Will the NG boosters be able to be transported via road from the factory to LC-36? And from the port to the refurb building?
Great article. Now we have to see the effect of reusability on the market. :-) I think that ULA is going to get put in a tight spot after 2021+. In my mind -- A6 is also going to have to compete more on price. A6--I do not think will be in the market more than 5 years.
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 is a BFD.
Um - New Glenn is a paper rocket (at this point). Please people - walk it back a step. I do have faith the thing will fly - but when successfully and with what reusability is a huge unknown - not to mention the continuing parallel development of its competitors (er) while it’s happening.
It’ll be ok. Just let’s not get ahead of ourselves...
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).
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).
Perhaps people are getting hung up on a word. Can we agree that there’s a huge difference between developing an orbital launch system and successfully flying one? There’s a huge learning curve in there and a whole host of uncertainties. What I’m getting at is perhaps people shouldn’t talk about a future system as if it’s already flying and reliable. I wouldn’t even do that with FH, and that’s a damn sight further along in development than what BO has...
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.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.Still, it's exciting to think that this will put downward pressure on Falcon 9 prices.