Archive for the ‘Aviation’ Category

« Older Entries

Musk’s SpaceX compared to Bezos’ Blue Origin

April 21, 2026

This is an AI comparison I asked for which I am posting because it is of interest and for trivial pursuits.

Blue Origin and SpaceX are the two primary leaders of the private space industry, but they differ significantly in their operational philosophy, development speed, and current capabilities. As of April 2026, here is a comparison of the two companies:

1. Foundational Philosophy & Leadership

  • SpaceX (founded 2002 by Elon Musk): Operates with a “fail fast, learn fast” mentality. They iterate rapidly, often testing hardware to destruction (as seen with early Starship prototypes) to gather data. Their ultimate goal is making life multi-planetary, specifically colonizing Mars.

  • Blue Origin (founded 2000 by Jeff Bezos): Follows the motto Gradatim Ferociter (“Step by Step, Ferociously”). Historically, they have been more secretive and methodical, focusing on long-term infrastructure. Their vision is to have “millions of people living and working in space” to preserve Earth, primarily through O’Neill-style space colonies.

2. Launch Vehicles

Feature SpaceX Falcon 9 / Heavy SpaceX Starship Blue Origin New Shepard Blue Origin New Glenn
Status Fully Operational In Advanced Testing Operational (Suborbital) Operational (Orbital)
Capability Orbital (LEO, GTO) Heavy Lift Orbital Suborbital (Space Tourism) Heavy Lift Orbital
Reusability Partially (First stage) Aiming for 100% Fully (Booster & Capsule) Partially (First stage)
Recent Milestone Over 600 booster landings. Regular orbital flight tests. Dozens of successful crewed suborbital flights. First booster reuse (April 19, 2026).

3. Key Technologies & Engines

  • Engines: SpaceX Raptor: A full-flow staged combustion engine using liquid methane and liquid oxygen (methalox). It is designed for high efficiency and extreme thrust.Blue Origin BE-4: Also a methalox engine, but uses a rich-oxidizer staged combustion cycle. While Blue Origin uses it for New Glenn, they also sell it to United Launch Alliance (ULA) for the Vulcan Centaur rocket.

  • Landing Capability: SpaceX pioneered landing orbital-class boosters at sea and on land. Blue Origin was the first to land a suborbital booster (New Shepard) and recently achieved its first sea-landing of an orbital-class booster (New Glenn) in early 2026.

4. Major Projects & Revenue Streams

  • SpaceX:

    • Starlink: A massive satellite constellation providing global high-speed internet.

    • NASA Contracts: Primary provider for ISS crew and cargo transport (Crew Dragon).

    • Artemis HLS: Awarded the first contract to build the Human Landing System for NASA’s return to the Moon.

  • Blue Origin:

    • Blue Moon: Developing a lunar lander for NASA’s Artemis V mission (contracted in 2023).

    • Orbital Reef: A planned commercial “mixed-use business park” in low Earth orbit to replace the ISS.

    • Project Kuiper: Amazon’s satellite internet competitor (partnered with Blue Origin for launches).

5. Current Standing (as of April 2026)

SpaceX remains the dominant force in terms of launch frequency and proven orbital reliability. However, 2025 and 2026 have been breakout years for Blue Origin. After years of development, Blue Origin’s heavy-lift New Glenn rocket has begun regular flights.

Notably, on April 19, 2026, Blue Origin successfully reused a New Glenn booster for the first time—a major step toward matching SpaceX’s cost-efficiency—though the mission faced a setback when the satellite payload was deployed into an incorrect orbit.

Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are currently private companies, but they operate under very different commercial structures and have vastly different outlooks regarding independence and public listings.

Commercial Structure Comparison

Feature SpaceX Blue Origin
Primary Owner Elon Musk (approx. 40% stake + majority voting control). Jeff Bezos (sole owner via Bezos Expeditions).
Funding Model Venture Capital & Revenue: Funded by private equity rounds (valued at $1.5T–$1.75T in early 2026), NASA/DoD contracts, and Starlink subscriptions. Self-Funded: Historically funded by Bezos selling approx. $1B in Amazon stock annually, supplemented by NASA contracts and engine sales to ULA.
Vertical Integration High: Builds almost everything in-house, from software to engines, to keep costs low and move faster. Moderate: Strong focus on high-end engineering and acting as a supplier (e.g., selling BE-4 engines to other rocket companies).
Revenue Streams Diverse: Commercial/Gov launches, Starlink internet, and now AI computing via the xAI merger. Developing: Suborbital tourism, engine sales, and the massive Amazon Project Kuiper launch contract.

Future paths?

SpaceX: The IPO is “Go”

As of April 2026, SpaceX is no longer just a private experiment; it has reportedly confidentially filed for an Initial Public Offering (IPO).

  • The Plan: Unlike earlier speculation that Starlink would be spun off separately, current indicators suggest the entire company (including Starlink and its recently acquired AI division, xAI) will list as a single entity, likely in mid-to-late 2026.

  • The Reason: The capital required for “Moonbase Alpha” and the Mars colony exceeds what private markets can easily provide. A public listing would give SpaceX the massive war chest ($75B+ target raise) needed for Starship’s multi-planetary goals.

Blue Origin: Independent, but Private

Blue Origin is already “independent” in the sense that it is not a subsidiary of Amazon, despite the close ties between Bezos and both companies.

  • The Plan: There are currently no plans for a Blue Origin IPO. Jeff Bezos has expressed a preference for the “Step by Step” approach, which is easier to maintain without the quarterly pressure of public shareholders.

  • The Conflict: Blue Origin’s status is currently under scrutiny due to its relationship with Amazon. In 2025 and 2026, Amazon shareholders raised concerns over the $1.8B paid to Blue Origin for satellite launches, citing potential conflicts of interest. However, Bezos remains the sole financier, and the company is expected to remain private for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX is becoming a conglomerate. By merging with xAI and expanding into space-based data centers, it is positioning itself as the “infrastructure provider” for the future. Blue Origin remains a legacy project. It functions more like a traditional (though very well-funded) aerospace firm, focusing on becoming the “utility player” that provides engines and lunar landing services to others.

Summary Table

Category SpaceX Blue Origin
Headquarters Hawthorne, CA (Manufacturing) / Starbase, TX Kent, WA
Primary Launch Site Cape Canaveral, FL / Boca Chica, TX Van Horn, TX / Cape Canaveral, FL
Pace Rapid, iterative, high-risk Methodical, slower, engineering-heavy
Main Revenue Launch services, Starlink, NASA Bezos funding, NASA, BE-4 engine sales

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Aviation, Energy, Engineering, Science, Space, Technology | Leave a Comment »

MH370 – 10 years on and still baffling

March 7, 2024

The mystery surrounding the vanishing of MH370 continues. It seems amazing that in this age of satellite eyes and ears that such a thing could happen. It obviously engaged my attention deeply going by the number of posts I generated: ktwop MH370.

The mystery continues. A small amount of debris probably originating from MH370 has been found on various Indian Ocean islands. So it did probably end up in the Indian Ocean. But why it did remains as probably the most puzzling aviation mystery ever.

What I wrote 5 years ago, I think, still applies.

5 years on: MH370 needs to be revisited in the light of Boeing equipment malfunction

A week ago (8th March) it was 5 years since Malaysian flight MH370 – a Boeing 777-200ER – vanished without trace, taking 239 passengers and crew to their deaths. The disappearance is still a complete mystery but all the various theories include a sudden steep, fast climb to about 45,000 feet followed by a very sharp dive down to about 23,000 feet. Such an uncontrolled ascent would have caused a very rapid decompression (explosive or rapid) which, in turn, would have incapacitated all aboard.

The altitude excursion about 1 hour into the flight up to 45,000 feet could have rendered everybody on board unconscious. If it was done deliberately or otherwise is still the burning question. – ktwop

The disappearance of Flight 370 has been dubbed one of the greatest aviation mysteries of all time. Relying mostly on analysis of data from the Inmarsat satellite with which the aircraft last communicated, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau proposed initially that a hypoxia event was the most likely cause given the available evidence, although there has not been any consensus concerning this theory among investigators. – Wikipedia

It now looks increasingly likely that both the Lion Air crash in Indonesia (189 dead) and the Ethiopian Air crash (157 dead) were caused by equipment/software faults which ultimately caused rapid, uncontrollable descents.

It seems to me that Boeing’s liability for the deaths on Ethiopian Air is very likely. Boeing may well have liability also for the Lion Air deaths, especially if the unpreparedness of the pilots for sudden malfunction was due to incomplete manuals and/or a deficiency in the training provided.

It is the uncontrolled nature of descents which link the two latest crashes. In both cases the pilots tried to correct for the faulty equipment trying to push the nose down by climbing very rapidly. It begs the question whether this fault of the automatics pushing the nose of the aircraft down – by whatever combination of software and equipment – was what also caused MH370 to change altitude rapidly.

  1. Was an uncontrolled ascent due to the pilots trying to correct the automatics pushing the nose down?
  2. Did hypoxia then incapacitate the crew?

Could it be that the satellite evidence of the flight continuing (which is all interpretations of satellite data rather than clear physical evidence) is a red herring? Did MH370 actually go down soon after the final radar contact (Butterworth Air Base) was lost? Are the remains of MH370 actually lying at the bottom of the Indian Ocean a little to the west of Malaysia.

Tags:
Posted in Aviation | Comments Off on MH370 – 10 years on and still baffling

The Maharajah – genie or phoenix?

October 9, 2021

Nationalised in 1953 with a compensation of Rs 28 million, the Maharajah has been bought free from its socialist prison for Rs 180 billion. After serving 68 years the risk is that inefficiency, incompetence and sycophancy have become habitualised and the Air India Maharajah will not be able to regain the heights.

Genie and new wonders or Phoenix destined to go down in flames and fury remains to be seen.

Tags:
Posted in Aviation, India | Comments Off on The Maharajah – genie or phoenix?

MH370: 6 years on

March 8, 2020

8th March 2014.

 

Tags:
Posted in Aviation | Comments Off on MH370: 6 years on

Boeing made survival an “optional extra” with the B737 Max

April 30, 2019

It does not look good for Boeing (or the FAA).

It seems that a sensor advising of a malfunction of the MCAS was deactivated intentionally and made an optional extra to be bought separately.

“Not fit for purpose” comes to mind.

Boeing de-activated a signal designed to advise the cockpit crew of a malfunctioning of the MCAS system ……. Boeing had opted to make the malfunction alert an optional extra costing more money — and had deactivated the signal on all 737 MAX …….. Neither of the Boeing 737 Max planes in the Lion Air crash in Indonesia or the Ethiopian Airlines crash were equipped with the signal that is supposed to show a malfunctioning of the MCAS

It seems that at some level within the FAA this was seen as a potential problem last year, but the issue was not escalated within the FAA nor was it acted upon.

If surviving a flight is an optional extra an accident is no longer a random event. What somebody at Boeing did may not have been murder but it comes preciously close to manslaughter.

Yahoo News: New York (AFP) – US regulators considered grounding some Boeing 737 MAX planes last year after learning of a problem with a system that is now the main suspect in two deadly crashes, a source close to the matter said. Investigators in the Lion Air crash in October off the coast of Indonesia and the Ethiopia Airlines disaster in March have zeroed in on the planes’ anti-stall system, called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS.

Last year, inspectors with the Federal Aviation Administration discovered Boeing de-activated a signal designed to advise the cockpit crew of a malfunctioning of the MCAS system, the source said. The inspectors were in charge of monitoring Southwest Airlines, the biggest user of 737 MAX planes, with a fleet of 34 of them at the time, added the source.

Before the Lion Air crash, which killed all 189 people on board, “the (signals) were depicted as operable by Boeing on all MAX aircraft” regardless of whether the cockpit crew thought they had them turned on or off, said a Southwest spokeswoman. She said after the accident, Boeing told Southwest the signals were “turned off unless they were specifically designated as being turned on” — prompting the airline to choose that option for all its aircraft. It was at that point inspectors learned Boeing had opted to make the malfunction alert an optional extra costing more money — and had deactivated the signal on all 737 MAX delivered to Southwest without telling the carrier. They considered recommending grounding the planes as they explored whether pilots flying the aircraft needed additional training about the alerts, said the source. They decided against that — but never passed details of the discussions to higher-ranking officials in the FAA, the source said, confirming a story in The Wall Street Journal.

……… The Ethiopia Airlines crash left all 157 people on the plane dead and led to all Boeing 737 Max planes all over the world being grounded. In this case too the MCAS is being looked at as a possible cause of the crash.

In times of mid-air distress, the system is supposed to activate on its own and push the nose of the plane down to keep it from stalling. Boeing is working on changing the MCAS so it can get the planes back in the air. The grounding has already cost the carrier a billion dollars, Boeing said last week. But the bill will probably climb because Boeing is expected to pay money to airlines forced to cancel thousands of flights and hire more reservations and services staff. Boeing has suspended deliveries of Boeing 737 Max planes and cut production of them by 20 percent.

Neither of the Boeing 737 Max planes in the Lion Air crash in Indonesia or the Ethiopian Airlines crash were equipped with the signal that is supposed to show a malfunctioning of the MCAS, an industry source told AFP in March. Called “disagree lights” in Boeing parlance, these lights turn on when faulty information is sent from so-called angle of attack sensors to the MCAS. Those sensors monitor whether the wings have enough lift to keep the plane flying. …. 

image – Zero Hedge

Tags:,
Posted in Aviation, Behaviour | Comments Off on Boeing made survival an “optional extra” with the B737 Max

Understanding why two Boeing 737-800 Max planes crashed

April 23, 2019

Understanding why two Boeing 737-800 Max planes crashed.

Trying to use software to compensate for a bad design did not work.

Nice video.

 

Tags:
Posted in Aviation | Comments Off on Understanding why two Boeing 737-800 Max planes crashed

Doomed pilots had no chance against Boeing’s deadly software

April 6, 2019

Bad software from Boeing has killed 346 people on Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. What is now becoming clear is that the pilots were doomed. It was not possible for the pilots to circumvent or override the software once it had been engaged in its malicious mode (whether due to a faulty signal or not). 

The preliminary report on the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 has now been released. Ethiopian Airlines released a statement about the preliminary report

Despite [the pilots’ hard work and full compliance with the emergency procedures, it was very unfortunate that they could not recover the airplane from the persistence (of) nose diving,

The President and CEO of Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg, also released a statement:

We at Boeing are sorry for the lives lost in the recent 737 MAX accidents. These tragedies continue to weigh heavily on our hearts and minds, and we extend our sympathies to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. All of us feel the immense gravity of these events across our company and recognize the devastation of the families and friends of the loved ones who perished.

The full details of what happened in the two accidents will be issued by the government authorities in the final reports, but, with the release of the preliminary report of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 accident investigation, it’s apparent that in both flights the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information. ……..

Today it is reported that the B737 Max has other software problems as well.

A day after Ethiopian Airlines released its preliminary report, Boeing has confirmed that the 737 Max 8 has an additional problem in its flight control software that will require more time to fix. These issues are reportedly separate from the anti-stall system failures believed to have caused the loss of Flight 302. The additional issues affect software controlling flaps and other flight-control surfaces. It is not clear if these additional flaws contributed to the loss of Lion Air 610 or Flight 302.

That Boeing has liability for the 346 deaths is apparent. Whether it is to some extent criminal liability remains to be seen. That the US FAA has some liability as well is also evident. If the FAA colluded with Boeing to allow less than fully tested software to go into service then it would surely be criminal liability on both their parts.

In both cases the gut reaction was to imply (if not blame) pilot error. But the pilots had no chance against the killer software.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Aviation | Comments Off on Doomed pilots had no chance against Boeing’s deadly software

5 years on: MH370 needs to be revisited in the light of Boeing equipment malfunction

March 18, 2019

A week ago (8th March) it was 5 years since Malaysian flight MH370 – a Boeing 777-200ER – vanished without trace, taking 239 passengers and crew to their deaths. The disappearance is still a complete mystery but all the various theories include a sudden steep, fast climb to about 45,000 feet followed by a very sharp dive down to about 23,000 feet. Such an uncontrolled ascent would have caused a very rapid decompression (explosive or rapid) which, in turn, would have incapacitated all aboard.

The altitude excursion about 1 hour into the flight up to 45,000 feet could have rendered everybody on board unconscious. If it was done deliberately or otherwise is still the burning question. – ktwop

The disappearance of Flight 370 has been dubbed one of the greatest aviation mysteries of all time. Relying mostly on analysis of data from the Inmarsat satellite with which the aircraft last communicated, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau proposed initially that a hypoxia event was the most likely cause given the available evidence, although there has not been any consensus concerning this theory among investigators. – Wikipedia

It now looks increasingly likely that both the Lion Air crash in Indonesia (189 dead) and the Ethiopian Air crash (157 dead) were caused by equipment/software faults which ultimately caused rapid, uncontrollable descents.

It seems to me that Boeing’s liability for the deaths on Ethiopian Air is very likely. Boeing may well have liability also for the Lion Air deaths, especially if the unpreparedness of the pilots for sudden malfunction was due to incomplete manuals and/or a deficiency in the training provided.

It is the uncontrolled nature of descents which link the two latest crashes. In both cases the pilots tried to correct for the faulty equipment trying to push the nose down by climbing very rapidly. It begs the question whether this fault of the automatics pushing the nose of the aircraft down – by whatever combination of software and equipment – was what also caused MH370 to change altitude rapidly.

  1. Was an uncontrolled ascent due to the pilots trying to correct the automatics pushing the nose down?
  2. Did hypoxia then incapacitate the crew?

Could it be that the satellite evidence of the flight continuing (which is all interpretations of satellite data rather than clear physical evidence) is a red herring? Did MH370 actually go down soon after the final radar contact (Butterworth Air Base) was lost? Are the remains of MH370 actually lying at the bottom of the Indian Ocean a little to the west of Malaysia.

The Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes make it necessary to re-examine the disappearance of MH370 and including equipment failure possibilities which were considered impossible.

MH370 – Looking in the wrong place?

 

Tags:,
Posted in Aviation | Comments Off on 5 years on: MH370 needs to be revisited in the light of Boeing equipment malfunction

Lion Air / Ethiopian Air similarity (updated)

March 15, 2019

If

  1. the Ethiopian Air crash was due to the same problem which caused the Lion Air crash, and
  2. Boeing was aware of the problem, and
  3. Boeing had not ensured that Ethiopian could handle the problem,

Then

Boeing has to answer for 157 deaths.

Update 1: Reuters reports that “The trim position of the stabilizer, which moves the jet’s horizontal tail, could help determine whether or not it was set nose down for a steep dive. …. …… part of a stabilizer found in the Ethiopian wreckage was in a unusual position similar to the Lion Air plane”.

Zero Hedge:

Boeing put MCAS in its planes as a protection against an aerodynamic stall, but in the case of the October flight, a sensor malfunction signaled that the plane was in danger when it wasn’t, causing it to dive automatically. Rather than switch off the motor triggering the dives, the pilots tried to counteract it with their controls until it dove into the sea.

The Ethiopian flight showed similar “highly unusual descents followed by climbs”. 

Peter Goelz, a former managing director at the NTSB said: “It certainly puts a magnifying glass on the MCAS system. There’s an implication that there were two similar accidents and that it likely involved the interaction of the MCAS system with the flight of the aircraft.”

Kevin Durkin, an aviation lawyer, said: “If you have a defective product and it turns out Boeing knew about it, this could easily expose them to punitive damages. The standard is whether the company engaged in conduct with a ‘conscious indifference to the safety of others’.”

 

Tags:
Posted in Aviation | Comments Off on Lion Air / Ethiopian Air similarity (updated)

Boeing and the “manslaughter” of the 157 killed in the Ethiopian Air crash

March 14, 2019

A few days ago, I commented that:

If the Ethiopian Air crash is a repeat of the Lion Air crash then Boeing has blood on its hands

Well it now seems that Ethiopian crash was indeed a repeat.

And if that is so then there is clearly a case of “manslaughter” possible against Boeing for the 157 lives lost in the Ethiopian crash (though the deaths in the Lion Air crash would be due to “misadventure” rather than “manslaughter”).

BBC:

Dan Elwell, acting administrator at the FAA, said on Wednesday: “It became clear to all parties that the track of the Ethiopian Airlines [flight] was very close and behaved very similarly to the Lion Air flight.”

Up until Wednesday, the FAA position was that a review had showed “no systemic performance issues” and that there was no basis for grounding the aircraft.

Earlier in the day, Canada grounded the planes after its transport minister Marc Garneau said he had received new evidence about the crash.

He said that satellite data showed possible similarities between flight patterns of Boeing 737 Max planes operating in Canada and the Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed.

The flight data is remarkably unstable.

Within the last 12 months I have replaced a phone, a pair of speakers and a router since replacement was cheaper than the diagnosis and repair of a fault. The sophistication of technology in a large number of human appliances (white goods, cars, phones and airplanes) is now such that faults can no longer be rectified by the user. The frequency of faults is declining but when the consequence is the loss of life, that provides no comfort. Specialists – and usually more than one – are needed. In many cases the fault cannot be diagnosed and the faulty appliance is just replaced — with another probably containing the same fault.

 

Tags:
Posted in Aviation, Technology | Comments Off on Boeing and the “manslaughter” of the 157 killed in the Ethiopian Air crash

« Older Entries