Author Topic: Business Case For New Glenn  (Read 54885 times)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #40 on: 02/11/2018 11:36 pm »
NG will not be competing with BFR. NA will compete with BFR. However NG should wipe the floor with FH and F9 with large volume payloads that will fit inside NG's 7m dia. fairing which will not fit in FH's and F9's 5.2m dia. fairing. So the business case for NG is in launching large volume payloads which will not fit in any other launchers.

Is there a large market for payloads that won't fit in a Falcon 9/H payload fairing? Certainly there are U.S. Government payloads, but that's ULA's market to lose, not SpaceX.

But Blue Origin is not going to get big and fat on USG business, so you must be assuming that there will be commercial customers that have payloads that big?

Who are you imagining?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #41 on: 02/11/2018 11:50 pm »
So far the case for the 7m fairing seems be more sats of the same constellation.
Can't stack them like cube sats yet.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #42 on: 02/12/2018 12:43 am »
Falcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.

Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch.  At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...

Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure".  Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from?  On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V has launches.
Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:
Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:

1 in 75 = 3 in 225

225 - 49 = 176

176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.
Only one in-flight Falcon 9 failure. If you're going to count an under-performance as a failure, then you need to count the first Atlas-Cygnus launch, too. That only worked because Cygnus was a particularly lightweight payload.

Additionally, Atlas as a launch family has a long tradition which includes plenty of failure. If you're going to say Atlas V has a perfect track record, then Falcon 9 should get to reset the clock with Block 5....


...IMHO, you should just could consecutive launches without failure.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2018 12:44 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #43 on: 02/12/2018 12:44 am »
NG will not be competing with BFR. NA will compete with BFR. However NG should wipe the floor with FH and F9 with large volume payloads that will fit inside NG's 7m dia. fairing which will not fit in FH's and F9's 5.2m dia. fairing. So the business case for NG is in launching large volume payloads which will not fit in any other launchers. However this will be a short window until BFR becomes available. NG's business case may well collapse when BFR enters service so BO will need to get NA dev. ASAP to stay competitive with SpaceX. Perhaps BO like SpaceX with their Falcon family will see NG merely as a stepping stone to NA and replace NG with NA after just a few years service.
It well be brave customer that builds payload specifically for NG 7m fairing especially if there isn't alternative LV with 7m fairing.
Atlas V has the option of a 7m fairing. It's in the User's Guide. BFR will have about an 8m fairing.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline DnA915

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #44 on: 02/12/2018 12:45 am »
So far the case for the 7m fairing seems be more sats of the same constellation.
Can't stack them like cube sats yet.

Isn't the Bigelow B330 supposed to be too big for the standard FH fairing size?

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #45 on: 02/12/2018 03:25 am »
The second stage is only initially expendable. Future versions will be reusable. The recovery method for New Glenn is less complex therefore probably cheaper. The business case for NG appears to be strong enough that they have already sold flights to multiple commercial customers, indicating that despite its large size it is competitive with existing or emerging launch vehicles.
How cheaper, exactly? This is something I've been wondering ever since NG was unveiled.

The vehicle is baselined for 100 reuses. It has simpler recovery than Falcon Heavy, which requires landing three stages, with one on a barge. LNG is also a cheaper fuel that is easier for reuse and allows autogenous pressurization, which removes the need for helium bottles. There are fewer engines than Falcon Heavy which reduces complexity. The overall reduction of complexity will make it easier to implement operational reusability and a booster that is easier to inspect between uses.
Yes, I know about how it's simpler, but how much cost does one core save over three for the same capacity?
« Last Edit: 02/12/2018 03:29 am by Pipcard »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #46 on: 02/12/2018 08:01 am »
So far the case for the 7m fairing seems be more sats of the same constellation.
Can't stack them like cube sats yet.

Isn't the Bigelow B330 supposed to be too big for the standard FH fairing size?

Yes, the Falcon fairings are to short. Bigelow and Musk also seem to have more personal differences.
Chances are that B330 would fit into Ariane fairings as is. For launch on NG (other than as contingency) it would make sense to change B330. There is more room and payload, why not use it to launch more interior things? Perhaps something simple like packing the skin around a wider core.
OTOH a 7m fairing enables larger modules for space stations. Or launching modules with fiddly bits already attached to the exterior.

Offline DnA915

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #47 on: 02/12/2018 04:30 pm »
Yes, the Falcon fairings are to short. Bigelow and Musk also seem to have more personal differences.
Chances are that B330 would fit into Ariane fairings as is. For launch on NG (other than as contingency) it would make sense to change B330. There is more room and payload, why not use it to launch more interior things? Perhaps something simple like packing the skin around a wider core.
OTOH a 7m fairing enables larger modules for space stations. Or launching modules with fiddly bits already attached to the exterior.

Some ultra fresh data from Elon today on Twitter (literally 30 min or so ago):

Twitter User Asks:

For full recovery to make sense over single stick expendable needs each booster to be reused multiple times. I’m also curious as to whether SpaceX would consider stretching Stage 2 if there was a market that made sense.

Elon Musk Says:

Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 33568
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #48 on: 02/12/2018 05:09 pm »
Elon Musk Says:

Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.
Looks like SpaceX are responding to the competitive threat from NG by dev. larger fairings for the Falcon family. So BO will have to look for another business case for NG than simply having a larger fairing volume than competing launchers. BO could undercut FH on price with NG with JB subsidizing it with his own money.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2018 05:09 pm by DJPledger »

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #49 on: 02/12/2018 05:26 pm »
Elon Musk Says:

Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.
Looks like SpaceX are responding to the competitive threat from NG by dev. larger fairings for the Falcon family. So BO will have to look for another business case for NG than simply having a larger fairing volume than competing launchers. BO could undercut FH on price with NG with JB subsidizing it with his own money.

Increasing the diameter "slightly" means going from 5.2m to something like 5.5, definitely not 7!

Offline McDew

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #50 on: 02/12/2018 06:06 pm »
Elon Musk Says:

Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.
Looks like SpaceX are responding to the competitive threat from NG by dev. larger fairings for the Falcon family. So BO will have to look for another business case for NG than simply having a larger fairing volume than competing launchers. BO could undercut FH on price with NG with JB subsidizing it with his own money.

Increasing the diameter "slightly" means going from 5.2m to something like 5.5, definitely not 7!
Agreed, FWIW my guess is that a slight diameter increase was needed to guarrantee the envelope diameter for the stretched PLF version needed to meet EELV requirments and they cut this diameter change into the Fairing 2 design.

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #51 on: 02/12/2018 06:22 pm »
The launch of the LOP-G PPE will be an interesting competition to follow.

Offline RDMM2081

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 295
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 595
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #52 on: 02/12/2018 07:12 pm »
The first question that needs an answer before anything about a business case can be discussed is:

When will New Glenn first launch?

and then

When will New Glenn launch its first payload?

I don't know of anything that indicates it may be "soon" for any known values of "soon".

Is 2019 even an "aspirational" date at this point, or is it in the "maybe 2020" camp already?

I really don't know if there is more information about these dates I may have missed, but given how far into the future this LV seems to be from my point of view, it doesn't seem like there is any useful comparison to be made about "business cases" between NG and FH.

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #53 on: 02/12/2018 07:29 pm »
That is the billion dollar question. ;D

Most obvious is the engine question. Can't do it without them.
There were some indications last year that Blue might be further ahead in some areas than it seems. In one of the talks (the one that gave a breakdown of current workforce and locations and how many they want to hire in additional locations) the presenter also said that they had the tank dome machinery already installed in the new Florida factory. Only the smaller side buildings were completed at that point.
We also don't know what is going on in other facilities. Tooling for NG is certainly on order / under construction, but are they also building first parts in Kent? There is a lot of testing before the first launch can happen.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #54 on: 02/15/2018 03:44 pm »
How much does RTLS save compared to a ship landing? Perhaps only a few $100,000.

About 2% is what that would be, if the BFR launch cost is $15mn.  When you are driving launch cost down to a low integer multiple of the cost of the form of energy used to get to orbit, of such small margins is success produced.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2018 03:44 pm by tdperk »

Offline DnA915

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #55 on: 02/15/2018 04:31 pm »
How much does RTLS save compared to a ship landing? Perhaps only a few $100,000.

About 2% is what that would be, if the BFR launch cost is $15mn.  When you are driving launch cost down to a low integer multiple of the cost of the form of energy used to get to orbit, of such small margins is success produced.

Also, I think you would also need to consider how many craft you would need for a certain throughput. If you were launching at the fastest rate possible for the number of craft you created, landing on a ship would necessitate the creation of far more boosters.

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #56 on: 02/15/2018 04:48 pm »
SpaceX has to recover $500m of R&D cost some how. Blue don't need to recover a cent of R&D costs.
Jeff wants to reduce cost of space access and is willing to throw money at it. Blue vehicles still need to be profitable once flying but Jeff may not be looking at recovering his R&D investment.

Last I heard Bezos was not running a charity.  You could consider the equity provided by Bezos to Blue (or Musk to SpaceX) charity, but I suspect their balance sheets would show otherwise.
Neither Musk not Bezos are in the the rocket business to get rich, they both got rich to get into the rocket business.  SX needs to be a viable company and has to operate in a sustainable fashion because Musk is not richer than God and also because Musk is in a hurry. Rather than a charity, I think both are akin to the more ethical micro-lenders.  Businesses set up to provide a need in a self-sustainable way (rather than to maximize profits or enrich investors.)

Musk is the majority share holder in SX, it is not publicly traded and all evidence is that all investors in SX believe in it's long term goals (make humanity multi-planetary w/ Google and Fidelity being outliers presumably in it for the Satellite Constellation.) Employees get stock options but they also get the opportunity to cache some out every year which mitigates the pressure to take the company public. It helps that the employees tend to be young and believe in the vision. So Musk has a lot of flexibility in how money is shuffled around, they don't need to make tonnes of "profit" but they do need to make money to dump back into R&D.

Blue does not have to operate as a sustainable company for the foreseeable future because Bezos is richer than God and is not in a hurry. Blue Origin is completely private, it's an LLC. It is beholden to no one but Bezos and he can run it however he pleases. Bezos is a ruthless businessman who takes a very long view. I would not put it past him to run at a loss for the rest of his fortune's life.

This is why SpaceX got to orbit 6 years after being founded and Blue Origin can spend all their time perfecting each step along the way.

I think the business case for New Glenn is to prove they can operate a large partially reusable rocket to help create a market and lay the foundation for New Armstrong.  To do that they will price it at rock bottom prices.  Luckily for SX I don't think they will push their flight rate for a long time because I do think NG will "eat FH's lunch."

Hopefully BFR succeeds and New Armstrong is build as fully reusable from day one to compete with it.  Imagine a world with 2 fully reusable super-heavy launch vehicles.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline DnA915

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #57 on: 02/15/2018 05:09 pm »
  Imagine a world with 2 fully reusable super-heavy launch vehicles.

In my imagination, I see two fully reusable super heavy lift vehicles and congress still shooting off a single 2 Billion dollar SLS launches once a year. #JourneyToMars

Offline Toast

Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #58 on: 02/15/2018 05:30 pm »
One advantage New Glenn has is that it's being designed from scratch with first stage re-usability in mind. I don't think Musk planned that when he launched the first Falcon 9.

Well first off, as Lar mentioned earlier, Falcon 9 was originally designed with reuse in mind. And even then, as SpaceX tried new things they had to make tons of changes along the way, from adding then removing parachutes to stretching the rocket and redesigning the legs and heatshields.

All of which together makes me think that designing New Glenn for reuse from the beginning isn't as much of an advantage as some people are assuming (against SpaceX, anyways--it's hugely advantageous vs other launch providers). Blue Origin has very limited experience with reuse in the environment New Glenn will face. New Shepard has only flown six times (and only landed five). It doesn't enter hypersonic speeds on reentry, doesn't land on a moving target, and uses a completely different engine, fuel, and cycle. All that uncertainty means that there will be unexpected complications that Blue Origin will have to solve. They will lose at least a booster or two, and they will have to redesign parts of their rocket. I don't doubt that they can solve those problems, but I definitely don't think that they're going to stroll into the market with a fully mature design with no hiccups along the way.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2018 06:03 pm by Toast »

Offline DnA915

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #59 on: 02/15/2018 05:53 pm »

Well first off, as Lar mentioned earlier, Falcon 9 was originally designed with reuse in mind. And even then, as SpaceX tried new things they had to make tons of changes along the way, from adding parachutes to stretching the rocket and redesigning the legs and heatshields.

All of which together makes me think that designing New Glenn for reuse from the beginning isn't as much of an advantage as some people are assuming (against SpaceX, anyways--it's hugely advantageous vs other launch providers). Blue Origin has very limited experience with reuse in the environment New Glenn will face. New Shepard has only flown six times (and only landed five). It doesn't enter hypersonic speeds on reentry, doesn't land on a moving target, and uses a completely different engine, fuel, and cycle. All that uncertainty means that there will be unexpected complications that Blue Origin will have to solve. They will lose at least a booster or two, and they will have to redesign parts of their rocket. I don't doubt that they can solve those problems, but I definitely don't think that they're going to stroll into the market with a fully mature design with no hiccups along the way.

I agree. I always thought it was a bit presumptuous of people to think that BO would be able to pull off reuse right away. Just a few years ago you had most people in the industry saying it was impossible and now its just assumed the BO can do it and be competing with SpaceX with 0 chance of failure and only small road bumps along the way.  This isn't to say I don't think they will do it or eventually pose a competitive challenge to SX, I just don't think they quite deserve to be considered on the exact same level yet.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0