Blue Origin project Jarvis/Clipper - reusable NG 2nd stage

[NaN]

My personal first impression with this news was "OMG! not again....please focus on finishing NG before redesigning it...again..."  The notion of starting a new 2nd stage project while your main project "NG" is VERY late and your other project "BE-4" is having enough issues to not be able to get engines to ULA is just  to me at this point.

It's only a concern if they put major focus and resources onto it; walling off a small team to conduct speculative R&D while the main system continues development is fairly common. It does have to be done right, as you don't want the main team to lose resources or morale by feeling like they're working on a temporary stopgap while the A-team builds the real deal. This is one reason to keep it low profile even internally. If done right then it is good idea, because if they waited until NG was fully operational before even starting on making design trades for a reusable S2 then they would just be losing more time.

Doing it this way also means that they may choose to keep the expendable S2 available for the most demanding missions, much as F9/FH have a fully expendable option - this would allow Blue to accept higher performance penalties for the reusable S2, such as for BLEO, than they could if it were the only available S2 for NG.

[joek]

I think this is too simplistic.  If only the first stage is reusable, you might put relatively more in the second stage to make it easier to recover and reuse the first stage.  It is not axiomatic you would go as far as possible with the first stage.  If, on the other hand, you’re trying to loft a (for the same payload) larger reusable second stage to orbit, I think it’s easy to see that the balance might change and you’d stress the first stage harder to make things easier for the second stage.

Stated differently, if only the first stage is reusable, you would put more weight on ideal conditions for that, so you can preserve it.  There’s a trade off.

Yes. As we are talking about "reusable NG 2nd stage", yes? So take it as a given: you have to recover-reuse both first and second stages. Do not see how "stress the first stage harder to make things easier for the second stage" would make things easier on the second stage. While it might reduce the propellant-dV second stage requirements, second stage EDL is going to make-break whether second stage reuse is feasible; expect that will dwarf other considerations.

[LouScheffer]

This is not at all clear to me.   In both cases (full recovery and first stage only) you want the first stage to do as much as it possibly can and still be recovered.  Exactly what trade-off would you make in one case but not the other?

If [...] you’re trying to loft a (for the same payload) larger reusable second stage to orbit, I think it’s easy to see that the balance might change and you’d stress the first stage harder to make things easier for the second stage.

Even in the case where the second stage is expendable, you want to push the first stage as hard as possible to give the second state max payload and/or more margin.

Note that SpaceX did exactly this.  When the introduced Block 5, the incremented the separation velocity by a little each mission.  Eventually they got to the point where sparks were flying off during re-entry, and the refurbishment was significantly longer.  Then they backed off by a few m/s.   So they are already pushing the first stage as hard as possible while still recovering it.  This would not change with second stage recovery.

[meekGee]

Blue Origin isn’t a “fast follower,” they’ve been planning full reuse since they started working on New Glenn. The only hint of “fast following” is that the second stage is stainless, which isn’t even necessarily something they picked up from Starship since Centaur (used on the second workhorse of the US fleet, Atlas V) is a stainless second stage and was around for much, much longer than Starship.

Think we have an existence proof to the contrary. Planning is not doing; it is the latter where Blue is following. Has nothing to do with Blue's potential pivot to a stainless second stage; has to do with a reusable second stage (of which stainless is one option). Centaur is a non-sequitur; just because it used stainless is irrelevant as it was never intended to reenter and be reusable.

regardless of how you want to define it, Blue isn’t a “fast follower.” For one, they’re not a fast *anything*.

Blue, IMO, has everything they need to pull off whatever they want to.  The problem with Blue is direction and drive.  Hopefully with Bezo taking more time for Blue, that will change.

My personal first impression with this news was "OMG! not again....please focus on finishing NG before redesigning it...again..."  The notion of starting a new 2nd stage project while your main project "NG" is VERY late and your other project "BE-4" is having enough issues to not be able to get engines to ULA is just  to me at this point.

Yeah, but when the logical, steady, calm, and, collected path forward leads to irrelevancy, you need to do the irresponsible thing...

"Sometimes, you just have to roll the hard six".

[meekGee]

The challenge I see here (well, apart from all of BO’s other, lengthily articulated challenges), is that this sounds like a knee jerk, disjointed attempt to shoehorn a reusable upper stage onto a pre-existing rocket designed for only partial reusability.

As opposed to the Starship architecture which was conceptualized and designed from the start for the sole purpose of full and rapid reusability.

This was one of the reasons SpaceX did not continue to pursue upper stage reusability for F9.

Yes, Blue may succeed in achieving upper stage reusability. But with lots of trade offs. And as Elon said, full reusability alone is not sufficient. It has to be full and RAPID.

So while the technical goal of upper stage reuse may eventually be achieved with the New Glenn rocket, (to much fanfare, no doubt), I’m not sure that it will be in a way to satisfy the associated business goals that drove them down this path.

So once again, prestige over substance, if I had to bet on it.

This isn’t true. New Glenn has been “eventually fully reusable” since even before they switched the first stage from hydrogen to methane fuel. (EDIT: so was Falcon 9, BTW… they had been planning for full reuse since before they switched F9 from splashdown to vertical landing recovery.)

We just now have a name for that eventual reusable upper stage.

I hope it's more than just a name and a couple of slides.

BO can lay the skepticism to rest by opening up a bit.

We're past the point where anyone will buy the "fast but secret" story.  Secret why?  So SpaceX won't steal all their ideas?

[Robotbeat]

regardless of how you want to define it, Blue isn’t a “fast follower.” For one, they’re not a fast *anything*.

Thank you for helping to make my point.

No problem. But I wasn't replying specifically to you, just the weird trend on here where people try to apply the term "fast follower" to Blue Origin as a kind of consolation prize for losing the initiative to SpaceX. Blue isn't fast.

[Star One]

Highly optimized vaporware is still vaporware...

And now you appear to be casting unfair and unsubstantiated aspersions on the person who brought us the news. Which is nothing to do with BO.

[Star One]

Well I think it's very impressive that you all have found something to criticize in Blue's design before we even know anything of substance about it. That takes true dedication to pointless pessimism.

I'm not criticizing, I think copying Starship is a good move, it's what a fast follower should be doing at this point. Now they just need to execute, it would be interesting to see if they can start tank testing this fall as planned, if so they'd at least regained the initiative against RocketLab and Relativity.

Well it'd be nice if instead of a third party news article based on "sources", Mr. bezos would step up and say "we've decided to do this and that in order to accomplish this and that."

Just saying.

Why should he. Especially at this early stage I don’t see why he should say anything just to satisfy the curiosity of people on the internet. There seems to be this idea that just because Space X does things a particular way, and to be honest there is much they don’t disclose as why should they, that every other company in the same sector should follow the same route.

[Zed_Noir]

....
I'm not criticizing, I think copying Starship is a good move, it's what a fast follower should be doing at this point. Now they just need to execute, it would be interesting to see if they can start tank testing this fall as planned, if so they'd at least regained the initiative against RocketLab and Relativity.

Well it'd be nice if instead of a third party news article based on "sources", Mr. bezos would step up and say "we've decided to do this and that in order to accomplish this and that."

Just saying.

Why should he. Especially at this early stage I don’t see why he should say anything just to satisfy the curiosity of people on the internet. There seems to be this idea that just because Space X does things a particular way, and to be honest there is much they don’t disclose as why should they, that every other company in the same sector should follow the same route.

Blue Origin need good publicity in comparison to other launch providers. At least someone at the top of Blue Origin should indicate what directions the company is heading towards and the progress of those directional goals. The excessive secrecy at Blue Origin seems to generate wild speculations both good & bad everywhere.

[meekGee]

Highly optimized vaporware is still vaporware...

And now you appear to be casting unfair and unsubstantiated aspersions on the person who brought us the news. Which is nothing to do with BO.

How is anything in that statement personal?

It's a valid point.  I also think that going after a reusable second stage already now before even having an orbital vehicle is a good move, but that caveat very much holds, ESPECIALLY in the case of BO which has a history of not delivering.

Nevermind NA, even NG is still MIA and what we've seen of it is very very undeveloped.

[LouScheffer]

Personally, I'm really excited to see what they do differently. I'd say SpaceX's greatest strength and weakness is how extremely radical they are, and that Blue Origin's greatest strength and weakness is how conservative they are. So between both of them, we should be able to get at least a vague idea of what the best way to execute the reusable upper stage is.

I'm also very interested in what they do differently.  Far too often, in science and engineering, people confuse how something has been done with how it must be done.

This applies to much more than the argument about common materials for both stages.  It is the problem with the Rare Earth hypothesis as well.  They note (correctly) that the exact conditions that lead to life on Earth will rarely be repeated.  But what they don't take into account is that life elsewhere may evolve in ways that are different than occurred here.  It's not at all clear that precisely Earth-like conditions are needed, or are in any way optimal.  It's only clear they worked once.

Likewise SpaceX used common materials for the F9, and achieved low cost.   Is this required?  One example can't show that this is true in general,  especially since "low cost" was not even a design objective until recently.  So even though I think SpaceX's decisions were sensible, I'm not convinced they are the only possible solutions.

[Robotbeat]

Well I think it's very impressive that you all have found something to criticize in Blue's design before we even know anything of substance about it. That takes true dedication to pointless pessimism.

I'm not criticizing, I think copying Starship is a good move, it's what a fast follower should be doing at this point. Now they just need to execute, it would be interesting to see if they can start tank testing this fall as planned, if so they'd at least regained the initiative against RocketLab and Relativity.

Well it'd be nice if instead of a third party news article based on "sources", Mr. bezos would step up and say "we've decided to do this and that in order to accomplish this and that."

Just saying.

Why should he. Especially at this early stage I don’t see why he should say anything just to satisfy the curiosity of people on the internet. There seems to be this idea that just because Space X does things a particular way, and to be honest there is much they don’t disclose as why should they, that every other company in the same sector should follow the same route.

Because it means talented people won’t be terribly interested in working there.

[Robotbeat]

Personally, I'm really excited to see what they do differently. I'd say SpaceX's greatest strength and weakness is how extremely radical they are, and that Blue Origin's greatest strength and weakness is how conservative they are. So between both of them, we should be able to get at least a vague idea of what the best way to execute the reusable upper stage is.

I'm also very interested in what they do differently.  Far too often, in science and engineering, people confuse how something has been done with how it must be done.

This applies to much more than the argument about common materials for both stages.  It is the problem with the Rare Earth hypothesis as well.  They note (correctly) that the exact conditions that lead to life on Earth will rarely be repeated.  But what they don't take into account is that life elsewhere may evolve in ways that are different than occurred here.  It's not at all clear that precisely Earth-like conditions are needed, or are in any way optimal.  It's only clear they worked once.

Likewise SpaceX used common materials for the F9, and achieved low cost.   Is this required?  One example can't show that this is true in general,  especially since "low cost" was not even a design objective until recently.  So even though I think SpaceX's decisions were sensible, I'm not convinced they are the only possible solutions.

Commonality helps at lower launch rates in particular. At super duper high launch rates, it matters less. But you have to get from here to there, so lack of commonality, all things equal, will cause a delay.

From a fundamental perspective, it probably does make sense to use hydrolox for the upper stage and methalox for the lower stage. But only if you’re also using high performance engines and already reduced the dry mass of your stages a lot.

Lack of commonality is premature & misplaced optimization. But it’s not a showstopper by any means.

[Pitpen]

....
I'm not criticizing, I think copying Starship is a good move, it's what a fast follower should be doing at this point. Now they just need to execute, it would be interesting to see if they can start tank testing this fall as planned, if so they'd at least regained the initiative against RocketLab and Relativity.

Well it'd be nice if instead of a third party news article based on "sources", Mr. bezos would step up and say "we've decided to do this and that in order to accomplish this and that."

Just saying.

Why should he. Especially at this early stage I don’t see why he should say anything just to satisfy the curiosity of people on the internet. There seems to be this idea that just because Space X does things a particular way, and to be honest there is much they don’t disclose as why should they, that every other company in the same sector should follow the same route.

Blue Origin need good publicity in comparison to other launch providers. At least someone at the top of Blue Origin should indicate what directions the company is heading towards and the progress of those directional goals. The excessive secrecy at Blue Origin seems to generate wild speculations both good & bad everywhere.

I tend to disagree on this specific point: they do not need good publicity because their product is not going to be sold to the masses or based on advertising and thus on perceptions. They simply need to deliver something to any paying customer showing accountability. Why should they expose themselves going public with this Jarvis project? After all NASA and any other BO future customer would analyse BO proposal based on backlog, plans and first of all facts. I would say that winning Vulcan engine contract over Aerojet with the most powerful methalox engine still never fully tested shows that after all they had something better to offer to one of the biggest player in space market. I would criticize BO for the lack of hardware achievement, but not for the public perception that to me is not so relevant in space things economy. Space tourism is another story and after all they are pioneering that market with Virgin and SpaceX.

[meekGee]

Well I think it's very impressive that you all have found something to criticize in Blue's design before we even know anything of substance about it. That takes true dedication to pointless pessimism.

I'm not criticizing, I think copying Starship is a good move, it's what a fast follower should be doing at this point. Now they just need to execute, it would be interesting to see if they can start tank testing this fall as planned, if so they'd at least regained the initiative against RocketLab and Relativity.

Well it'd be nice if instead of a third party news article based on "sources", Mr. bezos would step up and say "we've decided to do this and that in order to accomplish this and that."

Just saying.

Why should he. Especially at this early stage I don’t see why he should say anything just to satisfy the curiosity of people on the internet. There seems to be this idea that just because Space X does things a particular way, and to be honest there is much they don’t disclose as why should they, that every other company in the same sector should follow the same route.

..and how has that been working out for BO so far?

The fact that 20 years later they are still, in your words, "at this early stage" should be a clue.

Nobody is going to steal BO's ideas, and BO's not going to sneak up stealthily on a complacent unsuspecting rival.

Instead BO will continue to stagnate inside its self-imposed quarantine.

[AlexP]

Blue aren't averse to seeking good publicity, they had a pretty big unveiling of Blue Moon. The problem was that it wasn't particularly exciting.

And meekGee's original quote was "it would be nice" - it would be nice! Bezos will talk about weighty goals like "millions of people living and working in space" and O'Neill cylinders, but these aren't in any way tangible. And if the Blue way of setting off on their journey there is a suborbital tourism vehicle, a part-reusable launcher and a very expensive, expendable lunar lander, with a load of "??"s afterwards... people will generally be forgiven for rolling their eyes when he talks about those goals again.

Sure, they don't need to have public goodwill on their side to survive as a company, if that's their only real goal. Just seems like a waste of great potential to me. And if they do have exciting, tangible, near-term plans, it doesn't seem to cost them a lot to share them.

[rakaydos]

Well I think it's very impressive that you all have found something to criticize in Blue's design before we even know anything of substance about it. That takes true dedication to pointless pessimism.

I'm not criticizing, I think copying Starship is a good move, it's what a fast follower should be doing at this point. Now they just need to execute, it would be interesting to see if they can start tank testing this fall as planned, if so they'd at least regained the initiative against RocketLab and Relativity.

Well it'd be nice if instead of a third party news article based on "sources", Mr. bezos would step up and say "we've decided to do this and that in order to accomplish this and that."

Just saying.

Why should he. Especially at this early stage I don’t see why he should say anything just to satisfy the curiosity of people on the internet. There seems to be this idea that just because Space X does things a particular way, and to be honest there is much they don’t disclose as why should they, that every other company in the same sector should follow the same route.

Because it means talented people won’t be terribly interested in working there.

Honestly, this may have slipped Bezos's mind. He doesnt have that problem with desperate-for-work amazon warehouse employees, he might not realize it's a factor.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, and it'd be one thing if the secrecy would foster a mystique (like what arguably happened with Astra), but with Blue, they've been around for SO long with little progress to show for it that it's hard to maintain that. Secrecy fostering mystique only works if you have some unexpected, massive progress, not products taking years longer than you promised (even after cultivating a "we go slow, but do what we say we will when we say we will do it" motto by putting tortoises in your company logo...).

Secrecy won't help Blue get better employees.

[meekGee]

Yeah, and it'd be one thing if the secrecy would foster a mystique (like what arguably happened with Astra), but with Blue, they've been around for SO long with little progress to show for it that it's hard to maintain that. Secrecy fostering mystique only works if you have some unexpected, massive progress, not products taking years longer than you promised (even after cultivating a "we go slow, but do what we say we will when we say we will do it" motto by putting tortoises in your company logo...).

Secrecy won't help Blue get better employees.

There used to be a bar near here called "warm beer bad service". The funny thing was, it wasn't a joke.

I'm getting a deja vu all-over-again feeling here... They literally put a turtle in the logo (emblem?)...

[gaballard]

Well I think it's very impressive that you all have found something to criticize in Blue's design before we even know anything of substance about it. That takes true dedication to pointless pessimism.

I'm not criticizing, I think copying Starship is a good move, it's what a fast follower should be doing at this point. Now they just need to execute, it would be interesting to see if they can start tank testing this fall as planned, if so they'd at least regained the initiative against RocketLab and Relativity.

Well it'd be nice if instead of a third party news article based on "sources", Mr. bezos would step up and say "we've decided to do this and that in order to accomplish this and that."

Just saying.

Why should he. Especially at this early stage I don’t see why he should say anything just to satisfy the curiosity of people on the internet. There seems to be this idea that just because Space X does things a particular way, and to be honest there is much they don’t disclose as why should they, that every other company in the same sector should follow the same route.

Because it means talented people won’t be terribly interested in working there.

Honestly, this may have slipped Bezos's mind. He doesnt have that problem with desperate-for-work amazon warehouse employees, he might not realize it's a factor.

Amazon/AWS is also known for aggressively courting and poaching talent... Bezos is used to throwing money at people and thnigs until he gets what he wants, and that doesn't work in this industry.