New Glenn 9x4 discussion

[Tywin]

Wow amazing rocket, I hope launch in the future many BIG mission for NASA...like UOP and HWO...

[Ike17055]

From a spectator standpoint, the added beauty of this is that pad 36 is the most visible major pad. Many thousands of folks can line the Cape beaches and Coco Beach and points south and have a clear view of this beast rising right off the pad. These launches will be very exciting

[hkultala]

Good comparation vs FH...

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1991568180666667236

That huge hydrogen upper stage has about 3.6x the thrust of the kerolox upper stage of FH.

But the weight difference of second stage + payload will be much less.

Falcon heavy second stage ~115 tonnes + payload 15 tonnes is about 130 tonnes total.
Thrust ~100 tonnes => T/W ratio ~ 0.77

New Glenn 9x4 second stage maybe about 300 tonnes + payload 20 tonnes is about 320 tonnes,
Thrust about 90 tonnes * 4 =~360 tonnes => T/W ratio ~1.1,

So New Glenn 9x4 second stage will have much better than the T/W ratio of the falcon second stage.

So no, it's not gravity losses "killing it".

A 2.5 stage LV  (FH) will always give better performance due to staging. Downside is 3 boosters  to recover and maintain than one large one.

FH is not 2.5-stage.

It is about 2.1-stage. The balance between stages is very far from balanced 2.5-stage vehicle that would give full benefits of "2.5-stage".

If the center core engines would run at full power, they would run out of fuel at exactly the same time than the side boosters run out of fuel.

The center core is either expended, or throttled down to make it run longer than the side boosters.

And then, the upper stage of Falcon Heavy has MUCH worse isp than the upper stage of NG has.
 
Claiming that "because it's 2.5 stage is must be better" is really stupid claim.


Also, no Falcon Heavy center core has ever been successfully recovered. One did land but was lost after the landing.

[Rakietwawka2021]

New skirt is 12 wide

Wouldn't you just move to a larger diameter tank at this point?

I've read somewhere on Twitter (was posted by BO's employee) that tanks are gonna be actually 9m in diameter

[sstli2]

New skirt is 12 wide

Wouldn't you just move to a larger diameter tank at this point?

I've read somewhere on Twitter (was posted by BO's employee) that tanks are gonna be actually 9m in diameter

That doesn't make sense. The payload fairing is 8.7m and you can clearly see the payload fairing exceed the diameter of the tanks in the render.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Interesting comparison of super heavy rockets found on Reddit

[meekGee]

They already omitted NG 7x2 ?!  What a short career it's had.

[Brigantine]

Interesting comparison of super heavy rockets found on Reddit

link? [here]

There are one or two "citation needed"s and asterisks in there. E.g:

Includes mass of Apollo command module, Apollo service module, Apollo Lunar Module, Spacecraft/LM Adapter, Saturn V Instrument Unit, S-IVB stage, and propellant for translunar injection

S-IVB is 15,200 kg dry, so 125 ton to LEO is a fairer comparison. An LEO version would omit S-IVB, but need new avionics and fairings.

On a separate note, I'd love a version with stages colour-coded by propellant mass/volume or energy/volume density, and maybe stages solid-outlined per re-use. And a more visual quick-reference to payload e.g. as a bar chart in the background. (using the metric height scale)

They already omitted NG 7x2 ?!  What a short career it's had.

The image appears to be super heavy lift (>50 ton) only. 7x2 was never in that club - if only because they never published performance with an expended booster.

[TrevorMonty]

Should show expended plus reuse(partial and full) for RLVs.
Using F9E 22,800kg v F9R 18,500kg as reference SNGE should be 86mt v SNGR 70mt.

[meekGee]

Those posters are beautiful, but not useful for meaningful comparisons..

E.g. Should the height be scaled by diameter-squared?   Or by density*diameter -squared?

Maybe scale the rockets by stored energy or stored impulse?

Payload should be listed under the same op-mode, or have separate lines for expendable, partial reusable, fully reusable..

In short, it never ends...

[JEF_300]

Can we get this thread renamed to "New Glenn 9x4 discussion"? The company has given us a name, we ought to use it.

[catdlr]

Can we get this thread renamed to "New Glenn 9x4 discussion"? The company has given us a name, we ought to use it.

TA-Daaa..

[JH]

Very pleased with the announced New Glenn evolution. Wish they’d quit doing a lucky dip of U.S. customary units and metric. The arbitrary mix sets my teeth on edge.

[Big RI Joe]

So where does this leave New Armstrong?

[seb21051]

So where does this leave New Armstrong?

Optimize 7x2 and BE-4 engines: About 1 - 3 years.

Design and build 9x4: maybe 3 - 7 years.

Design and build reuseable NG second stage: 7 - 12 years.

Armstrong: 12 - 18 years out.   

And that is not taking into account all their other projects.

Don't hold me to this, but I think its reasonable timing.   

PS:- About the only reason I can think of building a 200 tonne payload capable LV at this point is to be able to transport masses of propellant up to fuel depots in LEO. And it would have to be completely reuseable.

[sstli2]

So where does this leave New Armstrong?

Optimize 7x2 and BE-4 engines: About 1 - 3 years.

Design and build 9x4: maybe 3 - 7 years.

Design and build reuseable NG second stage: 7 - 12 years.

Armstrong: 12 - 18 years out.   

And that is not taking into account all their other projects.

Don't hold me to this, but I think its reasonable timing.   

This is way too pessimistic and conflates projects that we know exist and are in active development with ones that do not and are not.

They are already installing sub-coolers at LC-36 as we speak. Already happening. I would put my money on full 7x2 capability by mid-to-late 2026. We're talking months, not years.

9x4 is a logical iteration which stretches the tanks and uses engines that already exist and 7m tooling that already exists. It may not be 2027, but if not, it's going to be 2028.

New Armstrong and a reusable upper stage has no meaningful progress at this point and I would not bet on any specific time frame until they actually commit to the project.

[meekGee]

So where does this leave New Armstrong?

Optimize 7x2 and BE-4 engines: About 1 - 3 years.

Design and build 9x4: maybe 3 - 7 years.

Design and build reuseable NG second stage: 7 - 12 years.

Armstrong: 12 - 18 years out.   

And that is not taking into account all their other projects.

Don't hold me to this, but I think its reasonable timing.   

This is way too pessimistic and conflates projects that we know exist and are in active development with ones that do not and are not.

They are already installing sub-coolers at LC-36 as we speak. Already happening. I would put my money on full 7x2 capability by mid-to-late 2026. We're talking months, not years.

9x4 is a logical iteration which stretches the tanks and uses engines that already exist and 7m tooling that already exists. It may not be 2027, but if not, it's going to be 2028.

New Armstrong and a reusable upper stage has no meaningful progress at this point and I would not bet on any specific time frame until they actually commit to the project.

I'd subtract one, and make the second two tasks concurrent.

So:
- Booster reuse, increase performance: next two years
- 9x4: Will first launch NET 2 years from now
- Reusable US: on 9x4, First launch NET 4 years
- Starship class vehicle: First launch NET 8

The third step is a maybe - they can choose to make that part of nextGen.

[DrTadd]

I'd subtract one, and make the second two tasks concurrent.

So:
- Booster reuse, increase performance: next two years
- 9x4: Will first launch NET 2 years from now
- Reusable US: on 9x4, First launch NET 4 years
- Starship class vehicle: First launch' NET 8

The third step is a maybe - they can choose to make that part of nextGen.

So what is your definition of a 'starship class vehicle?

Are you labeling by theoretical lift capacity to LEO (or TLI or GEO), or by current lift capacity?

Or are you binning launchers by faring volume?

As I have said before at some point BO is going to have to lift something heavy. My guess is the first round will be the MK1 lander. It has a published wet mass of 47,000# (23.5T), about 1/2 the designed lift. IIRC, NG will put the MK1 in a 350km LEO, then the lander takes it from there. But it will finally be a reasonable lift short of faring full of kuiper sats.

[meekGee]

I'd subtract one, and make the second two tasks concurrent.

So:
- Booster reuse, increase performance: next two years
- 9x4: Will first launch NET 2 years from now
- Reusable US: on 9x4, First launch NET 4 years
- Starship class vehicle: First launch' NET 8

The third step is a maybe - they can choose to make that part of nextGen.

So what is your definition of a 'starship class vehicle?

Are you labeling by theoretical lift capacity to LEO (or TLI or GEO), or by current lift capacity?

Or are you binning launchers by faring volume?

As I have said before at some point BO is going to have to lift something heavy. My guess is the first round will be the MK1 lander. It has a published wet mass of 47,000# (23.5T), about 1/2 the designed lift. IIRC, NG will put the MK1 in a 350km LEO, then the lander takes it from there. But it will finally be a reasonable lift short of faring full of kuiper sats.

Short answer?  Broadly and inaccurately, I'd say "Starship Class" is around 100 tons, rapidly and fully reusable, give or take.

Long answer?  It's not about a single mission or a single number.

I said before: Designing a vehicle to meet the requirements of a mission (such as Artemis) is misguided.  Starship is designed to satisfy a campaign.  So it's not just "how much you can lift" but also:
- How often will you launch per tower (per day?)
- How many towers
- Production capacity of hardware (per month?)
- Operating mode (Towers/pads? Landing towers? Refueling? Assembly? Integrated US/vehicle or separate?)

So "Starship class" doesn't mean there's a hard number that you should hit.

You can in principle support a campaign with a completely different type of ship (Aluminum Alloy or composite, Stoke-type upper stage, separate ship, etc.)

Go ahead and factor fairing volume into it, to the extent it makes a difference.

NG, 7x2 or 9x4, is far from Starship Class, if that's where you're driving.  9x4 will exceed FH's payload by a bit, but that's about it.

It is expendable, cannot support high flight rates, etc.  Fly it with a theoretical reusable upper stage and RTLS booster, and see what the payload is.

Hence my earlier statement that BO will need a nextGen vehicle, and IMO the sooner the better.

[Chris Huys]

So where does this leave New Armstrong?

Optimize 7x2 and BE-4 engines: About 1 - 3 years.

Design and build 9x4: maybe 3 - 7 years.

Design and build reuseable NG second stage: 7 - 12 years.

Armstrong: 12 - 18 years out.   

And that is not taking into account all their other projects.

Don't hold me to this, but I think its reasonable timing.   

PS:- About the only reason I can think of building a 200 tonne payload capable LV at this point is to be able to transport masses of propellant up to fuel depots in LEO. And it would have to be completely reuseable.

spaceX
falcon 9
officialy unveiled okt 2005
first flight june 2010
first operational flight dec 2010 (flight 3)
first successfull booster landing block 3 B1019 dec 2015 (flight 20) (B1019 never flew again, as the historic rocket it was)
first flight block 5 B1021 apr 2016 (flight 24)
8 month refurbishment B1021
first successfull reuse block 5 B1021 march 2017 (flight 39)
first crewed testflight may 2020 (flight 85)
first crewed operational flight nov 2020 (flight 100)

falcon heavy
official unveiled april 2011
first (test) flight/successfull booster landing feb 2018
first operational flight apr, 2019 (flight 2)

starship
official unveiled sept 2019
first test flight april, 2023
first successfull booster landing test flight, oct 2024 (flight 5)

blue origin
new shepard
first sub-scale test vehicle, goddard, nov 2006
first uncrewed scaled testflight april 2015 (flight 1)
first uncrewed operational flight april 2015 (flight 2)
first successfull booster landing nov 2015 (flight 3)
first operational crewed flight july 2020 (flight 16)

new glenn 7*2
officially unveiled sept 2016
first flight jan 2025 (flight 1)
first operational flight/succesfull booster landing nov 2025 (flight 2)

new glenn 9*4
officially unveiled nov 2025