This is 21 years, not 11.
There are many statements here about Blue Origin being "slow". But are they really?BE-4 engine development started in 2011; first operational flight is expected for 2021. Raptor engine development started in 2011; first operational flight is expected for 2021.Falcon 9 and Heavy were both planned in 2005; first flight of F9 was after 5 years, FH after 13 years - 6 years late. Blue Origin was founded in 2010 2000; New Glenn first flight is expected for 2021, after 11 years Afaik it is not known when Blue Origin started to work on an orbital rocket, but I think a reasonable guess is that it was not long before starting on the engine. (They had an orbital rocket on their website in 2011).Vulcan was announced in 2014; first flight expected for 2021.SLS was announced in 2011, but has its roots in the Ares which was developed from ~2006 (?). 15 years until expected first flight in 2021.Regarding Starhopper & Super Heavy, I think it's very hard to predict when they will both fly. The public hopper construction is percieved as quick progress - but remember that it's rather a flying engine test stand than a Starship prototype. There are huge technical challenges ahead. SpaceX has been working on the "Mars Colonial Transporter" project at least since 2013. Would be 8 years until a first flight in 2021, or e.g. 10 years until 2023, which is my guess for SH first flight.Summary: Compared to other recent or ongoing developments of huge rockets, Blue Origin dosn't look particularly slow to me. Rather average. But they are working much quieter, which may lead to the misconception that there is little happening at BO.[Edit: Fixed the BO founding date error.]
Hmm. These comparisons are really tricky, because of different goals and approaches of both companies. Blue originally focused on bringing humans to space, and it looks like they will achieve that within 19 years (compared to 17 years for SpaceX).
Quote from: PM3 on 02/19/2019 07:04 pmHmm. These comparisons are really tricky, because of different goals and approaches of both companies. Blue originally focused on bringing humans to space, and it looks like they will achieve that within 19 years (compared to 17 years for SpaceX). You are conflating/confusing bringing humans to suborbital space vs bringing humans to orbital space.
Quote from: Lar on 02/18/2019 10:21 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 02/18/2019 02:36 pmRight now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date. Far-out? Seems like you're not giving SpaceX sufficient credit. It is outside the realm of space launch industry experience. Way outside. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/18/2019 02:36 pmRight now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date. Far-out? Seems like you're not giving SpaceX sufficient credit.
Right now, I'm appreciating Blue Origin's approach, which they've used to beat SpaceX's far-out BFR proposal in the EELV-2 competition to date.
It’s true that the Falcon 1 doesn’t compare to New Glenn in developmental complexity, but it does reflect an achievement that Blue has yet to reach. I’d personally consider Falcon 9 to be a good comparative, and both Falcon Heavy and Starship to represent a step beyond New Glenn in complexity.
Quote from: Lemurion on 02/19/2019 10:03 pmIt’s true that the Falcon 1 doesn’t compare to New Glenn in developmental complexity, but it does reflect an achievement that Blue has yet to reach. I’d personally consider Falcon 9 to be a good comparative, and both Falcon Heavy and Starship to represent a step beyond New Glenn in complexity.As far as I understand BO's plans, they are trying to build a New Glenn v1.0 which is more capable [1] and higher reusable [2] than today's Falcon 9 Block 5 and has a more sophisticated engine [3]. This would be something more ferociter than a F9 v1.0 and of course take more grandatim to develop ...[1] 50-100% more payload, 200% more fairing volume[2] 25 vs 10 flights; Methalox vs. RP1-Lox engine[3] closed cycle with oxygen-rich preburner vs. open cycle / fuel-richNo idea if they will really achive that. If so, I guess it will take significantly longer than with Falcon 9.
Quote from: PM3 on 02/20/2019 06:45 amQuote from: Lemurion on 02/19/2019 10:03 pmIt’s true that the Falcon 1 doesn’t compare to New Glenn in developmental complexity, but it does reflect an achievement that Blue has yet to reach. I’d personally consider Falcon 9 to be a good comparative, and both Falcon Heavy and Starship to represent a step beyond New Glenn in complexity.As far as I understand BO's plans, they are trying to build a New Glenn v1.0 which is more capable [1] and higher reusable [2] than today's Falcon 9 Block 5 and has a more sophisticated engine [3]. This would be something more ferociter than a F9 v1.0 and of course take more grandatim to develop ...[1] 50-100% more payload, 200% more fairing volume[2] 25 vs 10 flights; Methalox vs. RP1-Lox engine[3] closed cycle with oxygen-rich preburner vs. open cycle / fuel-richNo idea if they will really achive that. If so, I guess it will take significantly longer than with Falcon 9.Blue has been working on BE-4 and New Glenn (formerly "Very Big Brother") for quite some time. Their schedule for first flight in 2021 is entirely reasonable, although they will probably need a few iterations to get to New Glenn's ultimate performance and reuse specs. The current performance specs are heavily sandbagged and Blue only needs a few reuses out of the first couple boosters to meet their flight rate expectations. The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
Quote from: envy887 on 02/20/2019 12:56 pmThe advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.
The advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 02/20/2019 01:37 pmQuote from: envy887 on 02/20/2019 12:56 pmThe advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.Yes. A single Raptor upper stage about the same size as the NG upper stage would have similar performance, even to GEO, thanks to better mass fractions with methalox. A triple Raptor stage about the size of the hopper propulsion module would let SuperHeavy match SLS Block 1B to TLI. If they put a radiatively cooled nozzle extension on that upper stage Raptor, even a stubby SH with half as many engines could still match New Glenn even with booster RTLS.
I too feel that Superheavy would be much easier to build than Starship. It is like a giant F9 booster.
Quote from: envy887 on 02/20/2019 01:52 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 02/20/2019 01:37 pmQuote from: envy887 on 02/20/2019 12:56 pmThe advantage of an overly large vehicle is that it has a lot of margin on performance, and that can be traded for improvements in schedule (less optimization) or reuse (less entry stress) etc.With reference to your last point, Super Heavy is an even larger rocket than New Glenn. So it would presumably have even greater margin of performance. So my thinking is that even if the Starship concept turns out to be too ambitious due to heat shield issues or something else, SpaceX need only design a more conventional 2nd stage to fit onto Super Heavy in order to still have a more capable rocket than New Glenn.So a kind of giant F9 upper stage with a 9m diameter, running on methane, stacked on top of Super Heavy would surely outperform New Glenn. But that would be the Plan B, if Starship doesn't work.Yes. A single Raptor upper stage about the same size as the NG upper stage would have similar performance, even to GEO, thanks to better mass fractions with methalox. A triple Raptor stage about the size of the hopper propulsion module would let SuperHeavy match SLS Block 1B to TLI. If they put a radiatively cooled nozzle extension on that upper stage Raptor, even a stubby SH with half as many engines could still match New Glenn even with booster RTLS.Now you 30 engine reuseable booster with expendable US competiting against 7 engine reuseable booster. Guess which ones going to be cheaper to operate per launch.