New Glenn: Blue Origin Announcement of Orbital Rocket Plan

[high road]

I hate to throw more fuel on the BO-SpaceX flame wars, but even if Bezos ultimate goal is the moon and not Mars, there won't be enough money coming from the government to pay for two manned programs. And both of these nothing-but-exploration programmes will drain a lot of the funds needed to design all the architecture other than rockets, required to build up a self sustaining space economy.

Unless NASA ditches SLS and uses the money to ramp up the development of a commercial space station, so there is an operational cheap laboratory for (semi-) commercial initiatives to research commercial applications of micro gravity by the time ISS comes crashing down (which would be ASAP if there is a more economically viable alternative), no sustainable activities in space will come from these new bigger rocket, and they will all be 'rockets to nowhere', still struggling to get missions funded by short lived administrations.

Having now antagonized just about everybody on this site, let me end on a high note: we truly live in a new age of great explorations, with private people paying for spectacular missions, without having to make money from it. I'm not counting on seeing the first succesful colonies in my lifetime, but it'll be a great ride none the less.

[FH_2011]

I don't see this as bitter rivalry, infact I'm excited that more big capable rockets are coming online.
The Mars colonists do need redundancy for continuous resupply from Earth if the BFR is grounded for investigation.

[Dmitry_V_home]

Great! Jeff has made my day!

When I return from a business trip, will be, than to be engaged!

[envy887]

I hate to throw more fuel on the BO-SpaceX flame wars, but even if Bezos ultimate goal is the moon and not Mars, there won't be enough money coming from the government to pay for two manned programs. And both of these nothing-but-exploration programmes will drain a lot of the funds needed to design all the architecture other than rockets, required to build up a self sustaining space economy.

Unless NASA ditches SLS and uses the money to ramp up the development of a commercial space station, so there is an operational cheap laboratory for (semi-) commercial initiatives to research commercial applications of micro gravity by the time ISS comes crashing down (which would be ASAP if there is a more economically viable alternative), no sustainable activities in space will come from these new bigger rocket, and they will all be 'rockets to nowhere', still struggling to get missions funded by short lived administrations.

Having now antagonized just about everybody on this site, let me end on a high note: we truly live in a new age of great explorations, with private people paying for spectacular missions, without having to make money from it. I'm not counting on seeing the first succesful colonies in my lifetime, but it'll be a great ride none the less.

State-funded HSF exploration and semi-commercial (research/development/manufacturing) of micro-gravity are only a couple possible sources of revenue for this type of launcher.

Others include sub-orbital and orbital tourism (already a stated goal of BO), LEO commsats (like SpaceX's planned constellation), GEO commsats, commercial earth imaging sats, non-HSF state-funded exploration, etc.

SX and BO are betting that these markets will become viable (maybe even expand enormously) when launch costs come down.

[Brovane]

I hate to throw more fuel on the BO-SpaceX flame wars, but even if Bezos ultimate goal is the moon and not Mars, there won't be enough money coming from the government to pay for two manned programs. And both of these nothing-but-exploration programmes will drain a lot of the funds needed to design all the architecture other than rockets, required to build up a self sustaining space economy.

Unless NASA ditches SLS and uses the money to ramp up the development of a commercial space station, so there is an operational cheap laboratory for (semi-) commercial initiatives to research commercial applications of micro gravity by the time ISS comes crashing down (which would be ASAP if there is a more economically viable alternative), no sustainable activities in space will come from these new bigger rocket, and they will all be 'rockets to nowhere', still struggling to get missions funded by short lived administrations.

Having now antagonized just about everybody on this site, let me end on a high note: we truly live in a new age of great explorations, with private people paying for spectacular missions, without having to make money from it. I'm not counting on seeing the first succesful colonies in my lifetime, but it'll be a great ride none the less.

So I take it, you disagree with ULA's market assessment for gross space product for Cis-Lunar-1000? 

[SgtPoivre]

My two cents: I would bet that they have oversized their first stage to be able to do RTLS with most commercial payloads. They believe it is worth spending more initially and then recover from minimal refurbishment and operational costs.

[edkyle99]

The reasons for these big new rockets (New Glenn and Falcon Heavy) leave me puzzled.  There is no apparent DoD or commercial need.  NASA hasn't put out an RFP for anything this powerful.  But there must be a reason.  These are multi-billion dollar development projects!

The fact that they are both designed to launch 40 to 50-plus tonnes to LEO is interesting.  How could it be a coincidence that they seem to match capabilities? 

Who has the money to buy rides on these things?  What could weigh that much? 

During the late 1980s there were for a time efforts on Titan Barbarian and on a McDonnell Douglas equivalent, designed to lift 100,000 lbs to LEO, but I doubt that the Pentagon has rebooted a Manhattan-class secret plan to seed the heavens with chemical lasers!

China is working on an SLS class rocket.  Could there be something afoot to counter that effort? 

I have a hard time believing that multiple companies, now, would embark on such substantial, almost copy-cat development efforts unless some entity - with funding - had quietly specified a need.

 - Ed Kyle

[punder]

Maybe it's already been done here a million times? Once more won't hurt then. I think now's a good time to drag out TR's "Man in the Arena":

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

[GWH]

My two cents: I would bet that they have oversized their first stage to be able to do RTLS with most commercial payloads. They believe it is worth spending more initially and then recover from minimal refurbishment and operational costs.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

If that were the case then a 2nd stage with a BE-3U would make more sense - using a BE-4 for the second stage is puzzling.

[Ludus]

The reasons for these big new rockets (New Glenn and Falcon Heavy) leave me puzzled.  There is no apparent DoD or commercial need.  NASA hasn't put out an RFP for anything this powerful.  But there must be a reason.  These are multi-billion dollar development projects!

The fact that they are both designed to launch 40 to 50-plus tonnes to LEO is interesting.  How could it be a coincidence that they seem to match capabilities? 

Who has the money to buy rides on these things?  What could weigh that much? 

During the late 1980s there were for a time efforts on Titan Barbarian and on a McDonnell Douglas equivalent, designed to lift 100,000 lbs to LEO, but I doubt that the Pentagon has rebooted a Manhattan-class secret plan to seed the heavens with chemical lasers!

China is working on an SLS class rocket.  Could there be something afoot to counter that effort? 

I have a hard time believing that multiple companies, now, would embark on such substantial, almost copy-cat development efforts unless some entity - with funding - had quietly specified a need.

 - Ed Kyle

Amazon AWS is the lead company in global cloud infrastructure which will be an enormous business in the 2020's. AWS itself evolved out of Amazon handling it's own IT infrastructure and deciding to try selling service to others.

It would make sense for Amazon AWS to be interested in satellite internet constellations to create a new internet backbone like EM discussed in Seattle. Orbital launch is the moat around this business. They might sell launch services to rival constellations built by Samsung or Wyler's group or they might just do it all in house. A constellation like EM described could require dozens of launches of a New Glenn per year indefinitely. If that's the case it's not about big rockets per se, it's about reusable rockets with low launch costs that happen to work better when big.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Speculation warning 

Possible New Armstrong:
10-11m diameter
14 upgraded BE-4 (750klbf) engines
30% taller 1st stage
2 BE4U engined 2nd stage
Fully reusable 1st and 2nd stage
1 BE-3U engined 3rd stage but twice or more propellant than NG
LEO fully reusable 2 stage ~110-130mt
3 stage LLO or L2 ~40mt
3rd stage a possible Lunar landing and ascent stage with capsule on top (no Lunar orbit rendezvous)

BTW still launchable from 39B. (10.5Mlbf)

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

My two cents: I would bet that they have oversized their first stage to be able to do RTLS with most commercial payloads. They believe it is worth spending more initially and then recover from minimal refurbishment and operational costs.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

If that were the case then a 2nd stage with a BE-3U would make more sense - using a BE-4 for the second stage is puzzling.

The use of a BE-4U on 2nd stage suggests the 2 stage LNG would be used on LEO only where higher energy would add the BE-3U 3rd stage. The 5x higher thrust BE-4U makes sense when used with heavy 50mt payloads or the 3rd stage vs the BE-3U. Gravity losses can eat the advantage of a lower thrust but higher ISP engine. Not so when it comes to already in orbit orbit-maneuvers.

[Oli]

The reasons for these big new rockets (New Glenn and Falcon Heavy) leave me puzzled.  There is no apparent DoD or commercial need.

There's a DoD need for the Falcon Heavy. Also 22t to GTO is the capability of the expendable FH. It will likely reuse at least the boosters.

[baldusi]

My two cents: I would bet that they have oversized their first stage to be able to do RTLS with most commercial payloads. They believe it is worth spending more initially and then recover from minimal refurbishment and operational costs.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

If that were the case then a 2nd stage with a BE-3U would make more sense - using a BE-4 for the second stage is puzzling.

The use of a BE-4U on 2nd stage suggests the 2 stage LNG would be used on LEO only where higher energy would add the BE-3U 3rd stage. The 5x higher thrust BE-4U makes sense when used with heavy 50mt payloads or the 3rd stage vs the BE-3U. Gravity losses can eat the advantage of a lower thrust but higher ISP engine. Not so when it comes to already in orbit orbit-maneuvers.

Please remember that the rocket equation depends not only on isp, but on pmf. A really light engine and stage might be able to (almost) match a normal H2 stage. And at a fraction of the cost. Say 90% of performance at 50% of the cost, or less.

[edkyle99]

The reasons for these big new rockets (New Glenn and Falcon Heavy) leave me puzzled.  There is no apparent DoD or commercial need.

There's a DoD need for the Falcon Heavy.

Remains to be seen.  Delta 4 Heavy flies less than once per year, average, and the average seems to be decreasing.  Vulcan ACES, Falcon Heavy, and now maybe New Glenn are going to compete for this less-than one annual launch and only one will win.

 - Ed Kyle

[Oli]

There's a DoD need for the Falcon Heavy.

Remains to be seen.  Delta 4 Heavy flies less than once per year, average, and the average seems to be decreasing.  Vulcan ACES, Falcon Heavy, and now maybe New Glenn are going to compete for this less-than one annual launch and only one will win.

 - Ed Kyle

Vulcan ACES exists only on paper. Glenn is too big, doesn't have similar commonality with a smaller, often launched vehicle and exists only on paper as well.

But yes, remains to be seen.

If that were the case then a 2nd stage with a BE-3U would make more sense - using a BE-4 for the second stage is puzzling.

For the 3-stage Glenn which already has a hydrolox 3th stage a hydrolox 2nd stage would be of little benefit. Moreover BO has an efficient methalox engine with the right thrust.

[mme]

Wow, I'm agreeing with Oli. The ADHD of Blue Origin seems set to exceed that of SpaceX. What have these guys got against actually making a profit? That's how you grow a business.

We know the business credentials of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Do you care to share yours? If you really have some solid business advice they are unaware of, why don't you do them a favor and let them know?

Precisely. It was a nonsense point to start with. Amazon will supply the profit for the ambitions of Blue Origin.

Amazon will only fund Blue in the most indirect of senses, Bezos selling some of his shares.  Amazon operates on the thinest of margins and aggressively re-invests in their own infrastructure.  The only way I see them investing in Blue is if they want to get into the internet satellite constellation game.  Which I doubt they will do (but who knows.)

Bezos is the 3rd richest man in the US.  He could spend 10 billion dollars on Blue Origin and he'd still be the 3rd richest man in the US [1].  Bezos seems very committed to Blue, money is not a problem for Blue developing New Glenn.  Once New Glenn exists will it have payloads?  Will it have customers for those payloads?  I have no idea.

But if you want to launch private space stations for tourism, science, and industry you're going to need big rockets...

Edit: 10 billion dollar footnote...

[1] This of course depends on the valuation of his portfolio and that of each of the Koch brothers.  So there is a chance we would fall to 5th place after spending 10 billion dollars.  But seriously, the man has more money than he'll ever need and he can probably fund Blue for the rest of his natural life.

[GWH]

Remains to be seen.  Delta 4 Heavy flies less than once per year, average, and the average seems to be decreasing.  Vulcan ACES, Falcon Heavy, and now maybe New Glenn are going to compete for this less-than one annual launch and only one will win.

 - Ed Kyle

Not exactly - Falcon Heavy is in a great position for payloads of 6.0mT to GTO by recovering all 3 cores (probably all RTLS).  So it is really more positioned to go after Ariane 5 payloads, with the occasional larger Delta IV class payload with center core barge landing or expendable.  FH has the CAPABILITY to host much larger payloads by flying expendable.

Vulcan ACES will reportedly use excess capability to store prop on orbit on less demanding missions for use on the more high performance ones.  Again can be dialed to the payloads.

New Glenn as a 2 stage seems positioned to ONLY service a heavy lift LEO market OR GTO with a strangely overpowered second stage.

Please remember that the rocket equation depends not only on isp, but on pmf. A really light engine and stage might be able to (almost) match a normal H2 stage. And at a fraction of the cost. Say 90% of performance at 50% of the cost, or less.

Even without knowing any details on the motors, could a 500,000 lbf (2200kN) ORSC methane engine really be cheaper or lighter than a 110,000 lbf (489kN) tap-off hydrolox engine?

For the 3-stage Glenn which already has a hydrolox 3th stage a hydrolox 2nd stage would be of little benefit. Moreover BO has an efficient methalox engine with the right thrust.

The right thrust for what payloads?  Maybe a better topic to move to another thread?

[mme]

I don't know if this goes here or a more general section.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/nasa-chief-says-hes-not-a-big-fan-of-private-investment-in-large-rockets/

Falcon Heavy? New Glenn? NASA chief says he’s not a “big fan”
...
"If you talk about launch vehicles, we believe our responsibility to the nation is to take care of things that normal people cannot do, or don’t want to do, like large launch vehicles," Bolden said. "I’m not a big fan of commercial investment in large launch vehicles just yet."
...

I am a fan of commercial investing in big rockets, but I could see the argument that there is a danger in the promise of private SHLVs could undermine the existence of SLS.  Which is a problem if the commercial rockets fail to materialize or discontinued, etc.  Especially this close to SLS' maiden flight.

[Coastal Ron]

The reasons for these big new rockets (New Glenn and Falcon Heavy) leave me puzzled.  There is no apparent DoD or commercial need.  NASA hasn't put out an RFP for anything this powerful.  But there must be a reason.  These are multi-billion dollar development projects!

For Jeff Bezos and Blue Origin it's simple:

"Our vision is millions of people living and working in space."

And from this article:

Why Bezos’ rocket is unprecedented—and worth taking seriously | Ars Technica

Bezos said: "My view is you make plans for the near future, and you develop scenarios for the longer term, because so many things will change between now and then it doesn't make sense to make detailed plans for things like how you're going to do harvesting of resources from near-Earth objects. You want to think about those things, you want to develop scenarios, but you don't need to go all the way to a planning stage.”

So kind of like Elon Musk and reusability, their philosophy appears to be that the capability will change the market, and not the other way around.  So as long as they have the money, they can pursue their vision of what the future should be.

But don't try to justify what Bezos is doing using market analysis - this is personal to Jeff, and he has the money to spend on whatever he wants.