Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ZooZooChaCha t1_j83suvr wrote

NASA has learned its lesson about relying on one provider. Imagine if Boeing was the only commercial crew provider, or when the Space Shuttle was supposed to be the only satellite launch provider in the 80s.

It’s great that SpaceX has succeeded - but you know what’s better? Competition and an equally successful Blue Origin.


robertojh_200 t1_j83zpv5 wrote

That’s all well and good but blue origin has not proven the ability to be successful, even with a sub orbital joyride. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve anything, this is Amazon We are talking about, Jeff Bezos. Money isn’t the issue, it’s management, it’s pipe lining, I don’t want to say it’s talent because I know there’s plenty of talented people there. But blue origin is a laughingstock in the industry for a reason, and it’s going to take more than contracts to get them to a point where they can compete with SpaceX. They already have contracts with other private launch companies, they license out their engine, but they have been holding them back because of their constant delays. If blue origin wasn’t causing so many delays, there probably would be more substantial competition in the industry right now from other launch companies.

I don’t see how they are ready for a Mars contract within the next 10 years


ZooZooChaCha t1_j853u0u wrote

There was a time when SpaceX was the laughingstock as well. Gwen Shotwell is primarily the reason things didn’t end with Falcon 1. Even when NASA gave SpaceX a shot with commercial cargo and later commercial crew, people were skeptical. And if it weren’t for those contracts, SpaceX doesn’t make it.

Blue Origin had one “failure” so far for suborbital and the vehicle performed exactly the way it should in an emergency.