New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan

[butters]

SpaceX has a design-build culture. The design teams and build teams collaborate in a kind of feedback loop so that the design teams can understand the chokepoints and quality challenges, and the build teams can understand the design considerations involved, and together they can develop a product that's easier to build. This is much more effective that placing the entire burden on the build teams to figure out an efficient way to manufacture the big upfront design that's been dumped in their laps.

If Blue Origin does this at all, it's probably not to any great extent. The rumor is that they are highly siloed organization. BE-4 was not designed with manufacturability as a priority. Even the New Glenn tank set appears to be a struggle to build. I don't think we can say that Blue Origin's build teams are stinking up the joint. When they're throwing so much resource at a project and it only seems to get later, they must have made bad decisions early on that made things very difficult down the line.

[Coastal Ron]

...We are not "looking for problems". We are looking for evidence of progress and have been for six years. A rocket would be pretty good evidence.

And for all we know, Blue managers are just bad at managing R&D, but are amazing at running a manufacturing line.

Then what does that say about Blue Origin management, that they hired the wrong people, in the wrong order? Because unless you can get a product out of development, you can't build anything.

I was part of the manufacturing operational team that straddled development and production, and manufacturing management would not start hiring until they had a firm idea from the development team as to when they needed to start building stuff. Otherwise you end up with disillusioned employees doing make-work, and no one wants that.

...But if you want to dunk on them for failures that haven't happened yet, then I would like some actual evidence.

The lack of progress is evidence. We know what is possible by watching SpaceX, and Blue Origin is well funded, so if making progress faster was in the realm of possibility, and they had the money to go faster, then what explains their lack of progress?

[JEF_300]

...We are not "looking for problems". We are looking for evidence of progress and have been for six years. A rocket would be pretty good evidence.

And for all we know, Blue managers are just bad at managing R&D, but are amazing at running a manufacturing line.

Then what does that say about Blue Origin management, that they hired the wrong people, in the wrong order?

Yes, it would say exactly that. I'm not defending Blue here; they've clearly made some major mistakes. I'm just not assuming that past mistakes are indicative of future ones, or that I have any idea of what's going on inside that black-box of a company.

...But if you want to dunk on them for failures that haven't happened yet, then I would like some actual evidence.

The lack of progress is evidence. We know what is possible by watching SpaceX, and Blue Origin is well funded, so if making progress faster was in the realm of possibility, and they had the money to go faster, then what explains their lack of progress?

Any number of things. For all we know, the lack of progress was due to how long it's taken them to correct all their design mistakes that would've made production harder, and they'll start pouring out of the factory now that they've done so. Or maybe it was something else, and they'll still screw up the production. I don't know, but none of us do.

Besides, it's not like slow development has historically been indicative of future production problems though. Just look at SLS; perhaps never before has a development program missed so many deadlines, and yet now that we're into production, core stage 2, 3, & 4 have progressed without any major delays.

[xyv]

Any number of things. For all we know, the lack of progress was due to how long it's taken them to correct all their design mistakes that would've made production harder, and they'll start pouring out of the factory now that they've done so. Or maybe it was something else, and they'll still screw up the production. I don't know, but none of us do.

Design mistakes?  How do you know if you have design mistakes if you don't test?  If you are going to design for production you test by producing early and interating the details.  Blue's first job right now is to build and orbit a rocket.  Unless the design mistakes are eggregious, there is no way they are being limited by fixing those.  Produceible or not, they do not have a proven orbital rocket.

Why does nobody talk about company culture? To touchy feely?  There is a saying about a ship's first voyage setting the tone for all subsequent voyages; this is because you never have 100% crew turnover and the ship's founding culture endures.  Same with companies; early missteps and tolerance of underperformance gets passed down the line.  Reiterating, we aren't looking for problems at Blue...we're looking for explanations of problems that are woefully obvious from the lack of progress.

[JEF_300]

Blue's first job right now is to build and orbit a rocket.  Unless the design mistakes are eggregious, there is no way they are being limited by fixing those.  Produceible or not, they do not have a proven orbital rocket.

Blue's first job better be to mass produce BE-4 engines, or half the American space industry will have to go on hold. CLIPS, Dreamchaser, Kuiper, and the second Artemis lander all rely Vulcan flying regularly.

More to the point, the posts I was responding to were explicitly about BE-4 production, not New Glenn in general.

[Comga]

Blue's first job right now is to build and orbit a rocket.  Unless the design mistakes are eggregious, there is no way they are being limited by fixing those.  Produceible or not, they do not have a proven orbital rocket.

Blue's first job better be to mass produce BE-4 engines, or half the American space industry will have to go on hold. CLIPS, Dreamchaser, Kuiper, and the second Artemis lander all rely Vulcan flying regularly.

More to the point, the posts I was responding to were explicitly about BE-4 production, not New Glenn in general.

Really?
This is a thread about Blue Origin's "orbital rocket".
If you have come around to our great dissapointment and lack of confidence in New Glenn, please just acknowlege it.
And yes, their "first job", to "build a road to space" and get "millions of people living and working in space" is to launch a rocket.
Period.

That their time and resources have been consumed with developing, producing, and certifying a single use rocket engine for some other company is just another reason to shake one's head.
It's another set of bad assumptions that have held Blue back.

And yes, we are particuarly bad at producing evidence about future failures.
It's called the Arrow of Time
(When you find a way around it, please contact my financial advisor.)
"Past performance does not guarantee future results." but it is the only thing we can use to make predictions.
And for many of us, our predictions for New Glenn are dire.

[deadman1204]

Blue has made an enormous investment in infrastructure and factories. Once they settle on a final engine design and get the production process right, they'll be in good shape.

Not without the right people, and not without a design that works.

I've been part of manufacturing teams that have taken products from engineering to full rate production, including growing new divisions to do that. You can't just throw people into a new factory with a new product and expect them to understand what to do. And the only way to understand what everyone should do is to experience the product from engineering to procurement to manufacturing to testing, and all the way to whatever the final product is supposed to do.

Then you iterate what everyone just learned, since you're never lucky enough to get everything right the first time. Rinse and repeat, many times until you get to a stable product and a stable process.

Blue Origin may have nice buildings, but they still have a long ways to go before they are truly operational.

My $0.02

You are of course right. You need the right people.

But... is there any reason (beyond general pessimism) to think Blue Origin doesn't have the right people to get manufacturing going? It's not like they're still a small team. They have hired people to do these jobs.

I think you guys are looking for problems.

The lack of delivering on basically anything yet. They keep jumping at new projects (NSSL, Tugs, Stations, ect) which waters down their engineering pool. They do not have infinite employees or talent. Just like every business they only have so many resources. Putting resources into tugs means they are taking them from somewhere else.

We are skeptical because as of today, blue is 100% talk and zero walk. And they have been for basically their entire existence.

[whitelancer64]

Any number of things. For all we know, the lack of progress was due to how long it's taken them to correct all their design mistakes that would've made production harder, and they'll start pouring out of the factory now that they've done so. Or maybe it was something else, and they'll still screw up the production. I don't know, but none of us do.

Design mistakes?  How do you know if you have design mistakes if you don't test?

*snip*

...we're looking for explanations of problems that are woefully obvious from the lack of progress.

They have done a lot of testing. BE-4 powerpack and injector testing began in 2015. Full engine test fires started in October 2017.

We know Blue Origin has had LOTS of problems with powerpack development, including losing a few in explosions on test stands. There have been turbopump issues, combustion instability, overheating, and other problems that are publicly known about.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

We are skeptical because as of today, blue is 100% talk and zero walk. And they have been for basically their entire existence.

For the first half (2000-2010 or so) of Blue Origin's existence they were a very small research and development company.

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful, and the infrastructure they have developed in Texas, Florida, Washington, and Alabama.

[deadman1204]

*snip*

We are skeptical because as of today, blue is 100% talk and zero walk. And they have been for basically their entire existence.

For the first half (2000-2010 or so) of Blue Origin's existence they were a very small research and development company.

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful, and the infrastructure they have developed in Texas, Florida, Washington, and Alabama.

I'm not thinking about the 20+ years. I'm simply putting them in the same boat as all the other new launch companies that haven't launched yet. Yes, NS launched, but we all know that a sounding rocket is very different from an orbital rocket.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

We are skeptical because as of today, blue is 100% talk and zero walk. And they have been for basically their entire existence.

For the first half (2000-2010 or so) of Blue Origin's existence they were a very small research and development company.

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful, and the infrastructure they have developed in Texas, Florida, Washington, and Alabama.

I'm not thinking about the 20+ years. I'm simply putting them in the same boat as all the other new launch companies that haven't launched yet. Yes, NS launched, but we all know that a sounding rocket is very different from an orbital rocket.

New Shepard is far from your average sounding rocket, but you knew that already.

[Toast]

*snip*

We are skeptical because as of today, blue is 100% talk and zero walk. And they have been for basically their entire existence.

For the first half (2000-2010 or so) of Blue Origin's existence they were a very small research and development company.

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful, and the infrastructure they have developed in Texas, Florida, Washington, and Alabama.

I'm not thinking about the 20+ years. I'm simply putting them in the same boat as all the other new launch companies that haven't launched yet. Yes, NS launched, but we all know that a sounding rocket is very different from an orbital rocket.

New Shepard is far from your average sounding rocket, but you knew that already.

It's also far from an orbital launch vehicle. Don't get me wrong, a lot of people downplay what Blue has accomplished more than they should, but it's also hard to get around how little progress they've made towards the things that are supposed to be the core of their business.

[meekGee]

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful.

*Particularly* successful?

Its main purpose was to serve as a stepping stone towards a manned orbital rocket. I don't think that worked out at all.

As a stand-alone vehicle, it did eventually fly, but the failure rate right now is 1/20.  Not terrible but certainly not stellar - especially in light of it being on the very sub end of suborbital.

[Vettedrmr]

For all we know, the lack of progress was due to how long it's taken them to correct all their design mistakes that would've made production harder, and they'll start pouring out of the factory now that they've done so.

I'm new to this thread, but I've read back a month or so.  I will only say that the defense projects I've worked on in the past (F-16, 22, and 35), and others that I know of, have always had a slow ramp up of production, after the first few prototypes were flying.  We never got it right the first time, in spite of years and really extensive testing (safety of flight stuff); revisions were started right after first flight.  Heck, for that matter right after first engine run.

So, if BO manages to start pouring out of the factory from the get go, they'll set a new record.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

We are skeptical because as of today, blue is 100% talk and zero walk. And they have been for basically their entire existence.

For the first half (2000-2010 or so) of Blue Origin's existence they were a very small research and development company.

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful, and the infrastructure they have developed in Texas, Florida, Washington, and Alabama.

I'm not thinking about the 20+ years. I'm simply putting them in the same boat as all the other new launch companies that haven't launched yet. Yes, NS launched, but we all know that a sounding rocket is very different from an orbital rocket.

New Shepard is far from your average sounding rocket, but you knew that already.

It's also far from an orbital launch vehicle. Don't get me wrong, a lot of people downplay what Blue has accomplished more than they should, but it's also hard to get around how little progress they've made towards the things that are supposed to be the core of their business.

BE-4 development has been hell on multiple fronts, creating many years of delays. This has been well documented, particularly in multiple threads here on NSF. In short, persistent powerpack and turbopump issues along with mismanagement resulting in insufficient hardware to feed the development and testing program. Fortunately, it seems they're really close to getting out of that development hell and then they can focus on production, which is what they need to proceed with, as you say, "the things that are supposed to be the core of their business." Without the BE-4 being ready to fly, there isn't much Blue Origin can do other than New Shepard flights.

[Coastal Ron]

...We are not "looking for problems". We are looking for evidence of progress and have been for six years. A rocket would be pretty good evidence.

And for all we know, Blue managers are just bad at managing R&D, but are amazing at running a manufacturing line.

Then what does that say about Blue Origin management, that they hired the wrong people, in the wrong order?

Yes, it would say exactly that. I'm not defending Blue here; they've clearly made some major mistakes. I'm just not assuming that past mistakes are indicative of future ones, or that I have any idea of what's going on inside that black-box of a company.

If mistakes were made, then we'll have to see if the same management that allowed the original mistakes are still around. If they are, then obviously lessons were not learned...

...But if you want to dunk on them for failures that haven't happened yet, then I would like some actual evidence.

The lack of progress is evidence. We know what is possible by watching SpaceX, and Blue Origin is well funded, so if making progress faster was in the realm of possibility, and they had the money to go faster, then what explains their lack of progress?

Any number of things. For all we know, the lack of progress was due to how long it's taken them to correct all their design mistakes that would've made production harder, and they'll start pouring out of the factory now that they've done so.

Not plausible at all. Not unless they really screwed up and never hired a manufacturing engineering team to transition the product from engineering to production.

And come on, a rocket is a big tank, and there are very few ways to screw up building big tanks - although Boeing seems to have excelled at that on the SLS core, but then again they were being paid by the hour, not for progress. 

Or maybe it was something else, and they'll still screw up the production. I don't know, but none of us do.

Again, rockets are big tanks, so they aren't complicated. But apparently you keep assuming that the problem is people, so that keeps coming back to Blue Origin management being too incompetent for the task. Just sayin'...

[whitelancer64]

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful.

*Particularly* successful?

Its main purpose was to serve as a stepping stone towards a manned orbital rocket. I don't think that worked out at all.

As a stand-alone vehicle, it did eventually fly, but the failure rate right now is 1/20.  Not terrible but certainly not stellar - especially in light of it being on the very sub end of suborbital.

That was never its only purpose, at any rate, it is now a business in and of itself, providing rides for both space tourists and experiments.

19/20 is a very good track record for a new rocket. Identical to the Falcon 9 track record at 20 launches. Way better than Electron's was, at 17/20.

[Robert_the_Doll]

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful.

*Particularly* successful?

Its main purpose was to serve as a stepping stone towards a manned orbital rocket. I don't think that worked out at all.

As a stand-alone vehicle, it did eventually fly, but the failure rate right now is 1/20.  Not terrible but certainly not stellar - especially in light of it being on the very sub end of suborbital.

That was never its only purpose, at any rate, it is now a business in and of itself, providing rides for both space tourists and experiments.

19/20 is a very good track record for a new rocket. Identical to the Falcon 9 track record at 20 launches. Way better than Electron's was, at 17/20.

Are we not shortchanging New Shepard here? I believe it's a bit better than that, 22/23 is more like it.

[meekGee]

You seem to forget the New Shepard, which has been particularly successful.

*Particularly* successful?

Its main purpose was to serve as a stepping stone towards a manned orbital rocket. I don't think that worked out at all.

As a stand-alone vehicle, it did eventually fly, but the failure rate right now is 1/20.  Not terrible but certainly not stellar - especially in light of it being on the very sub end of suborbital.

That was never its only purpose, at any rate, it is now a business in and of itself, providing rides for both space tourists and experiments.

19/20 is a very good track record for a new rocket. Identical to the Falcon 9 track record at 20 launches. Way better than Electron's was, at 17/20.

In the beginning...  Both companies had large goals wrt space.

SpaceX went with "orbital first".  As such, the early F9s (and even F1) did their job perfectly, and as such, again, failures are ok.

BO went with 'manned first".  As such, NS failed in serving as a stepping stone to a manned orbital rocket.

As a stand-alone joyride system (which is now its official goal), 22/23 isn't that good, not for a manned system.  The failure, mind you, is not from way back when.  It's from flight number 23... It is no longer a "new" rocket.  I'm not the guy that counts teething problems as significant later on.

For BO, it's NG or bust.  And right now, it's bust.

[matthewkantar]

I count 21/23, the first and last New Shepards were failures. %91.