Blue Origin New Glenn Thread 2: Updates and Discussion

[TorenAltair]

I don't think so after a quick+dirty approach (if it's not just a concept art). The engine exit diameter would be under 1m when I assume a stage diameter of 7 meters. A comparable Chinese YF-73 engine had a 2.2m nozzle exit diameter.

BE-7 44kN
YF-73 44.1kN

Both LH2/LOX 3rd stage-engines.

[StraumliBlight]

I don't think so after a quick+dirty approach (if it's not just a concept art). The engine exit diameter would be under 1m when I assume a stage diameter of 7 meters. A comparable Chinese YF-73 engine had a 2.2m nozzle exit diameter.

BE-7 44kN
YF-73 44.1kN

Both LH2/LOX 3rd stage-engines.

BE-7 nozzle diameter is 0.94 m.

[spacenut]

New Glenn seems to be a great success.  However, as large as it is, it seems to be under powered, thus the 9x4 announcement.  The second stage is hydrogen, thus more expensive and is expendable.  This rocket may be cheaper to operate, but not completely game changing.  Cost to operate may be on par with Vulcan or Vulcan heavy.  I therefore think they need to proceed with project Jarvis to get a reusable second stage to bring costs ($/kg) down. 

[TorenAltair]

BE-7 nozzle diameter is 0.94 m.

What is the source of that shirt? I couldn‘t find any details from them.

[frosty_foxx]

New Glenn seems to be a great success.  However, as large as it is, it seems to be under powered, thus the 9x4 announcement.  The second stage is hydrogen, thus more expensive and is expendable.  This rocket may be cheaper to operate, but not completely game changing.  Cost to operate may be on par with Vulcan or Vulcan heavy.  I therefore think they need to proceed with project Jarvis to get a reusable second stage to bring costs ($/kg) down.

Care to explain how its underpowered?

[Rakietwawka2021]

BE-7 nozzle diameter is 0.94 m.

What is the source of that shirt? I couldn‘t find any details from them.

There was tee at BO's shop with heights and diameters of all engines

[Brigantine]

Do you think this is real?

It seems it is 7m diameter, so fits on a cylindrical interstage and the fairing sits on this 3rd stage below the cone (above the cone is 3.2m Ø)

LOx tank: 3.7m Ø x 2.9m h (7.9mm/px)
LH₂ tank: 5.7m Ø x 4.5m h - The white is the tank, and the black is structure and thermal (?) shielding. See attached image for assumed tank size inside the shielding.

This compares well ratio-wise with SLS EUS 5.5m Ø LOx tank, 8.4m Ø (x 6.5m h?) LH₂ tank, and 129 tons prop mass.

So this 3rd stage is about 40 tons prop mass (cube scaling from EUS). Empty mass maybe 5 to 10 tons? (call it 7 tons)

Only one BE-7 is 44 kN thrust, about 9.8 kg/s mass rate so can burn for 67 minutes. This is very low thrust for the size of the stage. With a 20 ton payload it only accelerates at 0.067g. No problems for launch because 9x4 can get this whole thing to VLEO, but there is still the issue of Oberth efficiency. It can't do TLI in one burn. Maybe in 2 burns >15 minutes either side of perigee. (it still has good ΔV margin to be inefficient - about 4 km/s)

I have to say I really don't see why it wouldn't have at least a 2nd engine. Maybe it does it's just hidden from this perspective? It would be unusual not to show it.

If it has the longevity and you're patient to do many burns on subsequent orbits, KSP maths might say 9x4x1 gets 27 tons to TLI, or 19 tons to GEO, or 8? tons to Jupiter (Oberth hurts you again here). 7x2x1 would maybe also be good for e.g. 10 tons to GEO? You end up with lofted trajectories and stage 3 spending ¼hr at <0.1g just to get to VLEO.
_{(Disclaimer: all very back of the envelope with big assumptions about GS1 and GS2 etc.)}

[Jim]

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

Based on what data?

[saturnsky]

Simply put,,,,New Glenn has reached orbit,,,deployed spacecraft,,,and returned for reuse on its 2nd flight...If I were looking for a launch vehicle to carry my spacecraft,,,I would go to Blue Origin....Starship is years away from being dependable...

[spacenut]

New Glenn seems to be a great success.  However, as large as it is, it seems to be under powered, thus the 9x4 announcement.  The second stage is hydrogen, thus more expensive and is expendable.  This rocket may be cheaper to operate, but not completely game changing.  Cost to operate may be on par with Vulcan or Vulcan heavy.  I therefore think they need to proceed with project Jarvis to get a reusable second stage to bring costs ($/kg) down.

Care to explain how its unde-rpowered?

For a rocket that sized, it can only deliver about 40 tons to LEO, whereas a smaller Falcon Heavy can deliver the same payload.  I know it is because of kerolox fuel and not metholox which takes a larger rocket.  Comparing a Raptor 3 which is supposed to have around the same thrust to the BE-4 which has more mass, it is under-powered.  Improving the thrust of the BE-4 the large rocket with the large payload size could deliver more payload to orbit.  The 9-4 solution would improve the payload mass, but it could even be greater with improvements in thrust for the BE-4.  The thrust to weight ratio should be much better for the BE-4. 

Just saying improvements to the thrust to weight ratio for BE-4 would greatly improve this rocket.

[meekGee]

Simply put,,,,New Glenn has reached orbit,,,deployed spacecraft,,,and returned for reuse on its 2nd flight...If I were looking for a launch vehicle to carry my spacecraft,,,I would go to Blue Origin....Starship is years away from being dependable...

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

Again, even though it's still under development, SS has already not only landed its booster, but also reflown it. If it were only trying to be semi-reusable, it'd be done by now.

Being a much less ambitious system, NG enjoys a fake and temporary "maturity gap" of about a year over Starship...  But not against Falcon.

If I were a customer, I'd choose the system that's flown and reflown 500 times already, and has the flight rate to service me now, not in 1-2 years.

Also, prediction for the decade - remember that NG, the whole thing, is only comparable to Starship's upper stage (7x2 vs. v3, and 9x4 vs. v4). It is a non-competitor in terms of mass to orbit per launch.

And in terms of system capacity, including flight rate and number of towers, NG is not even 1% of SS.

Tywin's comment above is just detached from reality.

[sstli2]

Another interesting amateur (not leaked) render:

https://twitter.com/Alaygroundss/status/1997134464208838717

[jimvela]

If I were a customer, I'd choose the system that's flown and reflown 500 times already, and has the flight rate to service me now, not in 1-2 years.

This thread is for New Glenn updates and discussion. Endless comparisons to SpaceX vehicles is not what the thread is supposed to be for.

 F9 is a workhorse, but New Glenn has a place at least as long as Bezos continues to fund it and one or more customers buy launches. At least several are buying launches.

Even the workhorse F9 still loses launches to other launch vehicles, so there is a market.

New Glenn will be able to find payloads.

If Bezos continues to supply funding to continue develop of the system, it will remain at least a niche vehicle.

Also, prediction for the decade - remember that NG, the whole thing, is only comparable to Starship's upper stage (7x2 vs. v3, and 9x4 vs. v4). It is a non-competitor in terms of mass to orbit per launch.

You’re embarrassing yourself.  Starship is the upper stage in its system and it’s incapable of putting itself into orbit even without a payload. Without SuperHeavy, Starship is a lawn rocket.

Tywin's comment above is just detached from reality.

As is yours.

[meekGee]

If I were a customer, I'd choose the system that's flown and reflown 500 times already, and has the flight rate to service me now, not in 1-2 years.

This thread is for New Glenn updates and discussion. Endless comparisons to SpaceX vehicles is not what the thread is supposed to be for.

 F9 is a workhorse, but New Glenn has a place at least as long as Bezos continues to fund it and one or more customers buy launches. At least several are buying launches.

Even the workhorse F9 still loses launches to other launch vehicles, so there is a market.

New Glenn will be able to find payloads.

If Bezos continues to supply funding to continue develop of the system, it will remain at least a niche vehicle.

Also, prediction for the decade - remember that NG, the whole thing, is only comparable to Starship's upper stage (7x2 vs. v3, and 9x4 vs. v4). It is a non-competitor in terms of mass to orbit per launch.

You’re embarrassing yourself.  Starship is the upper stage in its system and it’s incapable of putting itself into orbit even without a payload. Without SuperHeavy, Starship is a lawn rocket.

Tywin's comment above is just detached from reality.

As is yours.

A) My post is a direct response to the statement that NG will launch more than Starship this decade. I am not the one bringing SpaceX into this thread.

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

B) I said "comparable". Of course SS is built to be a second stage, not a booster...  But for scale, BE-4 and Raptor are about equivalent in thrust and ISP (and propellant). Starship has 6 Raptors now, and 9 in the v4.  The whole of NG lifts off with 7 BE-4s now, and 9 in the nextGen.

So yeah, the comparison stands, especially when folks argue that the rockets are equivalent.

(I'll give you a discount, in that SH stages lower and slower than most boosters, making the comparison slightly less obscene. But the nunbers are what they are.)

If it was just that one forum member, I'd shrug and move on.  But as you're proving, the idea that NG is somehow a Starship killer is shared by the community at large, and that's the really embarrassing part.

[Brigantine]

Another interesting amateur (not leaked) render:

https://twitter.com/Alaygroundss/status/1997134464208838717

What I'm seeing:

7x2 (7m); 9x2 (8.7m); 9x4 (8.7m); 9x4x1 (7m); Starship V3^? for size comparison
beware the perspective which exaggerates slightly the size difference

Every 9-engine stage is the same, every 2-engine stage is the same, every 4-engine stage is the same (besides the payload adaptor/interstage). Combinations are just lego.

I think 9x2 makes a lot of sense for LEO missions, even before BE-4 gets up-rated

[321]

New Glenn seems to be a great success.  However, as large as it is, it seems to be under powered, thus the 9x4 announcement.  The second stage is hydrogen, thus more expensive and is expendable.  This rocket may be cheaper to operate, but not completely game changing.  Cost to operate may be on par with Vulcan or Vulcan heavy.  I therefore think they need to proceed with project Jarvis to get a reusable second stage to bring costs ($/kg) down.

Care to explain how its unde-rpowered?

For a rocket that sized, it can only deliver about 40 tons to LEO, whereas a smaller Falcon Heavy can deliver the same payload.  I know it is because of kerolox fuel and not metholox which takes a larger rocket.  Comparing a Raptor 3 which is supposed to have around the same thrust to the BE-4 which has more mass, it is under-powered.  Improving the thrust of the BE-4 the large rocket with the large payload size could deliver more payload to orbit.  The 9-4 solution would improve the payload mass, but it could even be greater with improvements in thrust for the BE-4.  The thrust to weight ratio should be much better for the BE-4. 

Just saying improvements to the thrust to weight ratio for BE-4 would greatly improve this rocket.

Increasing the trust of BE-4 and methane/lox second stage with one BE-4 is way better direction to upgrade NG than 9x2 or 9x4. the rocket will be cheaper to build and operate and easier to make second stage reusable.

[Brigantine]

Increasing the trust of BE-4 and methane/lox second stage with one BE-4 is way better direction to upgrade NG than 9x2 or 9x4. the rocket will be cheaper to build and operate and easier to make second stage reusable.

Have you looked up the ISP of BE-4 vs BE-3?
BE-3U: 4.36 km/s
BE-4: 3.3 km/s

That's right out of left field with multiple unsupported assertions.
But yes, yes they are increasing the thrust of the BE-4. Rejoice.

[Tywin]

If I were a customer, I'd choose the system that's flown and reflown 500 times already, and has the flight rate to service me now, not in 1-2 years.

This thread is for New Glenn updates and discussion. Endless comparisons to SpaceX vehicles is not what the thread is supposed to be for.

 F9 is a workhorse, but New Glenn has a place at least as long as Bezos continues to fund it and one or more customers buy launches. At least several are buying launches.

Even the workhorse F9 still loses launches to other launch vehicles, so there is a market.

New Glenn will be able to find payloads.

If Bezos continues to supply funding to continue develop of the system, it will remain at least a niche vehicle.

Also, prediction for the decade - remember that NG, the whole thing, is only comparable to Starship's upper stage (7x2 vs. v3, and 9x4 vs. v4). It is a non-competitor in terms of mass to orbit per launch.

You’re embarrassing yourself.  Starship is the upper stage in its system and it’s incapable of putting itself into orbit even without a payload. Without SuperHeavy, Starship is a lawn rocket.

Tywin's comment above is just detached from reality.

As is yours.

A) My post is a direct response to the statement that NG will launch more than Starship this decade. I am not the one bringing SpaceX into this thread.

New Glenn will launch a LOT more payloads of customer that Starship in this decade.

B) I said "comparable". Of course SS is built to be a second stage, not a booster...  But for scale, BE-4 and Raptor are about equivalent in thrust and ISP (and propellant). Starship has 6 Raptors now, and 9 in the v4.  The whole of NG lifts off with 7 BE-4s now, and 9 in the nextGen.

So yeah, the comparison stands, especially when folks argue that the rockets are equivalent.

(I'll give you a discount, in that SH stages lower and slower than most boosters, making the comparison slightly less obscene. But the nunbers are what they are.)

If it was just that one forum member, I'd shrug and move on.  But as you're proving, the idea that NG is somehow a Starship killer is shared by the community at large, and that's the really embarrassing part.

I said, will launch more commercial payloads, not launches in general.

[sstli2]

I'll say the same thing I said in the other thread. You can debate whether 9x4 will take 3 years, 5 years, 8 years, etc. but as a design it makes a lot of sense as an incremental step from where they are now to a higher capability.

All of these other ideas - 3 cores, larger diameter, methalox upper stage, are a significant jump in complexity versus what they are actually doing, with a commensurate impact to the timeline.

As far as increasing BE-4 thrust - it was speculated upthread, and I concurred, that the 640k lbf BE-4 is not the final iteration of the BE-4.

P.S. Tywin and meekGee - can one of you have the last word and call it a stalemate? No one else cares.

[sstli2]

Oh look, there's a thread for this: Who will deploy more third-party commercial cargo in the next 5 years, NG vs SS?