I hate the term "paper rocket" as it paints WAY too broad a brush. New Glenn is happening. I'd bet any of you 10:1 odds that it'll be flying successfully by, say, 2024.10:1 odds by 2024. And most likely years before then.Sea Dragon was a paper rocket. Nova was a paper rocket (a whole bunch of them). New Glenn is /happening/ (as is BFR).
I hate the term "paper rocket" as it paints WAY too broad a brush. New Glenn is happening. I'd bet any of you 10:1 odds that it'll be flying successfully by, say, 2024.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/11/2017 03:50 amI hate the term "paper rocket" as it paints WAY too broad a brush. New Glenn is happening. I'd bet any of you 10:1 odds that it'll be flying successfully by, say, 2024.Careful. Bezos has about a 3% chance of dying before New Glenn flies, if it flies on time.(Wishing Bezos good health in the meantime of course, but these individual-led projects like NG and BFR do carry risk that the impetus will go away for one reason or another. I think the risk may be higher in non-individual-led projects, but for different reasons.)
The dividing line on what is or is not a paper rocket is funding. If it is funded then it is not a paper rocket.
I would say that to get beyond paper rocket stage three things are required:1. funding at a significant level2. some of that funding going towards real hardware or production3. passed PDR or equivalentBoth NG and BFR meet those criteria, (Vulcan probably does not, as how can it be past PDR with the engine not chosen and I've not seen any evidence of hardware - though I might have missed some).
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/11/2017 06:27 pmThe dividing line on what is or is not a paper rocket is funding. If it is funded then it is not a paper rocket.I would say that to get beyond paper rocket stage three things are required:1. funding at a significant level2. some of that funding going towards real hardware or production3. passed PDR or equivalentBoth NG and BFR meet those criteria, (Vulcan probably does not, as how can it be past PDR with the engine not chosen and I've not seen any evidence of hardware - though I might have missed some).
Here is the stark numbers for NG:At a cost of manufacture of an S1 at $94MAt a cost of manufacture of an S2 at $31MAt a recovery and refurbish cost of S1 at $3MAt a processing and launch costs (fees, prop handling) of $7MAt a refight number of 10At a profit margin of 20%= Price per flight of $60M
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 11/11/2017 01:54 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/11/2017 01:10 amYup. That's why BFR is not optional for SpaceX. Blue Origin could eat their lunch if SpaceX just stayed with Falcon 9 and Heavy. Especially because New Glenn will eventually be fully reusable (to LEO at least).The New Glenn seems to have the same basic architecture as the Falcon 9 except it is larger and I don't think that's an advantage. A smaller rocket that does more flights can take advantage of economies of scale and be much cheaper. By the time New Glenn flies SpaceX will have a history of 100-150 missions, plenty of time to streamline operations and S2 manufacturing. SpaceX also plans to do fairing recovery and RTLS means cheaper recovery for common low-energy missions.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/11/2017 01:10 amYup. That's why BFR is not optional for SpaceX. Blue Origin could eat their lunch if SpaceX just stayed with Falcon 9 and Heavy. Especially because New Glenn will eventually be fully reusable (to LEO at least).The New Glenn seems to have the same basic architecture as the Falcon 9 except it is larger and I don't think that's an advantage. A smaller rocket that does more flights can take advantage of economies of scale and be much cheaper. By the time New Glenn flies SpaceX will have a history of 100-150 missions, plenty of time to streamline operations and S2 manufacturing. SpaceX also plans to do fairing recovery and RTLS means cheaper recovery for common low-energy missions.
Yup. That's why BFR is not optional for SpaceX. Blue Origin could eat their lunch if SpaceX just stayed with Falcon 9 and Heavy. Especially because New Glenn will eventually be fully reusable (to LEO at least).
New Glenn's 3-stage version doesn't make sense for the commercial market. The 2-stage version is already oversized for GTO and if F9H can execute the DOD's direct GEO missions then so can New Glenn. It would only really be useful for very heavy launches to the Moon and Mars, going up directly against the SLS. I don't think this configuration is going to actually get built.
What Blue Origin needs in order to compete with SpaceX is a fully reusable second stage. They definitely have the excess performance for it, unlike F9. I've seen claims that they plan to reuse the second stage but nothing concrete, does anyone have more info? I'm afraid that this might be little more than a bullet point on a wishlist.
QuoteStill, it's exciting to think that this will put downward pressure on Falcon 9 prices.I guess this thread is now the place to discuss this then? Agreed with the above but will add a few points.
Still, it's exciting to think that this will put downward pressure on Falcon 9 prices.
For Blue Origin I think they have several obvious advantages over the F9/FH:- Very large fairing for deploying large monolithic payloads, constellations or 2 or more GTO comsats. Much easier to max out the lift of the rocket with 7m diameter and considerable length in the fairing. New markets in high width satellites could emerge to take advantage of this.
- Greater lift with booster reuse than Falcon Heavy.- Simpler integration and (debatable) simpler recovery operations than Falcon Heavy when FH is downrange landing center core.
- 3 stage variant appears able to perform high energy missions that are out of reach of FH, while recovering the booster. This is pretty foggy however as cost and detailed performance is unknown (perhaps used FH cores could be competitive).
- An owner willing to invest significant amounts of funding with any near term expectations of return. I don't mean to sound snarky there, however if development costs aren't expected to be recouped this is not insignificant in any way. This isn't a given however, and I feel is best left out of the conversation when discussing the merits of the different LV's.
All the above advantages however I think are dependent co-manifesting multiple payloads, or markets that are just emerging or purely speculative (BEO, private stations etc). $/kg of actual payload is the most important metric. New Glenn is no doubt an incredible rocket, but to truly "eat SpaceX's lunch" Blue Origin needs to compete on the merits of the entire business, not raw capabilities.
We have yet to see SpaceX drop its prices for reuse, as they are said to be trying to "pay back investments in reuse" and waiting on Block 5, Falcon Heavy and fairing reuse. All this should be in place by the time New Glenn flies, meaning that today's prices for F9/FH are liekely much higher than what they will be in 2020.
For disadvantages I see the following (in addition to what DreamyPickle covered above): - Launch cadence will determine economies of scale, any company that can spread their overhead & other fixed costs across the highest number of launches will have a competitive advantage. I see SpaceX having the advantage as shown in their current launch rate.
- With Blue being currently limited to one site (I assume they can't practically do polar from the cape) limits their market share, meaning lower launch cadence.
- Reduces access to market in low mass satellites to LEO and no ISS contracts. Again smaller market share meaning lower overall launch cadence. I think with the very relatively gentle recovery of F9 RTLS and simple operations we will see tiered pricing emerge where F9 will go after these flights at a more aggressive price point, taking an even bigger share of the market then they do nowl
- The much larger barge no doubt means not just higher capital costs initially but very likely higher operational costs. The ASDS and tugboat is very much an application of the bare minimum requirement of down range stage recovery IMO.
- Only planning on downrange landings seems like it would put a limit on cadence based on the ships transit times, say this is 2 weeks? The gliding reentry profile of New Glenn may increase this.
- Dependence on co-manifested payloads. I doubt many customers would choose this over a dedicated flight without an incentive in cost savings - making for smaller margins for Blue.
- Expended hardware per flight: larger 2nd stage and fairing(?). Throwing away a BE-4 and the larger stage will no doubt mean Blue cannot be as competitive on a per flight basis, and more dependent on utilizing capacity. Is Blue making plans to recover fairings? High cost per flight disadvantage if they don't.
- Finally operations: SpaceX has a very large comparative advantage here not just in the technical aspects of rocket reuse but aligning their operations to achieve this with efficiency. On a per flight basis costs to SpaceX would likely be much lower, however this is a temporary advantage however.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/11/2017 06:27 pmHere is the stark numbers for NG:At a cost of manufacture of an S1 at $94MAt a cost of manufacture of an S2 at $31MAt a recovery and refurbish cost of S1 at $3MAt a processing and launch costs (fees, prop handling) of $7MAt a refight number of 10At a profit margin of 20%= Price per flight of $60MWith this type of number crunching the fixed costs of overhead and flight rate don't get taken into account, and I don't feel it makes for an accurate assessment as it is very biased on the value of hardware fabrication.Take George Sowers spreadsheet from a few years back, he assumes that booster costs of Falcon 9 are only 40% of the launch price or $24.8M. Factoring in the rest of the costs in hardware, and taking a quoted breakeven of 12 launches per year I get a fixed cost of $19M per flight (I can expand on that if needed). Maybe that is accurate, maybe its not. It is significant however.What seems to be consistent, whether you look at statements on reuse by competitors or SLS costs per year regardless of launch rate, is that a very significant cost exists outside of the launch vehicle itself.
Your point is that instead of being $7M for this fixed cost that it is $19M for this fixed cost. Even then the Price is is $72M. SpaceX expressed strongly that the S1 cost is 70%+ that of total mfg costs. The numbers for S1 and S2 used shows a 75% ratio between S1 mfg costs and total mfg costs. That value is 58% of price. But the NG is more likely to mirror the F9 cost structure since it uses same engines on S1 S2 and the tooling is identical for S1 and S2. ULA's numbers are based on their own experience of separate tooling and different engines for the US and S1 which increase costs of the US as a total of costs. The most recent recognized cost values for the F9 S1 is ~$30M not the $25M from the ULA cost model. That is a 50% of price.To balance out to get a 50% cost of S1 to Price S2 cost increased to $45M to give a S1 cost to total mfg cost of 67%. Also the fixed costs per launch (the processing prop fees and pad site upkeep) is raised to your number of $19M.This gives a Price for 10 reuse at $90M or $2,267/kg for 40mt or as Expendable Price of $190M or $3,166/kg for 60mt. For 100 reuse the Price is $80M or $2,015/kg.Still this is a direct competitor to F9/FH and no one else are close.
Blue landing ship at 24knt (average container ship speed) will have faster turnaround than SpaceX barge at 8knt (typical towed barge speed).Blue goal is to have millions of people working and space, the only way they will achieve that is by reducing cost HSF. I expect NG primary mission is to lower cost HSF and cost of supporting those humans in space, launching comsats is just sideline business. At 45t to LEO don't expect Blue to be limiting themselves to 6-7 person vehicle, 20-40 is more realisitic. Whether larger crew vehicle is based on fully reuseable NG (30-35t?) or partially reuseable 45t is unknown at this stage. The revenue from extra passengers of expendable US may favour this approach.
NG specifically in commercial payloads is a threat more to other LV providers than to SX since it offers a second provider with very low prices making customers almost demand these lower prices because if they don't launch with these lower prices they could be priced out of their own end user markets since almost all of their competitors would be using these cheaper flights.
A handful of GTO with a handful of LEO constellation could easily get NG to 10+ launches a year. This would occur about 3 years after initial demo flight or sometime after 2023.
Updating status from an overview this week:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/By Chris Gebhardt.Sexy L2 renders by Nathan Koga.
With specific note to the ship, Mr. Henderson revealed that Blue Origin has purchased – or is very close to finalizing the purchase of – a large ship that will be used for New Glenn booster landings.The ship in question is expected to arrive in Port Canaveral before the end of the year.