Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/15/2019 08:06 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 02/13/2019 03:48 amSo the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage. To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn. - Ed Kyle...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 02/13/2019 03:48 amSo the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage. To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn. - Ed Kyle
So the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage.
I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing.
Track record seems to be ignored by many BO supporters. 15 years in they don’t have an orbital rocket of any size yet. SpaceX has built 3.If BO starts NA development today their track record suggests 2030-2035 as the earliest date for its arrival. At which point SpaceX may be flying something equivalent to the original 12m diameter ITS system already. Or perhaps something toyally different, based on lessons learnt from the SS generation 1.Gradatim seems to receive far more emphasis than ferociter, in the BO philosophy.
I think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing. It may be via a new 'USA' conglomerate, or via a front such as ULA but they have more interests in common than anything else - and Bezos can print money ad infinitum, while Musk is always vulnerable financially - he's a visionary, not a businessman.
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 02/16/2019 11:52 pmI think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing. It may be via a new 'USA' conglomerate, or via a front such as ULA but they have more interests in common than anything else - and Bezos can print money ad infinitum, while Musk is always vulnerable financially - he's a visionary, not a businessman.This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 02/17/2019 04:36 pmThis sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.Very rich middleman.
This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/17/2019 05:24 pmQuote from: matthewkantar on 02/17/2019 04:36 pmThis sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.Very rich middleman.Middleman who is not bankrupt yet. “Amazon will go bankrupt. ... We have to try and delay that day for as long as possible.” -- Jeff Bezos, November 2018But at least 5 years left ... he predicted that it will happen NET 2024 (“lifespans tend to be 30-plus years” - Amazon founded in 1994).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/16/2019 02:36 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 02/15/2019 08:06 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 02/13/2019 03:48 amSo the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage. To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn. - Ed Kyle...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.Funny. When people argue with manufacturing/launch rate, SpaceX fans always go "but it's not reusable and thus more expensive by default" yadda yadda yadda.
Quote from: Oli on 02/17/2019 09:01 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/16/2019 02:36 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 02/15/2019 08:06 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 02/13/2019 03:48 amSo the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage. To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn. - Ed Kyle...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.Funny. When people argue with manufacturing/launch rate, SpaceX fans always go "but it's not reusable and thus more expensive by default" yadda yadda yadda.I know, right?In fact there's an entire thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) dedicated to a discussion of a spreadsheet that makes the exact same point you're making.I'm coming to the realization that the "optimally-sized mass-produced expendable" rocket paradigm will only die after SS is flying. Those who don't see it will just ride their companies to the ground, and that's how history goes.FWIW I think BO sees it very clearly. IMO they'll indeed treat NG as an extremely transient step. The test is how fast they'll pivot to NA.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/17/2019 10:54 pmQuote from: Oli on 02/17/2019 09:01 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/16/2019 02:36 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 02/15/2019 08:06 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 02/13/2019 03:48 amSo the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage. To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage. In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn. - Ed Kyle...which doesn't mean it'd be more expensive. SpaceX has a huge advantage in scale of manufacture compared to Blue, and most Falcon Heavy missions won't need to expend the core.Funny. When people argue with manufacturing/launch rate, SpaceX fans always go "but it's not reusable and thus more expensive by default" yadda yadda yadda.I know, right?In fact there's an entire thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) dedicated to a discussion of a spreadsheet that makes the exact same point you're making.I'm coming to the realization that the "optimally-sized mass-produced expendable" rocket paradigm will only die after SS is flying. Those who don't see it will just ride their companies to the ground, and that's how history goes.FWIW I think BO sees it very clearly. IMO they'll indeed treat NG as an extremely transient step. The test is how fast they'll pivot to NA.Blue and fast in the same paragraph?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 02/13/2019 03:48 amSo the latest confirmation that NG is not pursuing upper stage reuse is very relevant to this thread. It comes back to the question of how expensive their much more powerful upper stage will be compared to the roughly $10-$12m cost of the smaller F9 upper stage. To compare based on equivalent payload capability, I think we need to compare two-stage New Glenn with a Falcon Heavy that expends both its core stage and its second stage.
In that case, Falcon Heavy would expend nearly twice as much dry mass and five times the number of engines as New Glenn.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 02/17/2019 04:36 pmQuote from: Bob Shaw on 02/16/2019 11:52 pmI think that Bezos and Musk will go into some form of partnership in due course, and cease competing. It may be via a new 'USA' conglomerate, or via a front such as ULA but they have more interests in common than anything else - and Bezos can print money ad infinitum, while Musk is always vulnerable financially - he's a visionary, not a businessman.This sort of stuff always cracks me up. Musk has created two companies worth tens of billions of dollars. If he is not a businessman who is? Bezos is middleman.I am an admitted fan of Musk's vision and ventures and Bezos gives me the heebie-jeebies but let's give the man his due. He had a vision and he's been ruthless in making Amazon what it is. He also recognized the value of IaaS (being a cloud computing provider) when that was completely unrelated to their core business. Google didn't enter the market for 6 additional years.They're both "real" businessmen. Amazon changed how the world shopped. They weren't the first, they did it the best and dominated. He has a vision for Blue, I don't see him giving up though I have never understood their lack of ferociter.
In a world of SS and NG, sorry, it will do very poorly - you just can't compete with a fully reusable system.It's going to be in better shape than Vulcan and A6, but not for long.Sure customers have signed up.. it means very little, since there's still uncertainty about SS...But in a world where both rockets hit their schedules, I just don't see it looking good for NG.Again, the only thing BO should do right now os get NG flying and immediately turn full attention to NA. And this time, aim ahead of where SpaceX is.EDIT:Curiously, this is almost an echo of conversations held here 5 years ago, comparing the futures of SpaceX to those of Arianne, ULA, and the Russian rockets.Except, the leap in performance in this case is even more extreme, and NG doesn't have the kind of inertia those other systems already had.
Blue Origin only has one version of their launcher, so they are unlikely to get orders for light payloads without some sort of discount, or unless they are able to bundle a number of light payloads into one launch.
So far I haven't heard of any commercial payloads that would require an expendable Falcon Heavy …