www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Blue Origin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Company name

Anyone know if an official explaination of the name has been given? Given that the founder is responsible for Amazon, he obviously has a knack for catchy names which aren't necessarily related to the product or service. However, is it possible that blue origin gets its name from the Earth, being the point of origin, appearing blue from space? --JamesTheNumberless 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2004-2007 miscelania

Many places (slashdot, etc.) link to a Newsweek article on Blue Origin from last year, but the article doesn't seem to be around any more. Any leads on where it might be? --NeuronExMachina 08:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. I had to use webcrawler, but I managed to find it. --NeuronExMachina 22:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Got a problem here, the founding date clashes with Jeff Bezo's page, which says it was founded in 2004, not 2000. Who's got the right date? --DanteThePoet 07:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gradatim Ferociter

Does anyone know what the company motto, "Gradatim Ferociter", translates to in English? --Pmetzger 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Veil Lifts Slightly on Secretive Blue Origin Rocket Project

At the recent Boulder confab on suborbital space use by researchers, the veil was lifted, even if only a little. Here is the link to the 26 Feb 2010 article by Leonard David on Space.com. N2e (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Incomplete info in the article

is Wikipedia a credible, complete and reliable source of info?

well, if the answer is YES, you must say in the article that Blue Origin ISN'T the best nor the "right" company to which NASA should give the $3.7 million grant to "develop an astronaut escape system" (called "pusher") because, I've, FIRST, proposed and published this idea, OVER THREE YEARS AGO, in my February 10, 2007 article "The Underside LAS" in which I explain WHY it's better, safer, cheaper and lighter than the classic Tower LAS

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

I've also discussed HUNDREDS TIMES my idea on several space forums and blogs!

and, unfortunately, the same has already happened with MY idea of a "Moonrovers Prize Competition" (now called the "Google Lunar X Prize")

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

with the shuttle derived FAST-SLV concept (now called "Direct") etc.

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/033directstruestory.html

personally, I believe that it isn't a good/smart choices for NASA to award these top research, NOT to those who have INVENTED these NEW IDEAS, but (nearly always) to those that have found them on the web and "use them freely"... :[

posted by gaetano marano March 2, 2010

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.206.34 (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Artilcle-worthy photo?

This article would benefit from a better photo, of later-versions of the hardware. I will add a Image requested request.

I don't know much about getting photos through the copyright rulz on Wikipedia, but here is one that might qualify: [1] Appears to be a NASA-taken photo of Lori Garver and Jeff Bezos, in front of real hardware, at Blue Origin. NASA Deputy Administrator Garver Tours Blue Origin, 8 Dec 2011. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bezos' rationale and motivation

There is some good insight into Jeff Bezos' rationale and motivation for being involved in the NewSpace industry in this article: Jeff Bezos Owns the Web in More Ways Than You Think, by Steven Levy, November 13, 2011, Wired, December 2011 issue. Bezos may have made public comments about this before, but I had not previously seen anything very explicit.

Bezos: If I wanted to buy tourist trips to fly to the International Space Station and Soyuz and those things, there’s nothing wrong with that. But that’s $35 million. I want to lower the cost of access to space. ... I like to say, “Maintain a firm grasp of the obvious at all times.” For Amazon, that’s selection, speed of delivery, lower prices. Well, for Blue Origin it’s cost and safety. If you really want to make it so that anybody can go into space, you have to increase the safety and decrease the cost. That’s Blue Origin’s mission. I’m super passionate about it.

I don't have time to update the article just now, but did want to leave a link to the source should other's be interested. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done—N2e (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New Information about Blue Origin in NASA Video / Please Rewrite

Rob Meyerson talks about Blue Origin company activities extensively in this NASA video from January 9, 2013 at position 0:13:02:

Someone needs to watch the video and completely rewrite the article with the new info, or at least make major structural and content changes. --Radical Mallard (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

More on Blue Origin and their attempt to lease another pad at KSC in Florida (HINT: they DON'T want to share a pad with NASA's SLS)

Bezos interview, a bit more info, and a source

Bezos apparently talked Blue Origin in a recent interview as part of the grand opening of the Bezos Center for Innovation at Seattle’s Museum of History and Industry. In that interview, he released some new info/updates about Blue Origin that are not currently in the article.

Another source

Competition with Virgin Galactic

According to [6] BONS and VGSS2 are in direct competition to make the first commercial spaceflight -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Blue Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Florida launch site AND manufacturing site announced

Here is a link to a New York Times article about it: Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos’ Rocket Company, to Launch from Florida. Don't have time to update the BO article just now. N2e (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

and more:

New Shepard achieves successful test landing

Announced early this morning (US time) via Blue Origin company press release. Expect to update the article a bit later when reliable source media cover the event. Here's the presser: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/news/blue-origin-makes-historic-rocket-landing. N2e (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

From the press release, a link to the company video with excerpts from the historic flight and landing which occurred yesterday, 23 November 2015 (also includes some marketing buzz and computer-generated video of human suborbital capsule action that is proposed/conceptual future, and DID NOT happen yesterday; so not a particularly good video for the article in my view): 23 Nov 2015 vertical landing following suborbital flight above the Karman Line. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Media coverage:

Further vetting of "patent controversy" section

I'd like to recommend we remove the "Patent controversy" section per wp:undue. The only coverage we have is by what appears to be a self published blog, Nasa Watch. The fact that Blue Origin has a patent is not notable. The fact that it is being challenged is not notable absent meaningful coverage in wp:rs. I've moved the section here for further vetting.--Nowa (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Patent controversy
In 2004, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Blue Origin US Patent 8,678,321, Sea landing of space launch vehicles and associated systems and methods.
In August 2014, SpaceX challenged the patentability of 15 claims of the '321 patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103.1.[1][2] On March 3, 2015, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board approved SpaceX’s request for an inter partes review of 13 of 15 claims the company made about Blue Origin’s patent. In part, the decision reads: On the current record, SpaceX has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted ground of anticipation of claims 1–3 [...] and the asserted grounds of obviousness of claims 4–13 [...] As such, we authorize institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’321 patent. Our decision to institute acts as a preliminary measure of SpaceX’s evidence as having enough merit to take the case to trial.[3]
In a separate decision, the board rejected the SpaceX’s request for a review of claims 14 and 15. The decision said that Blue Origin’s patent describing the process for igniting, shutting off, and reigniting a rocket motor was too vague to determine whether SpaceX could prevail on these counts.[4]
On August 27, 2015 the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a motion to cancel the remaining 13 of 15 claims in the '321 patent. Blue Origin itself had made the motion to cancel those claims, effectively acknowledging that its case was lost.[5]'

References

  1. ^ "Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,678,321". Docket Alarm. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  2. ^ "SpaceX Barge Landing Patent Petition Challenge Denied – and Accepted". Nasa Watch. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  3. ^ "Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,678,321". Docket Alarm. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  4. ^ "Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,678,321". Docket Alarm. Retrieved 2015-06-23.
  5. ^ "IPR2014-01376, No. 12 Termination Request for Adverse Judgment After Institution - Termination Request for Adverse Judgment After Institution (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2015)". Docket Alarm. Retrieved 2015-11-18.

Orbital Launch Site (OLS) in Florida

A friend pointed me to these photographs of the Blue Origin Orbital Launch Site (OLS) taken in early September and posted on an internet forum. Not a source that can be used in the article, but does show that serious site prep and utilities/drainage work had begun on the project, and that likely the local biz news or other sources will have a reliable source article about it soon, if not already. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits and deletion of a number of sources

I see that a number of edits have recently been made, and I think that a lot of them improved the article. Some, I'm unclear on. Not really sure the best way to address/discuss.

I explicitly assume good faith on the part of the editor. I just don't get the loss of sources that seems to be happening along the way, and the loss of some historical statements about the growth/development of this US company.

I thought of just boldly reverting the entire set of edits, and then discussing the issues here, before a large subset of the edits could quite easily, and with consensus, be remade. That seemed too much for what seem, in the main, to be intended to be marginal improvements to the article. So then I started looking at individual edits, with the most recent first, and undid a few of them, with specific comments in my edit summaries. However, when I reached three reverts, I realized that my attempt to improve the article might seem unnecessarily confrontational; so stopped there for now.

So let's chat a bit here on the Talk page about it. My main concern is when historical statements get removed from the article; or when a source that was used to cite some statement gets removed merely because the Web URL has gone dead.

What do you think would be the best way to address that, given that a string of edits has been made recently, only some of which have these particular problems. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Logo meaning

Jeff Bezos gave an interview, and explained the meanings of the logos [7] -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Collier trophy

Blue Origin has just been nominated to receive the Robert J. Collier Trophy. It is one of four nominees. The Collier Trophy is the premier award for "the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics" and is awarded annually by the National Aeronautic Association. The Trophy resides in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. The formal announcement of the four nominees is scheduled for March 14th at the Spring Awards Luncheon Event. Ematarese (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

More sources: Jeff Bezos longer interviews in 2017

It does not appear that these have been noted here before. Bezos is continuing his pattern, begun in 2015, of actually talking relatively freely, and taking interview questions, about his space interests and entrepreneurial venture. After 15 years of being extremely limited in releasing information. N2e (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Source, with extensive info about Blue Origin plans and motivations

Hi N2e - The website seems to insist on a $995 subscription to even read that article - Is there a cheaper/free access just to read ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. That kinda stinks, but it is the model of journalism we've evolved to. I get it; Peter de Selding was the top European journalist for SpaceNews for many years. I don't know why he left, but I can infer it was partly related to the old news magazine model of ad revenue for print simply no longer works, and like so many publications, there are fewer staff positions, or fewer highly-paid staff positions, than possible in the 1990s and 2000s before the web v2 came on so strong. So, they've got some rationale for going behind a paywall; but it's sure going to reduce readership, and they'll lose editors on Wikipedia being able to cite their (I expect) excellent source. N2e (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

What is known about New Armstrong?

Being from the UK I can't access the source given. Any indications on likely size or payload ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Which particular source, Rod57? I can look for you if I have the details. N2e (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks N2e. It was this LATimes ref [1] - Rod57 (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Samantha Masunaga (September 12, 2016). "Blue Origin's new, more powerful rocket will compete with SpaceX". Los Angeles Times.
Short answer: almost nothing at all. I've done a bit of looking around; it does not appear that Blue has ever put out any more than that small bit in an email that the LATimes reported on in late 2016. A bit which they called "a possible hint of the company's plans..." on New Armstrong. So until this private company chooses to tell us more, I guess we'll know no more. Here's the full paragraph from the LA Times:

"Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong," Bezos said in the email, a possible hint of the company's plans to send the next launch vehicle to the moon. So far, Blue Origin has named each of its launch vehicles after the U.S. astronaut that first accomplished that feat. Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon."

But when someone identifies newer sources, if they haven't already updated the article on New Armstrong, I'd probably read the source and edit in any substantive new info. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there's any coverage. The company's PR and physical sites are focused on New Shepard and New Glenn, and this is so far from deployment there's unlikely to be coverage that doesn't go through the company in some way. According to a Kerbal Space Program web forum post [8] (not a reliable source), Absolutely nothing is know about this thing, except for the name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Article nominated to be featured and appear on the Did you know ... ? section of the Main page

A Blue Origin-related article has been nominated to be featured and appear on the Did you know ... ? section of the Wikipedia Main page. The page is a recently created article on the Blue Origin landing platform ship. The nomination is here.

Articles featured in Did you know ... ? typically receive many thousands of reads on the day they appear on the Main page. Other editors are invited to improve this article, and make it the best it can be. A special need that could improve the article further would be graphics editors who might be willing to make an image for the article that would show a rocket landing on the currently-in-refit-in-a-US-shipyard Stena Freighter that Blue has purchased, while using as input and ideas images Blue has released, but not licensed for use on Wikipedia, here and the very recently released New Glenn Payload User's Guide here, which has an excellent additional, and different, Blue Origin render. N2e (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Space Race, 2nd ISS...

The Second International Space Station

Uses components already invented and is not a atmosphere fly-by.

Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtrad (talk • contribs) 07:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Date format

Currently, the article uses a mixtures of dmy, mdy and ymd dates, while the maintainance templates claims dmy should be used (dated February 2017). While not a strong national tie, I'd argue that the article should use mdy because the company is based in the US. It would also fall in line with Jeff Bezos and Amazon (company). Lordtobi (✉) 10:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have used mostly dmy, and less mdy, from the early days of the article. It seems to have a number of ref dates in the ISO standard yyyy-mm-dd as well, which as I understand WP:MOS, are fine in citations, but should never be used in article prose. dmy seems correct to me. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Establishing actual name?

This article uses a PDF file from NASA to establish the company name as "Blue Origin Federation, LLC". Is a more definitive reference available? I can't find "Federation LLC" at the comany website. Washington State documents list many names, here are some with their UBIs: Blue Origin, LLC (602 064 321), Blue Origin International, LLC (604 113 157), Blue Origin Holdings Federation, LLC (604 418 700). There's also a limited partnership (603 575 489) and some holdings companies (603 574 827 and 603 575 379). Which is correct, and how can that be established? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Q Blue Origin plans for orbital solar power satellite demo ?

Any news on plans for an orbital solar power satellite demo ? Relations to the Space Studies Institute ? Thin film solar with band gaps optimized for low wavelengths on an inflatable/“sail” structure? Anything made public yet ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B0C6:2DB9:487B:E926:6123:59FD (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Bezos no longer CEO at Amazon; will Blue Origin involvement increase?

With Jeff Bezos having recently stepped down from his CEO position at Amazon Inc., do we have any sources that speak to increased planned involvement to get Blue Origin moving forward with more alacrity? No change? Or is he retiring more broadly and so will become less involved at Blue Origin also? Would be useful to find a source that addresses the topic. If someone sees one, and pings me here, I'll be happy to try to improve the article with whatever is known. N2e (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Need new section?

Due to recent events, it might makes sense to add a "Controversy" section.

I believe the following facts below are appropriate for a "Controversy" section. This is what is making the news and people will inquire about what happened.

NASA choice SpaceX for its $2.9b contract [1]. Blue Origin submitted open letter in regards to NASA's [2] regarding contract. His further requests was declined so Blue Origin sue'd NASA [3]. Jeff Bezos has directly commented on it on why he thinks its unfair [4]

Whatever is sourced, and notable, in mainline space media can certainly be covered in Wikipedia. My only additional comment would be that I don't know if "Controversies" is quite the right section title. Lawfare, or the pursuit of corporate aims by legal methods, is a well recognized part of the operation of corporations. It may or may not be a big controversy in the public sphere, and it certainly need not be, for a company to want to use the courts to pursue outcomes that would be beneficial to it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-artemis-moves-forward-nasa-picks-spacex-to-land-next-americans-on-moon/
  2. ^ https://www.blueorigin.com/news/open-letter-to-administrator-nelson
  3. ^ https://www.space.com/blue-origin-sues-nasa-over-moon-lander-contract
  4. ^ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/heres-why-blue-origin-thinks-it-is-justified-in-continuing-to-protest-nasa/

Spelling?

"testing with cyrogenic propellants was speculated". 89.8.159.97 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the wrong word or a misleading one. Based on the cited source, they expected ground pressure testing to begin no earlier than the following month (Sept. 2021). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

hi

I need your help If you are willing I will send you an email 196.190.112.40 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

reference cut

The "New Shephard" subsection had the following text: "As the vehicle reached a speed of Mach 1.2 and 14 km (46,000 ft) altitude, a "flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered [the] range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle" which was supported by [Bezos, Jeff (September 2, 2011). "Successful Short Hop, Set Back, and Next Vehicle". Letter. Blue Origin. Archived from the original on September 2, 2011. Retrieved September 3, 2011.]. The cited source does not discuss the flight and does not contain the quoted text, so I deleted the citation. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Cutting down the history section

The history section is bloated with a lot of plans and predictions which did not come to pass. I think some mention could be made of schedule slippages in the vehicle and engine sections, but I think the history section should focus on things that actually happened.

The lead section also suffers from this problem. It looks as if it were written by appending only. -- Tim Starling (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I made some edits along these lines. Tim Starling (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Advert?

The article is tagged "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2023)" To which content does this refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: Since you added Template:Advert, perhaps you could answer this question. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Most of the language has since been removed following the reverts to a number of Knowledge Updater's COI edits. However, some aspects still remain:
  • The company states that it aims to make access to space cheaper and more reliable through reusable launch vehicles.
  • New Shepard lifts off and after gaining enough speed and attitude to pass the Kármán line, the booster along with the rocket separate during flight. After separation, the booster is designed to return to Earth to perform a vertical landing while the crew capsule follows a separate trajectory, passes the Kármán line and then returns to Earth and parachutes are used for a soft landing. The Booster lands first, followed by the crew capsule less than 5 minutes later. The landing occurs approximately 50 feet from the booster. New Shepard is also intended to provide frequent opportunities for researchers to fly experiments into suborbital space. ...then cited to the Blue Origin website
  • The New Glenn is an upcoming Rocket from Blue Origin that is a two-stage orbital launch vehicle that is expected to launch sometime in 2024.
The design work on the vehicle began in 2012. The high-level specifications for the vehicle were publicly announced in September 2016. The first stage will be powered by seven BE-4 engines, also designed and manufactured by Blue Origin. The first stage is reusable, just like the New Shepard suborbital launch vehicle that preceded it. The second stage is intended to be expendable. Blue Origin intends to launch the rocket from Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 36.::
The New Glenn Rocket will stand 300 Feet tall when Vertical and will have the most cargo capacity of any other Rocket in the world. The Rocket has extremely high availably launch capabilities. "The 7-meter fairing has two times the payload volume of any existing launch vehicle, which means more room for satellites and the freedom to build in more capacity. New Glenn is also able to launch and land in 95% of weather conditions, making it a reliable option for payload customers." ...then cited to a blog
(The New Shepard section should also be subject to scrutiny)
  • Blue Origin began developing systems for orbital human spacecraft prior to 2012. A reusable first-stage booster was projected to fly a suborbital trajectory, taking off vertically like the booster stage of a conventional multistage rocket. Following stage separation, the upper stage would continue to propel astronauts to orbit while the first-stage booster would descend to perform a powered vertical landing similar to the New Shepard suborbital Propulsion Module. The first-stage booster would be refueled and launched again, allowing improved reliability and lowering the cost of human access to space.
The booster rocket was projected to loft Blue Origin's biconic Space Vehicle to orbit, carrying astronauts and supplies. After orbiting the Earth, the Space Vehicle will reenter Earth's atmosphere to land on land under parachutes, and then be reused on future missions to Earth orbit.
  • New Shepard is composed of two vehicles, a crew capsule and a rocket booster with 1 BE-4 engine.
  • On July 20, 2021, the New Shepard performed its first crewed mission into space. The flight was approximately 10 minutes and crossed the Kármán lineThe [sic] passengers were Jeff Bezos, his brother Mark Bezos, Wally Funk, and Oliver Daemen, after the unnamed auction winner (later revealed to have been Justin Sun) dropped out due to a scheduling conflict. The second and third crewed missions of New Shepard took place in October and December 2021, respectively. Fourth crewed flight happened in March 2022. On June 4, 2022, New Shepard completed its fifth crewed mission launch after the delayed voyage previous month. The sixth crewed flight took place on August 4, 2022.
  • Blue Origin successfully completed a System Requirements Review (SRR) of its orbital Space Vehicle in May 2012.
  • Blue Origin began work on a new and much larger rocket engine in 2011.
Before the reverts, the article was much more obviously problematic in tone.
  • The first ridesharing deep space cargo mission for Blue, this shows that Blue shines bright in the face of adversary's.
  • "To enable millions of people living and working in space for the benefit of Earth. Blue leaders are above all else mission driven. Mission-driven leaders create and communicate a direction that inspires results, and their actions and attitudes are guided by “mission first.”
  • The Logo has a deeper meaning than most company logos, a White feather, surrounded by Blue. The feather signifies flight, the feather faces curved side up because that's how feathers generates lift. The Blue stands for water because Earth is made up of 71%
  • If you are interested in booking a flight to space view, [inappropriate link]
  • Additional Information on the New Glenn Rocket can be found at, [inappropriate link]
  • Delays of Vulcan Centaur are not solely because of Blue Origin. Two other companies payloads were late to the Space Force Complex and ULA's own qualification of Centaur V have not been completed. Although the dates have been pushed back, this is in an effort on all parties to get the best results out of a successful Rocket Launch.
Other issues stemming from KE's edits include the removal of sentences critical of the company/its projects. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
As "Most of the language has since been removed", I'm goong to remove the tag. The text quoted above, and "other issues" mentioned, do not justify branding the article an advert. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed content

I've removed pretty much all of the offending content added by Knowledge updater, but it appears they've also removed a lot of content, in addition to adding content. I think this is going to take a lot of work, but the article should be compared to the older revision and missing, well-sourced information should be added back in. I've already done so for a few bits, but quite a lot of things are missing at the moment. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Corporate whitewashing

This page has been significantly edited by Knowledge Updater 1999 at 13:43, 24 February 2023, generally removing "negative" facts about Blue Origin and adding "positive" PR type language. No longer has NPOV. I tagged it as advertisement for improvement and the same user removed the tag without explanation. In their first edit they state they work for Blue Origin. This seems like an obvious attempt to whitewash the page on behalf of Blue Origin. 71.182.194.247 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree that someone is astroturfing this article with no accountability. There really needs to be some tags on this article that it's NPOV and reads like an advertisement. --172.92.181.142 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry.
I really enjoy reading and history. I updated the page to be factual and fixing most of the spelling mistakes. The article was not updated and I decided to update it.
It original article was bashing the company. I believed the author may have written the article with not good intent. I updated it with an unbiased viewpoint. Knowledge Updater 1999 (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I've pointed Knowledge Updater 1999 to the COI page and asked them to discuss any further changes on this talk page.
I don't see a need for the Primary sources template. The article has many secondary reliable sources. Not sure about the need for the advert tag, but I will add a COI template since many of Knowledge Updater 1999's changes are still in the article. Meters (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry the primary sources tag was originally added because the article cited the blue origin website to add the mission statement word for word (and a few other things, but that was the most outstanding thing) Freedom4U (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
OK. We still need someone to review the user's edits. Virtually all the contnet changes here [9] are from Knowledge Updater 1999. Meters (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on the talk page the user bellows edits were removed. Would it be a good idea to remove the banner? Any way to improve the article?
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Knowledge Updater 1999 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Blue Origin. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Disclosure made here. The Edit Warrior - Echo Leader (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
No. The tag has been removed from the article after reviews of the contnet, but the COI notification on this page does not get removed. There is still a COI concern, since an IP who was involved in this just posted about this to my talk page, and now here you are, minutes later, making the same argument. I'm not convinced that the original COI editor is not socking again. Meters (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I see. I'm sorry about that sir. It must be a coincidence. Have a great day and thank you for answering my question. The Edit Warrior - Echo Leader (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversion of Numbers

An example is "7-Meter fairing" and in the same sentence there is "one BE engine". Should the numbers all be like 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. or One, Two, Three or a combination of both like currently in the article? Señor Jakob (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Origin/Archive_1&oldid=1215669913"