[Lazare]

> getting a rocket to orbit isn't that big of a deal these days.

Arguably true, but to the extent that is is true, it makes BOs failures to do so given how much time and money has been spent on it rather inexplicable, no?

Either they're doing something hard (and might fail), or they're doing something easy so why haven't they succeeded? Either way you cut it, it's a bad look.

> They appear to be making steady progress

It's certainly slow. Whether it's steady or indeed, progress, remains to be seen.

> I'm not saying they will absolutely succeed, but their success feels more like a when than an if unless Bezos decides to pull the plug for some reason.

Let's hope.

[bryanlarsen]

> It's certainly slow.

Slow compared to what? Compared to SpaceX they're slow, but compared to everybody else?

NASA/Boeing's SLS program started in 2005 as Constellation. It's still over a year away from it's first test launch and several years away from fully operational status.

China's Long March 5 started in 2007 and it can be argued that it wasn't fully operational until this year.

ULA's Vulcan, started in 2014 is at least a year out. And it reuses the same Centaur upper stage as Atlas.

[liability]

Slow compared to Rocket Lab; 11 years to orbit, compared to Blue Origin's 20+ and counting.

Slow compared to Orbital Sciences, who took 8 years in the 1980s.

[versteegen]

Rocket Lab took about 7 years for Electron: for the first ~5 years after founding they did some sounding rockets and DARPA/ONR-funded non-orbital-rocket propulsion tech before pivoting. Can't remember or find when Peter Beck said they started on an orbital rocket, but they got NASA funding to do a study of the concept December 2010 [1]

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110723113333/http://www.rocket...