Blue Origin New Glenn Thread 2: Updates and Discussion

[meekGee]

I said, will launch more commercial payloads, not launches in general.

Odd metric.  Who will launch more payloads starting with the letter "s"?

[spacenut]

Increasing the trust of BE-4 and methane/lox second stage with one BE-4 is way better direction to upgrade NG than 9x2 or 9x4. the rocket will be cheaper to build and operate and easier to make second stage reusable.

Have you looked up the ISP of BE-4 vs BE-3?
BE-3U: 4.36 km/s
BE-4: 3.3 km/s

That's right out of left field with multiple unsupported assertions.
But yes, yes they are increasing the thrust of the BE-4. Rejoice.

This is comparing a sea level BE-4 to a vacuum engine BE-3U which is hydrolox.  A BE-4U would have better ISP and use a cheaper fuel and have more thrust for LEO payloads.  One BE-4U engine may be a lot cheaper than four BE-3U's also.  We are just saying.  This was Bezo's original plan. 

[DrTadd]

This is comparing a sea level BE-4 to a vacuum engine BE-3U which is hydrolox.  A BE-4U would have better ISP and use a cheaper fuel and have more thrust for LEO payloads.  One BE-4U engine may be a lot cheaper than four BE-3U's also.  We are just saying.  This was Bezo's original plan.

BO is clearly wanting to do moon stuff and are doing the ground work to see if they can do in situ moon fuel. That’s water (hydrolox) as moon carbon is hard to come by.

So until the moon water availability is proven to be untenable, hydolox is a good choice despite the extra complexity.

The other thread about BOs ‘vision’ (or lack of one), has been geared towards not having a plan. But to me it seems BO is moving to their plans and will adjust fire as they hit forks in the road as those data become available.

Synergy of multitasking.

[Brigantine]

This was Bezo's original plan.

It's not every day reverting to the 'original' design is described as an 'upgrade'

[StraumliBlight]

New Glenn is a real rocket now, with two successful launches and one successful booster landing. What can we do with it? What markets will it aim to compete in?

[spacenut]

So, according to this video, Blue should build the 9x4 ASAP.  He mentioned a 12x6 which is interesting. 

[DrTadd]

So, according to this video, Blue should build the 9x4 ASAP.  He mentioned a 12x6 which is interesting.

It was a good video, but there is still a LOT of ground work to be done before 100T payloads are needed.

A whole bunch of survey needs to be done, along with a lot of smaller payloads to figure what works and what doesn’t.

To that end, I will bet that 3 tons to the moon is quite enough for all the testing and data collection before real plans can even be made for longer term process/infrastructure.

There is also a lot of cis-lunar space work that needs to be tried and sorted. Like fuel transfers.

With what BO has in the hardware pipeline, they could drop a MK1 with a ‘water’ rover, make LOX and LN2, refill that MK1, launch from the surface, meet with the CT, and refuel it.

Sort that process chain, develop the hardware and SOPs, and THEN at that point moving larger masses to the moon makes sense.

I’m guessing that is at least 2 years of work.

[StraumliBlight]

Space News: Blue Origin targets four-flight campaign for New Glenn’s path to Space Force certification [Dec 10]

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket will have to complete four successful orbital flights as its pathway to certification under the U.S. Space Force’s National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant said Dec. 10 at the Spacepower conference.

[Comga]

Random:  Using Google Maps to look at LC-36 and the surrounding pads, look who photobombed the image!

Isn’t that the recovered “flight proven” NG-S1 #2?

[sstli2]

Random:  Using Google Maps to look at LC-36 and the surrounding pads, look who photobombed the image!

Isn’t that the recovered “flight proven” NG-S1 #2?

No, that's the simulator.

[StraumliBlight]

Random:  Using Google Maps to look at LC-36 and the surrounding pads, look who photobombed the image!

Isn’t that the recovered “flight proven” NG-S1 #2?

Image was taken on April 26th 2025, 2 days after the GS2 hotfire.

NSF: Blue Origin test fires second stage and continues preparations for New Glenn’s second flight [Apr 25]

Flight 2’s booster stage, Glenn Stage 1 (GS1), is still in the company’s Exploration Park campus, undergoing its own preparations before being rolled out to the integration hangar at LC-36.

[catdlr]

Space News: Blue Origin targets four-flight campaign for New Glenn’s path to Space Force certification [Dec 10]

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket will have to complete four successful orbital flights as its pathway to certification under the U.S. Space Force’s National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant said Dec. 10 at the Spacepower conference.

Nice that BO is allowing itself four flights for certification, but if the BO is going to a Block-2 version (9-4), does that mean:
1) BO will maintain a 7-2 version for NSSL
2) Will the 9-4 version succeed the 7-2, and will re-certification of the new LV require a re-certification?

[TrevorMonty]

Space News: Blue Origin targets four-flight campaign for New Glenn’s path to Space Force certification [Dec 10]

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket will have to complete four successful orbital flights as its pathway to certification under the U.S. Space Force’s National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, Lt. Gen. Philip Garrant said Dec. 10 at the Spacepower conference.

Nice that BO is allowing itself four flights for certification, but if the BO is going to a Block-2 version (9-4), does that mean:
1) BO will maintain a 7-2 version for NSSL
2) Will the 9-4 version succeed the 7-2, and will re-certification of the new LV require a re-certification?

I think they will operate both LVs. 9-4 is oversized for lot of customers needs.

[Brigantine]

I think they will operate both LVs. 9-4 is oversized for lot of customers needs.

Standard 5-seat taxis are oversized for a lot of customers needs. But I don't see any 3-seat taxis. Many low-cost airlines only use 1 aircraft type despite operating on routes of different sizes.

You might be right, It will depend on the costs of operating and maintaining 2 separate fleets vs the difference in marginal cost to fly a 9x2 instead of a 7x2 - after considering that extra performance can enable RTLS.

But I can definitely see both 9x2 and 9x4 flying concurrently according to performance needs - those upper stage engines are expended. 9x2 is the equivalent of F9 stubby-nozzle RTLS; 7x2 is the equivalent of Falcon 5

[sstli2]

I agree with the above. The 7 engine GS1 will fly concurrently because you don't throw away a perfectly good booster until its design life is over. But after a certain point, I would expect only 9 engine GS1s to be manufactured.

As far as NSSL, I'm sure there's an additional certification step, but as it's a "risk-based assessment" for the number of flights, a block iteration should be considered less risky than a brand new launch vehicle.

[321]

This is comparing a sea level BE-4 to a vacuum engine BE-3U which is hydrolox.  A BE-4U would have better ISP and use a cheaper fuel and have more thrust for LEO payloads.  One BE-4U engine may be a lot cheaper than four BE-3U's also.  We are just saying.  This was Bezo's original plan.

BO is clearly wanting to do moon stuff and are doing the ground work to see if they can do in situ moon fuel. That’s water (hydrolox) as moon carbon is hard to come by.

So until the moon water availability is proven to be untenable, hydolox is a good choice despite the extra complexity.

The other thread about BOs ‘vision’ (or lack of one), has been geared towards not having a plan. But to me it seems BO is moving to their plans and will adjust fire as they hit forks in the road as those data become available.

Synergy of multitasking.

1. How is GS2 propellant choice related to in suti moon fuel?

2. Methane/LOX GS2 will also way lighter than LH2/LOX, because of density and single motor. Did anyone here run the numbers to see how much LH2 GS2 is actually better than LCH4?

[DanClemmensen]

I agree with the above. The 7 engine GS1 will fly concurrently because you don't throw away a perfectly good booster until its design life is over. But after a certain point, I would expect only 9 engine GS1s to be manufactured.

As far as NSSL, I'm sure there's an additional certification step, but as it's a "risk-based assessment" for the number of flights, a block iteration should be considered less risky than a brand new launch vehicle.

See:
   https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-targets-four-flight-campaign-for-new-glenns-path-to-space-force-certification/
Earlier this week, USSF announced that NG requires four certification flights, not the two we had assumed. It turns out that they determine the required number based on an individual assesment. NG is a new and very different rocket, very large and no legacy from prior BO designs. Based on this statement, I suspect tht IF 7x2 get certified they will need fewer flights to certify 9x4.

[Brigantine]

1. How is GS2 propellant choice related to in-situ moon fuel?

How is GS2 fuel related to moon fuel? If GS2 is the tanker for filling moon vehicles. Saves you the dry mass of an extra tank, if they both use the same fuel so you can carry your moon fuel "payload" in the main tanks. That's how Starship tankers work too.

How is lunar water related to hydrolox moon fuel? H₂O.

OTOH if you're not doing LEO prop transfer, then it isn't related.

[sstli2]

I agree with the above. The 7 engine GS1 will fly concurrently because you don't throw away a perfectly good booster until its design life is over. But after a certain point, I would expect only 9 engine GS1s to be manufactured.

As far as NSSL, I'm sure there's an additional certification step, but as it's a "risk-based assessment" for the number of flights, a block iteration should be considered less risky than a brand new launch vehicle.

See:
   https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-targets-four-flight-campaign-for-new-glenns-path-to-space-force-certification/
Earlier this week, USSF announced that NG requires four certification flights, not the two we had assumed. It turns out that they determine the required number based on an individual assesment. NG is a new and very different rocket, very large and no legacy from prior BO designs. Based on this statement, I suspect tht IF 7x2 get certified they will need fewer flights to certify 9x4.

You're saying the exact same thing I am. I'm responding to the post upthread that already posted that article you linked, and I quoted "risk-based assessment" from said article.

[DrTadd]

I may have this wrong, but I thought there was a continuum of paths to NSSL approval. All based on flights vs info provided to the government.

On the short end of the stick was two flights with the government knee deep in your design plans. On the other end was something like 15 successful flights with almost no information.

Has blue just been tracked to the 4 flights because they, unlike ULA, had done a lot of work without .gov involvement? I am curious if this is BOs choice or if this is a .gov mandate.

Also curious if those have to be four brand new rockets or if a reused booster counts as a cert flight.