When launching constellations both New Glenn and Neutron will launch multiple satellites at once so the capacity of an individual launch doesn't matter. All that matters is $/kg and Neutron has a good chance of ending up cheaper.
Both well be competing for constelllation launch business from Amazon, Telesat and Oneweb. None of which are likely launch on Market leader given it has competing constellation. Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 03/04/2021 04:24 amWhen launching constellations both New Glenn and Neutron will launch multiple satellites at once so the capacity of an individual launch doesn't matter. All that matters is $/kg and Neutron has a good chance of ending up cheaper.For that to happen BO would have to really fail or RL be extremely cheap. Expendable rockets are always cheaper per kg as the rocket gets larger, reuse won't change that. A $150million New Glenn would be $3,333/kg to LEO, so Neutron would need to be less than $26.6 million. While I am skeptical on New Glenn a price of $150 would be insane. Neutron at $26.6M seems reasonable and competitive. As we've seen though $/kg is less important than $/payload and launch cadence. That's where I think Neutron has an edge. Sure you can stuff New Glenn to the gills for your constellation and get better $/satellite. But that also means manufacturing needs to be completed all at once, shipped to site, integrated, then launched in a massive batch. Compared to multiple smaller launches this means more bottlenecks, more short term resources, more complicated deployment, and much higher consequences of launch failure. For all but the largest constellations a rocket sized like Neutron and not NG is much better suited for deploying constellations at the rate of manufacture in a constant production process. Industry as a whole functions more efficiently that way. I haven't even mentioned benefits of iterative development like Starlink has followed.
I think the idea that Neutron will launch before New Glenn (as expressed by some) is pretty laughable. I don't find it credible at all. Blue Origin has engines that are near complete. The launch infrastructure is almost done, and factory in place. They are building pathfinder elements and are about to start fit tests. They have experience with propulsive landing from 3 (!!!) vehicles. They have huge financial resources.Meanwhile Rocketlab don't even have an engine selected, or knows how many they will use. No launch site. No factory. No experience with propulsive landing. Hoping to do it on a shoe-string budget. ($200m)I get while comparing them is interesting, but Blue Origin would have to be much slower than they currently are IMO not to beat Rocketlab with a new rocket.My prediction: New Glenn launches in 2023. Neutron in 2025. (if it comes to fruition)
Quote from: Lars-J on 03/03/2021 09:01 pmI think the idea that Neutron will launch before New Glenn (as expressed by some) is pretty laughable. I don't find it credible at all. Blue Origin has engines that are near complete. The launch infrastructure is almost done, and factory in place. They are building pathfinder elements and are about to start fit tests. They have experience with propulsive landing from 3 (!!!) vehicles. They have huge financial resources.Meanwhile Rocketlab don't even have an engine selected, or knows how many they will use. No launch site. No factory. No experience with propulsive landing. Hoping to do it on a shoe-string budget. ($200m)I get while comparing them is interesting, but Blue Origin would have to be much slower than they currently are IMO not to beat Rocketlab with a new rocket.My prediction: New Glenn launches in 2023. Neutron in 2025. (if it comes to fruition)Laughable?There are ok odds that BO-NG will attempt its first flight before RL-N.But let's assume for a moment that both first flights fail.Who do you think will attempt its follow-up flight first?
Quote from: meekGee on 03/04/2021 09:16 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 03/03/2021 09:01 pmI think the idea that Neutron will launch before New Glenn (as expressed by some) is pretty laughable. I don't find it credible at all. Blue Origin has engines that are near complete. The launch infrastructure is almost done, and factory in place. They are building pathfinder elements and are about to start fit tests. They have experience with propulsive landing from 3 (!!!) vehicles. They have huge financial resources.Meanwhile Rocketlab don't even have an engine selected, or knows how many they will use. No launch site. No factory. No experience with propulsive landing. Hoping to do it on a shoe-string budget. ($200m)I get while comparing them is interesting, but Blue Origin would have to be much slower than they currently are IMO not to beat Rocketlab with a new rocket.My prediction: New Glenn launches in 2023. Neutron in 2025. (if it comes to fruition)Laughable?There are ok odds that BO-NG will attempt its first flight before RL-N.But let's assume for a moment that both first flights fail.Who do you think will attempt its follow-up flight first?The one with the most orbital launch experience? What do we think is the percentage change BO will get to Orbit on their 1st attempt? 50 / 50 or more? Land successfully?
Quote from: meekGee on 03/04/2021 09:16 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 03/03/2021 09:01 pmI think the idea that Neutron will launch before New Glenn (as expressed by some) is pretty laughable. I don't find it credible at all. Blue Origin has engines that are near complete. The launch infrastructure is almost done, and factory in place. They are building pathfinder elements and are about to start fit tests. They have experience with propulsive landing from 3 (!!!) vehicles. They have huge financial resources.Meanwhile Rocketlab don't even have an engine selected, or knows how many they will use. No launch site. No factory. No experience with propulsive landing. Hoping to do it on a shoe-string budget. ($200m)I get while comparing them is interesting, but Blue Origin would have to be much slower than they currently are IMO not to beat Rocketlab with a new rocket.My prediction: New Glenn launches in 2023. Neutron in 2025. (if it comes to fruition)Laughable?There are ok odds that BO-NG will attempt its first flight before RL-N.But let's assume for a moment that both first flights fail.Who do you think will attempt its follow-up flight first?Ok, laughable was not the right way to phrase it. It is plausible Neutron could beat New Glenn, I admit that.But until Rocketlab selects an engine for Neutron and starts doing tests with components of such engine, it is difficult to view Neutron as a project that has actually started. (vs being announced)
Quote from: Lars-J on 03/05/2021 04:47 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/04/2021 09:16 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 03/03/2021 09:01 pmI think the idea that Neutron will launch before New Glenn (as expressed by some) is pretty laughable. I don't find it credible at all. Blue Origin has engines that are near complete. The launch infrastructure is almost done, and factory in place. They are building pathfinder elements and are about to start fit tests. They have experience with propulsive landing from 3 (!!!) vehicles. They have huge financial resources.Meanwhile Rocketlab don't even have an engine selected, or knows how many they will use. No launch site. No factory. No experience with propulsive landing. Hoping to do it on a shoe-string budget. ($200m)I get while comparing them is interesting, but Blue Origin would have to be much slower than they currently are IMO not to beat Rocketlab with a new rocket.My prediction: New Glenn launches in 2023. Neutron in 2025. (if it comes to fruition)Laughable?There are ok odds that BO-NG will attempt its first flight before RL-N.But let's assume for a moment that both first flights fail.Who do you think will attempt its follow-up flight first?Ok, laughable was not the right way to phrase it. It is plausible Neutron could beat New Glenn, I admit that.But until Rocketlab selects an engine for Neutron and starts doing tests with components of such engine, it is difficult to view Neutron as a project that has actually started. (vs being announced)Agreed...Peter Beck's next announcement will be his Musk moment... Make or break...It'll either be a clear executable plan that shows he's been on this for a while and that Neutron is not a panicky hail Mary, or it won't (did I just triple negative?)
Quote from: GWH on 03/04/2021 12:44 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 03/04/2021 04:24 amWhen launching constellations both New Glenn and Neutron will launch multiple satellites at once so the capacity of an individual launch doesn't matter. All that matters is $/kg and Neutron has a good chance of ending up cheaper.For that to happen BO would have to really fail or RL be extremely cheap. Expendable rockets are always cheaper per kg as the rocket gets larger, reuse won't change that. A $150million New Glenn would be $3,333/kg to LEO, so Neutron would need to be less than $26.6 million. While I am skeptical on New Glenn a price of $150 would be insane. Neutron at $26.6M seems reasonable and competitive. As we've seen though $/kg is less important than $/payload and launch cadence. That's where I think Neutron has an edge. Sure you can stuff New Glenn to the gills for your constellation and get better $/satellite. But that also means manufacturing needs to be completed all at once, shipped to site, integrated, then launched in a massive batch. Compared to multiple smaller launches this means more bottlenecks, more short term resources, more complicated deployment, and much higher consequences of launch failure. For all but the largest constellations a rocket sized like Neutron and not NG is much better suited for deploying constellations at the rate of manufacture in a constant production process. Industry as a whole functions more efficiently that way. I haven't even mentioned benefits of iterative development like Starlink has followed.Neutron is larger in diameter than Falcon 9 and could eventually have enough performance to have a Falcon 9-like payload but with full reuse. And could have a higher flight rate than New Glenn.New Glenn, Falcon 9, and Neutron are all close enough in capacity that what matters for cost per kg to orbit won't be which is bigger but what company is most efficient at executing. Falcon 9 has an edge now, but RocketLab has executed on their Falcon-1-like rocket better than Market Leader did, so it's quite possible RocketLab will be able to outcompete New Glenn just by better/faster execution and greater efficiency.
There are already excessive mentions of the Market Leader and of the Market Leader's Leaders.Unfortunately RocketLab has not yet announced the engine and materials to be used on Neutron so there is not much concrete information to discuss. It's easier to iterate faster on a smaller vehicle so it's possible for Neutron to out-compete New Glenn.
Quote from: trimeta on 03/03/2021 09:26 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 03/03/2021 09:17 pmQuote from: HVM on 03/03/2021 09:11 pmYeah Lars, tell me about it, which one RL or BO, has working orbital launch business... ; )True! But do you think that alone will power Neutron across the finish line before New Glenn? If I were a betting man, I would bet on Blue Origin. But I could certainly be wrong. Here's the real question: which will sooner re-fly a booster? I think this will be a much closer race.Agreed. I did a poll on Twitter on this very topic a few days back. About two thirds thought Blue would fly NG before RL would fly Neutron, but it was a lot closer when I asked who would fly a rocket with a previously flown first stage first. Blue has such a lead that them not getting NG to flight first would be really surprising. But RL could move faster on getting into regular reuse.~Jon
Quote from: Lars-J on 03/03/2021 09:17 pmQuote from: HVM on 03/03/2021 09:11 pmYeah Lars, tell me about it, which one RL or BO, has working orbital launch business... ; )True! But do you think that alone will power Neutron across the finish line before New Glenn? If I were a betting man, I would bet on Blue Origin. But I could certainly be wrong. Here's the real question: which will sooner re-fly a booster? I think this will be a much closer race.
Quote from: HVM on 03/03/2021 09:11 pmYeah Lars, tell me about it, which one RL or BO, has working orbital launch business... ; )True! But do you think that alone will power Neutron across the finish line before New Glenn? If I were a betting man, I would bet on Blue Origin. But I could certainly be wrong.
Yeah Lars, tell me about it, which one RL or BO, has working orbital launch business... ; )
The bigger rocket has about 5-6 times the payload capacity (to LEO, with first stage re-use).
There are ok odds that BO-NG will attempt its first flight before RL-N.But let's assume for a moment that both first flights fail.Who do you think will attempt its follow-up flight first?
Quote from: meekGee on 03/04/2021 09:16 pmThere are ok odds that BO-NG will attempt its first flight before RL-N.But let's assume for a moment that both first flights fail.Who do you think will attempt its follow-up flight first?I'd recommend a listen to the latest MECO podcast, an longish interview with Peter Beck about Neutron: https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/183Based on that, I would have to downgrade my already somewhat pessimistic estimate of how quickly Neutron could be reused. In the interview he states that they are not doing hop tests, and I very much get the impression that they are not planning/expecting for Neutron to be reusable from day 1. It sounds more like an accelerated F9 style development where they will experiment until they get it working.So then the time until first re-flight will depend on how fast the can build Neutron and iterate on the design.Propulsive landing is tricky, especially with a brand new engine. The only successful VTVL rockets so far (orbital and sub-orbital) have done this through gradual envelope expansion hop tests. But then again both New Glenn and Neutron are skipping this, so maybe they know something. (or not)