Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Moon NASA Space

Jeff Bezos Unveils Lunar Lander To Take Astronauts To the Moon By 2024 (cnbc.com) 104

Posted by BeauHD from the ambitious-goals dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Jeff Bezos, chairman of Amazon and founder of Blue Origin, unveiled his space company's lunar lander for the first time on Thursday. "This vehicle is going to the moon," Bezos said during an invite-only presentation to media and space industry executives. "We were given a gift -- this nearby body called the moon," Bezos said. He added that the moon is a good place to begin manufacturing in space due to its lower gravity than the Earth. Getting resources from the moon "takes 24 times less energy to get it off the surface compared to the Earth," Bezos said, and "that is a huge lever."

Bezos also unveiled the company's BE-7 rocket engine at the event. The engine will be test fired for the first time this summer, Bezos said. "It's time to go back to the moon and this time stay," Bezos said. "I love Vice President Pence's 2024 lunar landing goal," Bezos said, adding that Blue Origin can meet that timeline "because we started this three years ago." Blue Origin's most visible program has been its New Shepard rocket system, which the company is developing to send tourists to the edge of space for 10 minutes. New Shepard has flown on 11 test flights, with its capsule, built to carry six passengers, reaching an altitude of more than 350,000. The capsule features massive windows, providing expansive views of the Earth once in space. The company plans to send its first humans onboard a New Shepard rocket sometime in the next year. But it has yet to begin selling tickets.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jeff Bezos Unveils Lunar Lander To Take Astronauts To the Moon By 2024 More

Jeff Bezos Unveils Lunar Lander To Take Astronauts To the Moon By 2024

Comments Filter:

  • For those who haven't clicked through to the article, the module he is showing off appears to be centered around a sphere that is no more than 18 feet across. Presumably that sphere contains the habitat and all equipment, shielding, and supplies that are needed. I can't see where the fuel goes.

    That ain't a lot of room. I once was taken on a road trip to Acapulco (in the 70s) in a VW bug with 3 other people. Damn that was cramped. This will be far worse than that.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      sphere that is no more than 18 feet across. Presumably that sphere contains the habitat and all equipment, shielding, and supplies that are needed. I can't see where the fuel goes.

      It's like the TARDIS: more volume inside than outside. Bezos's ego has similar properties.

    • Re:Egad that thing is Tiny! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Thursday May 09, 2019 @07:42PM (#58566538)

      I don't think that that sphere has anything to do with the crew compartment, it looks more like a pressurised fuel tank - my impression is that what is shown in the CNBC article is literally an autonomous 'truck', as the Verge article [theverge.com] shows an artists impression which includes a capsule on top of the lander, and goes into detail saying that Blue Moon lander can either carry multiple rovers *or* an ascent stage.

      So, to me, Blue Moon as depicted there is the workhorse, and the payload is modular on top of it.

    • Re:Egad that thing is Tiny! (Score:5, Informative)

      by lgw ( 121541 ) on Friday May 10, 2019 @10:16AM (#58568752) Journal

      That's the lander "platform". The crew will be in an ascent stage, atop the lander. It will be even smaller. The Apollo lander barely had room for 2, and when 3 had to ride in in for days during Apollo 13 they stacked themselves like cordwood, which basically only worked because it was 0 g.

      However, you don't plan to go to the moon and back in a tiny lander, at least not if you're going Apollo-style, you transit to/from the moon and a separate crew capsule with a bit more room.

      SpaceX has a different approach, with the huge Starship rocket. But they're planning for a Mars mission, which will require far more space for life support and provisions. It's psychologically demanding as it is to spend a week crammed into a tiny capsule Apollo-style. Just not viable for a trip that lasts months.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 09, 2019 @07:00PM (#58566416)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Build a permanent Moon-base, see what people actually need when away from earth long-term. Establish an industrial base. Make fuel. And then, only then plan the next steps. Should take no more than 30-50 years if done decisively.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 09, 2019 @07:26PM (#58566492)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          An old 1980's OMNI magazine article then suggested a Moon base first. (...) From that station we can re-fuel and launch any Mars rockets.

          It's about as useful as building a rocket launch site on top of Mount Everest because it's closer to space. While in theory an advantage in practice it'd just make everything much harder. Just entering and leaving moon orbit eats up most of the advantage, even if you had the rest.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Why not simply start directly from Earth ? We have an entire manufacturing base here. The only downside is higher gravity, but we can deal with that by doing multiple launches and LEO assembly/refueling.

              Our requirements and capabilities are nowhere near the break even point where Moon-based operations would be cheaper.

            • No, a lunar space station is a huge waste of resources - much better to either have a station in LEO, where departing Mars rockets already have to go, and where astronauts are protected from radiation by the Earth's magnetosphere. In terms of delta-V, stopping at the moon (or a moon space station) on the way to Mars is like stopping at China on the way to London - takes a whole bunch of time and fuel and doesn't really save you anything. Sending resources from the surface of the moon to LEO would require mu

          • I'm not sure bricks are the optimal choice of material for a satellite; not much need for compressive strength in zero G. Tensile strength, on the other hand...

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            But the moon is packed with free energy for rockets?
            Waiting on the surface of the moon for humans to extract and use for rockets?
            None of that complex math of earth orbit, meeting up in earth orbit, going to Mars?
            The moon has all that free energy waiting? No math needed in earth orbit?

      • Indeed. Build a permanent Moon-base, see what people actually need when away from earth long-term. Establish an industrial base. Make fuel.

        Yes, yes, and then the fuel depot explodes and sends the moon hurtling off into space. I’ve seen the documentary.

    • No, the moon wasn't "meant" to be anything. The moon is a lifeless rock, and ascribing motives to a celestial object is silly. I think what you mean is that the moon's only intrinsic value is that it can be used as a launch pad for more ambitious projects. I don't know enough about the economics of space to challenge this view.

  • facilities on the Moon, is 2 day deliveries are always late, and the delivery robot always leaves your packages hidden, outside.

    And apparently Lunar minimum wage doesn't include oxygen. /s

  • Set reasonable goals. (Score:4, Funny)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Thursday May 09, 2019 @07:08PM (#58566444)
    They're planning on "reaching an altitude of more than 350,000." Units TBD.

  • Taking bets (Score:2, Interesting)

    by quonset ( 4839537 )

    On the con artist trying to push through a law which would make it illegal for Bezos, and only Bezos, to put a man on the Moon. Something about being dangerous and only big government should do this.

    Does anyone know if the con artist believes the Moon landings were real, or does he consider them fake like everything else?

  • Perhaps orbit first? (Score:3)

    by Lab Rat Jason ( 2495638 ) on Thursday May 09, 2019 @07:21PM (#58566466)

    Maybe I missed the news, but I didn't think Blue Origin had even achieved orbit yet... and they're talking about a lunar lander? Color me skeptical.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      2024 is five years from now, and they've been working on it for three years. As it happens, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, eight years if how long it took for NASA to go from Alan Shephard's suborbital flight to Neil Armstrong's historic small step.

      You're not suggesting that Bezos is somehow less capable than NASA, are you? I mean, NASA only had 400,000 people working on Apollo, and Bezos has 600,000 people working for Amazon! How can he fail?!?!

      Or he's just an arrogant prick. But I'm sure that's not the

    • Re:Perhaps orbit first? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Thursday May 09, 2019 @07:51PM (#58566562)

      Blue Origin is never intended to achieve orbit, its a suborbital booster - the New Glenn is their orbital booster project.

      Why are people critical of companies like Blue Origin working on multiple parts of the puzzle at the same time? They built their rocket engine experience from scratch with New Shepards BE-3 engine, then they gained flight and handling experience from vertically launching and recovering a rocket carrying a payload, and now they've moved on to the BE-7 engine that builds on experience, and the New Glenn which builds on experience.

      They have a goal, and they are working on the pieces of the solution which will get them to that goal. That doesn't have to be a serial thing, they can do a lot of these things in parallel - the lunar lander, the capsule etc etc.

      • Nothing wrong with their approach, they just seem to not be anywhere near doing a lunar mission,. Going to the moon is quite difficult. Lots of weight to orbit. Docking. Human support for a couple of weeks. Navigation. Restartable, throttleable engines with storable propellants. Near escape velocity re-entry, which I think requires a controlled glide.

        Its all obviously doable, since it was done, but its extremely difficult. Bezos is wealthy as people go, but not wealthy enough to fund an Apollo projec

        • Bezos is wealthy as people go, but not wealthy enough to fund an Apollo project.

          Jeff Bezos net worth: $150 Billion
          Cost of Apollo program: $25 Billion (1969 dollars) / $140 Billion (2018 dollars)

          Jeff Bezos could absolutely fund the Apollo program. Besides, Apollo was trying to land on the moon without the benefit of decades of experience, computer simulations, CAD, or advanced CNC manufacturing. The cost to duplicate it should have fallen by at least 10x, and probably more like 100x using today's technology, considering that with those tools, one engineer today can easily accomplish the

    • Yeah, I'll fall out of my chair with surprise if they are able to make 2024. SpaceX is at least getting rockets reliably into orbit and landing the boosters on Earth.
  • I had Lunar Lander on my C64 in the 80s. Sure it was a clone, but there's an even better port now. [youtube.com]

  • I'm pretty much sick of these tech guys who make billions and the only thing they can think of is to build a rocket. The last generation of tech moguls built sailboats. How about just paying your taxes instead?

    • How about just paying your taxes instead?

      How about all us non-rich taxpayers stop being suckers and stop electing people that are super happy to give tax breaks to corporations and rich people, which -- shocker -- often includes the representatives themselves. How about our representatives stop letting corporations and lobbyists write major portions of the bills on which they vote.

      Rich people are not "not paying taxes" they're exploiting the tax laws efficiently to their benefit -- and we let them do it.

      • How about YOU stop electing people like that? I don't elect those people. And stop thinking these tech moguls are some sort of heroes. They are just rich guys who don't know what to do with their money.

        • How about YOU stop electing people like that? I don't elect those people. And stop thinking these tech moguls are some sort of heroes.

          Um... Where did that come from. I didn't say I voted for them or that I think they're heroes.

          They are just rich guys who don't know what to do with their money.

          Hmm, I thought you mentioned something about them not paying taxes.

    • I'm pretty much sick of these tech guys who make billions and the only thing they can think of is to build a rocket.

      Yeah, that's nowhere near as cool as a clock in a mountain.

    • Honestly, I'm good with them spending billions on rockets. That's a lot more spent on rockets than if they paid their taxes and a tiny percentage went to NASA.

  • Or 2020 with Amazon Prime Astronauts -- includes no extra charge 3-day shipping and return.
  • Would you go to the moon with a company managed by a man who cannot manage his major effort well?

    Every Amazon web page has shortcomings. For example, sellers often show low prices with huge shipping costs.
  • He hasn't been listening to his support guys in the meetings. They kept on saying, "You CAN'T get to the moon in just two days, never mind one. And free returns?!?"

    Although for a permanent base, I imagine blow-up dolls might be a pretty hot item there. "Hey Joe, you wanna dance?" "Shut up and put your spacesuit back on, Fred."
  • Seriously, if Trump/Pence really want us on the moon BEFORE 2024 election, they simply need to offer up a $1B prize for first American system that lands a human on the moon before 2024. Upon 2024, prize goes away.
    1B might sound like a lot, but it really is not. Hell, SLS will cost us $3-4B for 1 mission to the moon. In fact, the more I think about it, maybe a 1.5B with .5B for second place. This might get ULA and others involved.
  • As predicted it won't be governments that get the human race into space, it'll be private money and with it all the complications that come with that. There's a need for living space and jobs for the whole human race, there's a chance of that happening if we move off the "blue marble". It's true we're a bit of an unpleasant species but I think we need to be if we're going to survive out there in space, it's not a very nice place out there and we're going to need that arrogance the human race excels at if we

  • The lander will of course be called Prime

  • Blue origin is 28,000 km/hour short of leo, let alone moon capture, let alone again a soft landing. And that's before we talk about sharp, electrostatically charged moon dust, oxygen, radiation, delta-v to return... I want us to get back to the moon. I really, really do. But until Blue Origin ferociously steps about ten years into the future we're not getting there in a Blue Origin capsule. What we need more than anything else is for Congress to properly fund the NASA program and then get the hell out of NA

  • They've been recruiting for a lunar lander system architect for a while now.

  • While I like the idea of pushing human exploration of space, and of building a presence on the moon, I find Jeff Bezos to be a complete ass.
    It's like if Hitler found the cure for cancer.

Slashdot Top Deals

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Close