Yeah I just read stuff like that and tune out because it so resolutely silly. It takes a huge amount of energy to get into orbit. Other than satellites and a space station, we have nothing in space. But we're gonna move heavy industry into space on any sort of foreseeable timeline? Sure, if we figure out anti-gravity or cold fusion or something.
Meanwhile, it is actually achievable to reduce the environmental impact of heavy industry and agriculture on Earth, reduce consumption, etc. It would also be a lot more impactful to invest billions into stuff like that instead of space access.
All technological leaps sound silly until they happen.
> It takes a huge amount of energy to get into orbit
Sure, for the initial resources that you haul up there, but heavy industry begets heavy industry -- and light industry, and everything inbetween. Once you can build in space without hauling resources up the gravity well, costs go down, and the cost floor is a lot lower than it is on Earth, in the long run. We'll probably never see the crossover but our grandchildren might.
> Meanwhile, it is actually achievable to reduce the environmental impact of heavy industry and agriculture on Earth, reduce consumption
We should chase those paths further than we have, but in the long run it's a game of diminishing returns. You can only be so efficient before the victories become pyrrhic and even then you will still be a long ways from zero-impact.
Space scales all the way to turning Earth into a nature preserve (not that we would or should, but we could).
> It would also be a lot more impactful to invest billions into stuff like that instead of space access.
Today? Yes. A hundred years from now? Maybe. Two hundred? No way.
> the cost floor is a lot lower than it is on Earth.
Thia is pretty speculative. There are significant engineering overheads due to thermal and environmental design constraints that could easily place the cost floor for many industries higher in space than on earth. The truth of this assertion is wholey dependent of a bunch of speculative technologies of unknown feasibility.
The major advantage of space is the capacity to scale production and resources beyond what earth can support. Thete is good reason to think we can do this, but also good reason to be skeptical of potential wishful thinking in this area.
> What the legion critics of Bezos and Blue Origin miss is that the company legitimately has the goal of ultimately saving planet Earth
Does it? I feel like we've seen tons of companies advertise lofty humanist goals, only to back away from them and declare "Actually we're a business and we serve our customers. It's not our job to save the world."
They're confusing Bezos with Musk. Musk is revolutionizing the adoption of solar energy and non-petroleum vehicles, and even has a goal of liberating humanity from Earth itself. Lofty, and becoming so real. Not to mention Spacex/starlink and the implications for a truly global internet, _serious_ space travel, ...
Name one thing Bezos is doing that isn't about himself. I liked his "thank you" to Amazon customers (I for sure helped get him into space) -- but it was simultaneously very off-putting, and I'm not surprised he's completely blind to that reaction. Kudos to him for his success, which I respect, but I find nothing about him to admire.
I truly don't know how anyone can believe a word Elon Musk says at this point. I'm not saying I trust Bezos either, but Elon has burned any shred of credibility he ever had.
The government and private industry find him very credible when purchasing launch services. Wall St and private investors find him very credible when raising capital. And those people are far more credible than you, an anonymous commenter on HN.
They don't necessarily find the things Musk says on Twitter credible. It's like that famous rich guy who said the media should stop taking a different famous rich guy "literally."
OK, yeah, but those are tweets. He uses social media like most people do, which, like most conversational speech, is not meant to be taken literally. His real business isn't done over Twitter.
you’re missing the point of GP. Musk has over promised and under delivered for a long time. Wall St/investors don’t believe Musk. They believe in Tesla and/or SpaceX. Musk is neither of those. He may be the big boss, but thousands of people work to make those things a reality. Thousands.
You realize he has lead a company to produce multiple models of the outright safest street legal scalable production automobiles ever produced across the board, right?
Asking a corporation to fix social problems is like asking the DMV to operate the space program or your local school district to build roads. Corporations are simply not "for" that. They are for production and service operation. They are not the right kind of entity, don't have the right structure, and don't have the right incentives.
Luckily corporations are not the only kind of human organization. We also have governments of various kinds and scales, international coalitions, non-profits, churches, universities, etc.
There is this weird idea that corporations are the answer to everything.
"projects in the works to support moving heavy industry from the surface of our planet into space. ... To set humanity on this environmentally sustainable path"
How is moving - literally - heavy industry into space environmentally friendly?
There's no environment in space, so displacing heavy industry on Earth (which does have an environment) with industry in space would theoretically be a good thing. This depends on exactly where in space you do this, though, and the number of rocket launches on Earth required to support heavy industry in space could have a significant impact on the environment.
Exactly. And "space" itself isn't a great place for industry, it has solar radiation for power, vacuum and no gravity for certain industrial processes, and lots of space to put things.
I expect heavy industry (and mining) will be on vacuum worlds like the Moon, asteroids, and Mercury, with some specialized processes and assembly done in orbit. Space is mostly for power satellites and habitats.
I think lots of industrial processes actually require an atmosphere or at least some of the gases in ours. It would make more sense to make those processes less harmful down here than move them to space
I think it partially depends on how you go about it.
If you’re moving heavy industry to Earth orbit and supporting it entirely with material shipments from earth, yeah that seems like a no-go.
On the other hand, if it’s the moon, asteroid belt, or even Mars we’re talking about, you really just need enough launches to bootstrap the operation. The bulk of other materials can procured locally, reducing the number of launches to just those getting personnel to the stations, which would be dramatically fewer in number and less than a rounding error in terms of emissions (each rocket launch is roughly equal to a commercial flight, the latter of which there are tens of thousands each year).
I'm not in either industry, but doesn't mining (like oil) depend on getting the low-hanging fruit first? In other words, how can you profit from mining if your costs are exponentially higher than folks doing the same work here on earth?
Even if the entire mining operation were already setup (at a cost of thousands of dollars per kilo of weight sent up there), you would still have the costs of getting the mined materials back down here and those are likely to be astronomical, so to speak.
I’m not in either industry either, most of what I’m saying is based on what I’ve gathered as a space enthusiast.
The cost issue is multifaceted.
Most of it is sunk into launching itself, which is where things like space tourism come into the picture as a way to provide an initial business case and eventually, economy of scale. Addressing that alone will improve the economics of off-world industry quite a lot just on its own.
For the other part, initially companies will just have to eat the cost to get things up and running. This really isn’t that unusual — we just haven’t had much in the way of truly new frontiers in many years and have grown accustom to business ventures being relatively low cost and low risk. That said, this could also be partially subsidized by researchers and tourists, since there is certain to be interest from universities and other organizations to send people to study these other bodies, and there are most certainly a surprising number of individuals both wealthy and crazy enough to want to go stay on Mars for a couple of years.
1kg of a commodity in earth orbit should be worth more than 1kg of the same commodity on earth because it's stuck in earth's gravity well. The orbital commodity has significantly more potential energy.
Now, there's not yet much of a market for commodities outside of earth, but as soon as there is, producing a commodity on the moon and shipping it to earth orbit will likely be cheaper than shipping it from earth - at least once scales are large enough.
Fantastic question. Lacking an atmosphere, it wouldn't go anywhere. The ultimate insulator. So whatever heat you produced in your space rock factory would stay right there. There's no such thing as air conditioning in space, bereft as it is of that first component, air.
Sure heavy industry in space wouldn't pollute the Earth, but the physics for this just don't work out. How would you get all the produced goods back to Earth? Lots and lots of rockets that would then have to fly back up to space. The energy involved with that would be massive and cost prohibitive on the scale that it would need to be in order to replace any meaningful amount of heavy industry on Earth.
A space elevator could potentially be much better, but none of these private companies are pursuing space elevators.
Investing money into developing renewable energy power for heavy industry makes infinitely more sense, but isn't as cool as launching rockets. IIRC the Gates Foundation is investing in a solar powered method for smelting steel.
After reading this up a little, maybe cement production could be moved to space? Neglecting that we would have to burn 6kg of fuel to get 1kg of limestone into space, the heat could be provided by the sun and the CO2 vent into space?
Has he some how gone bankrupt? I can't help but feel if he wants to keep Blue Origin running, he could use a handful of the cash he has laying around one of his mansions. or one of his yachts. or his Texas launch complex. Pretty sure he could bank roll Blue Origin for decades without seeing any significant hit to his personal wealth.
Jeff can define success however he wants. He can define it in terms of making money, or in terms of successful launches. Making money is hard - there is only so much demand for things in space, and some competition - making it questionable if the investment will pay off. However launching isn't as hard, and he can define metrics in that way and be successful for his purposes.
How is launching things into space any different from paying composers to write much, or painters to paint pictures - two things that rich people regularly did 300 years ago.
Space demand will grow incredibly fast very soon as SpaceX leads the incredible prices drops in $ per KG to orbit.
I'd love for them to be successful, and its great to see so many space companies being created, testing, and launching. And it's very important for the future of civilisation. That doesn't mean that you can't ask questions about the health of a particular company.
My point is he could buy a lot of time to save the business. He's not "running out of time". The entire article just feels like: woe is the billionaire's pet project failing because it's not profitable in an unreasonably short amount of time despite plenty of cash availability if said billionaire wants to continue and achieve their original goals.
1) time and time again, particularly in the media, I hear net worth bandied about as though it's the same as cash. Bezos is worth X billion - think what that cash would pay for!
2) billions in equity can't be translated into billions in cash. Millions, for sure. But not billions.
3) any statements that talk about taxing the rich inevitably seem to come down to transferring equity to the state over time based on a current stock market valuation.
All of the above seem misinformed and/or a bad idea, and worth trying to establish fundamental understanding in this area. If you already have that understanding then that's fantastic.
Well luckily we have markets that can quickly turn equity in Amazon into cash. Bezos has in fact been doing that to the tune of billions of dollars a year to fund Blue Origin. I don't see him stopping any time soon.
Where did anybody expect Blue Origin, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic by this point? 17-20 years of R&D, building on decades of rocket science and space exploration, consulting with NASA et al. and between the three of them, only 1 has been able to send humans into orbit and that was only very recent.
20 years to go from a pile of cash and no experience, to a full production line of safe orbit-capable launch vehicles is a very big ask. SpaceX has achieved that, but at the cost of many of its employees (just look at the press around SpaceX working conditions).
Yes, it's longer than the time between the Mercury missions and Apollo 11, but the 50s-60s era of space travel was significantly higher risk. If corners could be cut in the same way, no doubt 20 years would have been fairly reasonable. Add in an existing presence in space R&D and the shorter time frames of the space shuttle program seem even more reasonable. But that just isn't possible in today's safety first world.
He needs to get something in orbit, anything. Once he has a single win, he can start scoring launch contracts and competing in the launch provider market. He should end up more profitable than every provider with disposable launchers.
New Glenn should be that vehicle, if they ever finish it.
He's said he plans to sell 1 billion of Amazon stock a year to fund Blue Origin. That seems like enough to keep it going, and as long as Amazon continues at or above its current share price, Bezos does appear to be wealthy enough to keep this going as a hobby project for at least a few decades.
It's not about the money. It's about mental focus.
Elon Musk is "all in" on making mankind an interplanetary species. He is not cruising around the world on a yacht but holing up in a cheap house in Texas.
He went at an "impossible" goal by finding specific markets for launch services and satisfying them with Dragon. Starship is a bit ahead of the market, but the success with Dragon bodes well.
Looking at the big picture I wonder if Amazon succeeded (post-2005 or so) despite Jeff Bezos instead of because of him... That is, the systems he created at the beginning might have outgrown him.
The goal of making man an "interplanetary species" comes from religion, specifically the religion of Transhumanism to which both Bezos and Musk subscribe.
There is nothing in our history or present day evolution that would suggest people can or should live on other planets. Absolutely nothing. We are not even remotely close to such a "goal" when today people live barely below the threshold of space (LEO) and not in space at all.
Religious goals and magical thinking have driven human society for hundreds of thousands of years (see the fascinating and recent post here on HN about The Origin of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind). Jeff and Elon's fantasies about human habitation in space (or somehow improving life on this planet by leaving it) are more of the same.
I would go back to Gerard K O'Neill who didn't indulge in the full-fledged transhumanism of Timothy Leary, et al. (e.g. if you're grown-up you don't need personal immortality)
I think Mars is for the birds, cutting up a carbonaceous or wet asteroid to construct a solar-sail factory that can deliver sunshades to earth-sun L1 is a more interesting project. Something halfway to Niven's ringworld seems like a possible endpoint. (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07487)
As I see it the problems are half chemical engineering, half "building a ship outside a bottle from the inside of the bottle" and half "what do you do with the gas before you take the asteroid apart?"
You might wind up with a structure that can hold a few trillion people, but you start with maybe 40 hardcore Zeons and a few million eggs because I don't see how you build and operate the factory or the factory factory with a 20 minute time delay.
I know someone that refuses to shutdown his startup. He loses 500-900k/year on it with no end in sight. His other company makes 3M/year. So he can go on for quite a while.
Yet another in a number of Bezos fluff pieces I’ve seen in the last few days.
Oh, he wants to save the planet? Maybe his garbage spewing engine named Amazon could do something there.
Bezos is smart enough to know the odds of him saving Earth or an asteroid hitting in 30 years are about even odds right now, so sure, sell that but also figure by then he’ll be too old to miss out.
Humans sure love to live in the fantasy that humanity is forever well they needlessly consume the only planet known for certain to support their biology.
Monopolies are efficient, that's why they exist and survive. The bad part is that they can capture all the economic profit from an activity. But there doesn't necessarily matter for leisure activities like space travel.
Monopolies are efficient given status quo processes / technologies / business models, but cause development in all those above areas to stagnate. Ergo monopolies create inefficiencies given the march of time. It's bizarre that I have to state such a thing on something like hacker news.
> The problem is that by beginning his company with a focus on space tourism and flying on the very first mission himself, Bezos only plays into the hands of critics.
I'd frame it as Bezos demonstrated supreme confidence in the rocket by being personally on the first manned flight.
Jeff Bezos flying with his brother Mark on the first manned flight of Blue Origin is the ultimate dogfooding event. Surprised people are so against it, it is an iterative step and was massively risky but proves out the technology.
Blue Origin will be a formidable competitor and working with ULA, JPL and NASA will be great for the space industry and new perspectives on sustainability on Earth.
ULA will be launching Amazon Kuiper satellites to start but eventually it will be Blue Origin itself. I wouldn't ever bet against Bezos. The competition is just beginning. I am glad we got a space race, competition is good.
The Blue Origin flight was extremely smooth and clean, I can't wait to see more.
I agree about the living in space and colonizing mars which are mostly pipe dreams (that I'm admittedly optimistic about as a spaceflight enthusiast), but I think mining asteroids is a feasible proposition. The material is there, and in-situ resource extraction and return has been demonstrated. It's really just a matter of scale-up and putting in the upfront investment.
And Blue Origin has forced ULA to fall back to using Russian rockets engines because their engine hasn’t been finished yet. ULA probably regrets using BE now.
Except the Vulcan hasn't had a single launch yet, will have half the payload capacity of the Falcon Heavy and is being built by a company with no experience in rocket landing/re-use.
I don't really see how the Vulcan will be competitive with the existing launch capabilities of SpaceX, even if it does launch successfully before Starship.
I don't see how Blue Origin producing the engines for an also ran rocket is going to fund their operations. Blue Origin will be dependent of Bezos and the USG for quite a while, atleast until the New Glen can be launched re-usable.
It is weird that they went with a brand new company to provide the lift for their NSO launches. Especially when they haven't executed on a heavy lift engine yet. It feels like New Glenn especially is a pipe dream.
Starting off by catering to a tiny, rich elite in order to drum up excitement isn't a bad idea. Look at Tesla: they started with a $100k+ sportster model to create buzz, dispel myths about electric car performance, make it look sexy instead of focusing on environment benefits and cost-per-mile efficiencies. That generated revenue--and, more importantly--free advertising and buzz. Then they started making more affordable, less-sexy vehicles for the broader market. It was very much intentional. Musk could have repeated the pattern with SpaceX, but didn't have to, since he'd already proven himself and had a nice bankroll.
Musk was closely involved with the design of the Roadster and is officially a co-founder of Tesla. Do you have sources regarding who did develope the Roadster-buzz business model?
It sounds like Musk was already looking at investing in a different electric sports car company and thus it was more a case of a bunch of people having similar ideas amd working together. They also say that the buzz business model was something they sort of fell into.
Edit: The other side of the story is here. I am sure both sides have bias, but given that a judge dismissed Eberhard's claim that there were only two co-founders, it the five co-founder settlement seems reasonable.
> What the legion critics of Bezos and Blue Origin miss is that the company legitimately has the goal of ultimately saving planet Earth. While Tuesday’s flight was clearly self-serving for Bezos, Blue Origin has follow-on projects in the works to support moving heavy industry from the surface of our planet into space.
I can't wait to see the most polluting industries, like agriculture or construction moved to space. I can't wait to see how heat-producing heavy industries intend to cool down in space either.
Great journalism here. Just repeat corporate bullshit without an ounce of critical thinking.
My summary: till around 2015 Blue Origin and SpaceX seemed like peer competitors; since then SpaceX pulled way ahead. Bezos and Musk have quite different long-term visions, with Musk into Mars settlement and Bezos into moving Earth-based energy and industry into space using space resources, inspired by Gerard K. O'Neill, etc. The article asks whether Bezos is committed enough to get his company to really compete.
It's offputting to see so much hate in the comments here. I'm not a fan of some things about Amazon, but I want SpaceX to face serious competition, and I see space development as more promising than Mars development.
> What the legion critics of Bezos and Blue Origin miss is that the company legitimately has the goal of ultimately saving planet Earth.
> Bezos has a compelling vision for space, and it is entirely genuine.
> He has the vision. He has the money. But at the age of 57, does he have enough years or willingness to ensure Blue Origin’s success?
The central thesis of the article seems to boil down to the above quotations, i.e., he's genuine and his goals are noble, but can he pull it off?
The "legitimate", "entirely genuine", and "compelling vision" to "ultimately sav[e] planet Earth" given in this speech is central to the argument, but it is barely even outlined in this article or linked articles -- beyond referencing O'Neill cylinders, mining asteroids, and vague notions of leaving Earth as a "garden". There seems to be no recording or transcript of this speech, nor even any second-hand justification for how legitimate, genuine, or compelling it is.
To me it all seems like the usual ludicrous utopianism that gets attached to space projects. Mine some asteroids, sure. But I see nothing here that even hints at a way to meaningfully reduce or stop environmentally destructive practices here on Earth. We will need to solve our Earth-bound problems. Bezos can focus on Blue Origin or not, it won't matter.
This is just my own speculation, equally as invalid as the authors, but at most I'd say Bezos thinks his goals are entirely genuine, but it's entirely based on narcissism and wanting to be the only one smart/powerful enough to save us.
If it came to the point where he had to sacrifice things he actually cares about to help others with no benefit to himself or his ego I would bet Bezos net worth that he wouldn't lift a finger. Maybe convincing himself he's working to save humanity is how he justifies not doing something really useful with his wealth, like saving tens of thousands of people from suffering and dieing of starvation, instead of playing billionaire space games.
maybe I'll write a short story about Bezos and Musk both wanting to become the savior of earth and competing to save humanity first/better to feed their own egos, to the point where they start sabotaging each others efforts to gain an advantage. Then neither of them are able to save us because they were more worried about being seen as the one to save the planet than actual saving the planet, and we all die
He could start by treating his own employees like humans. There's a great mass of "humanity" whose lives need improving and they're called Amazon workers.
Just curious, has Bezos engaged in behavior indicative of an actual narcissist. Or have there been reports from people close to him? Or is your assessment mostly a projection of Amazon back onto him? I know a few people who actually have narcissistic personality disorder but I don't know Bezos at all.
I think people can have narcissistic goals without having narcissistic personality disorder. It is tempting to see our passions as deriving from an objectively correct view of how the world should improve. Jeff likes space and, what do you know, it turns out Jeff's way of exploring space is at the center of a larger plan to save the world that Jeff feels pretty confident about.
Those of us who aren't billionaires just have to satisfy more people with our arguments about why our ideas are worth doing. When you're funding everything, it's a lot easier to attribute pushback to personal preference rather than your overall worldview being flawed. After all, if your worldview was flawed, why are all these people working at your space company? How did you make all this money? Etc.
I don't actually if Jeff has drunk his own cool-aid, but I think people in his position have fewer people to push back against their worldview than most.
I'm guessing based on his business practices and attitude in interviews/statements. I don't claim to be an expert though, that's why I qualified my post stating that's it's purely my speculation, just like the authors post
Fair. Do you have any examples or links to the offending remarks or practices? I’m trying to build up my own profile in order to understand the negative responses to the blue origin flight.
It was reported that Bezos himself was behind the failed pushback online by Amazon "ambassadors" to the peeing in bottles story. Replying "You don't really think people are peeing in bottles, do you?" and then finding internal Amazon documents proving management awareness of people peeing in bottles was certainly a poor decision, and seemingly influenced by Bezos' pride and ego more than reason.
And it's not as attributable to Bezos, but Amazon is famous in journalism for asking for numerous "corrections" to articles about them, when those supposed corrections are actually just unrelated talking points and PR spin.
You could say this about Bill Gates he has actually eliminated disease, ventured into Nuclear, Renewables and food security, he has legitimately saved perhaps a few million of lives.
But how could you make such claims about Bezos? Of the big three cloud providers, AWS his the only one still spewing out carbon.
If we were to make "life/death" balalncesheet, did his Amazon and other Bezos companies save lives or contribute to people's deaths, net? It should be obvious that Amazon has reduced living standards and wages for so many people, some of them have suffered ill health and death as a result.
Wit this track record, how could anyone claim Bezos is "saving the planet" with some hypothetical projects that noone even comitted to? In my book, Bezos needs to pay off his debt to humanity and the planet first.
I disagree with the entire premise of using space to fix earth's problem but, were that possible, how does sending a rocket straight up (to 1/4 the height of the International Space Station) and then straight back down help us get anyone to space?
We already have technology that does more than that. Even calling it "space" is really a stretch.
I do understand that big public projects drive technology interest and adoption as well as national pride, and everyone likes that. But I can't see how a short ride up and down 1/4 of the way to an existing "space base" is much of an accomplishment aside from those pride-based goals.
> Neither side is necessarily wrong. It is reasonable to both be uncomfortable with Bezos' extreme wealth and what that means for society but also recognize that Blue Origin has advanced spaceflight.
How did a brief amusement ride into sub-orbital space advance spaceflight?
To reach orbit, you need to go one part up and four parts sideways. This flight was only the vertical component - essentially just 20% of the minimum bar for useful space activity.
I would say the quote is probably a poor choice of words. It's not saying the flight itself advances anything. It's saying that having another group of people working on space tech is competitive, and competition drives advancement.
Is this always true though? Space tech is highly specialized, if you can't hire enough people already, more competition just spreads the available talent thinner. I'd be curious if it's currently the case that SpaceX/NASA/BO's development is personnel constrained.
I've definitely heard of projects at FAANG companies being cancelled because they couldn't hire enough people for them, so I could see this also happening in other industries.
It is definitely not always true that competition drives advancement, even if there is sufficient personnel. As a super simple example: There's a couple of restaurants nearby and competition is fierce, but it mostly results in the restaurants going out of business at a steady pace and being replaced by new starry-eyed entrepreneurs willing to give it a shot.
Space tech is also always considered to be a national security topic, so the available personnel does not just have to be talented but they need a security clearance as well.
> "Space tech is highly specialized, if you can't hire enough people already, more competition just spreads the available talent thinner."
Try to avoid 0 sum thinking, its often wrong. increased competition for talent in space will drive up wages which will result in more people going into said fields.
If we are personnel constrained right now (we might not be) surely this competition for talent will result in it being a more attractive area for graduates.
One of the smartest things the UK power companies did was create very generous sponsorship programmes for students. For a tiny fraction of a yearly salary they could encourage someone to specialize in their niche. Now the UK has a great pipeline of engineers and they're saving on costs in the long-term because they don't need to compete amongst themselves on salary because there's plenty of talent.
Yes, being greedy, envious, and jealous of other peoples use of material goods is wrong. Its time we start calling it out. That doesn't make you progressive, it's a poor behavior attribute and you should not partake in it.
As far is 'how did it advance spaceflight'. its called progress. 20% is better than 0%. Maybe next time they will be 40%.
Something I don't understand about the criticisms of the launch is that the rocket landed back on a platform. This was something SpaceX was (entirely justifiably) lauded for. Is it just old hat now? Or is the SpaceX version of it more technically challenging in some way?
I think it’s due to the substantial difference between New Shepard and Falcon 9. New Shepard has a much lower payload capability and is not able to go orbital. Therefore the landing of the Falcon 9 booster is a significantly greater challenge than the landing of New Shepard.
My take on this is that the BO/VG vehicles are simply dwarfed by SpaceX/F9 in terms of both physical size [1] (source [2]) and launch profile [3] (source [4]).
It's partially that it's more routine now, but it's more that the F9 is so much larger, has a far more complicated launch trajectory, and in my opinion that they are landing on barges in the middle of the ocean.
Not even that. Making it to the Karman line is a very low bar. They are nowhere close to being able to reach ISS. The leap from New Shepard to New Glenn is a rather big one.
Remember when rich people built thousands of public libraries and giant public learning institutions to create their legacy instead of taking glorified joyrides to the edge of space and patting themselves on the back?
119 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] threadMeanwhile, it is actually achievable to reduce the environmental impact of heavy industry and agriculture on Earth, reduce consumption, etc. It would also be a lot more impactful to invest billions into stuff like that instead of space access.
All technological leaps sound silly until they happen.
> It takes a huge amount of energy to get into orbit
Sure, for the initial resources that you haul up there, but heavy industry begets heavy industry -- and light industry, and everything inbetween. Once you can build in space without hauling resources up the gravity well, costs go down, and the cost floor is a lot lower than it is on Earth, in the long run. We'll probably never see the crossover but our grandchildren might.
> Meanwhile, it is actually achievable to reduce the environmental impact of heavy industry and agriculture on Earth, reduce consumption
We should chase those paths further than we have, but in the long run it's a game of diminishing returns. You can only be so efficient before the victories become pyrrhic and even then you will still be a long ways from zero-impact.
Space scales all the way to turning Earth into a nature preserve (not that we would or should, but we could).
> It would also be a lot more impactful to invest billions into stuff like that instead of space access.
Today? Yes. A hundred years from now? Maybe. Two hundred? No way.
Thia is pretty speculative. There are significant engineering overheads due to thermal and environmental design constraints that could easily place the cost floor for many industries higher in space than on earth. The truth of this assertion is wholey dependent of a bunch of speculative technologies of unknown feasibility.
The major advantage of space is the capacity to scale production and resources beyond what earth can support. Thete is good reason to think we can do this, but also good reason to be skeptical of potential wishful thinking in this area.
Does it? I feel like we've seen tons of companies advertise lofty humanist goals, only to back away from them and declare "Actually we're a business and we serve our customers. It's not our job to save the world."
Maybe Sherwin Williams with their slogan?
Even Exxon Mobile will say the same. You have to look at the details and what they actually do.
Name one thing Bezos is doing that isn't about himself. I liked his "thank you" to Amazon customers (I for sure helped get him into space) -- but it was simultaneously very off-putting, and I'm not surprised he's completely blind to that reaction. Kudos to him for his success, which I respect, but I find nothing about him to admire.
He has saved me an enormous amount of time and gas because I don't go to the mall anymore.
I.e. Bezos makes money for himself by providing a service people find worth paying for.
Luckily corporations are not the only kind of human organization. We also have governments of various kinds and scales, international coalitions, non-profits, churches, universities, etc.
There is this weird idea that corporations are the answer to everything.
People missing that also usually miss the following:
* What the legion critics of Zuck and Facebook miss is that the company legitimately has the goal of connecting people
* What the legion critics of Page and Google miss is that the company legitimately has the goal of doing no evil
I expect heavy industry (and mining) will be on vacuum worlds like the Moon, asteroids, and Mercury, with some specialized processes and assembly done in orbit. Space is mostly for power satellites and habitats.
If you’re moving heavy industry to Earth orbit and supporting it entirely with material shipments from earth, yeah that seems like a no-go.
On the other hand, if it’s the moon, asteroid belt, or even Mars we’re talking about, you really just need enough launches to bootstrap the operation. The bulk of other materials can procured locally, reducing the number of launches to just those getting personnel to the stations, which would be dramatically fewer in number and less than a rounding error in terms of emissions (each rocket launch is roughly equal to a commercial flight, the latter of which there are tens of thousands each year).
Even if the entire mining operation were already setup (at a cost of thousands of dollars per kilo of weight sent up there), you would still have the costs of getting the mined materials back down here and those are likely to be astronomical, so to speak.
The cost issue is multifaceted.
Most of it is sunk into launching itself, which is where things like space tourism come into the picture as a way to provide an initial business case and eventually, economy of scale. Addressing that alone will improve the economics of off-world industry quite a lot just on its own.
For the other part, initially companies will just have to eat the cost to get things up and running. This really isn’t that unusual — we just haven’t had much in the way of truly new frontiers in many years and have grown accustom to business ventures being relatively low cost and low risk. That said, this could also be partially subsidized by researchers and tourists, since there is certain to be interest from universities and other organizations to send people to study these other bodies, and there are most certainly a surprising number of individuals both wealthy and crazy enough to want to go stay on Mars for a couple of years.
Now, there's not yet much of a market for commodities outside of earth, but as soon as there is, producing a commodity on the moon and shipping it to earth orbit will likely be cheaper than shipping it from earth - at least once scales are large enough.
A space elevator could potentially be much better, but none of these private companies are pursuing space elevators.
Investing money into developing renewable energy power for heavy industry makes infinitely more sense, but isn't as cool as launching rockets. IIRC the Gates Foundation is investing in a solar powered method for smelting steel.
So that explains how the ship was towed "beyond the environment" in the classic "Front fell off" sketch. They just took it to space.
[Interviewer:] So what do you do to protect the environment in cases like this?
[Senator Collins:] Well, the ship was towed outside the environment.
[Interviewer:] Into another environment….
[Senator Collins:] No, no, no. it’s been towed beyond the environment, it’s not in the environment
[Interviewer:] Yeah, but from one environment to another environment.
[Senator Collins:] No, it’s beyond the environment, it’s not in an environment. It has been towed beyond the environment.
[Interviewer:] Well, what’s out there?
[Senator Collins:] Nothing’s out there…
...
Jeff can define success however he wants. He can define it in terms of making money, or in terms of successful launches. Making money is hard - there is only so much demand for things in space, and some competition - making it questionable if the investment will pay off. However launching isn't as hard, and he can define metrics in that way and be successful for his purposes.
How is launching things into space any different from paying composers to write much, or painters to paint pictures - two things that rich people regularly did 300 years ago.
* Like delivery of engines to customers.
* Getting to orbit.
* Winning large contracts.
* Putting amazons internet satellites into LEO.
etc...
Space demand will grow incredibly fast very soon as SpaceX leads the incredible prices drops in $ per KG to orbit.
I'd love for them to be successful, and its great to see so many space companies being created, testing, and launching. And it's very important for the future of civilisation. That doesn't mean that you can't ask questions about the health of a particular company.
It might as well be.
It doesn't take a genius to leverage equity ... and Bezos will have effective financial genius working for him.
1) time and time again, particularly in the media, I hear net worth bandied about as though it's the same as cash. Bezos is worth X billion - think what that cash would pay for!
2) billions in equity can't be translated into billions in cash. Millions, for sure. But not billions.
3) any statements that talk about taxing the rich inevitably seem to come down to transferring equity to the state over time based on a current stock market valuation.
All of the above seem misinformed and/or a bad idea, and worth trying to establish fundamental understanding in this area. If you already have that understanding then that's fantastic.
20 years to go from a pile of cash and no experience, to a full production line of safe orbit-capable launch vehicles is a very big ask. SpaceX has achieved that, but at the cost of many of its employees (just look at the press around SpaceX working conditions).
Yes, it's longer than the time between the Mercury missions and Apollo 11, but the 50s-60s era of space travel was significantly higher risk. If corners could be cut in the same way, no doubt 20 years would have been fairly reasonable. Add in an existing presence in space R&D and the shorter time frames of the space shuttle program seem even more reasonable. But that just isn't possible in today's safety first world.
New Glenn should be that vehicle, if they ever finish it.
Regardless, no one is wealthy enough to keep a business of this scale going just as a hobby project.
The development costs for the Falcon 1 were ~100 million, for Falcon 9 about 300 million.
So a billion/year seems adequate.
Elon Musk is "all in" on making mankind an interplanetary species. He is not cruising around the world on a yacht but holing up in a cheap house in Texas.
He went at an "impossible" goal by finding specific markets for launch services and satisfying them with Dragon. Starship is a bit ahead of the market, but the success with Dragon bodes well.
Looking at the big picture I wonder if Amazon succeeded (post-2005 or so) despite Jeff Bezos instead of because of him... That is, the systems he created at the beginning might have outgrown him.
There is nothing in our history or present day evolution that would suggest people can or should live on other planets. Absolutely nothing. We are not even remotely close to such a "goal" when today people live barely below the threshold of space (LEO) and not in space at all.
Religious goals and magical thinking have driven human society for hundreds of thousands of years (see the fascinating and recent post here on HN about The Origin of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind). Jeff and Elon's fantasies about human habitation in space (or somehow improving life on this planet by leaving it) are more of the same.
I think Mars is for the birds, cutting up a carbonaceous or wet asteroid to construct a solar-sail factory that can deliver sunshades to earth-sun L1 is a more interesting project. Something halfway to Niven's ringworld seems like a possible endpoint. (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07487)
As I see it the problems are half chemical engineering, half "building a ship outside a bottle from the inside of the bottle" and half "what do you do with the gas before you take the asteroid apart?"
You might wind up with a structure that can hold a few trillion people, but you start with maybe 40 hardcore Zeons and a few million eggs because I don't see how you build and operate the factory or the factory factory with a 20 minute time delay.
Oh, he wants to save the planet? Maybe his garbage spewing engine named Amazon could do something there.
Bezos is smart enough to know the odds of him saving Earth or an asteroid hitting in 30 years are about even odds right now, so sure, sell that but also figure by then he’ll be too old to miss out.
Humans sure love to live in the fantasy that humanity is forever well they needlessly consume the only planet known for certain to support their biology.
It does nothing to constructively challenge why we should let Bezos be in charge of saving the planet.
His billionaire adventures are doing quite a bit of damage to begin with, perpetuating shallow consumerism.
It neither denigrates nor deifies him. It’s a flaccid “both sides” emotional piece, leaving conclusions up to the reader.
Mine were that he’s part of the problem he’s trying to solve so why expect him to be anything else?
Bezos can’t escape being human and humans are destroying the planet.
It will a) put the best person on the job, b) close down an unnecessary spat and c) remove the opportunity cost and let Bezos focus on other things.
It would be a win for everyone on Earth apart from ULA.
I'd frame it as Bezos demonstrated supreme confidence in the rocket by being personally on the first manned flight.
Blue Origin will be a formidable competitor and working with ULA, JPL and NASA will be great for the space industry and new perspectives on sustainability on Earth.
ULA will be launching Amazon Kuiper satellites to start but eventually it will be Blue Origin itself. I wouldn't ever bet against Bezos. The competition is just beginning. I am glad we got a space race, competition is good.
The Blue Origin flight was extremely smooth and clean, I can't wait to see more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4
Competition, good.
Living in space, colonizing Mars, mining asteroids, neurotic billionaires... Whatever. Just infotainment.
I agree about the living in space and colonizing mars which are mostly pipe dreams (that I'm admittedly optimistic about as a spaceflight enthusiast), but I think mining asteroids is a feasible proposition. The material is there, and in-situ resource extraction and return has been demonstrated. It's really just a matter of scale-up and putting in the upfront investment.
I don't really see how the Vulcan will be competitive with the existing launch capabilities of SpaceX, even if it does launch successfully before Starship.
I don't see how Blue Origin producing the engines for an also ran rocket is going to fund their operations. Blue Origin will be dependent of Bezos and the USG for quite a while, atleast until the New Glen can be launched re-usable.
Edit: The other side of the story is here. I am sure both sides have bias, but given that a judge dismissed Eberhard's claim that there were only two co-founders, it the five co-founder settlement seems reasonable.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090624221445/http://www.teslam...
I can't wait to see the most polluting industries, like agriculture or construction moved to space. I can't wait to see how heat-producing heavy industries intend to cool down in space either.
Great journalism here. Just repeat corporate bullshit without an ounce of critical thinking.
You do realize that all of the materials you need are on the ground here on Earth.. This type of thinking is not logical.
It's offputting to see so much hate in the comments here. I'm not a fan of some things about Amazon, but I want SpaceX to face serious competition, and I see space development as more promising than Mars development.
> Bezos has a compelling vision for space, and it is entirely genuine.
> He has the vision. He has the money. But at the age of 57, does he have enough years or willingness to ensure Blue Origin’s success?
The central thesis of the article seems to boil down to the above quotations, i.e., he's genuine and his goals are noble, but can he pull it off?
The "legitimate", "entirely genuine", and "compelling vision" to "ultimately sav[e] planet Earth" given in this speech is central to the argument, but it is barely even outlined in this article or linked articles -- beyond referencing O'Neill cylinders, mining asteroids, and vague notions of leaving Earth as a "garden". There seems to be no recording or transcript of this speech, nor even any second-hand justification for how legitimate, genuine, or compelling it is.
To me it all seems like the usual ludicrous utopianism that gets attached to space projects. Mine some asteroids, sure. But I see nothing here that even hints at a way to meaningfully reduce or stop environmentally destructive practices here on Earth. We will need to solve our Earth-bound problems. Bezos can focus on Blue Origin or not, it won't matter.
If it came to the point where he had to sacrifice things he actually cares about to help others with no benefit to himself or his ego I would bet Bezos net worth that he wouldn't lift a finger. Maybe convincing himself he's working to save humanity is how he justifies not doing something really useful with his wealth, like saving tens of thousands of people from suffering and dieing of starvation, instead of playing billionaire space games.
Those of us who aren't billionaires just have to satisfy more people with our arguments about why our ideas are worth doing. When you're funding everything, it's a lot easier to attribute pushback to personal preference rather than your overall worldview being flawed. After all, if your worldview was flawed, why are all these people working at your space company? How did you make all this money? Etc.
I don't actually if Jeff has drunk his own cool-aid, but I think people in his position have fewer people to push back against their worldview than most.
And it's not as attributable to Bezos, but Amazon is famous in journalism for asking for numerous "corrections" to articles about them, when those supposed corrections are actually just unrelated talking points and PR spin.
You could say this about Bill Gates he has actually eliminated disease, ventured into Nuclear, Renewables and food security, he has legitimately saved perhaps a few million of lives.
But how could you make such claims about Bezos? Of the big three cloud providers, AWS his the only one still spewing out carbon.
If we were to make "life/death" balalncesheet, did his Amazon and other Bezos companies save lives or contribute to people's deaths, net? It should be obvious that Amazon has reduced living standards and wages for so many people, some of them have suffered ill health and death as a result.
Wit this track record, how could anyone claim Bezos is "saving the planet" with some hypothetical projects that noone even comitted to? In my book, Bezos needs to pay off his debt to humanity and the planet first.
We already have technology that does more than that. Even calling it "space" is really a stretch.
I do understand that big public projects drive technology interest and adoption as well as national pride, and everyone likes that. But I can't see how a short ride up and down 1/4 of the way to an existing "space base" is much of an accomplishment aside from those pride-based goals.
How did a brief amusement ride into sub-orbital space advance spaceflight?
To reach orbit, you need to go one part up and four parts sideways. This flight was only the vertical component - essentially just 20% of the minimum bar for useful space activity.
Is this always true though? Space tech is highly specialized, if you can't hire enough people already, more competition just spreads the available talent thinner. I'd be curious if it's currently the case that SpaceX/NASA/BO's development is personnel constrained.
I've definitely heard of projects at FAANG companies being cancelled because they couldn't hire enough people for them, so I could see this also happening in other industries.
Bezos tossing extra money into it defiantly helps.
Space tech is also always considered to be a national security topic, so the available personnel does not just have to be talented but they need a security clearance as well.
Try to avoid 0 sum thinking, its often wrong. increased competition for talent in space will drive up wages which will result in more people going into said fields.
One of the smartest things the UK power companies did was create very generous sponsorship programmes for students. For a tiny fraction of a yearly salary they could encourage someone to specialize in their niche. Now the UK has a great pipeline of engineers and they're saving on costs in the long-term because they don't need to compete amongst themselves on salary because there's plenty of talent.
Yes, being greedy, envious, and jealous of other peoples use of material goods is wrong. Its time we start calling it out. That doesn't make you progressive, it's a poor behavior attribute and you should not partake in it.
As far is 'how did it advance spaceflight'. its called progress. 20% is better than 0%. Maybe next time they will be 40%.
"Progress" is doing something we have collectively already been able to do, and then some, for decades?
It's partially that it's more routine now, but it's more that the F9 is so much larger, has a far more complicated launch trajectory, and in my opinion that they are landing on barges in the middle of the ocean.
[1]: https://everydayastronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Siz...
[2]: https://everydayastronaut.com/new-shepard-vs-spaceshiptwo/
[3]: https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/15/52/1600x9...*
[4]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18711/blue-o...