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.
Quote from: joek on 02/11/2018 06:07 pmQuote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 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 225225 - 49 = 176 176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.
Quote from: Proxima_Centauri on 02/11/2018 05:54 pmFalcon 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.
Falcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.
Quote from: DJPledger on 02/11/2018 08:16 pmNG 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.
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.
So far the case for the 7m fairing seems be more sats of the same constellation. Can't stack them like cube sats yet.
Quote from: Pipcard on 02/11/2018 04:59 amQuote from: Darkseraph on 02/10/2018 02:46 amThe 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.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 02/10/2018 02:46 amThe 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 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.
Quote from: Chasm on 02/11/2018 11:50 pmSo 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.
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.
Quote from: DnA915 on 02/12/2018 04:30 pmElon 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.
Quote from: DJPledger on 02/12/2018 05:09 pmQuote from: DnA915 on 02/12/2018 04:30 pmElon Musk Says:Under consideration. Weve 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!
Quote from: DnA915 on 02/12/2018 04:30 pmElon Musk Says:Under consideration. Weve 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.
Elon Musk Says:Under consideration. Weve 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.
How much does RTLS save compared to a ship landing? Perhaps only a few $100,000.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 02/10/2018 04:46 am 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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/10/2018 06:00 pmSpaceX has to recover $500m of R&D cost some how. Blue don't need to recover a cent of R&D costs.Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/10/2018 06:28 pmJeff 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.
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.
Imagine a world with 2 fully reusable super-heavy launch vehicles.
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 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.