Blue Origin New Glenn Thread 2: Updates and Discussion

[meekGee]

Looks like some of the "If's" on this thread just became "when's" - good to see.   

It goes to show BO has plans, they're just selective about when they disclose them to the public.  Although the job postings were a bit of a giveaway. 

I'm looking forward to a timeline on the 9x4.

Since I was going on about "plans", remember what I asked:

"Suppose everything with the rocket and vehicles (NG, CT, Landers 1&2) goes to plan, what's the 10 year plan or goals?"

NG 9x4 is awesome, but it doesn't answer any of this.  It's still an FH class vehicle, still partially reusable, still basically fighting to win last decade's war, and still with nothing to do except compete for Artemis. (And Kuiper)

[unison8557]

The most intriguing detail is that they plan to use 9x4 and 7x2 concurrently. Different second stage configurations make sense, but reuse economics indicate that the commonality from flying a single first stage should dominate any extra costs of the stretched stage and 2 extra engines, especially as leaks indicate GS1 is very expensive to build. As far as I can tell the possible reasons are:

a) They won't, and are just saying they will to avoid spooking customers until a formal decision is made
b) They will only fly concurrently *at first* - just until 9x4 is ramped and while 7-engine stages are still young
b) Old space thinking (boutique configurations a la Vulcan) still has sway at Blue
c) 9x4 will require totally different GSE than 9x2 (not a great argument since improved GSE is more or less a one time expense and pad commonality would be useful)
d) The 4 stage upper stage is so different from the 2 stage second stage that they'd have to entirely redesign the 2-engine stage to work with 9x4 (again, a questionable argument as development costs would be one-off)
e) GS1 will never be reusable enough for a common single stage to make sense (bizarre given everything else we know about NG)
f) 9x4's first stage won't be reusable (to maximize payload and as a result of later MECO like FH core)
g) 9x4 is a paper rocket to get NASA to let them fly the first moon landing (unlikely given everything else we know)
h) They are planning to fly so much that the fuel and amortized manufacturing cost of GS1 makes a difference

[Brigantine]

increase the performance of BE-4. For such an advanced engine the current performance is mediocre, due to the low chamber pressure used. There's a lot of room for improvement. It would not only serve NG well, but Vulcan as well.

Especially VC-0, which atm is a farce. But with SMART re-use and 50% higher BE-4 thrust actually might have its place.

if they did increase thrust by 50% or made substantial reductions in dry mass NG might not be able to hover.

That's interesting. Now I'm wondering if they could deliberately and cost-effectively de-rate just the centre landing engine to retain hover capability. It occurs to me that max thrust and min thrust might not have a linear relationship. What is the limiting factor for each? mass rate without inducing cavitation in the pumps?
(still have hoverslam on an outer engine as a contingency in case of centre engine failure, margins permitting)

I also guess this problem goes away for KITSUNE with the dry mass of the stretch and 2 more non-landing engines. According to the render massively bigger strakes too.

BE-4 Chief Engineer in NG 9 engine meeting: "Show me that Raptor 3 schematic again?"

Limp: "Think McKenzie would jump ship for a $5m p.a. offer?"

Leaked to the public via a Bezos gaming stream?

________________________

I got the impression from the renders that KITSUNE will stage a lot lower, have less re-entry burn to do, maybe even RTLS.
I'm trying to get my head around which one is better optimized for GTO/TLI (9x4) and which one is better optimized for LEO (7x2). I can see 7x2 being modified to use GSE built to 9x4 standard. I can also see classic GS1 operating on a high margin, high cadence, low maintenance basis and KITSUNE being pushed harder and replacing engines after much fewer flights. Maybe BE-4s will have a lifecycle where they migrate from 7x2 to 9x4 as they age.

[StraumliBlight]

The most intriguing detail is that they plan to use 9x4 and 7x2 concurrently. Different second stage configurations make sense, but reuse economics indicate that the commonality from flying a single first stage should dominate any extra costs of the stretched stage and 2 extra engines, especially as leaks indicate GS1 is very expensive to build. As far as I can tell the possible reasons are:

[...]

b) They will only fly concurrently *at first* - just until 9x4 is ramped and while 7-engine stages are still young

Probably B), Blue will have a number of first stages in their inventory by the time New Glenn 9x4 launches, and they'd want to maximise their use (~25 reflights) before retiring it.

Stage 2 reusability is a future upgrade, so offering customers different variants (e.g. similar to Centaur) will reduce the launch price (not sure what a BE-3U cost but probably $ millions).

[meekGee]

The most intriguing detail is that they plan to use 9x4 and 7x2 concurrently. Different second stage configurations make sense, but reuse economics indicate that the commonality from flying a single first stage should dominate any extra costs of the stretched stage and 2 extra engines, especially as leaks indicate GS1 is very expensive to build. As far as I can tell the possible reasons are:

a) They won't, and are just saying they will to avoid spooking customers until a formal decision is made
b) They will only fly concurrently *at first* - just until 9x4 is ramped and while 7-engine stages are still young
b) Old space thinking (boutique configurations a la Vulcan) still has sway at Blue
c) 9x4 will require totally different GSE than 9x2 (not a great argument since improved GSE is more or less a one time expense and pad commonality would be useful)
d) The 4 stage upper stage is so different from the 2 stage second stage that they'd have to entirely redesign the 2-engine stage to work with 9x4 (again, a questionable argument as development costs would be one-off)
e) GS1 will never be reusable enough for a common single stage to make sense (bizarre given everything else we know about NG)
f) 9x4's first stage won't be reusable (to maximize payload and as a result of later MECO like FH core)
g) 9x4 is a paper rocket to get NASA to let them fly the first moon landing (unlikely given everything else we know)
h) They are planning to fly so much that the fuel and amortized manufacturing cost of GS1 makes a difference

Caught my eye too.

I think that:
- 9x4 is indeed not immediate, and "concurrent" is an anti-shock statement for all those that get upset when a configuration changes (remember F9 1.)

- 9x4 is absolutely a customer-facing teaser, the wording of the PR is intentionally vague on which changes will kick in when. Which is totally fair game.  Tease away guys, as long as you intend to follow through. (Same position I take towards gals too)

[Tywin]

Yep, it looks like Blue Origin is now making the kind of progress that we've been waiting for them to make - successful orbital rocket launches (and 1st stage recoveries) and moving forward with plans to iterate their services.

With the announced 8.7m wide payload fairing for New Glenn 9x4, I'll be interested to see what that works out to for payload size, specifically payload diameter and length. The current generation of Starship offers a max of 8m in length and 8m in diameter for payloads, so will New Glenn 9×4 equal that?

Pricing is also an unknown, for both New Glenn 9x4 and for Starship. Yes, Elon Musk has made public statements about what the price would be for Starship, but Starship is not operational yet, so that could change (dramatically even). But New Glenn 9x4 could be a backup for Starship for certain payloads, and that would be good for the launch market overall - assuming large payload markets come into existence (they haven't yet despite the significant cost reduction with Falcon 9/H).

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

[StraumliBlight]

With the announced 8.7m wide payload fairing for New Glenn 9x4, I'll be interested to see what that works out to for payload size, specifically payload diameter and length. The current generation of Starship offers a max of 8m in length and 8m in diameter for payloads, so will New Glenn 9×4 equal that?

Also Vast (7m Haven Core) and Starlab (7.7 m hab) won't now be restricted to a single launcher.

EDIT: Could also fit a Dream Chaser with its wings unfolded (7m span).

[Tywin]

With the announced 8.7m wide payload fairing for New Glenn 9x4, I'll be interested to see what that works out to for payload size, specifically payload diameter and length. The current generation of Starship offers a max of 8m in length and 8m in diameter for payloads, so will New Glenn 9×4 equal that?

Also Vast (7m Haven Core) and Starlab (7.7 m hab) won't now be restricted to a single launcher.

I always thought they will launch with New Glenn big fairing.

[Jim]

c) 9x4 will require totally different GSE than 9x2 (not a great argument since improved GSE is more or less a one time expense and pad commonality would be useful)

How so? Other than handling GSE, which is not pad related, why would the pad have to be changed?

[hektor]

Like Falcon, does New Glenn have a mode in which the first stage is expended? If so, what is the trans-lunar injection (TLI) performance of the New Glenn 9×4 configuration in that mode?

[Vettedrmr]

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

NG 7x2 has made two flights; both with lightweight payloads.  IMO this decade NG will be competing with F9/FH, not Starship.  I think BO will close the gap with F9 pretty quickly, but I also think NG's 2nd stage is quite a bit more expensive than F9's; will the performance model pay for the cost difference?

[DanClemmensen]

c) 9x4 will require totally different GSE than 9x2 (not a great argument since improved GSE is more or less a one time expense and pad commonality would be useful)

How so? Other than handling GSE, which is not pad related, why would the pad have to be changed?

The renders shown by BO include the use of a tower instead of a TE for the 9x4.

[robert_d]

Consider a 'New Glenn Heavy' - 2 Vulcan side cores along with the current NG. But don't bother separating them, just let them come back as a unit.

[DanClemmensen]

Consider a 'New Glenn Heavy' - 2 Vulcan side cores along with the current NG. But don't bother separating them, just let them come back as a unit.

As Jim has mentioned in the past, "heavy" in this context usually refers to adding two additional instances of the core booster, while other add-ons use different designations. Thus, Delta IV heavy and Falcon Heavy. ULA briefly referred to the most powerful Vulcan Centaur configuration as "Vulcan heavy", but then changed the name. possibly because it did not meet Jim's definition and they were internally looking at the 3-core variant and wanted to reserve the name. Much earlier, they looked at a 3-core "Atlas heavy", and actually offered it in 2006.

My guess: if we ever see an NG heavy, it will be a 3-core version.   But why?

[Star One]

I wonder whatever happened to New Armstrong. Or is that the next evolution beyond even this, and if it is how big will that be, and will it be marketed as a Mars/Venus launcher?

[Vettedrmr]

I wonder whatever happened to New Armstrong. Or is that the next evolution beyond even this, and if it is how big will that be, and will it be marketed as a Mars/Venus launcher?

I think NA is/was the next notional rocket after NG.  IMO, with the revelation of the NG 9x4 concept, NA is probably going to stay just that for the foreseeable future; a notional rocket.

[JSz]

Two NG 9x4 graphics from the Blue website (https://www.blueorigin.com/new-glenn/9x4):

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Looks like some of the "If's" on this thread just became "when's" - good to see.   

It goes to show BO has plans, they're just selective about when they disclose them to the public.  Although the job postings were a bit of a giveaway. 

I'm looking forward to a timeline on the 9x4.

Since I was going on about "plans", remember what I asked:

"Suppose everything with the rocket and vehicles (NG, CT, Landers 1&2) goes to plan, what's the 10 year plan or goals?"

NG 9x4 is awesome, but it doesn't answer any of this.  It's still an FH class vehicle, still partially reusable, still basically fighting to win last decade's war, and still with nothing to do except compete for Artemis. (And Kuiper)

Like it or not, the answer is "We don't know yet."  Only one of us is pissing and moaning all over BO forums about it.

BO has announced a lot of initiatives that hint at a plan, and I highly doubt they've suddenly, on a whim, announced a thrust upgrade and a huge 9x4 rocket taller than a Saturn 5 without discussing future contracts and alliances with customers and partners they can collaborate with.  Companies don't make these kind of moves without any kind of plan.  BO is just more hesitant to announce major initiatives prematurely than either of us prefer.

Who knows, maybe their 10 year plan includes landing smaller landers on the moon that can take advantage of the regolith processing knowledge they'll soon gain, eventually resulting in some big, flat landing pads at target locations on the moon so the massive, tall, narrow-legged behemoth landers also planned for Artemis and beyond Artemis actually have a snowball's chance of staying upright in the treacherously rugged south polar region of the moon.

Not saying this is their plan, we can only guess.  But use a little imagination before declaring NG 9x4 a last decade rocket competing only with Artemis.

[spacenut]

Yep, it looks like Blue Origin is now making the kind of progress that we've been waiting for them to make - successful orbital rocket launches (and 1st stage recoveries) and moving forward with plans to iterate their services.

With the announced 8.7m wide payload fairing for New Glenn 9x4, I'll be interested to see what that works out to for payload size, specifically payload diameter and length. The current generation of Starship offers a max of 8m in length and 8m in diameter for payloads, so will New Glenn 9×4 equal that?

Pricing is also an unknown, for both New Glenn 9x4 and for Starship. Yes, Elon Musk has made public statements about what the price would be for Starship, but Starship is not operational yet, so that could change (dramatically even). But New Glenn 9x4 could be a backup for Starship for certain payloads, and that would be good for the launch market overall - assuming large payload markets come into existence (they haven't yet despite the significant cost reduction with Falcon 9/H).

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

Not necessarily, Starship is supposed to launch a lot of Starlink satellites, as well as develop in space refueling which will require a lot of tanker flights to fill a fuel depot.  We still have 5 years in "this" decade.  So far Blue has worked slow.  They have a good rocket, but it is under-powered, so upgrading the engines will help.  How soon is anyone's guess.   

[Metalskin]

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

Not necessarily, Starship is supposed to launch a lot of Starlink satellites, as well as develop in space refueling which will require a lot of tanker flights to fill a fuel depot.  We still have 5 years in "this" decade.  So far Blue has worked slow.  They have a good rocket, but it is under-powered, so upgrading the engines will help.  How soon is anyone's guess.

I think Tywin likes to ignore starlink launches and only consider commercial launches. Though I could be wrong.