TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

How come Blue Origin with earlier start with richer founder is so behind?

4 pointsby anon1199022over 1 year ago
vs SpaceX ? Bezos became richer earlier and Blue Ocean founded 2 years earlier. We don't even know what they're doing at this point. How is the gap so big?

2 comments

brudgersover 1 year ago
The founder found a more lucrative route to defense contracts.
PaulHouleover 1 year ago
SpaceX followed the path of least resistance. First they developed launch systems that targeted the middle of the space launch system that weren&#x27;t terribly &quot;high tech&quot; but were designed with cost optimization in mind. Then they developed a real business, and they pursued re-usability in a conservative way as a further cost optimization.<p>After all of that (and capturing a huge amount of the market) SpaceX began development of a truly radical system that promises much better capabilities and lower cost.<p>Blue Ocean has made the mistake that many entrants in this market have made by developing a super high tech system (reusable from the start) rather than taking minimal steps.<p>The market for orbital flights is real, the market for sub-orbital flights is not. Really some university team should try making a reusable sounding rocket because people launch a bunch of those, but rocket companies promising suborbital flight, like Virgin, chronically disappoint because it is a ride to nowhere. There&#x27;s more of a market for a theme park ride like Disney&#x27;s &quot;Rocket to the Moon&quot; than there is for a $100,000+ suborbital flight that might just blow you up.
评论 #37901137 未加载
评论 #37906005 未加载
评论 #37901662 未加载