afraid of taking big risky bets on unproven technologies, he seems to actually enjoy doing that, and proving people wrong.
Bezos, on the other hand, is passionate about business and making money. He would like to have the tech success that Musk has, but he doesn't have the vision and the interest in how exactly the tech works. Once he sees that something is going to be financially successful, he tries to copy it. Amazon is successful because it has good execution, economies of scale and competitive pricing, but it wasn't the first online retailer, or the first cloud provider, etc.
I don't know if I would invest in Blue Origin. Personally, I think Rocket Lab is a much more interesting company (that is already trading on public markets). It's being led by someone who is genuinely passionate about space and has a proven orbital launch vehicle. I wish I could invest in SpaceX, but IMO Rocket Lab is the next best thing to invest in, a mini SpaceX.
My perspective, having watched multiple interviews of Elon and Bezos, is that Musk is just really passionate about tech. He's an engineer at heart, that's why he's directly involved in the development of the tech, which is central to all of his businesses. He's also a risk taker and a pioneer, he's not afraid of taking big risky bets on unproven technologies, he seems to actually enjoy doing that, and proving people wrong.
Bezos, on the other hand, is passionate about business and making money. He would like to have the tech success that Musk has, but he doesn't have the vision and the interest in how exactly the tech works. Once he sees that something is going to be financially successful, he tries to copy it. Amazon is successful because it has good execution, economies of scale and competitive pricing, but it wasn't the first online retailer, or the first cloud provider, etc.
I don't know if I would invest in Blue Origin. Personally, I think Rocket Lab is a much more interesting company (that is already trading on public markets). It's being led by someone who is genuinely passionate about space and has a proven orbital launch vehicle. I wish I could invest in SpaceX, but IMO Rocket Lab is the next best thing to invest in, a mini SpaceX.
> [Bezos] would like to have the tech success that Musk has, but he doesn't have the vision and the interest in how exactly the tech works.
You can say a lot of bad things about Jeff Bezos, but confidently claiming that he lacks vision and interest in tech and blindly copies whatever works is...bold.
Who was this "first cloud provider" if it wasn't Amazon?
You can say a lot of bad things about Jeff Bezos, but confidently claiming that he lacks vision and interest in tech and blindly copies whatever works is...bold.
Who was this "first cloud provider" if it wasn't Amazon?
What kind of 'vision' and tech leadership did Bezos bring to AWS? Arguably none whatsoever.
I recommend reading Steve Yegge's (in)famous "Platforms Rant". https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611
The conventional understanding is that AWS was a top-down mandate by a prescient Bezos way ahead of its time, and that vision ultimately paid off.
The conventional understanding is that AWS was a top-down mandate by a prescient Bezos way ahead of its time, and that vision ultimately paid off.
I never saw a corroborating, or adding more detail source for Yegge's post, and I wonder if this wasn't Bezos himself talking. I think someone put him up to it.
This uncorroborated story is not 'conventional understanding'. It doesn't even demonstrate any link to AWS vision or architecture. Service oriented architectures existed years before this mythical memo and AWS didn't exist until years later. This memo reads like a Steve Jobs parody - just blatantly attributing all major tech and architectural decisions to Jeff's genius and foresight.
> just blatantly attributing all major tech and architectural decisions to Jeff's genius and foresight.
In a thread that is attributing all of SpaceX and Tesla's technical achievements to Elon Musk's genius and foresight...
In a thread that is attributing all of SpaceX and Tesla's technical achievements to Elon Musk's genius and foresight...
The mandate Yegge alludes to in the “platforms rant” is to adopt a service-oriented architecture, not to build a cloud services provider.
Bezos' API mandate declaration in 2002 shows remarkable vision and leadership.
https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611
https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611
1) No it doesn't.
2) 99% of this story is fake.
2) 99% of this story is fake.
How do you know? Did you work at Amazon at the time? What's with this reflexively hostile posting style?
Tons of people also say Musk is a massive fraud who takes credit for others' work and is simply a cutthroat businessman like Edison without any technical expertise. Your posts sound the same. http://www.paulgraham.com/fh.html
Bezos and Musk are, in my opinion, clearly very good at both technology and business.
Tons of people also say Musk is a massive fraud who takes credit for others' work and is simply a cutthroat businessman like Edison without any technical expertise. Your posts sound the same. http://www.paulgraham.com/fh.html
Bezos and Musk are, in my opinion, clearly very good at both technology and business.
Did you read the linked story? How does demonstrate any tech vision or leadership for AWS by Bezos? Do you just blindly believe all of the claims (that don't even relate to AWS vision/tech leadership) made in the story? Do you honestly believe Bezos - the business leader and highest level manager of Amazon, who has an enormous amount on his plate, who has no technical background, is coming up with all of these high level architectural and tech decisions, instead of, say, the highly qualified and experienced engineers at Amazon? You seem to think billionaires are some kind of superheroes from fantasy land instead of actual human beings. You have to be a naive child to believe half of the claims about Bezos made in this story.
I did read it. I have no idea how much of it is true. But it seems fairly likely that enough of it is true to suggest that Bezos has a good mind for both technology and business.
The main claim made in there seems to be that Bezos wanted Amazon employees to switch to a more dogfooded API/service-oriented approach, with clear interfaces between different teams and areas of concern rather than internal private channels, to enable future renting out of hardware and services to customers, and that after he issued that edict people scrambled to implement it. Maybe Bezos originally came to that decision in part or wholly due to suggestions from others, but, either way, I've seen several people say he indeed did do something like that.
He used to program. He has a degree in "Electrical Engineering and Computer Science" from Princeton. Amazon had a ton of spare resources they could rent out. He's a pretty smart guy and is known for thinking about the long-term. It's not a massive stretch to say it's possible he could've made a decision like that back in 2002, when he had less on his plate than he does now.
The main claim made in there seems to be that Bezos wanted Amazon employees to switch to a more dogfooded API/service-oriented approach, with clear interfaces between different teams and areas of concern rather than internal private channels, to enable future renting out of hardware and services to customers, and that after he issued that edict people scrambled to implement it. Maybe Bezos originally came to that decision in part or wholly due to suggestions from others, but, either way, I've seen several people say he indeed did do something like that.
He used to program. He has a degree in "Electrical Engineering and Computer Science" from Princeton. Amazon had a ton of spare resources they could rent out. He's a pretty smart guy and is known for thinking about the long-term. It's not a massive stretch to say it's possible he could've made a decision like that back in 2002, when he had less on his plate than he does now.
How would you know?
Bezos has actually been preaching the same stuff about space as Musk since high school. Needing to get humanity off of earth and wanting to be the one to do it, etc etc.
I only know this because he graduated from the same high school as me (20 years before me), and I did some googling one day. He was the class valedictorian, and while his entire speech isn't transcribed anywhere I know of, The Miami Herald quoted sentences from various high school valedictorian speeches as part of a graduation article, and Jeff Bezos has a few sentences in there.
The Miami Herald archives for 1982 don't seem to be loading for me, but a CNBC article [0] has it quoted.
> ″[Bezos] wants to build space hotels, amusement parks, yachts and colonies for two or three million people orbiting around the earth,” the Herald’s article says.
> ″‘The whole idea is to preserve the earth,’” he said, according to the newspaper, which notes of Bezos that his “final objective is to get all people off the earth and see it turned into a huge national park.”
It's interesting to me how he was saying this in 1982 but instead went down the path of banking and then eventually Amazon. Yeah Blue Origin was founded in 2000, but like everyone else here is quipping, what has it actually accomplished? I have no basis for this, but I feel like his goals were: 1) Become the richest person in the world. 2) Use my money to lead humanity to space. He doesn't seem to be as good at goal 2 as goal 1.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/amazon-jeff-bezos-proposed-c...
I only know this because he graduated from the same high school as me (20 years before me), and I did some googling one day. He was the class valedictorian, and while his entire speech isn't transcribed anywhere I know of, The Miami Herald quoted sentences from various high school valedictorian speeches as part of a graduation article, and Jeff Bezos has a few sentences in there.
The Miami Herald archives for 1982 don't seem to be loading for me, but a CNBC article [0] has it quoted.
> ″[Bezos] wants to build space hotels, amusement parks, yachts and colonies for two or three million people orbiting around the earth,” the Herald’s article says.
> ″‘The whole idea is to preserve the earth,’” he said, according to the newspaper, which notes of Bezos that his “final objective is to get all people off the earth and see it turned into a huge national park.”
It's interesting to me how he was saying this in 1982 but instead went down the path of banking and then eventually Amazon. Yeah Blue Origin was founded in 2000, but like everyone else here is quipping, what has it actually accomplished? I have no basis for this, but I feel like his goals were: 1) Become the richest person in the world. 2) Use my money to lead humanity to space. He doesn't seem to be as good at goal 2 as goal 1.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/amazon-jeff-bezos-proposed-c...
> or the first cloud provider, etc.
This is just as uncharitable to Amazon as all those trashing Musk for his extracurricular Twitter activities are in dismissing his technical credibility.
AWS was absolutely revolutionary with EC2 and S3 and Amazon was the first in every meaningful way here.
This is just as uncharitable to Amazon as all those trashing Musk for his extracurricular Twitter activities are in dismissing his technical credibility.
AWS was absolutely revolutionary with EC2 and S3 and Amazon was the first in every meaningful way here.
Yes Bezos is definitely passionate about business, and certainly as a business Amazon is 1 if not 2 orders of magnitude above Tesla or SpaceX.
However, Bezos would not start a rocket company if he wasn't passionate about space. As the saying goes, the best way to make a million dollars in aerospace is to start with a billion.
However, Bezos would not start a rocket company if he wasn't passionate about space. As the saying goes, the best way to make a million dollars in aerospace is to start with a billion.
[deleted]
This makes sense to me also, Bezos came out of finance to start Amazon, Musk always was an engineer.
Yeah I think he's got "envy" as much as one of us would have envy for SpaceX. I'd love to be on the inside of SpaceX working for them and launching things to space. I'm sure Jeff would love to be the guy in Elons shoes just cause that stuff is so cool
I've been puzzled at Blue Origins lack of progress, particularly with orbital class vehicles. they've got an engine developed (BE-4) that's pretty good, and going to be used by ULA apparently. But otherwise, development on New Glenn seems to be stagnant. Are they making progress, only not publicly, like Spacex? Seems Spacex is executing at a tremendous level, easy to believe a competitor could have trouble keeping the pace.
People have a really weird idea of the timelines here. Blue Origin's first serious rocket was New Shepard, launched in 2015. It has been six years since then, and New Glenn, a rocket more ambitious than SLS or Vulcan Centaur or even Falcon 9, is due in under two years. The rocket has been delayed, but only by two years, which is typical for rockets of any sort, even SpaceX rockets.
This is not a weirdly slow pace.
The reason Blue Origin is behind SpaceX is that SpaceX built their first serious rocket in 2006, 9 years before New Shepard. Blue Origin was founded a long time ago but they spent most of that as a low-budget think-tank style operation.
Timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/n6a1dd/sn15_nai...
This is not a weirdly slow pace.
The reason Blue Origin is behind SpaceX is that SpaceX built their first serious rocket in 2006, 9 years before New Shepard. Blue Origin was founded a long time ago but they spent most of that as a low-budget think-tank style operation.
Timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/n6a1dd/sn15_nai...
As a "serious rocket", New Shepard falls well short of Falcon 1, which made orbit 13 years ago. Blue Origin still hasn't put anything into space.
Of New Shepard development, wikipedia tells me "Prototype engine and vehicle flights began in 2006, while full-scale engine development started in the early 2010s and was complete by 2015.[5] Uncrewed flight testing of the complete New Shepard vehicle (propulsion module and space capsule) began in 2015."
Well SpaceX was founded in 2002, giving them what, a 4 year head start on New Shepard? That 4 year gap has grown much wider since then.. SpaceX got to orbit 6 years after they were founded, while Blue Origin is at 21 years and counting.
Of New Shepard development, wikipedia tells me "Prototype engine and vehicle flights began in 2006, while full-scale engine development started in the early 2010s and was complete by 2015.[5] Uncrewed flight testing of the complete New Shepard vehicle (propulsion module and space capsule) began in 2015."
Well SpaceX was founded in 2002, giving them what, a 4 year head start on New Shepard? That 4 year gap has grown much wider since then.. SpaceX got to orbit 6 years after they were founded, while Blue Origin is at 21 years and counting.
Didn't Blue Origin, as a company, start 2 years before Space X did? This is the strange part to me. Blue Origin started sooner, has a billion dollars a year of cash from Bezos, and still seems pretty far behind. I'm hoping New Glenn is everything it is planned to be, and arrives soon. More competition would be great.
I do like Space-X's test and manufacturing iteration process though, and think it gives them an edge. Not to mention the shear amount of experience they've gained with so many actual launches.
I do like Space-X's test and manufacturing iteration process though, and think it gives them an edge. Not to mention the shear amount of experience they've gained with so many actual launches.
I'm not sure if I agree that New Shepard isn't a "serious rocket".
Falcon 1 has a low payload (small satellite) with medium energy (LEO).
New Shepard has a medium payload (crew capsule) with low energy (suborbital).
As far as "similar to a large orbital launch vehicle", you can rank them as:
New Shepard < Falcon 1 < Falcon 9 < New Glenn
BO is definitely trying to "skip steps", but I think that the US space industry as a whole is certainly better off for Blue Origin existing.
As far as the BE-4, the single largest technical risk for a launch vehicle is the engine, and using an engine which will already be in use (for Vulcan) looks smart to me. Yes there are delays, but aren't there always?
Falcon 1 has a low payload (small satellite) with medium energy (LEO).
New Shepard has a medium payload (crew capsule) with low energy (suborbital).
As far as "similar to a large orbital launch vehicle", you can rank them as:
New Shepard < Falcon 1 < Falcon 9 < New Glenn
BO is definitely trying to "skip steps", but I think that the US space industry as a whole is certainly better off for Blue Origin existing.
As far as the BE-4, the single largest technical risk for a launch vehicle is the engine, and using an engine which will already be in use (for Vulcan) looks smart to me. Yes there are delays, but aren't there always?
Manned suborbital launches are little more than glorified pogo-stick rides. This has been true ever since America tossed Alan Shepard into the air as desperate PR damage control after the Soviets put Yuri Gagarin into orbit.
If nothing else, "New Shepard" is appropriately named.
If nothing else, "New Shepard" is appropriately named.
Wow that's pretty funny. I never knew Shepard's flight was suborbital. Just verified it on wiki. I guess that was pretty effective PR!
For anyone unaware: getting to orbit is 25 times harder than just getting to space.
For anyone unaware: getting to orbit is 25 times harder than just getting to space.
*In propellant terms, for an equal payload, for a SSTO
These are important qualifiers. Realistically if you tightened up the mass fraction on New Shepard, abandoned reuse, and added a second stage, the technology could probably put a small payload into orbit just fine. I'm not sure what the point would be, since it would ruin all the useful things New Shepard is doing as a pathfinder.
These are important qualifiers. Realistically if you tightened up the mass fraction on New Shepard, abandoned reuse, and added a second stage, the technology could probably put a small payload into orbit just fine. I'm not sure what the point would be, since it would ruin all the useful things New Shepard is doing as a pathfinder.
New Shepard < Falcon 1 < Falcon 9 < New Glenn
Where does Falcon Heavy fit in that progression?
Where does Falcon Heavy fit in that progression?
Falcon Heavy technically has a little more payload to LEO than New Glenn, but it's stuck with an extremely undersized fairing for that job, so really it's better treated as Falcon 9 that's able to go further out. For the bulk of the market, New Glenn is more capable.
Yes, SpaceX moved fast in its early years; Musk threw everything he could afford at the project and raced to the finish line, whereas Blue Origin only really stepped into high gear very recently.
It's true that Blue Origin started early stage work around the time you say, but you should keep in mind the sort of projects they were. Charon was a few Rolls-Royce engines connected by a metal lattice. Goddard was a conical capsule that flew to 85m. This was not anything close to the levels of effort that SpaceX was putting in with Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.
It's true that Blue Origin started early stage work around the time you say, but you should keep in mind the sort of projects they were. Charon was a few Rolls-Royce engines connected by a metal lattice. Goddard was a conical capsule that flew to 85m. This was not anything close to the levels of effort that SpaceX was putting in with Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.
[deleted]
New Shepard can’t even reach orbit, and New Glenn is, as you say, “a rocket more ambitious than SLS or Vulcan Centaur or even Falcon 9”. That’s a massive concern and I strongly believe that “due in under two years” goal is going to be missed.
When New Glenn actually does exist though, it won’t be competing with F9 and SLS; it’ll be competing with Starship.
When New Glenn actually does exist though, it won’t be competing with F9 and SLS; it’ll be competing with Starship.
New Glenn won't be the same class, Blue Origins BFR is New Armstrong which is even further away than New Glenn.
That's my point though. Starship will be ready around the same time New Glenn is, and completely outclasses it.
They started development in 2012. It was planned to be 2020 and it has already been delayed to Q4 of 2022 and that actually means 2023. And the timeline slide could very easily continue.
But the thing is that BlueOrigin has spend a gigantic amount of money compared to Falcon 9. Its not close.
They are not spending SLS money, but their budget is huge and they made very aggressive public targets and stuck to them for a long time. Then they blamed the military on them missing their target.
But the thing is that BlueOrigin has spend a gigantic amount of money compared to Falcon 9. Its not close.
They are not spending SLS money, but their budget is huge and they made very aggressive public targets and stuck to them for a long time. Then they blamed the military on them missing their target.
Blue Origin has spent ~$2.5B on New Glenn infrastructure, including the factory and launch structures, and likely under a billion on New Shepard. This is perhaps a bit more than SpaceX would have needed, but not by all that much.
Eric Berger has an article on this. He is definitely a big spacex fan but does fairly objective reporting imo. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/so-what-really-happe...
they aren't really making progress behind closed doors. there was a video tour of their new glenn factory floor when they were showing off the hls mock up, it looked mostly the se.as it did years ago, before spacex even launched heavy or even announced starship.
I think the main difference is that spacex had a do or die mentality I. the beginning. Elon had money, but not endless amounts like besos or like he has currently. they literally were going to close up shop due to money, and got a last minute one last attempt to make falcon 1 lunch work. blue origin has never had the need to test things, it's just a bunch of engineers gooing over cad files and no need to go to orbit because they will never go bust.
I think the main difference is that spacex had a do or die mentality I. the beginning. Elon had money, but not endless amounts like besos or like he has currently. they literally were going to close up shop due to money, and got a last minute one last attempt to make falcon 1 lunch work. blue origin has never had the need to test things, it's just a bunch of engineers gooing over cad files and no need to go to orbit because they will never go bust.
I'm not sure that, that "succeed or die" mentality/necessity is really a bad thing, at least in the beginning. I can't speak to space programs, per se, but as far as software start ups, so many of them are great as slim companies who have to produce but fail to transition once they are bought out and become an overlarge, corporate goliath with deep pockets and room to fail. Without the sword of Damocles, as it were, the finish line can continue to be pushed back and the specs can be changed. It can stay academic.
What I've heard is that Blue Origin is much more Big Aerospace in hiring, philosophy, and process than SpaceX. Being faster than Boeing, sadly, isn't the same as being fast.
I can't help but think their slow and steady wins the race philosophy has led to their stagnation. Blue Origin's motto is "Gradatim Ferociter", Latin for "Step by Step, Ferociously". And I suspect having Jeff Bezos's massive hoard of cash takes away some of the pressure to perform or perish.
> slow and steady wins the race
It's a popular saying but a lot of people don't seem to recall the parable. A slow and steady tortoise only wins the race if the rabbit sprints a little bit but then gets too cocky and decides to take a nap and rest for a while (or gets stuck for some other reason.) If the fast rabbit keeps moving forward unrelentingly, then the slow tortoise doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
So far, SpaceX has been a rabbit that doesn't stop to take breaks. In scenarios like this, "slow and steady" becomes little more than a lame excuse for moving slow, not a legitimate plan to get ahead.
It's a popular saying but a lot of people don't seem to recall the parable. A slow and steady tortoise only wins the race if the rabbit sprints a little bit but then gets too cocky and decides to take a nap and rest for a while (or gets stuck for some other reason.) If the fast rabbit keeps moving forward unrelentingly, then the slow tortoise doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
So far, SpaceX has been a rabbit that doesn't stop to take breaks. In scenarios like this, "slow and steady" becomes little more than a lame excuse for moving slow, not a legitimate plan to get ahead.
I actually don’t think Blue’s process has actually followed their motto though. Building a reusable Saturn V-class rocket as your first orbital vehicle is not “step by step”. Step by step is how I’d describe the process for Starship; the first prototypes looked suspiciously like stainless steel grain silos, and their development progress is measured by how much they can do with the thing before it blows up.
I don't want to be 'that guy', but a slight better translation is "Ferociously gradual".
I just pulled it from an article on Wikipedia. I speak no Latin.
I remember one of the weirder tweets by Bezos when falcon 9 landed for the first time. Basically saying "welcome to the club". Not exactly apples to apples.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/6791166363103600...
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffbezos/status/6791166363103600...
You know, I think if I had Bezos' money, I'd stay away from the engineering practicalities of running a company selling launches.
If you want to be part of some off-planet future, it would be fun to spend significant money on new propulsion technologies and assume that it's all money down the drain. Admittedly, running a large lab has it's own set of problems to keep them on the straight and narrow.
No doubt, at the heart of it, a part of what drives any Bezos jealousy is simply that Musk has a lot more stage presence and star power.
If you want to be part of some off-planet future, it would be fun to spend significant money on new propulsion technologies and assume that it's all money down the drain. Admittedly, running a large lab has it's own set of problems to keep them on the straight and narrow.
No doubt, at the heart of it, a part of what drives any Bezos jealousy is simply that Musk has a lot more stage presence and star power.
But... engineering practicalities are literally where Bezos has like ten bicep muscles... Especially if you include logistics concerns.
If it's boring but scales, he is going to be in the winner pool. If it takes imagination, he's shown that his imagination is less focused than Musk's, and much more of a blowoff valve for when life gets too samey. So the big risk is that the creativity is impressive but totally inappropriate.
That said, I agree it'd be nice to chase after new propulsion tech.
If it's boring but scales, he is going to be in the winner pool. If it takes imagination, he's shown that his imagination is less focused than Musk's, and much more of a blowoff valve for when life gets too samey. So the big risk is that the creativity is impressive but totally inappropriate.
That said, I agree it'd be nice to chase after new propulsion tech.
We could combine the two.
Bezos could spend the money on a cannon/rail gun to get raw materials into orbit.
Bezos could spend the money on a cannon/rail gun to get raw materials into orbit.
> No doubt, at the heart of it, a part of what drives any Bezos jealousy is simply that Musk has a lot more stage presence and star power.
I’ve seen both of them present (though only Jeff in person) and if anything I think Elon is more awkward and less smooth as a presenter. Elon is definitely more cool, but it’s not really what I’d call “stage presence”.
I’ve seen both of them present (though only Jeff in person) and if anything I think Elon is more awkward and less smooth as a presenter. Elon is definitely more cool, but it’s not really what I’d call “stage presence”.
Stage presence is a funny thing. I don't think of it as how well you speak, but how much the camera loves you.
I wish instead of focusing on taking humanity to a new planet more billionaires would focus on trying to sustain the planet that we already have.
Musk spends half his time on electric cars, solar power, and grid storage, plus he just donated $100M for a carbon capture XPrize. He's probably had more positive impact on climate change than any other human on the planet. I doubt other car companies would be so far along on electric cars if Tesla hadn't forced the issue.
Bezos hasn't been that focused on climate but in 2020 he did donate $10 billion to his Earth Fund.
Bezos hasn't been that focused on climate but in 2020 he did donate $10 billion to his Earth Fund.
He also pledged to make Amazon a carbon neutral company by 2040, which combined with the implicit goal of Amazon taking over the entire world economy (joking not joking) is a big deal.
The environmental problems we have can't be solved by a couple of billionaires. We need politicians to get their act together.
Founding a new company that builds rockets on the other hand is something billionaires can do.
Founding a new company that builds rockets on the other hand is something billionaires can do.
"The environmental problems we have can't be solved by a couple of billionaires."
Plenty of relatively poor people have devoted their entire lives to working to help the environment, despite knowing their impact will be much smaller than what even a mere millionaire could accomplish.
Billionaires don't need to fix all environmental problems to make a very significant difference.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Plenty of relatively poor people have devoted their entire lives to working to help the environment, despite knowing their impact will be much smaller than what even a mere millionaire could accomplish.
Billionaires don't need to fix all environmental problems to make a very significant difference.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
It would be incredibly remiss to ignore the effects that billionaires have on policy.
Money buys politicians.
Elon Musk is also doing that, with tesla - not just the cars but with the batteries and solarcity too.
> focus on trying to sustain the planet
And what if we cannot acheive it, because of political and economical system at play i.e. local maxima holding us back and prevents us from breaking away from current order of things?
And what if we cannot acheive it, because of political and economical system at play i.e. local maxima holding us back and prevents us from breaking away from current order of things?
Then we all die because trying to make sustainable life on another planet is even harder.
Funny SpaceX is literally move fast and break things, whereas Blue Origin is doing the Big Bang version of Rocket Building
Master Musk: SpaceX
Arbiter Bezos: "were it so easy"
Arbiter Bezos: "were it so easy"
I don’t envy Elon having to forge a new business like SpaceX on public markets and dealing with the the court of public opinion in a new field with new business models, high capex, high risk. Bezos doesn’t have that and he has the capital to avoid it a bit longer.
Amazon simply can't afford rockets blowing up publicly like Tesla can.
This is all there is to it.
Bezos stepping down and distancing himself from Amazon should provide new lift (no pun intended) and much more risk taking to Blue Origin.
We should all remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint. It's not like the frentic months of the software wars where Apple put together the iPhone and its app ecosystem in 48 months and others never caught it.
This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).
Bezos should learn from Google and understand that there is no shame in killing a project....but I suspect the ego wars against Musk are too big now.
Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.
This is all there is to it.
Bezos stepping down and distancing himself from Amazon should provide new lift (no pun intended) and much more risk taking to Blue Origin.
We should all remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint. It's not like the frentic months of the software wars where Apple put together the iPhone and its app ecosystem in 48 months and others never caught it.
This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).
Bezos should learn from Google and understand that there is no shame in killing a project....but I suspect the ego wars against Musk are too big now.
Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.
Pretty much everything you said is wrong.
Tesla and Amazon have nothing to do with it.
BlueOrigin has the money to do what SpaceX does, in fact they are spending just as much or more. Go look at the launch pad BlueOrigin build in Florida and compare it to the one SpaceX build in Texas.
> This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).
Based on all objective measures they are not.
> Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.
Gates was commenting on Musk and his companies before Musk ever said anything.
And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.
Tesla and Amazon have nothing to do with it.
BlueOrigin has the money to do what SpaceX does, in fact they are spending just as much or more. Go look at the launch pad BlueOrigin build in Florida and compare it to the one SpaceX build in Texas.
> This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).
Based on all objective measures they are not.
> Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.
Gates was commenting on Musk and his companies before Musk ever said anything.
And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.
> BlueOrigin has the money to do what SpaceX does
No amount of money can give BlueOrigin the freedom which SpaceX has to blow up rockets and telecast failure globally every week like it has happened for the last 5 years.
The CEO of Amazon just can't be associated with such public failures.
For Musk Tesla and SpaceX were parallel efforts, they were never such thing for Bezos, in 2015 when he got serious about Blue Origin , Amazon was already a bigger company than Tesla is now and will ever be.
He simply didn't have that freedom.
> Based on all objective measures they are not.
Q: "How can you become a millionaire mr. Branson?"
A: "Be a billionaire and start and aerospace comapany"
These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.
> And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.
Gates can pick up the phone and occupy a week long of Biden time if he wants, same goes for Xi Jin Ping, the WHO director and the climate workgroups at the UN.
This is what happens when you do what others would never do: donate money to philantropic efforts way beyond the marginal PR utility returns of such donations. You get politicians lining up because they know they'd be able to take credit and do vitcory laps after a job well done which Gates would never claim ownership of, that is beyond the occasional Bloomberg conference which only policy nerds attend.
Stark difference with Musk who doesn't do philantropy and frankly scans for causes to inject himself in the loudest possible manner such as the Thai soccer team trapped in the caves.
Musk should thank that Gates is magnanimous enough not bring up the mess which Tesla is when he talks with Biden and John Kerry about climate policy. And Musk attacked him first, because he committed the sin of buying a Porsche so that he'd be able to lap Laguna Seca without the car overheating and exploding such as Teslas.
No amount of money can give BlueOrigin the freedom which SpaceX has to blow up rockets and telecast failure globally every week like it has happened for the last 5 years.
The CEO of Amazon just can't be associated with such public failures.
For Musk Tesla and SpaceX were parallel efforts, they were never such thing for Bezos, in 2015 when he got serious about Blue Origin , Amazon was already a bigger company than Tesla is now and will ever be.
He simply didn't have that freedom.
> Based on all objective measures they are not.
Q: "How can you become a millionaire mr. Branson?"
A: "Be a billionaire and start and aerospace comapany"
These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.
> And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.
Gates can pick up the phone and occupy a week long of Biden time if he wants, same goes for Xi Jin Ping, the WHO director and the climate workgroups at the UN.
This is what happens when you do what others would never do: donate money to philantropic efforts way beyond the marginal PR utility returns of such donations. You get politicians lining up because they know they'd be able to take credit and do vitcory laps after a job well done which Gates would never claim ownership of, that is beyond the occasional Bloomberg conference which only policy nerds attend.
Stark difference with Musk who doesn't do philantropy and frankly scans for causes to inject himself in the loudest possible manner such as the Thai soccer team trapped in the caves.
Musk should thank that Gates is magnanimous enough not bring up the mess which Tesla is when he talks with Biden and John Kerry about climate policy. And Musk attacked him first, because he committed the sin of buying a Porsche so that he'd be able to lap Laguna Seca without the car overheating and exploding such as Teslas.
> The CEO of Amazon just can't be associated with such public failures.
I see no reason for this. I think the opposite is true, having high profile test would actually improve the image of the public figure.
Maybe if it was Amazon himself you would have a point, but a totally separate company? Sorry, not buying it.
It seems to me you are just making up excuses to explain away Bezos failure.
> These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.
So first of all Branson is a terrible source.
Second of all, of course they don't get software margin. They are capital intensive business. But that is just terrible analysis, based on this logic no company before 1960 could ever be a good business because its not software?
So I guess anybody not selling software should just go home and start drinking because apparently its not worth it. If the market is large and you compare favorably in terms of competition they are good business by literally any objective measure.
That is other then haters who clearly have personal dislike for the CEO.
I see no reason for this. I think the opposite is true, having high profile test would actually improve the image of the public figure.
Maybe if it was Amazon himself you would have a point, but a totally separate company? Sorry, not buying it.
It seems to me you are just making up excuses to explain away Bezos failure.
> These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.
So first of all Branson is a terrible source.
Second of all, of course they don't get software margin. They are capital intensive business. But that is just terrible analysis, based on this logic no company before 1960 could ever be a good business because its not software?
So I guess anybody not selling software should just go home and start drinking because apparently its not worth it. If the market is large and you compare favorably in terms of competition they are good business by literally any objective measure.
That is other then haters who clearly have personal dislike for the CEO.
[deleted]
I hear the name "Blue Origin" maybe 1-2x a year, and it's usually in the context of something SpaceX'ey - not some new revolutionary new thing they did. I hear "SpaceX" at least several times a week. That's a problem. The average person on the street has likely never even heard of Blue Origin, or know what they do, while they most likely have some idea of what SpaceX is and does. There is a tangible excitement about SpaceX.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/amazons-kuiper-responds-to-e...