New Glenn 3-Core Version

[DPRKChlorinePentaflouride]

Would it be a good idea to have a 3-core New Glenn like with Falcon Heavy? It might work for NASA payloads (especially if we want to send bigger payloads to the outer solar system), military geosynchronous satellites, and BO payloads for the Moon. If Glenn Heavy (maybe they call it Cooper, Grissom, Schirra, Armstrong or something) wants to compete with Falcon Heavy for the DoD/NASA payloads, they might acquire enough drone ships to land the boosters and core at sea. Using Silverbird's launch vehicle performance calculator, we get 8 tons to geostationary for Falcon Heavy with ocean recovery for all 3 cores. Since NG is a lot bigger than F9, it seems logical that it could eclipse that.

[lightleviathan]

Like Falcon Heavy, (for SpaceX at least) New Glenn tri-core would be a stopgap for until New Armstrong comes online.

Also, it seems that orbital refueling is in the cards for New Glenn's 2nd stage, so they likely have all of the capability that they need

[jdon759]

New Glenn has a non-constant first stage diameter.  That would make any multi-body New Glenn a very challenging project.

[deltaV]

Three-core vehicles are harder to develop than they appear. It's also hard to reuse the center core while lifting a reasonable payload. Note that Falcon Heavy has been somewhat disappointing in its cost savings for this reason. A 3-core New Glenn would only make sense if a customer needs the extra capacity badly enough to pay close to a gigadollar developing the 3-core version (Falcon Heavy apparently cost over half a billion dollars to develop). I don't think such a customer exists. One-core New Glenn is big enough for all known demand (though it may need a third stage for high energy orbits such as NSSL lane 2).

[FLHerne]

"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell

[JCRM]

"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell

but how hard is it if you don't refuse to use existing industry knowledge?

[edzieba]

"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell

but how hard is it if you don't refuse to use existing industry knowledge?

Still really hard, you just have a grizzled veteran engineer to tell you it's really hard.

[greybeardengineer]

"There's three rockets. You glue them together. How hard is that? Well, according to my team, it's really hard." -- Gwynne Shotwell

but how hard is it if you don't refuse to use existing industry knowledge?

Then it would not only be really hard but also really, really expensive.

[spacenut]

If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship. 

[Eric Hedman]

If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Blue ended the idea of landing on a moving ship and switched plans to land on a barge.

[edkyle99]

If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Blue ended the idea of landing on a moving ship and switched plans to land on a barge.

You are not mistaken!

 - Ed Kyle

[deltaV]

If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.

My guess is that there won't be enough payloads bigger than expendable New Glenn can handle for Blue Origin to justify finding a way to launch them. Those rare customers will just use Starship.

[seb21051]

Well, they could always start the development by strapping three New Sheppards together . . .

To what end, you might ask? Oh, to satisfy the enthusiasts on NSF, of course.

[Steve G]

Because of the uneven first stage diameter, you'd be hard pressed to adapt it (and the landing legs) for even GEM boosters.

[TrevorMonty]

Most reasons to go bigger is for more BLEO payload which can also be achieved by using smaller LVs and inorbit refuelling. Better to invest in inorbit refuelling technology and infrastructure than 3 core heavy which rarely flies.

F9 flightrate proves that this would be viable and economical way to get to moon.
 

[AndrewM]

If you want more payload to orbit, it might be easier to strap on some solids.  You might get 4 between the legs. 

New Glenn is going to be more expensive anyway, using hydrolox upper stages, metholox booster, and trying to land the booster on a moving ship. 

Strapping SRBs on New Glenn would be challenging. The most effective way to have a significant increase in performance beyond LEO would be upgrading stage 2 or adding a 3rd stage. Years ago there were 2 stage and 3 stage variants of New Glenn but it seems like they abandoned the 3-stage design. With the Clipper program, stage 2 upgrades are already underway so that's probably the best bet.

[deadman1204]

Like Falcon Heavy, (for SpaceX at least) New Glenn tri-core would be a stopgap for until New Armstrong comes online.

Also, it seems that orbital refueling is in the cards for New Glenn's 2nd stage, so they likely have all of the capability that they need

Armstrong only exists on reddit.

[StraumliBlight]

Armstrong only exists on reddit.

Wait, that sounds familiar...

Blue are still maintaining the "New Armstrong" trademark, so it probably exists on powerpoint presentation as well.