What will be the outcome of New Glenn's second flight (NG-2)?

[sstli2]

What do you think will happen? Choose the closest option.

[jimvela]

Too few choices.
Launch snd staging, not quite nominal 2nd stage flight, payload separation.

Botched payload orbital insertion, failure to land booster.

[Comga]

Too few choices.
Launch and staging, not quite nominal 2nd stage flight, payload separation.

Botched payload orbital insertion, failure to land booster.

Too many choice
What’s the boundary between reentry and landing?

My opinion is that the booster will go “off-nominal” somewhere on that unspecified border between a reentry burn, which Blue has not said if they are doing again, and “landing”, like in hypersonic descent or at the supersonic start of the landing burn, far above the barge.  Remember, Blue has never tried either of those, because NS is configured in a different manner.

It’s amusing that my quite optimistic “fails on landing” vote is in the middle of the pack.

PS. Any demerits for leaving another large chunk of space debris in a long-lived orbit?
Full success includes deorbiting the second stage, or they’re just hacking their way into the launch market.

[sstli2]

Too few choices.
Launch snd staging, not quite nominal 2nd stage flight, payload separation.

Botched payload orbital insertion, failure to land booster.

You put the worst outcome. In your case, "botched payload orbital insertion" means "Fails to reach orbit or deploy payload". Deploying the payload and failing to land is still a successful mission. Failing to deploy the payload is not.

If you feel the need to elaborate, that's what the posts are for.

What’s the boundary between reentry and landing?

My opinion is that the booster will go “off-nominal” somewhere on that unspecified border between a reentry burn, which Blue has not said if they are doing again, and “landing”, like in hypersonic descent or at the supersonic start of the landing burn, far above the barge.  Remember, Blue has never tried either of those, because NS is configured in a different manner.

I would call that re-entry. My intent with "landing" is really alluding to the the final phase, near the drone ship.

PS. Any demerits for leaving another large chunk of space debris in a long-lived orbit?
Full success includes deorbiting the second stage, or they’re just hacking their way into the launch market.

Generally no one does de-orbit burns outside of LEO, they put the stage in a disposal orbit. SpaceX only did a disposal burn for the first time just this year on a GTO mission, if I recall correctly.

They were compliant with stage disposal regulatory guidelines on the first flight. This flight is going to LEO, so I would expect them to de-orbit the stage, again compliant with regulatory guidelines.

[redneck]

New Glenn is due for a clean flight with a perfect landing.  Unlike Starship, they don’t seem likely to make same mistake twice or even ten times. 

Better is the enemy of good enough, but perfect keeps you from being fed to the shark tank.  Turtles are awesome.

Perfect is an illusion of a limited mind. It means you believe there is no room for improvement anywhere. Both companies going for all up testing should concern people that have done development.

I voted orbital insertion and landing failure. Likely to take a few tries to get it right when the vehicle has little track record to inform the operation. 

[laszlo]

New Glenn is due for a clean flight with a perfect landing.  Unlike Starship, they don’t seem likely to make same mistake twice or even ten times. 

Better is the enemy of good enough, but perfect keeps you from being fed to the shark tank.  Turtles are awesome.

Perfect is an illusion of a limited mind. It means you believe there is no room for improvement anywhere. Both companies going for all up testing should concern people that have done development.

"Perfect", in this context, simply means "all documented requirements fulfilled to the documented standards". As for all-up testing, it worked out pretty well for the Saturn Vs, especially Apollo 8.

[redneck]

New Glenn is due for a clean flight with a perfect landing.  Unlike Starship, they don’t seem likely to make same mistake twice or even ten times. 

Better is the enemy of good enough, but perfect keeps you from being fed to the shark tank.  Turtles are awesome.

Perfect is an illusion of a limited mind. It means you believe there is no room for improvement anywhere. Both companies going for all up testing should concern people that have done development.

"Perfect", in this context, simply means "all documented requirements fulfilled to the documented standards". As for all-up testing, it worked out pretty well for the Saturn Vs, especially Apollo 8.

Expendable systems have little choice in the matter. Whether it hits 200 feet or 200 miles, the vehicle is lost. Reusable systems should have and exercise the option of incremental flight expansion. Much like a new class of supersonic aircraft may have a large number of flights before it passes the sound barrier. First flights sometimes don't even retract the landing gear. Same with new equipment types and cars.  You don't go from drawing board to Indy without a lot of intermediate testing.

As for Apollo, good point, but it is an outlier compared to all the vehicle types that failed early and often.

[AmigaClone]

New Glenn is due for a clean flight with a perfect landing.  Unlike Starship, they don’t seem likely to make same mistake twice or even ten times. 

Better is the enemy of good enough, but perfect keeps you from being fed to the shark tank.  Turtles are awesome.

Perfect is an illusion of a limited mind. It means you believe there is no room for improvement anywhere. Both companies going for all up testing should concern people that have done development.

"Perfect", in this context, simply means "all documented requirements fulfilled to the documented standards". As for all-up testing, it worked out pretty well for the Saturn Vs, especially Apollo 8.

Expendable systems have little choice in the matter. Whether it hits 200 feet or 200 miles, the vehicle is lost. Reusable systems should have and exercise the option of incremental flight expansion. Much like a new class of supersonic aircraft may have a large number of flights before it passes the sound barrier. First flights sometimes don't even retract the landing gear. Same with new equipment types and cars.  You don't go from drawing board to Indy without a lot of intermediate testing.

As for Apollo, good point, but it is an outlier compared to all the vehicle types that failed early and often.

In some ways NASA was lucky that there were only 3 deaths related to the Apollo program. Had an incident similar to Apollo 13 occurred at the same point of the Apollo 8 mission, then the result would have been three more dead astronauts - and possibly no means to recover their bodies.

[lightleviathan]

I'm voting for a successful mission, failure on landing for the booster. Blue obviously has experience designing reusable launch systems, and they certainly can execute, but I would be surprised if they got it on the second try.

[sdsds]

To describe it as a complete success I'd want the booster safely back in port. I'm predicting the booster makes a credible attempt at a landing burn and remains sufficiently in control that it gets within visible range of the recovery platform.

[Vultur]

To describe it as a complete success I'd want the booster safely back in port. I'm predicting the booster makes a credible attempt at a landing burn and remains sufficiently in control that it gets within visible range of the recovery platform.

Yeah, this is hard to vote on because I think the result might be something in between complete landing failure and complete success (booster returned in usable condition).

[sstli2]

If you think it will land in one piece, call it a success. This poll asks nothing about what comes after.

[Robotbeat]

I voted complete success.

[sstli2]

It's launch day:

- 92% of you believe the mission will be successful. Only 8% voted for a failure to put the payload into orbit.
- 31% believe they will successfully recover the booster.
- 15% believe they will get no further than NG-1.
- 45%, the most popular choice, believe that it will be able to complete a re-entry burn, but will fail somewhere around landing.

As far as my vote: I voted for a complete success. I believe their ability to hover and the lift of their strakes will allow a large tolerance for landing, and they appear to have made the necessary changes to support engine relight. If their engineers are 75% confident, I'm inclined to believe it. If not, I sure hope it gets close.

[sstli2]

Looks like 69% of you were wrong. Kudos to the optimistic 31%.

[sdsds]

Congratulations to Blue; congratulations to the 20 forum members who predicted a fully successful mission.

[jongoff]

Looks like 69% of you were wrong. Kudos to the optimistic 31%.

As one of the pessimistic ones, I'm extremely glad to be proven wrong here. Having New Glenn start hitting its stride is a big deal for the industry. Second company to successfully recover a booster from an orbital launch via powered landing. Pretty dang amazing.

Way to go Blue!

~Jon

[Tywin]

Looks like 69% of you were wrong. Kudos to the optimistic 31%.

With Blue always optimistic!!

[Tywin]

Looks like 69% of you were wrong. Kudos to the optimistic 31%.

As one of the pessimistic ones, I'm extremely glad to be proven wrong here. Having New Glenn start hitting its stride is a big deal for the industry. Second company to successfully recover a booster from an orbital launch via powered landing. Pretty dang amazing.

Way to go Blue!

~Jon

Soon Gravitics to New Glenn

[rpapo]

Looks like 69% of you were wrong. Kudos to the optimistic 31%.

As one of the pessimistic ones, I'm extremely glad to be proven wrong here. Having New Glenn start hitting its stride is a big deal for the industry. Second company to successfully recover a booster from an orbital launch via powered landing. Pretty dang amazing.

Way to go Blue!

~Jon

And the only two companies to succeed so far are American.  Not that I'm remotely close to being a MAGA, but it is something to be proud of.  Though I expect the Chinese will succeed relatively soon.

[sstli2]

Looks like 69% of you were wrong. Kudos to the optimistic 31%.

As one of the pessimistic ones, I'm extremely glad to be proven wrong here. Having New Glenn start hitting its stride is a big deal for the industry. Second company to successfully recover a booster from an orbital launch via powered landing. Pretty dang amazing.

Way to go Blue!

~Jon

And the only two companies to succeed so far are American.  Not that I'm remotely close to being a MAGA, but it is something to be proud of.  Though I expect the Chinese will succeed relatively soon.

Oh yes, the Chinese are coming soon - within a year. And Europe is about 3 or 4 years away.

[redneck]

I predicted landing failure. Good to be wrong.

[jongoff]

Looks like 69% of you were wrong. Kudos to the optimistic 31%.

As one of the pessimistic ones, I'm extremely glad to be proven wrong here. Having New Glenn start hitting its stride is a big deal for the industry. Second company to successfully recover a booster from an orbital launch via powered landing. Pretty dang amazing.

Way to go Blue!

~Jon

And the only two companies to succeed so far are American.  Not that I'm remotely close to being a MAGA, but it is something to be proud of.  Though I expect the Chinese will succeed relatively soon.

Oh yes, the Chinese are coming soon - within a year. And Europe is about 3 or 4 years away.

It will be interesting to see who ends up being the third, fourth, and fifth organizations to achieve successful first stage recovery and reuse. And even more exciting to see who the first 3-4 are that achieve full recovery and reuse.

I think the Chinese have a good shot at being third for booster recovery, but it wouldn't surprise me if 4 out of the first 5 companies to demonstrate first stage recovery and reuse were US companies.

~Jon

[Metalskin]

I'm very happy to be wrong. I was pessimistic because of how many times I thought Space X would make it before they actually did. Different approaches and all, also Blue had the advantage of knowing it's possible. But even with all that, amazing result today and so happy for them.

I wonder if they will change to a hover slam in the future?

[sdsds]

[...] Different approaches and all

Yes, this. Blue's success with GS2 (first flight delivered payload to MEO; second flight delivered payload to xGEO) and now recovery of GS1 shows that "Gradatim Ferociter" is not all just talk. Methodical engineering, manufacturing and procedure development actually does work!

[Robotbeat]

[...] Different approaches and all

Yes, this. Blue's success with GS2 (first flight delivered payload to MEO; second flight delivered payload to xGEO) and now recovery of GS1 shows that "Gradatim Ferociter" is not all just talk. Methodical engineering, manufacturing and procedure development actually does work!

I expected them to succeed completely in this mission. And they did!

But do not mistake succeeding on a mission with validating the overall strategy. They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer. This is, IMO, an utter strategic failure compared to the alternative approach. And actually, I think Bezos realized it and course-corrected Blue a few years ago.

[envy887]

[...] Different approaches and all

Yes, this. Blue's success with GS2 (first flight delivered payload to MEO; second flight delivered payload to xGEO) and now recovery of GS1 shows that "Gradatim Ferociter" is not all just talk. Methodical engineering, manufacturing and procedure development actually does work!

I expected them to succeed completely in this mission. And they did!

As did I.

But do not mistake succeeding on a mission with validating the overall strategy. They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer. This is, IMO, an utter strategic failure compared to the alternative approach. And actually, I think Bezos realized it and course-corrected Blue a few years ago.

100% all of this. Every bit of it.

Still way ahead of Ariane and ULA, though...

[Bob Shaw]

Landing is half the battle. Reflight is the actual win, especially for a hardware-meagre operation like Blue. If they can nail reuse (and if they can get somewhere with upper stage recovery and reuse, where their wider diameter than Falcon 9 will be a big help) then they have an economically viable commercial and military niche. Say goodbye to ULA though!

[sstli2]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did.

They were NOT pursuing an orbital rocket program before SpaceX was.

And actually, I think Bezos realized it and course-corrected Blue a few years ago.

Don't mistake this course-correction for the SpaceX approach, either. There were no grasshoppers or Starhoppers. There were no pathfinders or test flights. There was no "maybe clear the pad" or "maybe make orbit".

The only thing Bezos changed was getting rid of Bob Smith and the Honeywell crew, who were ineffective leaders. It's still fundamentally the same traditional rocket program, except now with results.

Why are results happening all of a sudden after a decade of nothing? Because that's how a traditional rocket development program works. You simply don't see or hear anything until the engineering is mature and the on-the-ground testing is complete.

[Robotbeat]

Landing is half the battle. Reflight is the actual win, especially for a hardware-meagre operation like Blue. If they can nail reuse (and if they can get somewhere with upper stage recovery and reuse, where their wider diameter than Falcon 9 will be a big help) then they have an economically viable commercial and military niche. Say goodbye to ULA though!

I actually think they will. The stage looked in good shape and they babied it.

[Robotbeat]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did....

They did not. Grasshopper and F9dev1 flew before New Shepard. (How many levels of silly gotchas we gonna do here?)

[Coastal Ron]

And actually, I think Bezos realized it and course-corrected Blue a few years ago.

Don't mistake this course-correction for the SpaceX approach, either.

I don't know why you think someone would think their changes were to be more "SpaceX approach", because there were likely multiple "approaches" that they could have taken - Blue Origin was clearly not making progress in a healthy way.

There were no grasshoppers or Starhoppers. There were no pathfinders or test flights.

What? Are you forgetting New Shepard? New Glenn 1st stage is just an upsized New Shepard 1st stage, and they have a LOT of flights under their belt perfecting landings with New Shepard. I think this was key to the success of their second flight today.

The only thing Bezos changed was getting rid of Bob Smith and the Honeywell crew, who were ineffective leaders.

And that was ultimately the fault of Jeff Bezos for letting them stay on for so long. There is no one else to blame but him. And I'm glad he finally did it, but it was clear to EVERYONE that it was needed years before he finally made the changes.

It's still fundamentally the same traditional rocket program, except now with results.

Companies are not just one person, they are organisms made up of a whole lot of people, that are managed at multiple levels. The leaders at the top determine how that organization operates, and with Bob Smith they were not an energetic organization. Now they are, but it is because of many changes, in some cases changes of people. But not the "same program", except for the same goal.

Why are results happening all of a sudden after a decade of nothing? Because that's how a traditional rocket development program works. You simply don't see or hear anything until the engineering is mature and the on-the-ground testing is complete.

There have been many debates about the differences between "Old Space" and "New Space", and to me Blue Origin should be operating as a "New Space" entity, but Bob Smith sure made it seem like it was an "Old Space" entity.

Too early to tell if they have fully made the change to "New Space", but the signs are encouraging... 

[StraumliBlight]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did....

They did not. Grasshopper and F9dev1 flew before New Shepard. (How many levels of silly gotchas we gonna do here?)

Goddard hopped on November 13th, 2006 (exactly 19 years before the first New Glenn landing) and also 5 years, 10 months before Grasshopper.

[sstli2]

There have been many debates about the differences between "Old Space" and "New Space", and to me Blue Origin should be operating as a "New Space" entity, but Bob Smith sure made it seem like it was an "Old Space" entity.

Too early to tell if they have fully made the change to "New Space", but the signs are encouraging... 

The point is this: this whole "Old Space" / "New Space" is just bunk culture-mythos repeated on internet forums.

What ends up happening is everyone revises history to say that companies that achieve success were operating like "New Space" companies, and companies that are slow or are unsuccessful were operating like "Old Space" companies.

The change in leadership at Blue will have positive effects for their cadence ramp going-forward, but the engineering is the same and the flights results would not have differed. What happened yesterday is the cumulative result of the past decade of efforts under multiple leadership regimes.

[Coastal Ron]

There have been many debates about the differences between "Old Space" and "New Space", and to me Blue Origin should be operating as a "New Space" entity, but Bob Smith sure made it seem like it was an "Old Space" entity.

Too early to tell if they have fully made the change to "New Space", but the signs are encouraging... 

The point is this: this whole "Old Space" / "New Space" is just bunk culture-mythos repeated on internet forums.

No doubt there is lots of debate about what is "New Space" and what is "Old Space", but it is pretty clear that at least one set of comparisons is that New Space will risk their own money to innovate, whereas Old Space wants to get paid by the government to innovate. So using that definition Blue Origin is clearly New Space regarding New Glenn, but for HLS it is kind of mixed bag.

What ends up happening is everyone revises history to say that companies that achieve success were operating like "New Space" companies, and companies that are slow or are unsuccessful were operating like "Old Space" companies.

Under the prior management Blue Origin was definitely looking like the CEO wanted to follow the Old Space path, despite Jeff Bezos personally funding Blue Origin.

The change in leadership at Blue will have positive effects for their cadence ramp going-forward, but the engineering is the same and the flights results would not have differed.

Not sure how many large companies you have worked for, especially in engineering organizations, but management styles do matter. Just because you have a bunch of talented people that does NOT mean they will be able to produce inspired work. It takes the right leadership to let them work in such a way that they are not only motivated but have synergy with everyone else. Bad management stifles such arrangements.

What happened yesterday is the cumulative result of the past decade of efforts under multiple leadership regimes.

Well, yeah...

[Robotbeat]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did....

They did not. Grasshopper and F9dev1 flew before New Shepard. (How many levels of silly gotchas we gonna do here?)

Goddard hopped on November 13th, 2006 (exactly 19 years before the first New Glenn landing) and also 5 years, 10 months before Grasshopper.

Yup, and DC-X earlier than that.

[SpaceLizard]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did....

They did not. Grasshopper and F9dev1 flew before New Shepard. (How many levels of silly gotchas we gonna do here?)

Goddard hopped on November 13th, 2006 (exactly 19 years before the first New Glenn landing) and also 5 years, 10 months before Grasshopper.

Yup, and DC-X earlier than that.

The DC-X first flew, for 59 seconds, on 18 August 1993; it was claimed that it was the first time a rocket had landed vertically on Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

[catdlr]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did....

They did not. Grasshopper and F9dev1 flew before New Shepard. (How many levels of silly gotchas we gonna do here?)

Goddard hopped on November 13th, 2006 (exactly 19 years before the first New Glenn landing) and also 5 years, 10 months before Grasshopper.

Yup, and DC-X earlier than that.

The DC-X first flew, for 59 seconds, on 18 August 1993; it was claimed that it was the first time a rocket had landed vertically on Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

It's too bad the Goddards' first flight didn't also hop.

The rocket rose 41 feet in the air during its 2.5-second flight, landing 184 feet away in a cabbage field.

I probably landed on it's side.

Source: 95 Years Ago: Goddard’s First Liquid-Fueled Rocket

[thespacecow]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did....

They did not. Grasshopper and F9dev1 flew before New Shepard. (How many levels of silly gotchas we gonna do here?)

Goddard hopped on November 13th, 2006 (exactly 19 years before the first New Glenn landing) and also 5 years, 10 months before Grasshopper.

What's funny is in your linked Blue Origin PR about Goddard, Bezos himself advocated for SpaceX style iterative development:

Smaller, more frequent steps drive a faster rate of learning, help us maintain focus, and give each of us an opportunity to see our latest work fly sooner.

This is not "traditional rocket development program".

[thespacecow]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did.

They were NOT pursuing an orbital rocket program before SpaceX was.

Wrong, they were pursuing reusable orbital rocket program all along, it's just they think the path to an orbital RLV is through a sub-orbital RLV.

As Bezos said in the Goddard PR piece: "Our first objective is developing New Shepard, a vertical take-off, vertical-landing vehicle designed to take a small number of astronauts on a sub-orbital journey into space.", and then he said during announcement of New Glenn: "This step-by-step approach is a powerful enabler of boldness and a critical ingredient in achieving the audacious. We’re excited to give you a preview of our next step. One we’ve been working on for four years. Meet New Glenn"

They're not pursuing suborbital for its own sake, it's a step towards orbital rocket. This is a common belief in the 2000s, many companies tried to go down this path, for example XCOR. SpaceX's success with expendable orbital LV to reusable orbital LV path made people forget this used to be the dominant strategy.

So Blue Origin was pursuing reusable orbital rocket around the same time SpaceX was, they lost to SpaceX by 10 years because - among other things - they chose the wrong path.

[TrevorMonty]

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse *before SpaceX was* (and for a long time, had more strings-free money to invest in it), but it took them nearly a full decade longer.

They were pursuing VTVL rocket reuse before SpaceX was. And they achieved it before SpaceX did.

They were NOT pursuing an orbital rocket program before SpaceX was.

Wrong, they were pursuing reusable orbital rocket program all along, it's just they think the path to an orbital RLV is through a sub-orbital RLV.

As Bezos said in the Goddard PR piece: "Our first objective is developing New Shepard, a vertical take-off, vertical-landing vehicle designed to take a small number of astronauts on a sub-orbital journey into space.", and then he said during announcement of New Glenn: "This step-by-step approach is a powerful enabler of boldness and a critical ingredient in achieving the audacious. We’re excited to give you a preview of our next step. One we’ve been working on for four years. Meet New Glenn"

They're not pursuing suborbital for its own sake, it's a step towards orbital rocket. This is a common belief in the 2000s, many companies tried to go down this path, for example XCOR. SpaceX's success with expendable orbital LV to reusable orbital LV path made people forget this used to be the dominant strategy.

So Blue Origin was pursuing reusable orbital rocket around the same time SpaceX was, they lost to SpaceX by 10 years because - among other things - they chose the wrong path.

There was smaller BE3 powered LV in plans at one stage to launch their crew capsule. After missing out on commercial crew they shelved it and moved onto NG.

[thespacecow]

And actually, I think Bezos realized it and course-corrected Blue a few years ago.

Don't mistake this course-correction for the SpaceX approach, either. There were no grasshoppers or Starhoppers. There were no pathfinders or test flights. There was no "maybe clear the pad" or "maybe make orbit".

The only thing Bezos changed was getting rid of Bob Smith and the Honeywell crew, who were ineffective leaders. It's still fundamentally the same traditional rocket program, except now with results.

Why are results happening all of a sudden after a decade of nothing? Because that's how a traditional rocket development program works. You simply don't see or hear anything until the engineering is mature and the on-the-ground testing is complete.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/11/blue-origin-says-its-just-getting-started-with-the-new-glenn-rocket/

"The iterative design from our current 7×2 vehicle means we can build this rocket quickly."

https://x.com/SpaceAbhi/status/1991555967771897979

Entirely expected and predictable. 
It's going to drive some NASA and DOD launch vehicle certification people crazy though.😂
Saw the same thing with the F9.

Starting with NG-3, we will phase in a series of upgrades to the New Glenn launch system designed to increase payload performance, launch cadence, and enhance reliability.

So much for New Glenn is "a traditional rocket development program"...