Author Topic: New Glenn 3-Core Version  (Read 14191 times)

Offline DPRKChlorinePentaflouride

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
New Glenn 3-Core Version
« on: 04/19/2024 07:04 pm »
Would it be a good idea to have a 3-core New Glenn like with Falcon Heavy? It might work for NASA payloads (especially if we want to send bigger payloads to the outer solar system), military geosynchronous satellites, and BO payloads for the Moon. If Glenn Heavy (maybe they call it Cooper, Grissom, Schirra, Armstrong or something) wants to compete with Falcon Heavy for the DoD/NASA payloads, they might acquire enough drone ships to land the boosters and core at sea. Using Silverbird's launch vehicle performance calculator, we get 8 tons to geostationary for Falcon Heavy with ocean recovery for all 3 cores. Since NG is a lot bigger than F9, it seems logical that it could eclipse that.

Online lightleviathan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #1 on: 04/19/2024 07:56 pm »
Like Falcon Heavy, (for SpaceX at least) New Glenn tri-core would be a stopgap for until New Armstrong comes online.

Also, it seems that orbital refueling is in the cards for New Glenn's 2nd stage, so they likely have all of the capability that they need

Offline jdon759

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #2 on: 04/19/2024 08:49 pm »
New Glenn has a non-constant first stage diameter.  That would make any multi-body New Glenn a very challenging project.
Where would we be today if our forefathers hadn't dreamt of where they'd be tomorrow?  (For better and worse)

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1058
  • Likes Given: 3983
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #3 on: 04/20/2024 12:49 am »
Three-core vehicles are harder to develop than they appear. It's also hard to reuse the center core while lifting a reasonable payload. Note that Falcon Heavy has been somewhat disappointing in its cost savings for this reason. A 3-core New Glenn would only make sense if a customer needs the extra capacity badly enough to pay close to a gigadollar developing the 3-core version (Falcon Heavy apparently cost over half a billion dollars to develop). I don't think such a customer exists. One-core New Glenn is big enough for all known demand (though it may need a third stage for high energy orbits such as NSSL lane 2).

Offline FLHerne

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • UK
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #4 on: 04/21/2024 11:33 pm »
"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell

Offline JCRM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
  • Great Britain
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 517
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #5 on: 04/22/2024 10:15 am »
"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell
but how hard is it if you don't refuse to use existing industry knowledge?

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6832
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10455
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #6 on: 04/22/2024 11:49 am »
"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell
but how hard is it if you don't refuse to use existing industry knowledge?
Still really hard, you just have a grizzled veteran engineer to tell you it's really hard.

Online greybeardengineer

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #7 on: 04/22/2024 01:08 pm »
"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell
but how hard is it if you don't refuse to use existing industry knowledge?

Then it would not only be really hard but also really, really expensive.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5318
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2652
  • Likes Given: 3031
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #8 on: 04/22/2024 01:53 pm »
If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship. 

Online Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 1279
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #9 on: 04/22/2024 01:56 pm »
If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Blue ended the idea of landing on a moving ship and switched plans to land on a barge.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15563
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8923
  • Likes Given: 1400
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #10 on: 04/22/2024 04:19 pm »
If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Blue ended the idea of landing on a moving ship and switched plans to land on a barge.
You are not mistaken!

 - Ed Kyle

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1058
  • Likes Given: 3983
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #11 on: 04/22/2024 04:21 pm »
If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.

My guess is that there won't be enough payloads bigger than expendable New Glenn can handle for Blue Origin to justify finding a way to launch them. Those rare customers will just use Starship.

Offline seb21051

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #12 on: 04/22/2024 05:17 pm »
Well, they could always start the development by strapping three New Sheppards together . . .

To what end, you might ask? Oh, to satisfy the enthusiasts on NSF, of course.

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 638
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #13 on: 04/22/2024 06:27 pm »
Because of the uneven first stage diameter, you'd be hard pressed to adapt it (and the landing legs) for even GEM boosters.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #14 on: 04/22/2024 07:19 pm »
Most reasons to go bigger is for more BLEO payload which can also be achieved by using smaller LVs and inorbit refuelling. Better to invest in inorbit refuelling technology and infrastructure than 3 core heavy which rarely flies.

F9 flightrate proves that this would be viable and economical way to get to moon.
 

Online AndrewM

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
  • United States
  • Liked: 460
  • Likes Given: 893
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #15 on: 05/05/2024 10:36 pm »
If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship. 

Strapping SRBs on New Glenn would be challenging. The most effective way to have a significant increase in performance beyond LEO would be upgrading stage 2 or adding a 3rd stage. Years ago there were 2 stage and 3 stage variants of New Glenn but it seems like they abandoned the 3-stage design. With the Clipper program, stage 2 upgrades are already underway so that's probably the best bet.

Offline deadman1204

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
  • USA
  • Liked: 1616
  • Likes Given: 3008
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #16 on: 05/06/2024 07:27 pm »
Like Falcon Heavy, (for SpaceX at least) New Glenn tri-core would be a stopgap for until New Armstrong comes online.

Also, it seems that orbital refueling is in the cards for New Glenn's 2nd stage, so they likely have all of the capability that they need
Armstrong only exists on reddit.

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1265
  • UK
  • Liked: 2164
  • Likes Given: 280
Re: New Glenn 3-Core Version
« Reply #17 on: 05/06/2024 08:15 pm »
Armstrong only exists on reddit.

Wait, that sounds familiar...

Blue are still maintaining the "New Armstrong" trademark, so it probably exists on powerpoint presentation as well.

 

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