Jeff Bezos Lifts Veil on His Rocket Company, Blue Origin(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Jeff Bezos Lifts Veil on His Rocket Company, Blue Origin
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/science/space/jeff-bezos-lifts-veil-on-his-rocket-company-blue-origin.html
13 comments
Tempting. Are your working hours more reasonable than SpaceX? With a family to love, 70-hour weeks just don't fit well.
I do not envy those who place their quality of life in the middle of a pissing contest between Bezos and Musk.
Progress is not cheap, nor easy on the soul.
Yeah but... to a degree, right? Many amazing things have been accomplished by people not working themselves to death. If the workforce convinces itself that people are expendable then I suppose people are expendable! I however choose to fight this attitude. Frightened, stressed people work hastefully and make mistakes... somehow the worst thing imaginable for a space exploration company, right?
Well, to use our last space race as an example: several engineers who worked on Apollo said during interviews that they strongly suspected the consistently long hours they and many others worked directly contributed to later divorces. (My source is the excellent series Moon Machines, for those curious; I believe it was the Navigation episode.)
Many truly incredible things were built at some cost in human lives. I recently watched a documentary which said large tunneling projects expected to lose one man per X miles dug, a few decades ago.
I'm not saying you should be willing to die for your work. But historically someone always seems to be. Not least of all in the space business.
I'm not saying you should be willing to die for your work. But historically someone always seems to be. Not least of all in the space business.
Are you really completely oblivious to the working conditions of workers at those times? I think the workers were as passionate about their work as the capitalist was for worker welfare and safety expenses.
Sorry but this comment and some child comments are truly shocking for me in their historical ignorance.
Sorry but this comment and some child comments are truly shocking for me in their historical ignorance.
The truly incredible things tend to be created/discovered by the most passionate. This means you'll have selection bias on the people who have a tendency to "work themselves to death" for the cause they're passionate about. It does not mean that you have to work yourself to death to arrive there.
I presume this topic is less about dying for your work, rather about screwing up your relationships, marriage, ending childhood of your kids with divorce and similar.
Reality of an engineering employee even for such a company is, success means bringing tiny increase ineffectiveness, weight reduction etc. into super complex system. No truly world changing discoveries. If you are alone, do whatever you want with your life. But once you go for family, working 70-hour weeks is plain stupid, selfish or just extremely bad deal. No work is worth making decisions that you will regret for the rest of your life.
Reality of an engineering employee even for such a company is, success means bringing tiny increase ineffectiveness, weight reduction etc. into super complex system. No truly world changing discoveries. If you are alone, do whatever you want with your life. But once you go for family, working 70-hour weeks is plain stupid, selfish or just extremely bad deal. No work is worth making decisions that you will regret for the rest of your life.
I agree. I think I'd just add that I really believe that the climate of fear that seems to exist in these super high pressure companies creates the wrong incentives. Would we be okay with a bridge building company being a super high stress environment? I think it's somehow more obvious why this is a bad idea. The problem then is that you're fundamentally making a time-quality tradeoff. If you're okay with this, you're saying you're willing to risk the lives of the people you're sending into space a little more to get ahead in the race. I suppose this will always be true, but where do you wanna be on the curve?
I've had many different kinds of managers. I've had the type that encouraged me to slow down and think carefully about what I'm doing at every step, and I've had the kind that keeps a watchful eye and is always asking "Why isn't this done yet?" Under the latter I started grinding my teeth at night and started engineering things in a fairly brittle way... but my rote productivity was higher than it had ever been. Managerial styles are all engineering decisions just as any other are.
I've had many different kinds of managers. I've had the type that encouraged me to slow down and think carefully about what I'm doing at every step, and I've had the kind that keeps a watchful eye and is always asking "Why isn't this done yet?" Under the latter I started grinding my teeth at night and started engineering things in a fairly brittle way... but my rote productivity was higher than it had ever been. Managerial styles are all engineering decisions just as any other are.
This makes Steve Jobs 'tyrannic' glow a little pale all of a sudden.
[deleted]
Progress demands not one tear his soul asunder! As the sweat of a man can be stretched far, so too can the Company above increase their efforts of hiring.
I'm happy to let somebody else do the spending.
You try to push the world to the next level but only hire in the US?
There must be a lot of stuff that you need which is not really limited by US law and that people could work on from their home countries. Examples just in software engineering: Cloud infrastructure, user interfaces, communication platforms, open source projects that are 90% of where you needed them to be to use them, BSP layers for embedded systems you want to use.
There must be a lot of stuff that you need which is not really limited by US law and that people could work on from their home countries. Examples just in software engineering: Cloud infrastructure, user interfaces, communication platforms, open source projects that are 90% of where you needed them to be to use them, BSP layers for embedded systems you want to use.
They likely will have ITAR hardware in the same workspace as the software guys to minimize logistical overhead. Foreign nationals can't see any ITAR stuff.
"Foreign nationals can't see any ITAR stuff."
If only it was that simple - in a former job I designed systems for a non-US multinational that did ITAR work and it was incredibly painful to work out the rules for who could or could not see particular items of data.
If only it was that simple - in a former job I designed systems for a non-US multinational that did ITAR work and it was incredibly painful to work out the rules for who could or could not see particular items of data.
Slight nitpick - US permanent residents (green card holders) can see ITAR stuff even though they're foreign nationals.
I would suspect that a lot of what they do would probably be covered by ITAR. If that is the case then the compliance burden is probably going to be a lot easier to meet if everyone is US based.
Who would want aliens working on their spaceship, after all...
I understand there could be regulations, but these things not add up for me.
>Applicants must be a United States citizen ... >We hold all information confidential and are an equal opportunity employer.
[1]Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin.
[1]http://www1.eeoc.gov/employers/upload/eeoc_self_print_poster...
>Applicants must be a United States citizen ... >We hold all information confidential and are an equal opportunity employer.
[1]Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin.
[1]http://www1.eeoc.gov/employers/upload/eeoc_self_print_poster...
The civil right act only holds for American citizens and green-card holders.
Thanks, it makes sense.
It's not the civil rights act, but the immigration reform act that would be relevant here:
"Employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment... the law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract" [1]
However, from the job listings, it sounds like that all employees would have access to regulated information, thus exempting them from the prohibition:
"...U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien or otherwise able to review all export-controlled technical information."
[1] http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_citizenship.cfm
"Employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment... the law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract" [1]
However, from the job listings, it sounds like that all employees would have access to regulated information, thus exempting them from the prohibition:
"...U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien or otherwise able to review all export-controlled technical information."
[1] http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_citizenship.cfm
IANAL, but national origin and citizenship are two different things.
Yes. There are legitimate reasons for companies operating in certain sectors to require US citizenship. In fact, non-citizens are not even allowed in the facilities of some companies. Still, the myth persists that citizenship is always a prohibited requirement.
Well considering that US space tech is like 30 years ahead of most other countries, e.g. China, it makes sense. I mean they steal everything else, gotta keep some things secret.
Let's not be too proud of ourselves... the Chinese can at least get humans into space on their own right now.
Which the US did in 1961...
The Chinese do silly things like blow up satellites (causing space debris), to show their might - things that the US had done 30 years ago.
Whereas, the US has systems that can track and predict all space debris of sizes greater than 1/2 inch.
It's just orders of magnitude more advanced.
The Chinese do silly things like blow up satellites (causing space debris), to show their might - things that the US had done 30 years ago.
Whereas, the US has systems that can track and predict all space debris of sizes greater than 1/2 inch.
It's just orders of magnitude more advanced.
One might note that a year after the Chinese anti-satellite missile test, the US did the same exact thing, also producing orbital debris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost
This suggests that no debris was created:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-navy-missile-...
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-navy-missile-...
Plenty of debris was created, it was just in a low and decaying orbit so it was mostly gone in a few days. By contrast most of the debris from the Chinese test will still be there in 2030 unless someone goes out and cleans it up.
On the other hand the argument was about China's technical abilities and intercepting something in a higher orbit with a faster closing velocity is harder to do than the US's anti-satellite test. The Chinese proved they could destroy surveillance satellites and the US didn't really show that they could do the same.
On the other hand the argument was about China's technical abilities and intercepting something in a higher orbit with a faster closing velocity is harder to do than the US's anti-satellite test. The Chinese proved they could destroy surveillance satellites and the US didn't really show that they could do the same.
Serious question: can applicants be assured that the project won't be used to kill people? One can never be too sure when government grants are paying the bills.
Nobody has wanted to use cryogenic liquid fueled rockets to kill people since rockets that weren't like that were invented. It takes hours to get one ready to fire which might have been worthwhile[1] for the first ICBMs in the era before satellite surveillance but any modern military would be crazy to use one.
But if you're worried about launching military communication satellites, well, they probably will be at some point.
[1] Not my view of what's worthwhile of course.
But if you're worried about launching military communication satellites, well, they probably will be at some point.
[1] Not my view of what's worthwhile of course.
Whatever assurances they can give you today cannot be generalized to tomorrow.
Well, something like a, "look at the ethical guidelines in our bylaws" might be helpful, even amidst inability to predict the future.
Getting a "Won't be" assurance is probably going to be next to impossible. Anything could happen in such an unspecified amount of time. A "isn't currently intended to" would likely be easier to get.
That said, with so many viable missile platforms, why would Blue Origin be used for that?
That said, with so many viable missile platforms, why would Blue Origin be used for that?
> That said, with so many viable missile platforms, why would Blue Origin be used for that?
I know very little about the vertical. As a matter of principle, I typically avoid gigs that involve government funding. However, this one is more interesting than most.
I know very little about the vertical. As a matter of principle, I typically avoid gigs that involve government funding. However, this one is more interesting than most.
How do you do that? Where do you draw the line? Basically every company I've worked for has, at some point and to varying levels, taken government funding. It could be buying off the shelf products in the same manner as every other customer, it could be the company creating a modified product for the government, or it could be taking funding in the form of R&D tax credits.
> It could be buying off the shelf products in the same manner as every other customer
What do you mean?
The only company I've worked for for any length of time that was funded in part by government funds was WNYC, which was a blast!
Public Radio to me is one of those times where the broken clock happens to show the right time of day. Sure, it's government funding, but the content we created was really stellar.
I mean, on some higher political level, there's always the "you use the roads" argument, but I'm talking about having to report to someone in the government about how their funding is being used. That's what I object to.
What do you mean?
The only company I've worked for for any length of time that was funded in part by government funds was WNYC, which was a blast!
Public Radio to me is one of those times where the broken clock happens to show the right time of day. Sure, it's government funding, but the content we created was really stellar.
I mean, on some higher political level, there's always the "you use the roads" argument, but I'm talking about having to report to someone in the government about how their funding is being used. That's what I object to.
[deleted]
It will almost certainly be used to kill people... eventually.
Rest assured - any form of technological progress will be used to kill people eventually. "Now we are all sons of a bitches."
It is the world's nature.
It is the world's nature.
George Clinton quote? rang a bell. won't google, more natural.
Probably a bad bet. Blue Origin intends to build an orbital launcher, and they will almost certainly end up launching military satellites, including those which directly aid combat operations. That might be too much across the line for some people.
'cmon its aprivate company, its Bezos, its capitalistic. So at any point in time, if one has to choose between death of some and company survival, you'll hear : "sorry, but this year finacial results are not in line with investors' expectations; we must, although we're not happy with it, broaden our scope to military applications in order to avoid many layoffs"... Standard 20th century business procedure...
"...opportunities to make a huge impact"
Hopefully, not a literal impact :)
Hopefully, not a literal impact :)
My impression is that unless you're a C++ developer doing avionics, all the development jobs are back in "cost center" areas. Do you think that's accurate?
I considered applying a few months ago but my current employer (large conglom-o-corp that ate my old company) has made me nervous about being walled-off as a code-monkey.
I considered applying a few months ago but my current employer (large conglom-o-corp that ate my old company) has made me nervous about being walled-off as a code-monkey.
There definitely is a space for vast amount of kinds of interesting software engineering and research jobs.
I also had that same impression. I mentioned these thoughts in another thread here on HN (regarding SpaceX) and one of the engineers chimed in saying they have many positions across different areas. I still think it would be cool to join something like this, but would prefer to work on some lower level stuff. I'm currently a Full Stack web developer.
Is there a path to from my current position to something more systems related? Has anyone made this transition before?
Is there a path to from my current position to something more systems related? Has anyone made this transition before?
No, it is currently impossible to learn how to do C++/systems programming, the knowledge doesn't exist!
Are you serious? People come to be systems programmers with no programming experience, obviously with some web/server experience will be even more suited to learn it.
Are you serious? People come to be systems programmers with no programming experience, obviously with some web/server experience will be even more suited to learn it.
Presumably ‘anyone’ is ‘anyone that’s a US citizen’?
[deleted]
Blue Origin is a credible rocket company, in case anybody was wondering. They've got some impressive engineering, a realistic, incremental long-term plan, and pockets deep enough to pay for it.
I agree, but take a look here: SpaceX was established 2 years later than Blue Origin, with principal sponsor's net worth may be an order of magnitude less; yet today's SpaceX achievements, I think, are more serious overall than Blue Origin's.
Having a realistic, incremental long-term plan may be not enough to remain relevant in the market, if the latter shifts fast enough. Would you say Lockheed and Boeing don't have have a realistic plan? Yet their lunch is increasingly eaten by competition. It's good they actually adapt their plans.
Having a realistic, incremental long-term plan may be not enough to remain relevant in the market, if the latter shifts fast enough. Would you say Lockheed and Boeing don't have have a realistic plan? Yet their lunch is increasingly eaten by competition. It's good they actually adapt their plans.
> may be not enough to remain relevant in the market
You're forgetting that there isn't actually a market here. There is currently no commercial service that brings you into space.
You're forgetting that there isn't actually a market here. There is currently no commercial service that brings you into space.
'Course there's a market. Just because you can't afford to visit space doesn't mean there aren't commercial buyers. NASA awards contracts, as does the US military. Plus there's huge interest in telecommunications satellites.
SpaceX has proven the ability to obtain orbit. Blue Origin has not. NASA and the US military want to get to orbit, not the edge of space.
Market is figurative here - even if you don't pursue immediate commercial benefits, you may get ahead of fall behind, as it was happening in less than market oriented Soviet space program.
But on the other hand, I'd be surprised if Blue Origin was only focused on the market of commercial flights to space. That market is somewhat covered by Russia's Soyuz flights - admittedly just a few flights total so far. Suborbital flights - may be, but there could be competition from Virgin Galactic. Blue Origin also makes engines which are planned to be used on other manufacturer's rockets - here we have competition from Aerojet and even XCOR. So - even if some market niches don't exist today, it doesn't mean Blue Origin doesn't have competition - as they are also not offering flight right now. Competition in space flight, for example, existed, say, in 1960, when two countries tried to send a man to space first.
But on the other hand, I'd be surprised if Blue Origin was only focused on the market of commercial flights to space. That market is somewhat covered by Russia's Soyuz flights - admittedly just a few flights total so far. Suborbital flights - may be, but there could be competition from Virgin Galactic. Blue Origin also makes engines which are planned to be used on other manufacturer's rockets - here we have competition from Aerojet and even XCOR. So - even if some market niches don't exist today, it doesn't mean Blue Origin doesn't have competition - as they are also not offering flight right now. Competition in space flight, for example, existed, say, in 1960, when two countries tried to send a man to space first.
There's msrket enough to sustain the industry and if spacex is succesfull at reducing costs by an order of magnitude I'd expect it to grow, especially nanosat.
University can already afford to buy a couple slots a year on a shared vector, for example, and those who don't already expressed interest
But unlike SpaceX, Blue Origin are nearly as far from the existing market of putting stuff into orbit as Copenhagen Suborbitals.
They are much closer to the hypothetical market of suborbital joyrides than CopSub, but so far, that hypothetical market does not sustain anything.
They are much closer to the hypothetical market of suborbital joyrides than CopSub, but so far, that hypothetical market does not sustain anything.
Different business models, different segments of the market.
I wonder if this market will be one that favors the first mover or the second mover. People always talk about the first mover advantage but the second mover is often the one with lasting success.
How would a competitor benefit from SpaceX work at being the first mover? I'm guessing they did need to pave some regulatory and procurement roads, but that job seems lesser than their tech. And by the way, they don't patent, because doing so reveals too many details.
Yes, but remember that Lockheed and Boeing (in the form of ULA) will be using Blue Origin's BE-4 engine for their next heavy launcher. There's more than one way to become a big player in this game. Blue Origin aren't tryng to do everything at once. That worked out for SpaceX, but it was a really close-run thing - one more Falcon 1 launch failure, and they'd have run out of money. The Blue Origin business model is slower, but still looks like it will be effective.
I had an interview at Blue Origin a few years ago. Very driven group of people. I wasn't the right fit for the position, we both agreed, but it was a great experience. If you're into spaceflight, I would definitely recommend checking them out.
> I wasn't the right fit for the position
But seriously...what did you really mean to say? I hate that phrase with a passion.
But seriously...what did you really mean to say? I hate that phrase with a passion.
Sometimes position descriptions and recruiter pitches don't quite match what an employer is looking for. You initially think you'd be great, but once the interview starts, you realize that they're looking for something different. And they realize that too.
I mean to say: I wasn't the right fit. They were looking for someone with different attributes; after the interview, I realized this, and when the recruiter called me up to tell me so, I told him I agreed and had planned to turn the offer down if I had gotten the offer. Absolutely nothing against Blue Origin: I would have not been a good fit. I think I needed a solid 5-10 years more experience to do the job they wanted to the exactitude they needed.
How did you get the interview in the first place of there was such a disconnect?
Candidly, it was a great experience, and I walked out with a lot of respect for Blue Origin and the people I spoke with; this really hasn't lessened through the years. Interviews ought to be a two-way street: the interview I did definitely was. A+. I'd really rather not answer more personal questions about this beyond what I've already said in this thread.
"His argument was simple: Energy consumption has been rising at 2 or 3 percent a year. Even at that modest rate, within a few centuries, the energy usage would be equal to the energy produced by high-efficiency solar cells covering the entire surface of the planet. “We’ll be using all of the solar energy that impacts the Earth,” he said. “That’s an actual limit.”"
What now? I was under the assumption that the solar energy levels hitting the earth were quite higher/more than we could ever "need" and also that energy usage isn't going to increase at a consistent rate. Anyone have data on this? Does his timeframe (few centuries) exceed than existing reporting? Does it even make sense to project a 2-3% increase in energy consumption over ~300 years?
Found: http://illumin.usc.edu/assets/submissions/675/murphy_CSP.pdf
What now? I was under the assumption that the solar energy levels hitting the earth were quite higher/more than we could ever "need" and also that energy usage isn't going to increase at a consistent rate. Anyone have data on this? Does his timeframe (few centuries) exceed than existing reporting? Does it even make sense to project a 2-3% increase in energy consumption over ~300 years?
Found: http://illumin.usc.edu/assets/submissions/675/murphy_CSP.pdf
While the forecast might be wrong, a big hindrance right now (to pretty much everything) is a lack of cheap, clean energy. There will never be a time in the apparent future where anyone will ever say "We're producing too much energy."
And if we ever get there, it will be one of those nice problems to have.
And if we ever get there, it will be one of those nice problems to have.
> a big hindrance right now (to pretty much everything) is a lack of cheap, clean energy
This is kind of true, except cheap energy is fungible with smarter energy use. So you could argue that everything is hindered by the lack of good design (and by extension design instruction in schools).
I would be interested to know what you're thinking about when you say "pretty much everything". For reference, the things I care a lot about limited job mobility, people getting murdered, abuse, including rape and incarceration, forced migration, and addiction and I don't see how any of that is the result of expensive or dirty energy.
This is kind of true, except cheap energy is fungible with smarter energy use. So you could argue that everything is hindered by the lack of good design (and by extension design instruction in schools).
I would be interested to know what you're thinking about when you say "pretty much everything". For reference, the things I care a lot about limited job mobility, people getting murdered, abuse, including rape and incarceration, forced migration, and addiction and I don't see how any of that is the result of expensive or dirty energy.
The whole notion of "need" in this context is strange. Need is relative to supply. The cheaper and more abundant energy is, the more people become addicted to energy-rich activities. If that energy disappears there is a period of withdrawal pain and then the "need" is gone.
Population growth should start stabilizing near 10 billion around 2050... but if a billion of those people are taking exotic vacations every month in their electric jets and living in nanorobot houses that reconfigure themselves every week based on the trends on Pinterest then yes... we will bump up against terrestrial photon limits.
Do we need to use that energy? No. If we move the other direction, towards efficiency-focused technologies that allow us to live embedded in native-ish ecologies then 10 billion people can live with a tiny fraction of Earth's solar energy.
Which scenario will we be in? I think it's impossible to know. Right now we're still piecing together how that second scenario works. What is a minimal human-supporting ecology? How do you organize goods and services to maintain it? Wealthy people who want to maintain power will push us as hard as possible to keep production and consumption as high as possible because that's where their power is derived. Networks and artificial intelligence will try to show people how to live efficiently, maximizing happiness with a minimum of resources in loose federations.
Which of these two forces will control human hearts post-2050? I have no idea.
Population growth should start stabilizing near 10 billion around 2050... but if a billion of those people are taking exotic vacations every month in their electric jets and living in nanorobot houses that reconfigure themselves every week based on the trends on Pinterest then yes... we will bump up against terrestrial photon limits.
Do we need to use that energy? No. If we move the other direction, towards efficiency-focused technologies that allow us to live embedded in native-ish ecologies then 10 billion people can live with a tiny fraction of Earth's solar energy.
Which scenario will we be in? I think it's impossible to know. Right now we're still piecing together how that second scenario works. What is a minimal human-supporting ecology? How do you organize goods and services to maintain it? Wealthy people who want to maintain power will push us as hard as possible to keep production and consumption as high as possible because that's where their power is derived. Networks and artificial intelligence will try to show people how to live efficiently, maximizing happiness with a minimum of resources in loose federations.
Which of these two forces will control human hearts post-2050? I have no idea.
What a weird sentence
> Currently, most rocket companies launch, at most, about a dozen times a year. “You never get really great at something you do 10, 12 times a year,” Mr. Bezos said. With a small fleet of reusable New Shepard rockets, Blue Origin could be launching dozens of times a year.
So they'd be doing the same as everyone else?
> Currently, most rocket companies launch, at most, about a dozen times a year. “You never get really great at something you do 10, 12 times a year,” Mr. Bezos said. With a small fleet of reusable New Shepard rockets, Blue Origin could be launching dozens of times a year.
So they'd be doing the same as everyone else?
"Dozens" is at least 24.
I don't think that's the colloquial definition of "dozens"
> plural dozens or dozen 1 : a group of 12 2 : an indefinitely large number <dozens of times>
> plural dozens or dozen 1 : a group of 12 2 : an indefinitely large number <dozens of times>
It is clearly implied in the quote that they will be doing much more than the others - that's what matters. Your interpretation above that they will be doing "the same" is unreasonable given the context. It's pretty reasonble then to assume "dozens" will be at the very least two dozen on the lower bound. Even if it's a guess, it's likely a far better guess than to assume they meant "others are doing too few launches, so we'll do the same number of launches"
There's an implied upper bound or they would have used a more extreme term to play it up even further. 18,000 times a year is "dozens", but you're going to say "thousands of launches per year" if you're conservative and "tens of thousands" if you're a little more daring.
[deleted]
Hope they eventually offers tours like SpaceX, it is really cool to check out the factory and see the Merlin engines. They are surprisingly small, but they look like time machines.
Jeff really likes things that fly. Drones, Cargo planes and rockets!
Jeff really likes things that fly. Drones, Cargo planes and rockets!
Wait, you can take tours of SpaceX?
Employees can give tours to friends and family. Also, don't beg for tours over the internet.
You could also get a Tesla and enter the contest:
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-referral-program-ludicrous-mo...
You could also get a Tesla and enter the contest:
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-referral-program-ludicrous-mo...
Gone are the days of billionaires buying sports teams, buying newspapers and blogs still seems to be in but not quite as hot as space exploration. With SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin sort of seems like a "me too" venture...
Here are the days of billionaires putting millionaires in metal capsules, then blasting them into space? ;-) I don't know whether this is a step forward, as I enjoy reading the newspaper.
Blue Origin pre-dates both SpaceX and Virgin Galactic.
Bezos founded it in 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin#History
Bezos founded it in 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin#History
It's about time we get those cyber-punk ultra rich building space stations from where they control their vast enterprises while cheating death with the latest med-tech from Chiba's underground hospitals.
Sounds good to me
This is awesome. I love that there is more and more interest in space exploration lately. Hopefully real life events will soon inspire beyond what recent movies like Interstellar and the Martian have shown us.
Its almost an eerie feeling of these companies having the potential to last "forever".
common health technologies freeze me now and wake me up in 400 years please.
common health technologies freeze me now and wake me up in 400 years please.
[deleted]
More like delaying the inevitable...
Good to see that they will become more open about what they are doing. Great job Mr. Bezos.
goldenkey(2)
It would be nice to see which billionaire is next :-)
Zuckeberg funded Iridium done right. That will show that pesky India with it's "net neutrality"
Funny how he started a rocket company, yet carmack abandoned one... I feel carmack could have done a better job, but if carmack can give up - my prospects on bezos are quite dim...
Carmack also started a rocket company at a time when it was much more difficult to do so (there were far fewer government dollars available via contracts), Bezos also has far more capital to put in than Carmack.
Not undeservingly Carmack is something of a folk hero here (for example: http://h14s.p5r.org/2012/09/0x5f3759df.html) but I don't think being a 10X programmer necessarily translates into great rocket company CEO and in terms of entrepreneurial and organizational skill Bezos excels (at least based on Amazon's success).
Not undeservingly Carmack is something of a folk hero here (for example: http://h14s.p5r.org/2012/09/0x5f3759df.html) but I don't think being a 10X programmer necessarily translates into great rocket company CEO and in terms of entrepreneurial and organizational skill Bezos excels (at least based on Amazon's success).
It's a shame you picked q3's fast inverse square root. It's not a great example as it turns out someone else implemented it in Quake 3 and someone else entirely devised the algorithm itself. Though you're right - he's a bit of a hero and deservedly so.
edit: however ... I've just read that article and it is actually the most in-depth and interesting analysis I've read on the subject so thanks!
edit: however ... I've just read that article and it is actually the most in-depth and interesting analysis I've read on the subject so thanks!
Carmack also started a rocket company at a time when it was much more difficult to do so
The two companies were founded in 2000. You're right about the capital, tough: as of 2014, Bezos had already invested half a billion dollars into Blue Origin.
The two companies were founded in 2000. You're right about the capital, tough: as of 2014, Bezos had already invested half a billion dollars into Blue Origin.
Vastly different levels of capitalization. Bezo's is a multi-billionaire, while Carmack was only a multi-millionaire.
Bezo's has more money to invest in failures and iteration than Carmack did. Also as far as intelligence goes I think they're pretty close, or Bezos would come out ahead, specifically when taking account of deep breadth of knowledge.
Bezo's has more money to invest in failures and iteration than Carmack did. Also as far as intelligence goes I think they're pretty close, or Bezos would come out ahead, specifically when taking account of deep breadth of knowledge.
Vastly different levels of capitalization. Bezo's is a multi-billionaire, while Carmack was only a multi-millionaire.
And motivation. Carmack's original thing was just that he was spending a lot of money on modifying Ferarris, and instead decided to put that money towards rocket development. That's not to say they took things more seriously later on, but that was the start of it.
And we learned very, very well, that H2O2 monopropellants rocket engines are a pain to use in practice, and don't seem feasible for any kind of reusable system.
And motivation. Carmack's original thing was just that he was spending a lot of money on modifying Ferarris, and instead decided to put that money towards rocket development. That's not to say they took things more seriously later on, but that was the start of it.
And we learned very, very well, that H2O2 monopropellants rocket engines are a pain to use in practice, and don't seem feasible for any kind of reusable system.
> And we learned very, very well, that H2O2 monopropellants rocket engines are a pain to use in practice, and don't seem feasible for any kind of reusable system.
In no way Armadillo Aerospace's work shown that H2O2 engines are somehow fundamentally inferior to other rocket engines. What turned AA away from H2O2 were problems to obtain rocket-grade without building a processing plant.
In no way Armadillo Aerospace's work shown that H2O2 engines are somehow fundamentally inferior to other rocket engines. What turned AA away from H2O2 were problems to obtain rocket-grade without building a processing plant.
I do remember they were having issues with H2O2 supply.
But I also remember lots of pictures of broken or melted catalyst on the blog. Perhaps my recollection is faulty.
But I also remember lots of pictures of broken or melted catalyst on the blog. Perhaps my recollection is faulty.
Carmack is a rare breed - true engineer. Not in the sense of having a degree, but in Isamabard Kingdom Brunell ability to solve problems.
Why is that funny?
You feel he could have done a better job - they both tried, Blue Origin has lasted longer and achieved more. Reality says he couldn't and didn't do a better job, so your model is inaccurate somewhere.
A quick Google suggests Carmack's net worth is ~40 million, and Bezos' ~49 billion, with over 500 million invested in Blue Origin - and experience running a successful big company. That doesn't sound like dim prospects for Bezos, does it?
You feel he could have done a better job - they both tried, Blue Origin has lasted longer and achieved more. Reality says he couldn't and didn't do a better job, so your model is inaccurate somewhere.
A quick Google suggests Carmack's net worth is ~40 million, and Bezos' ~49 billion, with over 500 million invested in Blue Origin - and experience running a successful big company. That doesn't sound like dim prospects for Bezos, does it?
Ignoring Carmack's relative lack of wealth compared to guys like Musk or Bezos, he's not exactly some perfect overseer of all technology. Yeah hes a great coder, but outside of that he's a fairly milquetoast personality and not much of an entrepreneur. His big bet on Facebook on VR vs Valve seems questionable to me as well.
This the problem with hero worship, it blinds you to the faults of your hero to the point where you're attacking others because your guy couldn't do it.
This the problem with hero worship, it blinds you to the faults of your hero to the point where you're attacking others because your guy couldn't do it.
I'm sorry, I don't see anywhere I attacked anyone, and also I was just surprised the bezos was doing a space company. If anything, people got really defensive.
https://www.blueorigin.com/careers
Needless to say, there are tons of interesting problems to solve and opportunities to make a huge impact.