Author Topic: New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan (Read 1456583 times)

HMXHMX · « **Reply #80 on:** 09/12/2016 06:16 pm »

Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/12/2016 06:08 pm

Quote from: notsorandom on 09/12/2016 05:27 pm
ULA and Blue have publicly talked about this before. They say they are targeting different markets.

I absolutely agree with this reasoning, Vulcan and New Glenn are absolutely complementary in capability. While ULA might possibly loose a couple payloads on the higher end to New Glenn (if Blue supports vertical integration), Vulcan is flexible enough to focus on the smaller payload.

What would be interesting, and potentially a game changer for both is if the third stage on New Glenn supports propellant transfer, then all of a sudden ULA's ACES/distributed launch model can really shine and drive new business!

I am afraid don't agree. I believe that "complementary" talk is whistling past the graveyard (from ULA's perspective). A two stage New Glenn can beat Vulcan in every respect, since the NG2 uses a recoverable first stage. And ULA pays a markup on Blue BE-4s that Blue need not charge itself.

Does anyone thing the Blue BE-3 upper stage won't add ACES-like IVF capability, especially if they are looking at beyond LEO missions?

The only way this "ends well" for ULA is that they get bought by Blue.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #81 on:** 09/12/2016 06:21 pm »

Agreed, HMXHMX (EDIT:I wrote this post in response to Ronsmytheiii in parallel with yours, and you posted first, ninjaing me). New Glenn looks exactly like what I would build to put ULA out of business. And in fact, I said as much in the "mini-BFR" thread I started.

Single core means operational simplicity. Plenty of margin for reuse, should allow reuse from the very first launch. Methane (along with VTVL) means possibility of rapid reuse and hydrogen helps for high energy missions. And for especially large payloads, use a 3-stage configuration that allows you to use the same launch pad and still reuse almost everything. Fairing size is just as big or possibly bigger than ULA's.

And New Glenn is big enough to allow a reusable upper stage, too, when the time comes.

ULA should join forces with Blue Origin if at all possible (which it may not be).

I wouldn't have thought Blue Origin would be targeting ULA's markets if they had shown a smaller, fully reusable Soyuz-class vehicle with a crew capsule on top. But look at it. It's only shown with fairings. This rocket is a major contender for all EELV-class launch.

savuporo · « **Reply #82 on:** 09/12/2016 06:27 pm »

Quote from: philw1776 on 09/12/2016 05:57 pm

Remember the many posts saying one big problem with Musk's FH, etc. plans was that there is no market or very limited market for payloads in that mass class? Good times.

Hope Bezos has heard this before :
"How do you make a small fortune in space?"
"You start out with a big one"

Best of luck.

GWH · « **Reply #83 on:** 09/12/2016 06:30 pm »

-ULA has already stated they are willing to buy prop.
-The hydrolox 3rd stage umbilicals for New Glenn are in an ideal location to fuel a tanker on a 2 stage.
-Bezos had stated he doesnt want to go after military payloads because of special requirements
-ULA would only need to use a single core vulcan and aces upper stage with refueling for heavy lift now.

I would expect a single stick 2 BE4 Vulcan and aces with refueling to be competitive with a much larger rocket and possibly 3 stages is 2 of those stages are still expendable.

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #84 on:** 09/12/2016 06:33 pm »

As rough guess, LEO payload with RLV booster about 60t, NB %15 for barge landing. Reusable upper about 40t. That is alot of fuel or one large passenger vehicle.

The moon has suddenly got a lot closer and more affordable.

JH · « **Reply #85 on:** 09/12/2016 06:37 pm »

Fortunately, Bezos's fortune is gargantuan rather than big. For perspective, he could fund NASA for 3 years or Roscosmos for 20.

billh · « **Reply #86 on:** 09/12/2016 06:42 pm »

By the end of the decade? What's the "time dilation" factor for Blue Origin?

AncientU · « **Reply #87 on:** 09/12/2016 06:47 pm »

The real challenge is how do you test that large of a rocket if you haven't been orbital yet?
I think it is doable, but not in small steps (ferocious or no).

philw1776 · « **Reply #88 on:** 09/12/2016 06:49 pm »

I would simply launch & recover the 1st stage a few times. Nowhere near orbital velocity.
Then fly with stage 2.
Incremental

oldAtlas_Eguy · « **Reply #89 on:** 09/12/2016 06:53 pm »

Quote from: philw1776 on 09/12/2016 05:57 pm

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/12/2016 05:41 pm
Quote from: Lars-J on 09/12/2016 04:32 pm
I wonder how ULA feels about this? This seems like a vehicle that could cover virtually all Vulcan payloads.

With New Glenn, Vulcan, and Falcon Heavy, the US now has three LVs in development (some closer than others) that will all compete for the crown of heaviest lifting LV in the world.
Five.

BFR and SLS. And eventually six, as Blue Origin pursues New Armstrong. All more powerful than anything else under development anywhere else. And all but one of them with at least partial reuse.

It's getting ridiculous over here.

Remember the many posts saying one big problem with Musk's FH, etc. plans was that there is no market or very limited market for payloads in that mass class? Good times.

Ah...but what if the New Glenn is targeted to be a 15-20mt fully reusable booster not a partial reusable booster for the Earth surface to LEO HSF transport market of 7-14 people per flight at <$5M per seat. How many flights per year would that support just on the tourist market? Could they sell 150 tickets a year for 1 week stays on-orbit at $5M a ticket?

shooter6947 · « **Reply #90 on:** 09/12/2016 06:56 pm »

Where is he going with this? By which I literally mean: where is this rocket intended to go? What's its intended payload? Is he headed for an Earth-orbiting habitat, Moon, Mars?

sanman · « **Reply #91 on:** 09/12/2016 06:58 pm »

Holy Smokes - this is more than gradatim ferociter - this is a giant Galopagos tortoise!

Wow, Mr Bezos doesn't putter around, does he?

If there's a New Armstrong to be added to the pack, I wonder if it will be a Moon rocket on the order of Saturn-V or bigger. Or maybe it would be a lander.

Not to criticize the great heritage he's going with for his naming convention, but I think we're going to have to chop the word "New" off during regular routine discussion. Also, while I admire his patriotism, isn't he sort of treading on NASA's sacred ground by appropriating the names of national icons for his own line of rockets?

sanman · « **Reply #92 on:** 09/12/2016 07:06 pm »

Quote from: shooter6947 on 09/12/2016 06:56 pm

Where is he going with this? By which I literally mean: where is this rocket intended to go? What's its intended payload? Is he headed for an Earth-orbiting habitat, Moon, Mars?

Just from that original CG video put out by Blue Origin way back, it seemed to end with its gaze fixed on the Moon. I'd bet that for BEO missions, Bezos wants to go to the Moon first, re-treading NASA's footsteps. For space tourism, the Moon would be a classical goal.

dror · « **Reply #93 on:** 09/12/2016 07:08 pm »

Amazing.

Why does the fairing shine?

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #94 on:** 09/12/2016 07:16 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/12/2016 06:21 pm

Single core means operational simplicity.

Yup, just like Vulcan

Quote

Plenty of margin for reuse, should allow reuse from the very first launch.

And with SMART, Vulcan/ACES can also reuse part of the rocket without as much margin, plus doesnt need to wait to finish it to get on the pad.

Quote

And New Glenn is big enough to allow a reusable upper stage, too, when the time comes.

unsubstantiated, mere speculation

Quote

ULA should join forces with Blue Origin if at all possible (which it may not be).

They already did with BE-4, hinting at BE-3U

Quote

I wouldn't have thought Blue Origin would be targeting ULA's markets if they had shown a smaller, fully reusable Soyuz-class vehicle with a crew capsule on top. But look at it. It's only shown with fairings. This rocket is a major contender for all EELV-class launch.

Based on the lift capacity, they are aiming for the market AFTER the EELV Heavy. 12 launches a year is not too ambitious for a normal medium lifter, not really enough to justify the extra margin for recovery of 7 engines.

Remember, "Step by Step, Ferociously". Blue is already supporting a medium EELV in Vulcan, and Bezos wants to keep going. NEw Sheppard is the next step, why bother building ANOTHER EELV class vehicle when he can move beyond. He wants to drive further exploration, not to go the same places everyone else is.

Also, ULA wont license IVF to a direct competitor that would put them out of business, and Blue Origin already mentioned they want to leave DoD payloads to ULA (frees them to do what they want with the rocket)

sanman · « **Reply #95 on:** 09/12/2016 07:18 pm »

Regarding these comments about all the new heavies oversaturating the launch market, perhaps instead there's merit to the argument of "build it and they will come" -- if the all these new big rockets from various players are emerging with their heavier capabilities, it may enable a whole new generation of missions at much lesser costs.

Won't this in itself generate new demand and applications?

I'm wondering where all the damn rocket engineers are going to come from, to facilitate this.

sanman · « **Reply #96 on:** 09/12/2016 07:21 pm »

The revenue model is key, here - Mr Bezos didn't build such a large fortune to see it dry up in a few years.

Money flow will be the lifeblood of this whole venture.

What will Blue Origin be offering that will bring in the big money customers to fund these big rockets and keep them flying?

What does the service life and amortization of a New Glenn rocket look like?

ncb1397 · « **Reply #97 on:** 09/12/2016 07:22 pm »

Quote from: shooter6947 on 09/12/2016 06:56 pm

Where is he going with this? By which I literally mean: where is this rocket intended to go? What's its intended payload? Is he headed for an Earth-orbiting habitat, Moon, Mars?

Just from the naming convention, with New Shephard recreating Alan Shephards historic first sub-orbital flight, New Glenn will recreate John Glenn's historic orbital flight. There may not be a permanent habitat to dock to other than the ISS. Space tourists/researchers could live in the capsule that is recovered after every flight which yields the larger size rocket than Commercial crew uses and is more akin to Shuttle operations.

Following the naming convention, New Armstrong would be intended for Lunar landing.

Toast · « **Reply #98 on:** 09/12/2016 07:24 pm »

Quote from: sanman on 09/12/2016 07:18 pm

Regarding these comments about all the new heavies oversaturating the launch market, perhaps instead there's merit to the argument of "build it and they will come" -- if the all these new big rockets from various players are emerging with their heavier capabilities, it may enable a whole new generation of missions at much lesser costs.

Won't this in itself generate new demand and applications?

In my dream reality, this will free up NASA to stop being a launch vehicle manufacturer, ditch SLS and put the saved funds into payload development instead. They're spending well over a billion dollars a year ($1.4b in 2015) on SLS right now, that's enough to pay for a New Horizons or Juno every year, with a bit of money to spare.

Jim · « **Reply #99 on:** 09/12/2016 07:25 pm »

Quote from: Toast on 09/12/2016 07:24 pm

In my dream reality, this will free up NASA to stop being a launch vehicle manufacturer,

NASA isn't a launch vehicle manufacturer.