Blue Origin New Glenn Thread 2: Updates and Discussion

[Stan-1967]

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

That NG aft end graphic in the post above post #776 made me think NG 7-2 is very limited in the gimbal range of the center engine.  The ASDS landing & the need to hover vs. a F9 style hoverslam might be baked into that limited range.  Basically NG 7-2 may not have capability for significant gimbal inputs at the last second, so it must stay conservitive and target a closeby position, then translate carefully to its landing.

[Updated to include the post mentioned for easy reference - Tony]

[spacebleachers]

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.

Just curious, how would the size of 9x4 look in relation to ML-1 or 2?

[hkultala]

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.

Making the side vulcans push that heavy NG center core after it has ran out of fuel would be insane waste of impulse.

We want to get rid of stages after they have ran out of fuel. And having center core that runs out of fuel long before the side boosters makes zero sense. So any idea of using vulcan as side core to New glenn makes absolutely zero sense.

So please, don't litter the threads of real rockets with your totally unworkable fantasy rockets.

[Brigantine]

don't bother separating them, just let them come back as a unit.

don't litter the threads of real rockets with your totally unworkable fantasy rockets.

It seems this idea has gone quiet for 4 years now, and I presume it was only ever for technology demonstration, but it reminds me of:
[EDIT: officially cancelled according to this]

In future missions, the first stage will be reusable (the LM-8R), which features powered vertical landing with deployable landing legs. The strap-on boosters will stay attached for landing.

As a meta-opinion:
Reasons why members' ideas might not be practical: YES - people might learn something
Insults: NO - makes the thread less enjoyable for most readers

I can agree a booster should have higher thrust:weight than the thing it is boosting. It's kinda in the name. Vulcan cores do not.
I can agree further discussion of member-proposed NG derivatives should happen in a different thread.

To bring it back to New Glenn: The large diameter and absence of strap-on boosters is a feature, which helps NG be a low-cost (per kg) launch vehicle. It has this in common with Starship and Long March 12. [EDIT: relative to earlier Long-March rockets]

[spacebleachers]

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.

Just curious, how would the size of 9x4 look in relation to ML-1 or 2?

Never mind, the chart in the other thread shows what I was curious about

[catdlr]

Blue Origin FINALLY Reveal All Their Secret Projects - Deep Space Updates - November 22nd

[catdlr]

Phillp Sloss reports on Blue Origin news

30:00 Blue Origin announces New Glenn upgrades and updates Mark 1 cargo lunar lander status

[catdlr]

Harry Stranger update for Nov 26

Harry Stranger
@Harry__Stranger
A quiet LC-36 following New Glenn's second flight, however there is some expansion work going on at the north end of the complex.

https://x.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1993809124895937018

[sstli2]

Bringing off-topic discussion from elsewhere here:

I think NG1 underperformed and BO intends to make modifications, as happened with Starship. This takes time. I think this will push NG3 to NET Q2 2026 and NG4 out past January 2027.

Your point about the potential for an anomaly is reasonable and all bets are off if that happens.

But NG-3 in Q2 and NG-4 in 2027 is crazy to me as a base case. Upthread, I went through in detail what we know - with photo evidence - about their current manufacturing cadence. They aren't building to launch 1 vehicle a year. They have 3 upper stages just about completed, another two probably joining them by the end of the year, and two boosters in progress. They are simultaneously refurbishing another booster. They will have the capacity to do a significant number of launches in 2026.

Sure, maybe NG blows up on the pad for some unknown reason. But a performance shortfall? If you accept Berger's cited 27 tons that's still enough to fly real missions.

Your optimism with Starship (you voted for 16-20 launches in 2026) and pessimism with New Glenn (1 launch in 2026) seems dubiously unbalanced. In the Polls section I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026, and I think that's well within play.

[DanClemmensen]

Bringing off-topic discussion from elsewhere here:

I think NG1 underperformed and BO intends to make modifications, as happened with Starship. This takes time. I think this will push NG3 to NET Q2 2026 and NG4 out past January 2027.

Your point about the potential for an anomaly is reasonable and all bets are off if that happens.

But NG-3 in Q2 and NG-4 in 2027 is crazy to me as a base case. Upthread, I went through in detail what we know - with photo evidence - about their current manufacturing cadence. They aren't building to launch 1 vehicle a year. They have 3 upper stages just about completed, another two probably joining them by the end of the year, and two boosters in progress. They are simultaneously refurbishing another booster. They will have the capacity to do a significant number of launches in 2026.

Sure, maybe NG blows up on the pad for some unknown reason. But a performance shortfall? If you accept Berger's cited 27 tons that's still enough to fly real missions.

Your optimism with Starship (you voted for 16-20 launches in 2026) and pessimism with New Glenn (1 launch in 2026) seems dubiously unbalanced. In the Polls section I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026, and I think that's well within play.

You are correct: I evaluate Starship differently. That's because they have flown eleven test flights and they are building at a high rate. Blue Origin, on the other hand, does not have a good record for delivering on schedule. In particular, look at the BE-4 and the consequences for Vulcan of its late delivery. If things go perfectly for NG, they might get to a cadence of once a month for the last six months of 2026. If things go badly for Starship, They may lose the pad and go six months with no launch. Basically I think 7x2 is still a prototype (V1.0) and will need quite a bit of refinement, and I think Starship V3 is actually ready for service now. I could be wrong about either or both.

[DanClemmensen]

You think the fourth NG will launch in 18 to 23 months after the first one. If they do, I will be very impressed. That will beat every medium or larger new orbital rocket in the last 30 years (except Starship, depending on how you count it). Vulcan is a good recent example. Basically, Stuff happens and causes schedule slips.

Vulcan had a problem with solid motors and its next launch is for DoD which is very paranoid client. So perhaps this can explain slow ramp up.

That's the point. Five out of the last five new big rockets "had a problem", all different. It's the unknown or unexpected failures that get you. ULA could choose to launch Kuiper (LEO) instead of that GPS satellite.

NG had two "flawless" missions...

No. NG1 failed to land successfully, even though BO said it was necessary for their business plan. We can all hope that NG does not encounter an unknown unknown.

That's a bit unfair. SX lost quite a few boosters before they got a landing to work.  The booster was always lost *after* the payload was delivered so in that sense the launch was successful and the loss was a post mission development hiccup.

Blue nailed landing on the second try which is commendable, as is a successful first launch.

Blue has been the butt if many jokes about their development speed - all of them well deserved. It's dicy to extrapolate a trend from two data points but maybe they've turned a corner with their new leadership.

Blue's progress with NG is pretty impressive, and I hope they continue. Two launch successes on the first two attempts. I'm not trying to be "unfair". I'm basing my analysis on the progress of the last five new big rockets. I'm not the one claiming that an NG1 booster landing was very important. Blue said that, not me.

Early F9 booster landing attempts were evaluated differently by SpaceX.  Those were operational flights. not test flights, to which a booster landing test was appended. Launch success, booster landing test failure. They did not claim that landing success was expected on the first try.

[sstli2]

Bringing off-topic discussion from elsewhere here:

I think NG1 underperformed and BO intends to make modifications, as happened with Starship. This takes time. I think this will push NG3 to NET Q2 2026 and NG4 out past January 2027.

Your point about the potential for an anomaly is reasonable and all bets are off if that happens.

But NG-3 in Q2 and NG-4 in 2027 is crazy to me as a base case. Upthread, I went through in detail what we know - with photo evidence - about their current manufacturing cadence. They aren't building to launch 1 vehicle a year. They have 3 upper stages just about completed, another two probably joining them by the end of the year, and two boosters in progress. They are simultaneously refurbishing another booster. They will have the capacity to do a significant number of launches in 2026.

Sure, maybe NG blows up on the pad for some unknown reason. But a performance shortfall? If you accept Berger's cited 27 tons that's still enough to fly real missions.

Your optimism with Starship (you voted for 16-20 launches in 2026) and pessimism with New Glenn (1 launch in 2026) seems dubiously unbalanced. In the Polls section I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026, and I think that's well within play.

You are correct: I evaluate Starship differently. That's because they have flown eleven test flights and they are building at a high rate. Blue Origin, on the other hand, does not have a good record for delivering on schedule. In particular, look at the BE-4 and the consequences for Vulcan of its late delivery. If things go perfectly for NG, they might get to a cadence of once a month for the last six months of 2026. If things go badly for Starship, They may lose the pad and go six months with no launch. Basically I think 7x2 is still a prototype (V1.0) and will need quite a bit of refinement, and I think Starship V3 is actually ready for service now. I could be wrong about either or both.

I can't locate the quote right now, but what Tory Bruno has said in the past comes to mind. You have two different types of rocket development programs. One type brings a rocket to the pad with an initial level of capability and figures out where the design goes from there and how to get it to the targeted capability. The other brings a rocket to the pad that is very close to if not at the targeted level of capability. Obviously, Starship is much closer to the former, and Ariane 6, Vulcan, and New Glenn much closer to the latter.

Does that mean that the more "finished" rockets don't have issues? Absolutely not: Ariane 6 failed to restart their second stage APU for a deorbit burn on an otherwise successful flight, Vulcan's SRBs malfunctioned on an otherwise successful flight, and New Glenn failed to reignite its engines for a landing on an otherwise successful flight. Yes, I made sure to clarify that these flights were successful, in a way that the early Starship flights were not.

Certainly, more issues may be in store for any of these rockets. But the expectation is that any such anomaly represents a fairly minor finding that does not require a fundamental redesign of the rocket, and that upon enacting relatively minor corrections for such an issue, the return-to-flight is smooth and a full success. And clearly, for all 3 of these rockets, that was the case. The expectation is further that there is then nothing that would preclude you from then moving into an operational phase launching customer payloads.

Ariane 6 has turned the corner and is launching pretty regularly now. Vulcan turned the corner and should be launching pretty regularly very soon (payload availability and VIF/pad contention notwithstanding). New Glenn may have turned the corner and there doesn't appear to be any material external constraints: manufacturing and reuse is there, and the payloads are there.

Starship, I don't need to rehash, but all sorts of things have happened in flight and on the ground and in the end the current v3 vehicle is a completely different beast from the v1 that flew on IFT-1. The NG that flew on NG-2 is something like 95% the same vehicle that flew on NG-1 in my estimation.

So calibrating your expectations for NG in 2026 with the idea of it being a prototype seems to be based on a questionable premise.

[JIS]

Bringing off-topic discussion from elsewhere here:

I think NG1 underperformed and BO intends to make modifications, as happened with Starship. This takes time. I think this will push NG3 to NET Q2 2026 and NG4 out past January 2027.

Your point about the potential for an anomaly is reasonable and all bets are off if that happens.

But NG-3 in Q2 and NG-4 in 2027 is crazy to me as a base case. Upthread, I went through in detail what we know - with photo evidence - about their current manufacturing cadence. They aren't building to launch 1 vehicle a year. They have 3 upper stages just about completed, another two probably joining them by the end of the year, and two boosters in progress. They are simultaneously refurbishing another booster. They will have the capacity to do a significant number of launches in 2026.

Sure, maybe NG blows up on the pad for some unknown reason. But a performance shortfall? If you accept Berger's cited 27 tons that's still enough to fly real missions.

Your optimism with Starship (you voted for 16-20 launches in 2026) and pessimism with New Glenn (1 launch in 2026) seems dubiously unbalanced. In the Polls section I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026, and I think that's well within play.

You are correct: I evaluate Starship differently. That's because they have flown eleven test flights and they are building at a high rate. Blue Origin, on the other hand, does not have a good record for delivering on schedule. In particular, look at the BE-4 and the consequences for Vulcan of its late delivery.

Stop right here. If you talk about engines, BE-4 is in fact finished product right now, good enough for operation. Yes, Vulcan waited for that engine, but you can see numerous core stages with installed engines ready to go. ULA and BO are happy with them, performed very well during several test flights. There are some upgrades lined up for BE-4 but they are good to be used in the current configuration.

Compare it to Raptor. Raptor 1 used to eat itself all the time. Raptor 2 eventually worked, but with simplified autogenous pressurisation it is not suitable for refueling, so SpaceX just discontinued it and it is about to use Raptor 3. It is substantial revision, not flight tested yet so no one really knows...

Yet, you still put more short term fate into Starship than New Glenn.   

If things go perfectly for NG, they might get to a cadence of once a month for the last six months of 2026. If things go badly for Starship, They may lose the pad and go six months with no launch. Basically I think 7x2 is still a prototype (V1.0) and will need quite a bit of refinement, and I think Starship V3 is actually ready for service now. I could be wrong about either or both.

Monthly cadence would be pretty good result for New Glenn. Especially for NASA and Artemis project this would give them a lot of confidence into BO Artemis mission.

I just don't agree with your claim that Starship V3 is ready for service. C'mon, how you can claim this? Raptor 3 was not flight tested. Starship architecture puts a lot of strain on engines which is hard if not impossible to test on the ground. I have no big confidence in Raptor 3. Moreover Starship V3 is deep redesign of V2. It is fast track design, quality issues are popping up all the time. New launch pad. Based on past performance we can be pretty sure the first few launches will uncover plenty of problems.

So my opinion is that New Glenn is in much better position right now than Starship.

[TrevorMonty]

Blue like ULA and RL design their launch vehicles to be flight ready product from day one. Their designs may need slight chances to refine them but they are far from test articles.
This is why acceptance testing for government only requires 2-3 flights.
Reaching orbit on maiden flight wasn't luck it was expected.

[Tywin]

Bringing off-topic discussion from elsewhere here:

I think NG1 underperformed and BO intends to make modifications, as happened with Starship. This takes time. I think this will push NG3 to NET Q2 2026 and NG4 out past January 2027.

Your point about the potential for an anomaly is reasonable and all bets are off if that happens.

But NG-3 in Q2 and NG-4 in 2027 is crazy to me as a base case. Upthread, I went through in detail what we know - with photo evidence - about their current manufacturing cadence. They aren't building to launch 1 vehicle a year. They have 3 upper stages just about completed, another two probably joining them by the end of the year, and two boosters in progress. They are simultaneously refurbishing another booster. They will have the capacity to do a significant number of launches in 2026.

Sure, maybe NG blows up on the pad for some unknown reason. But a performance shortfall? If you accept Berger's cited 27 tons that's still enough to fly real missions.

Your optimism with Starship (you voted for 16-20 launches in 2026) and pessimism with New Glenn (1 launch in 2026) seems dubiously unbalanced. In the Polls section I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026, and I think that's well within play.

You are correct: I evaluate Starship differently. That's because they have flown eleven test flights and they are building at a high rate. Blue Origin, on the other hand, does not have a good record for delivering on schedule. In particular, look at the BE-4 and the consequences for Vulcan of its late delivery. If things go perfectly for NG, they might get to a cadence of once a month for the last six months of 2026. If things go badly for Starship, They may lose the pad and go six months with no launch. Basically I think 7x2 is still a prototype (V1.0) and will need quite a bit of refinement, and I think Starship V3 is actually ready for service now. I could be wrong about either or both.

Wrong, ULA have enough BE-4 engines long time ago...

[sstli2]

So my opinion is that New Glenn is in much better position right now than Starship.

I would clarify for myself that I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026 and 11-15 for Starship, so I'm not dismissing the idea that v3 should be less of a prototype than its predecessors were and further that SpaceX has a more effective manufacturing pipeline at this point.

That said, I don't think I would gauge the unknown-anomaly risk factor as being equal between the two programs. Even ignoring the  differences in the engineering approach I described previously, there is way more un-flown hardware and uncharted territory (orbit) being debuted by Starship.

[envy887]

So my opinion is that New Glenn is in much better position right now than Starship.

I would clarify for myself that I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026 and 11-15 for Starship, so I'm not dismissing the idea that v3 should be less of a prototype than its predecessors were and further that SpaceX has a more effective manufacturing pipeline at this point.

That said, I don't think I would gauge the unknown-anomaly risk factor as being equal between the two programs. Even ignoring the  differences in the engineering approach I described previously, there is way more un-flown hardware and uncharted territory (orbit) being debuted by Starship.

New Glenn has a lower probability of an anomaly, but if one does occur it will create a much longer delay. So the schedule risk, which is the likelihood of occurrence times the severity of result, is probably similar.

[sstli2]

So my opinion is that New Glenn is in much better position right now than Starship.

I would clarify for myself that I voted for 7 NG flights in 2026 and 11-15 for Starship, so I'm not dismissing the idea that v3 should be less of a prototype than its predecessors were and further that SpaceX has a more effective manufacturing pipeline at this point.

That said, I don't think I would gauge the unknown-anomaly risk factor as being equal between the two programs. Even ignoring the  differences in the engineering approach I described previously, there is way more un-flown hardware and uncharted territory (orbit) being debuted by Starship.

New Glenn has a lower probability of an anomaly, but if one does occur it will create a much longer delay. So the schedule risk, which is the likelihood of occurrence times the severity of result, is probably similar.

"Similar" depends entirely on what probabilities you use and what you perceive the recovery time to be. One could calibrate a set of values where it is not similar. But this is a New Glenn thread, not a New Glenn vs. Starship thread, so I think re-centering this discussion on New Glenn is appropriate. If not for the sake of on-topic discussion, for the sake of this thread not devolving into the same thing that it seems every thread devolves into these days.

Blue learned a big lesson this year - you can claim to be "hardware rich", but you need to practice what you preach, or it takes 10 months to build another booster. I thought Limp's comments in his interview with Eric Berger were encouraging because I think he's getting the message:

Since he joined Blue Origin about two years ago, Limp said increasing production has been among his foremost goals.

“You’re never done with manufacturing, but I feel on the engine front we’re incredibly strong,” he said. “We’re going to double the rate again next year. We’ve got work to do, but on second stages I feel like we’re getting there. With the booster, we’re getting there. The key is to be hardware rich, so even if some of these missions have anomalies, we can recover quickly.”

That was said before NG-2, presumably in anticipation of a potential landing failure, that fortunately for them did not materialize.

Blue also recently promoted the VP of GS1 (Jordan Charles) to the SVP of New Glenn, replacing Jarret Jones. Another encouraging sign that they don't intend GS1 manufacturing cadence to hamper them going forwards. And I've already described upthread about how they have GS2s for on the order of the next 5 flights either ready or approaching readiness. To date GS2s were never the critical path.

Limp also said:

Limp said success on New Glenn’s second flight would set the company up for a significant increase in cadence. The company is building enough hardware for “well above” a dozen flights in 2026, with the upper-end limit of 24 launches. The pacing item is second stages. Right now Blue Origin can build one per month, but the production rate is increasing.

“They’re coming off the line at one a month right now, and then we’re ramping from there,” he said of the second stages, known internally as GS-2. “It would be ambitious to get to the upper level, but we want to be hardware rich. So, you know, we want to try to keep building as fast as we can, and then with practice I think our launch cadence can go up.”

In summary, I don't view New Glenn as a prototype, and I think the probability of a serious anomaly (e.g. failure to reach orbit) is very low and the probability of a minor anomaly (say a failed landing) is somewhat low. I also think the recovery time in the case of something like the latter is likely to improve on the 2025 experience. Perhaps not a single month like SpaceX and their scramble to build Booster 19 after the Booster 18 debacle, but I would not put 2 or 3 months past them. If 3 boosters were to become available, then one going down would not be much of a setback.

envy887, you did go on record for 14 Starship v3 flights in 2026, but I don't recall you going on record for your prediction for the number of New Glenn flights in 2026. What is your prediction, and why?

[TrevorMonty]

Probabiity of NG failure in the first 10 even out to 20 flights is extremely high. Blue doesn't have experience or flight proven systems other launch companies do.
If other LV failures are anything to go by, a failure is likely to be in US. Having dual engines may give NG fighting chance of reaching orbit in this case.

[Rakietwawka2021]

Do you think this is real?