New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2

[deltaV]

What was proven over the last decade is that launch companies can't just sit there and wait for demand from the market/customer etc.

I assume you're referring to how SpaceX built Starlink to get launch rates high enough for reusable launch to be profitable. That's an interesting point but I'm not convinced that the same applies here because a larger vehicle, while useful, won’t be revolutionary like partial reuse was.

If BO wants cis-lunar industry or lumar settlement, BO needs to make it happen.

New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year would enable a sweet moon program with ~30 Blue moon mark 2 landings per year each landing ~20 tonnes. The main challenge is designing and building all the payloads.

[meekGee]

What was proven over the last decade is that launch companies can't just sit there and wait for demand from the market/customer etc.

I assume you're referring to how SpaceX built Starlink to get launch rates high enough for reusable launch to be profitable. That's an interesting point but I'm not convinced that the same applies here because a larger vehicle, while useful, won’t be revolutionary like partial reuse was.

If BO wants cis-lunar industry or lumar settlement, BO needs to make it happen.

New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year would enable a sweet moon program with ~30 Blue moon mark 2 landings per year each landing ~20 tonnes. The main challenge is designing and building all the payloads.

Starlink for sure, but also non-NASA manned flights, etc.

As for the lunar program, the main challenge is to stop it being JB's hobby project. Something along this food chain has to make money.  That has been Musk's magic trick all along.

You'll see Starship making routine manned tours around the moon for fun and profit, and deploying nextGen Starlink for profit only.

So the main vehicle for the Mars program is also a money maker

Can NG do the same?  Can Kuiper pay enough to make it worth while?  (Having their own constellation was a high priority for AWS before this whole AI thing blindsided them along with the rest of humanity)

[Coastal Ron]

What was proven over the last decade is that launch companies can't just sit there and wait for demand from the market/customer etc.

I assume you're referring to how SpaceX built Starlink to get launch rates high enough for reusable launch to be profitable.

SpaceX was working on reusability from the beginning of the Falcon 9 program, which predates Starlink by quite a few years. Starlink, as a business, wouldn't have been profitable enough without the low launch cost Falcon 9 reusable provided, but that wasn't the reason for Falcon 9 to become reusable. And it wasn't until after Falcon 9 became reusable that most of the commercial launch market moved to use Falcon 9, for both cost and availability reasons.

But SpaceX didn't have the commercial launch market knocking on their door to create reusable rockets, SpaceX had to lead them there by showing them something that hadn't ever existed - partially reusable launch systems. Imagine what happens when a fully reusable launch system becomes operational?

That's an interesting point but I'm not convinced that the same applies here because a larger vehicle, while useful, won’t be revolutionary like partial reuse was.

Commercial customers don't buy something because it is "revolutionary", and if anything that would tend to scare them off. What they DO buy is something that is lower cost or better otherwise. Starship offers the ability to significantly lower the current cost of moving mass to space, so pretty much EVERYONE that needs to move mass to space will be interested.

If BO wants cis-lunar industry or lumar settlement, BO needs to make it happen.

New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year would enable a sweet moon program with ~30 Blue moon mark 2 landings per year each landing ~20 tonnes. The main challenge is designing and building all the payloads.

Yeah, New Glenn is probably too small to support a constant presence on the Moon, and certainly too expensive in comparison with what the SpaceX Starship will be able to do. That is the opportunity for a New Armstrong transportation system, but I don't know if humanity is ready to spend enough money to need more than Starship for expanding humanity out into space. That is a risk that Jeff Bezos will have to take, and it is an uncertain one from my viewpoint...

[DanClemmensen]

Commercial customers don't buy something because it is "revolutionary", and if anything that would tend to scare them off. What they DO buy is something that is lower cost or better otherwise.

SpaceX uses less-preferred boosters for Starlink. It's been amusing to watch the external customer community's perception evolve as F9 has accumulated reuse experience:
    initially: we require a first-flight booster
    then: we prefer a first-flight booster
    then: we require a young booster (less than 5 flights)
    then: we prefer a younger booster
    then: OK if younger than 10 flights
    now: we prefer a booster with at least one flight.
   

[meekGee]

What was proven over the last decade is that launch companies can't just sit there and wait for demand from the market/customer etc.

I assume you're referring to how SpaceX built Starlink to get launch rates high enough for reusable launch to be profitable.

SpaceX was working on reusability from the beginning of the Falcon 9 program, which predates Starlink by quite a few years. Starlink, as a business, wouldn't have been profitable enough without the low launch cost Falcon 9 reusable provided, but that wasn't the reason for Falcon 9 to become reusable. And it wasn't until after Falcon 9 became reusable that most of the commercial launch market moved to use Falcon 9, for both cost and availability reasons.

But SpaceX didn't have the commercial launch market knocking on their door to create reusable rockets, SpaceX had to lead them there by showing them something that hadn't ever existed - partially reusable launch systems. Imagine what happens when a fully reusable launch system becomes operational?

That's an interesting point but I'm not convinced that the same applies here because a larger vehicle, while useful, won’t be revolutionary like partial reuse was.

Commercial customers don't buy something because it is "revolutionary", and if anything that would tend to scare them off. What they DO buy is something that is lower cost or better otherwise. Starship offers the ability to significantly lower the current cost of moving mass to space, so pretty much EVERYONE that needs to move mass to space will be interested.

If BO wants cis-lunar industry or lumar settlement, BO needs to make it happen.

New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year would enable a sweet moon program with ~30 Blue moon mark 2 landings per year each landing ~20 tonnes. The main challenge is designing and building all the payloads.

Yeah, New Glenn is probably too small to support a constant presence on the Moon, and certainly too expensive in comparison with what the SpaceX Starship will be able to do. That is the opportunity for a New Armstrong transportation system, but I don't know if humanity is ready to spend enough money to need more than Starship for expanding humanity out into space. That is a risk that Jeff Bezos will have to take, and it is an uncertain one from my viewpoint...

I'm pretty sure Starlink wasn't a glimmer in Musk's eye very early on.

I remember conversations in thia forum where SpaceX was taling of flight rates that would approach (gasp!) once per week, and folks were saying something to the effect of "that's nonsense, where would the payloads come from".

Even among the peeps here at NSF, the idea of "Son of Teledesic" was popular, and SoaceX wouldn't be taking about that flight rate if they didn't have this as a path forward.

Musk is very revealing, but he does have some plans he doesn't disclose.  Fly-back, for example, was brewing for over a year before it was announced (company level it was known as early as after flight 1,  but in Musk's head ot was congealing probably earlier)

I don't think he embarked on G9 reuse without an idea of what to do with it.

Let's complete the analogy to BO and NG.  What's Bezos's plan?

There's a reason I'm advocating for NAN (New Armstrong Now).  He can choose to spend money on an NG-based program, or take the same dollars and spend them on a bigger rocket.  Since I don't see how an NG based program can make money, it's better to spend his dollars on catching up.

[seb21051]

"New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year"

Wow. Let me know what brand of beer you're drinking, and in what quantities.

[deltaV]

"New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year"

Wow. Let me know what brand of beer you're drinking, and in what quantities.

If someone had predicted in 2010 that Falcon 9 would launch ~130 times in 2024 people would likely have reacted like you did. They'd have laughed even harder if someone predicted that this would occur despite a launch failure in the middle of that year. Yet that's happening (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59973.msg2614724#msg2614724) - partial reuse enabled an unprecedented flight rate. Full reuse will probably enable even higher launch rates. So I think 300 New Glenn launches per year in ~2030 is reasonable if Blue Origin gets their act together and starts accomplishing their plans and also gets several pads like SpaceX has.

[TrevorMonty]

What was proven over the last decade is that launch companies can't just sit there and wait for demand from the market/customer etc.

I assume you're referring to how SpaceX built Starlink to get launch rates high enough for reusable launch to be profitable.

SpaceX was working on reusability from the beginning of the Falcon 9 program, which predates Starlink by quite a few years. Starlink, as a business, wouldn't have been profitable enough without the low launch cost Falcon 9 reusable provided, but that wasn't the reason for Falcon 9 to become reusable. And it wasn't until after Falcon 9 became reusable that most of the commercial launch market moved to use Falcon 9, for both cost and availability reasons.

But SpaceX didn't have the commercial launch market knocking on their door to create reusable rockets, SpaceX had to lead them there by showing them something that hadn't ever existed - partially reusable launch systems. Imagine what happens when a fully reusable launch system becomes operational?

That's an interesting point but I'm not convinced that the same applies here because a larger vehicle, while useful, won’t be revolutionary like partial reuse was.

Commercial customers don't buy something because it is "revolutionary", and if anything that would tend to scare them off. What they DO buy is something that is lower cost or better otherwise. Starship offers the ability to significantly lower the current cost of moving mass to space, so pretty much EVERYONE that needs to move mass to space will be interested.

If BO wants cis-lunar industry or lumar settlement, BO needs to make it happen.

New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year would enable a sweet moon program with ~30 Blue moon mark 2 landings per year each landing ~20 tonnes. The main challenge is designing and building all the payloads.

Yeah, New Glenn is probably too small to support a constant presence on the Moon, and certainly too expensive in comparison with what the SpaceX Starship will be able to do. That is the opportunity for a New Armstrong transportation system, but I don't know if humanity is ready to spend enough money to need more than Starship for expanding humanity out into space. That is a risk that Jeff Bezos will have to take, and it is an uncertain one from my viewpoint...

I'm pretty sure Starlink wasn't a glimmer in Musk's eye very early on.

I remember conversations in thia forum where SpaceX was taling of flight rates that would approach (gasp!) once per week, and folks were saying something to the effect of "that's nonsense, where would the payloads come from".

Even among the peeps here at NSF, the idea of "Son of Teledesic" was popular, and SoaceX wouldn't be taking about that flight rate if they didn't have this as a path forward.

Musk is very revealing, but he does have some plans he doesn't disclose.  Fly-back, for example, was brewing for over a year before it was announced (company level it was known as early as after flight 1,  but in Musk's head ot was congealing probably earlier)

I don't think he embarked on G9 reuse without an idea of what to do with it.

Let's complete the analogy to BO and NG.  What's Bezos's plan?

There's a reason I'm advocating for NAN (New Armstrong Now).  He can choose to spend money on an NG-based program, or take the same dollars and spend them on a bigger rocket.  Since I don't see how an NG based program can make money, it's better to spend his dollars on catching up.

They is nothing to catchup to. SS has yet to demostrate there is market to justify such large RLV.

[spacenut]

The market for Starship initially is Starlink build out, 42,000 satelites.  That is a lot of launches.  Also newer satellites are larger so that is where Starship comes in.  Right now F9 can only launch about 20 of the newer larger satellites where on version 1 starlinks they were launching 40-50 at a time.  Even larger starlinks will have to be launched on Starship thus resulting in a high launch rate.

Then, there is the moon Artemis program.  It requires a Starship lander which will require 6-8 refueling launches per flight to the moon.  Then there is Musk's Mars ambitions.  Just to form a small colony will require about 10 cargo Starships for every one human Starship.  Remember each Starship traveling to the moon or Mars will require refueling in LEO thus requiring about 80-100 launches just for setting up a small Mars colony.  This is all because of using chemical fuels.   If NASA steps in with a nuclear rocket that can be used in space this will cut launch rates some.  Nuclear will require about 10 years of development and red tap regulations to build.  Starship is almost available now after test flights and successful landings. 

So the launch rate will justify the large launch vehicle.  People always forget the massive number of satellites still to be launched, and replacements of older satellites, then forget refueling needed for deep space activities. 

[meekGee]

They is nothing to catchup to. SS has yet to demostrate there is market to justify such large RLV.

You're quoting word-for-word from the ULA playbook. How many times have we heard that exact phrase about reusability and higher launch cadence?

A real CEO's job is to make the market happen,  not to sit on their ass and witch about how the market is not flexible or how the "customer" hasn't written an open check yet.

If you wait till the market is "proven" or "demonstrated", you'll find yourself a few years later dead in the water when it actually is, by your competitor who actually took the initiative.

Look how Amazon got to where it is, continuously investing in new sales vehicles that haven't been proven yet.  "The market for same day delivery hasn't been proven yet, why don't we wait for someone else to do it first".

[DanClemmensen]

They is nothing to catchup to. SS has yet to demostrate there is market to justify such large RLV.

If Starship achieves a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than F9, then there is already a market that justifies Starship. It's the largest launch market in the world, comprising more than 50% of the world's orbital launches and more than 80% of the world's payload mass to orbit.

If a smaller LV can achieve a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than Starship and can get to high cadence soon enough, then maybe your point will become valid.

[seb21051]

"New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year"

Wow. Let me know what brand of beer you're drinking, and in what quantities.

If someone had predicted in 2010 that Falcon 9 would launch ~130 times in 2024 people would likely have reacted like you did. They'd have laughed even harder if someone predicted that this would occur despite a launch failure in the middle of that year. Yet that's happening (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59973.msg2614724#msg2614724) - partial reuse enabled an unprecedented flight rate. Full reuse will probably enable even higher launch rates. So I think 300 New Glenn launches per year in ~2030 is reasonable if Blue Origin gets their act together and starts accomplishing their plans and also gets several pads like SpaceX has.

I noticed a huge, gigantic "If" in there. If you believe its possible, quote a percentage probability. From 0.01% to 100%. Come on, be a devil.

[Coastal Ron]

...
Let's complete the analogy to BO and NG.  What's Bezos's plan?

There's a reason I'm advocating for NAN (New Armstrong Now).  He can choose to spend money on an NG-based program, or take the same dollars and spend them on a bigger rocket.  Since I don't see how an NG based program can make money, it's better to spend his dollars on catching up.

Yeah, New Glenn competes against Falcon Heavy, and maybe it does a good job at that, but Falcon Heavy is already planned to be retired in favor of Starship. So Blue Origin needs to be looking at what to offer that can compete with Starship.

Assuming the New Armstrong name is assigned for what comes after New Glenn, then I agree that Jeff Bezos should be looking at what comes after New Glenn. And it is actually good for Blue Origin to operate New Glenn for a while, since they have LOTS to learn about building and operating large rockets, and New Glenn can help them with that.

But otherwise, fully reusable transportation systems are the future, and Jeff Bezos should be looking at how quickly he can get there.

There's a reason I'm advocating for NAN (New Armstrong Now).  He can choose to spend money on an NG-based program, or take the same dollars and spend them on a bigger rocket.  Since I don't see how an NG based program can make money, it's better to spend his dollars on catching up.

They is nothing to catchup to. SS has yet to demostrate there is market to justify such large RLV.

We already can see that a fully reusable launch system is possible, so it is only a matter of time before others beside SpaceX start building their own fully reusable launch system. Blue Origin can't be late to that market, like they were to the partially-reusable launch system market. Not if they intend to make any money along the way.

And while it is true that sometimes it takes the market a while to catch up to new capabilities, if SpaceX even comes close to the price per launch goals, that could open up new markets that Falcon 9/H could not.

Jeff Bezos is playing catch-up in the orbital launch market, and he hasn't been doing it very well at all. Building a New Armstrong will take years, so waiting to see how the market responds to an operational and low cost Starship means that Blue Origin will have missed yet another shift in the market. Not sure Bezos has enough years left to allow that to happen too many times...

[TrevorMonty]

The market for Starship initially is Starlink build out, 42,000 satelites.  That is a lot of launches.  Also newer satellites are larger so that is where Starship comes in.  Right now F9 can only launch about 20 of the newer larger satellites where on version 1 starlinks they were launching 40-50 at a time.  Even larger starlinks will have to be launched on Starship thus resulting in a high launch rate.

Then, there is the moon Artemis program.  It requires a Starship lander which will require 6-8 refueling launches per flight to the moon.  Then there is Musk's Mars ambitions.  Just to form a small colony will require about 10 cargo Starships for every one human Starship.  Remember each Starship traveling to the moon or Mars will require refueling in LEO thus requiring about 80-100 launches just for setting up a small Mars colony.  This is all because of using chemical fuels.   If NASA steps in with a nuclear rocket that can be used in space this will cut launch rates some.  Nuclear will require about 10 years of development and red tap regulations to build.  Starship is almost available now after test flights and successful landings. 

So the launch rate will justify the large launch vehicle.  People always forget the massive number of satellites still to be launched, and replacements of older satellites, then forget refueling needed for deep space activities.

Starlink launch isn't avaliable to any Blue RLV. Next few Artemis missions have already been assigned to SpaceX and funding for any future mission is unknown. Where is the money coming from for a Moon baselet alone Mars colony. Fully reuseable NG combined with lunar ISRU is quite capable of setting up and supplying Moon base. If ISRU is well established NG US could be refuelled in LEO from lunar fuel, that is 45mt to surface with single launch. By time NA fly's Kuiper would've been deployed. Again no seeable market that justifies NA.

[JCRM]

They is nothing to catchup to. SS has yet to demostrate there is market to justify such large RLV.

If Starship achieves a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than F9, then there is already a market that justifies Starship. It's the largest launch market in the world, comprising more than 50% of the world's orbital launches and more than 80% of the world's payload mass to orbit.

If a smaller LV can achieve a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than Starship and can get to high cadence soon enough, then maybe your point will become valid.

Conversely, if Starship fails to achieve lower absolute marginal cost, the point may already be valid.

[DanClemmensen]

They is nothing to catchup to. SS has yet to demostrate there is market to justify such large RLV.

If Starship achieves a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than F9, then there is already a market that justifies Starship. It's the largest launch market in the world, comprising more than 50% of the world's orbital launches and more than 80% of the world's payload mass to orbit.

If a smaller LV can achieve a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than Starship and can get to high cadence soon enough, then maybe your point will become valid.

Conversely, if Starship fails to achieve lower absolute marginal cost, the point may already be valid.

Yep. That's why my assertion started with the word "if". What is your estimate? I think Starship will achieve a lower marginal launch cost than F9, for all the reasons SpaceX has given (full reusability, high cadence, RTLS...) but they could be wrong. It's even possible that Starship will fail completely.

[meekGee]

They is nothing to catchup to. SS has yet to demostrate there is market to justify such large RLV.

If Starship achieves a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than F9, then there is already a market that justifies Starship. It's the largest launch market in the world, comprising more than 50% of the world's orbital launches and more than 80% of the world's payload mass to orbit.

If a smaller LV can achieve a lower absolute marginal cost per launch than Starship and can get to high cadence soon enough, then maybe your point will become valid.

Conversely, if Starship fails to achieve lower absolute marginal cost, the point may already be valid.

Except that not having it be absolutely cheaper than F9 doesn't mean it won't dominate the market....  It just means there isn't a trivial proof that it will.

F9 didn't have such proof either, and yet look at the launch market.

The likelier future course of events is that the market will take full advantage of SS's capabilities, and a rocket like NG will play a similar role as Vulcan does to Falcon.

[sstli2]

Building a New Armstrong will take years, so waiting to see how the market responds to an operational and low cost Starship means that Blue Origin will have missed yet another shift in the market. Not sure Bezos has enough years left to allow that to happen too many times...

Blue Origin already bit off more than they could chew with New Glenn. They should pay heed to their motto and continue to take things step-by-step.

As much as the space enthusiasts here want to see a super heavy-lift space race and bases on the moon and Mars, the market isn't there yet for that.

In most competitive markets alpha is always transient. You may have an edge for now, but unless you pursue anti-competitive practices or have some way of creating a barrier-to-entry, that edge only lasts so long. We are in the midst of seeing this with Falcon 9. For now it's on top, but there are plenty of people chomping at the bit to eat away the profit margins.

You don't win any prizes by being first, except bragging rights. Blue Origin would be well-served to let SpaceX prove out the super heavy lift market - and the requisite technologies like cryogenic fueling, thermal protection systems, etc. - before sinking a ton of capital doing the same.

Blue Origin's current strategy of scaling up New Glenn and investing R&D in a re-usable upper stage is the right move. Starship's edge is its reusability, not it's size.

[joek]

...
As much as the space enthusiasts in this sub want to see a super heavy-lift space race and bases on the moon and Mars, the market isn't there yet for that.
...

Except for Starlink, which is not dependent on the moon-mars-whatever market.

[mn]

"New Glenn upgraded with full reuse and launched 300 times per year"

Wow. Let me know what brand of beer you're drinking, and in what quantities.

When you get the quantity right, the brand doesn't matter...