My point is he could buy a lot of time to save the business. He's not "running out of time". The entire article just feels like: woe is the billionaire's pet project failing because it's not profitable in an unreasonably short amount of time despite plenty of cash availability if said billionaire wants to continue and achieve their original goals.
Where did anybody expect Blue Origin, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic by this point? 17-20 years of R&D, building on decades of rocket science and space exploration, consulting with NASA et al. and between the three of them, only 1 has been able to send humans into orbit and that was only very recent.
20 years to go from a pile of cash and no experience, to a full production line of safe orbit-capable launch vehicles is a very big ask. SpaceX has achieved that, but at the cost of many of its employees (just look at the press around SpaceX working conditions).
Yes, it's longer than the time between the Mercury missions and Apollo 11, but the 50s-60s era of space travel was significantly higher risk. If corners could be cut in the same way, no doubt 20 years would have been fairly reasonable. Add in an existing presence in space R&D and the shorter time frames of the space shuttle program seem even more reasonable. But that just isn't possible in today's safety first world.
Well luckily we have markets that can quickly turn equity in Amazon into cash. Bezos has in fact been doing that to the tune of billions of dollars a year to fund Blue Origin. I don't see him stopping any time soon.
1) time and time again, particularly in the media, I hear net worth bandied about as though it's the same as cash. Bezos is worth X billion - think what that cash would pay for!
2) billions in equity can't be translated into billions in cash. Millions, for sure. But not billions.
3) any statements that talk about taxing the rich inevitably seem to come down to transferring equity to the state over time based on a current stock market valuation.
All of the above seem misinformed and/or a bad idea, and worth trying to establish fundamental understanding in this area. If you already have that understanding then that's fantastic.
Jeff can define success however he wants. He can define it in terms of making money, or in terms of successful launches. Making money is hard - there is only so much demand for things in space, and some competition - making it questionable if the investment will pay off. However launching isn't as hard, and he can define metrics in that way and be successful for his purposes.
How is launching things into space any different from paying composers to write much, or painters to paint pictures - two things that rich people regularly did 300 years ago.
Space demand will grow incredibly fast very soon as SpaceX leads the incredible prices drops in $ per KG to orbit.
I'd love for them to be successful, and its great to see so many space companies being created, testing, and launching. And it's very important for the future of civilisation. That doesn't mean that you can't ask questions about the health of a particular company.
He needs to get something in orbit, anything. Once he has a single win, he can start scoring launch contracts and competing in the launch provider market. He should end up more profitable than every provider with disposable launchers.
New Glenn should be that vehicle, if they ever finish it.