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

by rcurry • 10 years ago

275 113 10 years ago

LAMike• 10 years ago

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!

TrevorJ3• 10 years ago

Wait, you can take tours of SpaceX?

MPSimmons2• 10 years ago

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...

samstave2• 10 years ago

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...

jimminy• 10 years ago

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.

venomsnake3• 10 years ago

Carmack is a rare breed - true engineer. Not in the sense of having a degree, but in Isamabard Kingdom Brunell ability to solve problems.

ansible2• 10 years ago

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.

forgotpwtomain• 10 years ago

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).

smcl• 10 years ago

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!

icebraining• 10 years ago

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.

jodrellblank• 10 years ago

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?

drzaiusapelord• 10 years ago

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.

samstave2• 10 years ago

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.

infocollector• 10 years ago

It would be nice to see which billionaire is next :-)

venomsnake3• 10 years ago

Zuckeberg funded Iridium done right. That will show that pesky India with it's "net neutrality"

aryamaan• 10 years ago

What's that supposed to mean?

thematt• 10 years ago

This isn't a "who is hiring?" thread obviously, but if anyone wants to be a part of our team we are always looking for folks who share our passion for space, especially those who happen to build software too!

https://www.blueorigin.com/careers

Needless to say, there are tons of interesting problems to solve and opportunities to make a huge impact.

BrandonMarc• 10 years ago

Tempting. Are your working hours more reasonable than SpaceX? With a family to love, 70-hour weeks just don't fit well.

victor9000• 10 years ago

I do not envy those who place their quality of life in the middle of a pissing contest between Bezos and Musk.

gaze5• 10 years ago

Well we all know that Bezos is known for his healthy and reasonable approach to work-life balance.

jMyles4• 10 years ago

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.

askafriend2• 10 years ago

Whatever assurances they can give you today cannot be generalized to tomorrow.

outworlder• 10 years ago

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?

gaze5• 10 years ago

It will almost certainly be used to kill people... eventually.

venomsnake3• 10 years ago

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.

InclinedPlane• 10 years ago

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.

wiz21c• 10 years ago

'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...

Symmetry2• 10 years ago

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.

Terr_• 10 years ago

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.

Scea91• 10 years ago

There definitely is a space for vast amount of kinds of interesting software engineering and research jobs.

jxm262• 10 years ago

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?

mrb• 10 years ago

"...opportunities to make a huge impact"

Hopefully, not a literal impact :)

robin_reala• 10 years ago

Presumably ‘anyone’ is ‘anyone that’s a US citizen’?

erikb• 10 years ago

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.

josh2600• 10 years ago

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.

arethuza2• 10 years ago

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.

yomly• 10 years ago

Who would want aliens working on their spaceship, after all...

a_imho2• 10 years ago

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...

ap222133• 10 years ago

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.

pjscott• 10 years ago

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.

avmich3• 10 years ago

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.

c3534l• 10 years ago

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.

TrevorJ3• 10 years ago

Different business models, different segments of the market.

novembermike• 10 years ago

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.

mhandley• 10 years ago

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.

roflchoppa• 10 years ago

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.

cm127• 10 years ago

More like delaying the inevitable...

pnathan3• 10 years ago

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.

askafriend2• 10 years ago

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.

pnathan3• 10 years ago

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.

shepardrtc• 10 years ago

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.

kin• 10 years ago

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.

hooliganpete• 10 years ago

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...

username223• 10 years ago

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.

adventured• 10 years ago

Blue Origin pre-dates both SpaceX and Virgin Galactic.

Bezos founded it in 2000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin#History

adrianN• 10 years ago

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.

peteretep• 10 years ago

Sounds good to me

dkarapetyan2• 10 years ago

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?

6581• 10 years ago

"Dozens" is at least 24.

dkarapetyan2• 10 years ago

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>

kirk21• 10 years ago

Good to see that they will become more open about what they are doing. Great job Mr. Bezos.

josefresco• 10 years ago

"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

debacle• 10 years ago

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.

erikpukinskis2• 10 years ago

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.

erikpukinskis2• 10 years ago

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.

Jeff Bezos Lifts Veil on His Rocket Company, Blue Origin

Related Stories