7 thoughts on “Orbital Reef”

    1. Indeed. But Sierra first needs to decide if it’s both serious and able enough to go it alone on a station project should BO bail on Orbital Reef. If not, but it still wishes to be in the space station game, then it needs to hammer out a partnership with one of the other extant station players. For lift of station components, Starship is the obvious choice. For launch of cargo and crew Dream Chasers, Falcon 9 or Terran R look to be the most economical likely choices.

  1. The latest plans for a private space station have run aground on an orbital reef. It is unclear if they can be re-floated again…

  2. “Habitable space stations have long been an interest for Blue Origin, with Bezos’ vision for the company to create a future where “millions of people are living and working in space to benefit Earth.”

    I tend to millions of people living in space, will be in Venus orbit before Earth’s orbits.
    But if millions were to be in Earth orbit, where and how?
    I tend to think in Equatorial Low Earth orbit, though orbit always in sunlight also makes sense.
    If equator, you want to launch from equator.
    And it sort of has to be artificial gravity stations- it seems only NASA or other govts would want to have people spend time in microgravity.
    So, one needs to determine min radius of spin and how much artificial gravity is enough to suffer a lot less from the current known microgravity effects.
    Which are largely about re-adusting to Earth’s natural gravity. Which means if the plan wasn’t to return to Earth, it could be different if planning on going to Moon or Mars or anywhere else with significantly less gravity.
    [[There also a possibility you want adjust to gravitational forces stronger than Earth’s gravity {for some reason}.]]
    Also seems you probably have to have less radiation levels as one gets on the international space station. Something like 1/4 as much or even less radiation – though one would avoid a lot, simply not being in ISS’s orbital inclination.

    1. Looking at, it seem lots people in LEO, millions, is
      impractical and not politically viable- so millions for Earth orbits, could only be in L-points.
      And Venus L-points and high orbit in general, seems to where millions to billion of people could live in Space.

  3. It is in ULA’s interest to find launch providers that don’t rely on BO for their engines so that ULA doesn’t end up like Orbital Reef.

    How hard would it be to modify a Falcon Heavy or Super heavy to allow for either the old or new Centaur as a payload?

    1. At a minimum, doing such a thing would require adding LH2 propellant handling capability to any of SpaceX’s launch pads intended to support such service. The probability of such being done to support “Centaur as a payload” seems effectively zero. The only even modest probability I see of SpaceX adding LH2 handling capability to one of its pads would be to allow operation of an LH2 tanker version of Starship aimed at serving LEO LH2 depots. The potential customers for these, in turn, would be operators of hydrolox space tugs and/or refillable hydrolox 2nd stages. The latter include Blue Origin, Stoke Space and perhaps the Europeans and Japanese.

      All that said, I’m not sure I see the relevance of the entire issue to the potential abandonment by one or both partners of the Orbital Reef project.

Comments are closed.