Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jeff Bezos' Spaceflight Company Blue Origin Gets Its First Paying Customer (nytimes.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the final-frontier dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader nickovs writes: Blue Origin was started as a "moon shot" company by Jeff Bezos and recently claimed that it would be offering an "Amazon-like" delivery service to the moon by 2020. In the mean time it seems their customers will be slightly closer to Earth: this week they announced that they now have a paying customer in the form of the satellite TV company Eutelsat. While this isn't a huge technical milestone, it is a major business milestone, turning Blue Origin from a hobby business into one which might eventually make a profit. According to a New York Times article, "The commercial partnership brings Blue Origin closer in line with SpaceX, created by Elon Musk, which has been launching satellites and taking NASA cargo to the International Space Station for several years."
Meanwhile, SpaceX announced last week that two space tourists have already put down "a significant deposit" for a week-long trip around the moon at the end of 2018, adding "Other flight teams have also expressed strong interest and we expect more to follow."

32 comments

  1. Frost fratkonker psot by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    put down "a significant deposit"

    Huh huh. Heh heh.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. What happens when something goes wrong? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

    Space tourism is incredibly cool, but I can't help wonder what'll happen the first time someone is killed by it.

    1. Re: What happens when something goes wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People pay big bucks to climb Mount Everest and die on a regular basis. Don't see why it should be different for space.

    2. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its only slightly mire than a hundred years since people were saying the same thing about powered flight...

      And yes, people died but we didn't stop flying. There hasn't been a year since without a single commercial passenger death, but the commercial airline business continues on just fine.

    3. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The difference is that airplanes have a much bigger engineering margin than rockets.

    4. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Right now, that is correct...

    5. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because there were places and people to fly *TO*. Space is an empty, hostile, barren radiation-blasted hell.

    6. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      True, but with basically zero progress in the last half century I'm not expecting any miracles.

    7. Re: What happens when something goes wrong? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It is different, though. I don't know why it's different, but every time somebody dies in space it means nobody else can fly for years. Perhaps Everest is allowed to kill because people feel there's nothing you can do about nature, while they expect perfection from tech?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by Is+Don+the+new+Ron · · Score: 1

      Your point would have been valid if Wernher von Braun invented space tourism half a century ago while the world still looked up to astronauts as heroes made of the right stuff. But now in the social media age, everything gets blown out of proportion. The airplane industry has the advantage because banning all flights after a terrorist incident would have serious consequences for the world economy. At most flights get suspended for a day while the concerned government agencies perform their usual security theater. On the other hand, banning human space flight would make only a few multimillionaires cry while some committee finishes its report.

      --
      Deja vu: In the 80s we had a 70ish actor as POTUS, a woman PM in the UK, and a bald leader of that other nuke superpower
    9. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by idji · · Score: 1

      go and read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., there is no difference. They faced difficulty and skepticism and Orville died in a crash, but we still have planes today.

    10. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not even true. Wikipedia at least reports that airplanes tend to have a factor of safety of about 1.5, with main landing gear sometimes going down to 1.25, while SpaceX's Falcon line of vehicles was designed for an overall factor of safety of 1.4. So if there's a "much bigger engineering margin", I don't see it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, banning human space flight would make only a few multimillionaires cry while some committee finishes its report.

      And all the SLS and Orion lobbyists. And all the scientists involved. Etc. etc.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:What happens when something goes wrong? by hawk · · Score: 1

      In the mid-80s, my older engineering professors commented that *their* professors refused to get on airplanes for that reason: "normal" engineering tolerance was 300%-400%, and planes were 10% to 15% . . .

      hawk

  3. Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpaceX: founded 2002; 28 successful orbital missions (of 30 launches).

    Blue Origin: founded 2000; zero attempted orbital flights.

    1. Re:Competition by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      You never know. Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites beat everyone, including SpaceX, into space. They were the darlings of the space industry for a couple years. Then they just quietly faded away. Virgin Galactic is supposedly developing the craft, but nothing much has happened in over 10 years, and in the meantime SpaceX has stolen everyone's lunch. It's a young and volatile industry. I wouldn't write Blue Origin off yet.

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    2. Re:Competition by iris-n · · Score: 1

      To be fair Scale Composites only got to space, which is much easier than getting into orbit.

      --
      entropy happens
    3. Re:Competition by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Scaled Composites did a suborbital flight, which involves basically none of the same technology as orbital flight which is an order of magnitude more difficult. It's no surprise that a suborbital company didn't become orbital. And that's why there's so much reason to doubt Blue Origin -- they're still just a suborbital country, they do at least have an orbital rocket in the works but nobody knows if it'll fly.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  4. Cabin Fever? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

    A week in a dragon capsule orbiting the moon, as cool as it would be... would seem like a very long time. Claustrophobia is one thing... but just wanting to go outside for a walk or something...

    1. Re:Cabin Fever? by Is+Don+the+new+Ron · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of the thing called space walk? Now that would be way cooler. Imagine walking faster than superman flying faster than a speeding bullet. Of course, relative to the capsule, you'd just be taking a stroll in the hall outside your jail cell but, still, this could be a major selling point to the lucky space traveler.

      --
      Deja vu: In the 80s we had a 70ish actor as POTUS, a woman PM in the UK, and a bald leader of that other nuke superpower
    2. Re:Cabin Fever? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Easy. I'm just walking faster than Superman relative to exoplantets right now. Hell, even relative to other planets of our solar system.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: Cabin Fever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the excitement and new experiences, I think time would go by fast.

  5. Closer in line with SpaceX? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Hmm, they've got a contract to start putting up these satellites in five years (notably two years AFTER they say they'll have the ability to deliver stuff to the Moon).

    Starting to put stuff into orbit in five years isn't in the timezone of SpaceX, which has been putting things up for several years....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Closer in line with SpaceX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Closer in line as in putting up commercial comsats, which has not been a focus of theirs of late. Five years is that particular contract, not their launch capabilities in general.
      Taking 10 years to really develop a set of technologies can be a good thing. Long-term, my money is on Blue Origin.

  6. Possible eventual profit possibilities, super news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " turning Blue Origin from a hobby business into one which might eventually make a profit. "

    In much the same way that heat death might eventually be the end of the universe.. be prepared to wait a while.

  7. This isn't about tourism by joh · · Score: 1

    This is about orbital satellite launches. I'm wondering if people have stopped reading at least the article they're commenting on?

    BO is developing an orbital heavy lift launcher and they have sold their first payload. They're also developing the engines for ULA's new lancher with first full-scale tests later this year.

    Blue Origin are slower than SpaceX, but they're not just toying around.

    1. Re:This isn't about tourism by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      This is about orbital satellite launches. I'm wondering if people have stopped reading at least the article they're commenting on?

      Hi, welcome to Slashdot, Nudes for Nerds!

      No one reads the original article, most don't even read the summary, and a select elite few don't even read the post that they respond to.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Smells like a marketing thing by schweini · · Score: 1

    Blue Origins has not even flown a single orbital mission, so I think launching a satellite is still quite a long way off. Going up and down is a whole different beast than going orbital.

  9. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Eutelsat, customers who bought the Blue Origin satellite installation service also shopped for Amazon Studios film distribution rights!

  10. I have also enquired about their services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wanted to send my giant penis to Uranus. Was told not until anti-gravity propulsion is available as it is so MASSIVE.

  11. We need DOGS as well as CATS! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    AC insightfully wrote: "That's because there were places and people to fly *TO*. Space is an empty, hostile, barren radiation-blasted hell."

    So true! Here is a related comment by me on Slashdot almost a dozen years ago when Jeff Bezos started Blue Origin -- and while there is still nothing comprehensive like I suggested, the open manufacturing movement and 3D printing are two big steps forward since then:
    "We need DOGS not CATS! (Score:2, Interesting) Monday December 26, 2005"
    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    From there (with most of the links removed and the formatting cleaned up, and a couple of new notes in brackets):

    This [the idea that cheap launches lead to permanent colonies in space] is the basis for the argument for CATs (Cheap Access to Space) and various legislative pushes and at least a couple of billionaires (including Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com) putting a lot of money into this (perhaps as businesses, but essentially still billionaire hobbies). While I wish them well, I think this approach towards space settlement is misguided. Let's work the numbers.

    The USA has about two million millionaires. There are many more elsewhere. ... [A dozen years later there are now over 10 million millionaire households in the USA alone!]

    At current launch costs of $10,000 per pound [for the now-defunct over-priced Space Shuttle], to put a 150 pound adult (me on a starvation diet for a couple months!) would be about $1,500,000, or $6,000,000 for a family of four. Now that amount of money being paid is well within the reach of hundreds of thousands of people if they liquidate all their assets -- homes, stocks, retirement accounts, and so forth. Now if you could guarantee that they and their children would have a better life living in cities in space, then some percentage of them might well do that. The problem as I see it is, we can't guarantee that right now. The other problem is of course, there is no place to live right now for hundreds of thousands of people showing up in their underwear and starving with no shelter or clothes or food or air or water or other goods for them.

    One solution is to pursue the 1980s NASA vision of first putting automated factories on the moon (or at asteroids) and using robotics (and tele-operation) make space settlements complete with food, water, clothes, etc. for when these people show up. It would in theory only take one Apollo-type launch to the Moon or an asteroid with the seed of an automated factory instead of a LEM to start the process rolling, and that would have an up front cost of a few billion dollars or so -- far less than the total launch costs for all the people. The factory could also carry out putting up mass drivers etc. to realize Gerry O'Neill's or J.D. Bernal's vision of building near earth habitats from lunar or asteroidal resources.

    So, as I see it, launch costs are not a bottleneck.

    So while lowering launch costs may be useful, by itself it ultimately has no value without someplace to live in space. And all the innovative studies on space settlement say that space colonies will not be built from materials launched from earth, but rather will be built mainly from materials found in space.

    So, what is a bottleneck is that we do not know how to make that seed self-replicating factory, or have plans for what it should create once it is landed on the moon or on a near-earth asteroid. We don't have (to use Bucky Fuller's terminology) a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science that lets us make sense of all the various manufacturing knowledge which is woven throughout our complex economy (and in practice, despite patents, is essentially horded and hidden and made proprietary whenever possible) in order to synthesize it to build elegant and flexible infrastructure for sustaining human life in style in space (or on Earth).

    So that is why I think billionaires like Jeff Bezos spending money on CATS is a tragedy -- they sh

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.