Blue Origin certainly has ambitious launch targets for New Glenn

If Blue Origin wants to launch New Glenn 100 times a year, we're here for it.

See full article...

 

[ahsgdbeyb3]

LFG!

If we expect 400 starships to blast off each year then this will be no problem for Blue!

 

[trimeta]

When I saw the headline, I thought Blue Origin was claiming they would launch 100 times in 2026. Given their previous claim about launching 8-10 times in 2025 (a claim they made in September of 2024, when they should have had a better grasp on their ability to launch within the next 12 months), I was completely prepared to believe that Blue Origin thought "we'll get the second-stage issue finished by the summer, and then launch another 100 times in the back half of the year."

 

[MtnGoatJoe]

LFG!

If we expect 400 starships to blast off each year then this will be no problem for Blue!

Absurd. Until BO develops a reusable upper stage, they will have a hard time keeping up with Starship launch rates. But the bigger worry for BO, I suspect, will be price. A fully reusable Starship will probably cost less per flight than NG (in any configuration).

Of course, SpaceX will have to prove Starship is cheap and reusable. We'll see what happens.

 

[Wickwick]

Absurd.

They wanted to launch 8 times per year with 4 cores. How are they going to make enough cores to launch every three days? And each has to be barged home. New Glenn isn't designed for RTLS.

 

[Cthel]

Absurd. Until BO develops a reusable upper stage, they will have a hard time keeping up with Starship launch rates. But the bigger worry for BO, I suspect, will be price. A fully reusable Starship will probably cost less per flight than NG (in any configuration).

Of course, SpaceX will have to prove Starship is cheap and reusable. We'll see what happens.

SpaceX already build 170+ second stages per year; what exactly is stopping Blue Origin building only 100 second stages per year? The second stage is bigger, but Blue Origin has plenty of room on the factory floor.

 

[Wickwick]

SpaceX already build 170+ second stages per year; what exactly is stopping Blue Origin building only 100 second stages per year? The second stage is bigger, but Blue Origin has plenty of room on the factory floor.

SpaceX didn't launch 100 time per year until 2024. That's the 14th year from their first launch of a Falcon 9. What's stopping Blue from achieving 100 launches per year is the dozen years they're going to need to ramp to that pace. Even if they do it in half the time - that's still 2032. Because Blue Origin is known for being a fast mover...

 

[Smiley7]

SpaceX already build 170+ second stages per year; what exactly is stopping Blue Origin building only 100 second stages per year? The second stage is bigger, but Blue Origin has plenty of room on the factory floor.

BO is also milling their tanks. They would need either a complete redesign or a lot more milling machines.

 

[Fatesrider]

SpaceX already build 170+ second stages per year; what exactly is stopping Blue Origin building only 100 second stages per year? The second stage is bigger, but Blue Origin has plenty of room on the factory floor.

Were I to offer an observer's opinion, I'd say the answer to your question is "reality". Alternatively "time" also works.

It's not that it can't be done. It's that they won't be able to do for several more years, if at all.

Certainly not by next year.

While like a stock, past performance doesn't indicate future performance in any rocket company, they have a shitton of checkboxes to mark off before they'll get within hailing distance of that mark. 20 per year is fucking aspirational and I don't think they have the ability to do that now. A hell of a lot of things they haven't yet done have to be done routinely and reliably before they'll hit 100/year.

And so far, "routinely and reliably" have not had a good track record with them for all of those checkboxes.

Every for profit company (or at least one that wants to make enough to wean itself off of Bezos' fortune backing it) will tout lofty goals, knowing that investors will stick with them if there's still some hope involved. And since Bezos can keep that game going all by himself for a lot longer, the rah-rah nature of this kind of announcement would be for the other (howsoever many there are) investors to stay in the game.

It's already well established that VC funding doesn't seem to give a shit about performance anymore (look at AI for example) and that hype sells while results don't seem to matter as much as they did in the past.

So I just see this as a corporate prep rally for people with skin in the game. Everyone else has a functional sense of reality. They CAN do it, if given enough time, money and effort, I expect. I just think they're being grotesquely optimistic about time frames.

As usual.

 

[McTurkey]

Absurd. Until BO develops a reusable upper stage, they will have a hard time keeping up with Starship launch rates. But the bigger worry for BO, I suspect, will be price. A fully reusable Starship will probably cost less per flight than NG (in any configuration).

Of course, SpaceX will have to prove Starship is cheap and reusable. We'll see what happens.

Falcon 9 has a disposable upper stage and launches more than 100x per year. Sure, it's a smaller, simpler stage than the New Glenn upper, but it's not impossible. Just very, very ambitious.

 

[r0twhylr]

Whether their target is reasonable or merely aspirational, it sounds like BO is much less focused on gradatim ferociter than they used to be. We will see how well that translates to action.

 

[Statistical]

I think most people will agree Blue will miss all those numbers and dates. However it is pretty clear they are thinking big, very big. That alone is cool.

If 9x4 doesn't launch until 2030 and "only" flies 30 times in 2032 that is still impressive compared to the entire rest of the world excluding SpaceX. It is worth noting that 9x4 is comparable to payload capabilities of SLS.

 

[Cthel]

BO is also milling their tanks. They would need either a complete redesign or a lot more milling machines.

What's the lead time look like on milling machines that big? Is it less than 3 years?

It's not like Jeff Bezos can't afford to buy a lot of them if he really wanted them...

 

[spacespektr]

Were I to offer an observer's opinion, I'd say the answer to your question is "reality". Alternatively "time" also works.

It's not that it can't be done. It's that they won't be able to do for several more years, if at all.

Certainly not by next year.

While like a stock, past performance doesn't indicate future performance in any rocket company, they have a shitton of checkboxes to mark off before they'll get within hailing distance of that mark. 20 per year is fucking aspirational and I don't think they have the ability to do that now. A hell of a lot of things they haven't yet done have to be done routinely and reliably before they'll hit 100/year.

And so far, "routinely and reliably" have not had a good track record with them for all of those checkboxes.

Every for profit company (or at least one that wants to make enough to wean itself off of Bezos' fortune backing it) will tout lofty goals, knowing that investors will stick with them if there's still some hope involved. And since Bezos can keep that game going all by himself for a lot longer, the rah-rah nature of this kind of announcement would be for the other (howsoever many there are) investors to stay in the game.

It's already well established that VC funding doesn't seem to give a shit about performance anymore (look at AI for example) and that hype sells while results don't seem to matter as much as they did in the past.

So I just see this as a corporate prep rally for people with skin in the game. Everyone else has a functional sense of reality. They CAN do it, if given enough time, money and effort, I expect. I just think they're being grotesquely optimistic about time frames.

As usual.

I suspect the marketing/investor management department has a hand in some of these job descriptions. They can describe aggressively optimistic goals knowing some space geek will post it to Reddit where the press gets ahold and runs with it.

Bezos, Limp, et al benefit from giving the industry a greater sense of momentum at BO but they aren’t on the hook for anything because it’s just recruitment puffery.

 

[Statistical]

Absurd. Until BO develops a reusable upper stage, they will have a hard time keeping up with Starship launch rates. But the bigger worry for BO, I suspect, will be price. A fully reusable Starship will probably cost less per flight than NG (in any configuration).

Of course, SpaceX will have to prove Starship is cheap and reusable. We'll see what happens.

I think it is needs to be endlessly brought up that COST is not PRICE. SpaceX internal COST for a F9 has likely fallen by around 80% since the first launch. Their public PRICE has increased 50% and based on few hard data points launches go for a lot more than that quoted $74M.

We have no idea when Starship will have a lower COST than Falcon 9 but even on that day entirely possible the public PRICE is $200M+. Stalink makes far more than launches do especially if you exclude the uncommon but very high price NASA/DOD contracts. Low launch PRICES allow third parties to compete better with Starlink the real money maker.

SpaceX will certainly pursue lowering the COST of Starship. Unclear if that will translate into lower PRICES.

 

[jlredford]

For the time being, Blue Origin is still studying whether to pursue a reusable upper stage for New Glenn, so each launch of the vehicle requires a new upper stage.

Doesn't a reusable second stage need a completely different rocket? Or can they just buy Stoke Space and bolt one of their reusable stages onto the first stage of a New Glen?

 

[Statistical]

Were I to offer an observer's opinion, I'd say the answer to your question is "reality". Alternatively "time" also works.

It's not that it can't be done. It's that they won't be able to do for several more years, if at all.

Certainly not by next year.

While like a stock, past performance doesn't indicate future performance in any rocket company, they have a shitton of checkboxes to mark off before they'll get within hailing distance of that mark. 20 per year is fucking aspirational and I don't think they have the ability to do that now. A hell of a lot of things they haven't yet done have to be done routinely and reliably before they'll hit 100/year.

While Blue's goals are certainly aspirational and almost certainly will be missed it would help if you didn't make up your own metrics to then claim it is dumb.

The only one claiming 100 launches next year is you.

 

[Statistical]

Doesn't a reusable second stage need a completely different rocket? Or can they just buy Stoke Space and bolt one of their reusable stages onto the first stage of a New Glen?

It would require a new upper stage but I don't think it would require a completely new launch vehicle all together. Hard to say because we haven't seen any details of a reusable upper stage but in a fully reusable launch vehicle the first stage is largely just throwing the upper stage on a suborbital trajectory. From the booster point of view a 300t reusable stage isn't much different than a 300t expendable one. The magic happens after stage separation.

That being said if I were a betting man I wouldn't expect Blue to have a reusable upper stage for at least a decade and I think that is being optimistic. SpaceX has been designing and building Starship since at least 2018 even if we exclude prior work on Raptor, ITS, MTS, BFR, composite Starship, etc.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

I think it is needs to be endlessly brought up that COST is not PRICE. SpaceX internal COST for a F9 has likely fallen by around 80% since the first launch. Their public PRICE has increased 50% and based on few hard data points launches go for a lot more than that quoted $74M.

We have no idea when Starship will have a lower COST than Falcon 9 but even on that day entirely possible the public PRICE is $200M+. Stalink makes far more than launches do especially if you exclude the uncommon but very high price NASA/DOD contracts. Low launch PRICES allow third parties to compete better with Starlink the real money maker.

Gwynne said years ago that their F9 contracts allow swapping to Starship, so that strongly implies it’s going to start at same price. It’s possible they’ll double or triple berth and the actual price per launch will be much higher, but I doubt it given orbital delivery requirements.

And my memory is that F9 started at $63M so current $70M is only a 10% increase. Either way its price increases are below inflation over the last 15 years.

And the only winches I’m aware of with higher prices are the ones that require very special handling, secrecy and documentation, ie NASA and Pentagon.

 

[Statistical]

And my memory is that F9 started at $63M so current $70M is only a 10% increase. Either way its price increases are below inflation over the last 15 years.

Your memory is wrong. Falcon 9 public prices began at $49.9M and it is $74M today which is 48.2% increase. Although as said not sure anyone has actually paid as little as that $74M number. That is the equivalent of the base model on the car lot.

Inflation isn't some magic thing that is unavoidable. Prices do often go down for non-commodity products. Computers, phones, internet service, HDTVs, etc. SpaceX COSTS have almost certainly decreased in spite of material price inflation. If they haven't that would mean reuse was stupid and a waste of time. SpaceX certainly could be selling launches for less probably <$30M but they don't. Now to be clear that is fine, SpaceX can price launches at whatever the price it wants. The point though remains SpaceX's COSTS going down through reuse and other optimizations has not resulted in PRICES to customers going down.

Given how much launch costs provide a moat for the real money maker at SpaceX, which is Starlink it is reasonable to assume the same will be true of Starship. From a profit and revenue standpoint, SpaceX is largely a telecommunication company (with dreams of AI nonsense) that also happens to launch rockets for external customers on the side.

Gwynne said years ago that their F9 contracts allow swapping to Starship, so that strongly implies it’s going to start at same price.

It implies no such thing at all.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Falcon 9 has a disposable upper stage and launches more than 100x per year. Sure, it's a smaller, simpler stage than the New Glenn upper, but it's not impossible. Just very, very ambitious.

I’d say closer to impractical if not impossible. New Glenn’s uppers have to cost several times more to build than F9s, not just because of size and required milling but also because its hydrolox requiring extreme cryogenic cooling. Also BE-3s being low production volume making their cost per unit high.

A BE-3u is roughly 1/10th the thrust of a BE-4. If they really want to switch the upper to 4 of them they should consider instead building a Methalox upper using a single BE-4. ISP would drop significantly but dry mass for a denser propellant likely would too and costs should be far lower. Plus you increase BE-4 production, reducing its cost per unit for both stages. And the much higher thrust might reduce gravity losses to offset the lower ISP.

I’m a firm believer that performance and efficiency is less important than cost in this era, especially with heavy lift launchers. If you are reusing the first stage, most of your launch cost will be in expending the second stage. So it’s better to give up some second stage performance if it reduces build costs substantially.

 

[Statistical]

I’d say closer to impractical if not impossible. New Glenn’s uppers have to cost several times more to build than F9s, not just because of size and required milling but also because its hydrolox requiring extreme cryogenic cooling. Also BE-3s being low production volume making their cost per unit high.

Cryogenic cooling does not add extreme cost. BE-3 are in low production today. However arguing they are expensive due to low production as a reason they can't be used at a rate of 400+ per year is circular logic.

A BE-3u is roughly 1/10th the thrust of a BE-4. If they really want to switch the upper to 4 of them they should consider instead building a Methalox upper using a single BE-4. ISP would drop significantly but dry mass for a denser propellant likely would too and costs should be far lower. Plus you increase BE-4 production, reducing its cost per unit for both stages. And the much higher thrust might reduce gravity losses to offset the lower ISP.

Gravity losses are to first order of approximation based on the TWR of the booster. Lower TWR uppers have an impact but it is small compared to the booster certainly not enough to throw away the higher isp of hydrolox.

Moving to methalox upper stage would make all their in orbit refueling plans dead. While you think they should have Methalox upper (because SpaceX did that and everything SpaceX does is right and everything SpaceX doesn't do is stupid) I am sure no matter what happens NG 9x4 will have a hydrolox upper. Hydrolox is what makes their crew lander not require 14+ tanker launches just to get to the moon.

Even if they are wrong Blue clearly sees the isp value of hydrolox for cislunar and deep space missions and if you need hydrolox in orbit then your upper stage likely needs to be hydrolox.

 

[diachi]

Your memory is wrong. Falcon 9 public prices began at $49.9M and it is $74M today which is 48.2% increase. Although as said not sure anyone has actually paid as little as that $74M number. That is the equivalent of the base model on the car lot.

Inflation isn't some magic thing that is unavoidable. Prices do often go down for non-commodity products. Computers, phones, internet service, HDTVs, etc. SpaceX COSTS have almost certainly decreased in spite of material price inflation. If they haven't that would mean reuse was stupid and a waste of time. SpaceX certainly could be selling launches for less probably <$30M but they don't. Now to be clear that is fine, SpaceX can price launches at whatever the price it wants. The point though remains SpaceX's COSTS going down through reuse and other optimizations has not resulted in PRICES to customers going down.

Given how much launch costs provide a moat for the real money maker at SpaceX, which is Starlink it is reasonable to assume the same will be true of Starship. From a profit and revenue standpoint, SpaceX is largely a telecommunication company (with dreams of AI nonsense) that also happens to launch rockets for external customers on the side.



It implies no such thing at all.

No reason for them to lower their prices when they're already the cheapest option on the market and are doing more launches than everyone else combined. I think we'd see prices come down if they had some real competition.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Your memory is wrong. Falcon 9 public prices began at $49.9M and it is $74M today which is 48.2% increase. Although as said not sure anyone has actually paid as little as that $74M number. That is the equivalent of the base model on the car lot.

I just realized Wikipedia now has a pricing history for the F9.

At the time of the Falcon 9's maiden flight in 2010, the advertised price for commercial satellite launches using the v1.0 version was $49.9–56 million.[4]Over the years, the price increased, keeping pace with inflation. By 2012, it rose to $54–59.5 million,[167] followed by $56.5 million for the v1.1 version in 2013,[168] $61.2 million in 2014,[169] $62 million for the Full Thrust version in 2016,[170] and $74 million for the Block 5 version in 2026.[1]

What thus shows is that most of the price increase occurred in first 4 years, when it was still in heavy development (only 7 launches first four years). Remember, v1.0 was only 333 tons, v1.1 was 506 tons and FT is 568 tons.

So clearly pricing was increased heavily in first 4 years in part to cover the increased costs of making a larger rocket. $61M in 2014 adjusted for inflation would be $86M today.

Inflation isn't some magic thing that is unavoidable. Prices do often go down for non-commodity products. Computers, phones, internet service, HDTVs, etc. SpaceX COSTS have almost certainly decreased in spite of material price inflation. SpaceX certainly could be selling launches for less probably <$30M but they don't. Now to be clear that is fine, SpaceX can price launches at whatever the price it wants. The point though remains SpaceX's COSTS going down has not resulted in PRICES going down.

Given how much launch costs provide a moat for the real money maker at SpaceX which is Starlink it is reasonable to assume the same will be true of Starship. From a profit and revenue standpoint, SpaceX is largely a telecommunication company (with dreams of AI nonsense) that also happens to launch rockets on the side.

I don’t disagree with any of this. Clearly SpaceX has lots of pricing leeway given their (by far) lowest costs in launch. They have little motivation to lower prices and are better off booking more profits in the current market with lack of any viable competition.

It implies no such thing at all.

We will have to agree to disagree here. Putting that into the contract at the same price I see as a strong implication.

And a large issue facing Starship is if it’s successful and launches at a high cadence, how does SpaceX fill all that enormous cadence? They should have the ability to put 100 tons into orbit every 1-2 days. Can Starlink take up enough of it?

I’m gonna argue that this points toward same pricing as F9 to try to grow the market for large launch payloads. Why build a 12 ton satellite if now for same launch cost you can use cheaper materials and redundant systems to make a more capable but much higher mass satellite for a fraction of the cost?

They could easily price Starship north of $100M/launch but it won’t spur customer demand as much. Based on their historical pricing I argue they are likely to choose a lower price to grow the market. Once F9 FT had established itself as a super safe launch option they could have easily increased its price to close to $100M and remained the cheapest safest launch option. But they preferred to keep pricing consistent and below inflation, to hopefully spur customers to build to the new higher capacity FT enabled.

 

[Statistical]

No reason for them to lower their prices when they're already the cheapest option on the market and are doing more launches than everyone else combined. I think we'd see prices come down if they had some real competition.

They have real competition. Ariane 64 is roughly the same price (after subsidies). New Glenn is lower when you consider it lifts twice as much as F9. Despite this they have not lower prices. They haven't lowered prices because SpaceX today is primarily a telecommunication company which also sometimes launches payloads for third parties.

 

[Statistical]

I don’t disagree with any of this. Clearly SpaceX has lots of pricing leeway given their (by far) lowest costs in launch. They have little motivation to lower prices and are better off booking more profits in the current market with lack of any viable competition.

They don't have the lowest launch prices "by far". Those days are long long gone. Depending on the datapoint F9 is slightly cheaper to slightly more expensive. Certainly not to the point where F9 was a no brainer like it was a decade ago. They could have substantially lower prices than anyone else as they almost certainly have the highest profit margin. They have chosen to not do that.

So again lower COSTS have not translated into lower PRICES. There is good reason for that. Substantially lower prices would make Starlink competitors more cost effective allowing them to reach the market faster and undercut SpaceX prices on Starlink which would require SpaceX to lower Starlink prices. The big money maker is Starlink so cheaper launch prices to third parties would not only cost them profit margins on launches it would undermine their huge cash cow as well.

There is nothing to suggest Starship will change that. Starship will rebuild the moat around Starlink but only if they keep prices to third parties high.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

Cryogenic cooling does not add extreme cost. BE-3 are in low production today. However arguing they are expensive due to low production as a reason they can't be used at a rate of 400+ per year is circular logic.

It is a bit of circular logic. But if it doubles BE-4 production rates then it significantly reduces production costs for the entire rocket.

Gravity losses are to first order of approximation based on the TWR of the booster. Lower TWR uppers have an impact but it is small compared to the booster certainly not enough to throw away the higher isp of hydrolox.

Yea, I didn’t think it would, just pointing out that lower dry mass and gravity losses would help narrow the gap. My argument is based on cost, not performance.

Moving to methalox upper stage would make all their in orbit refueling plans dead. While you think they should have Methalox upper (because SpaceX did that and everything SpaceX does is right and everything SpaceX doesn't do is stupid) I am sure no matter what happens NG 9x4 will have a hydrolox upper. Hydrolox is what makes their crew lander not require 14+ tanker launches just to get to the moon.

I’m not arguing that starship proves methslox uppers are better. I’m arguing that using the same propellant and engines on both stages lowers its costs of production significantly.

Even if they are wrong Blue clearly sees the isp value of hydrolox for cislunar and deep space missions and if you need hydrolox in orbit then your upper stage likely needs to be hydrolox.

I do admit I’m not sold on hydrolox. But if they solve all the storage and leak issues with their in development anti-boiloff technologies it will make a lot more sense to me.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

They don't have the lowest launch prices "by far". Those days are long long gone.

Vulcan is $106M for 12 tons vs F9 $74m for 18 tons, and f9 has by far the best launch record.

New Glenn is likely $100m for 24 tons, but it’s working through second stage issues.

What else is there? Ariane 6? That’s even more expensive.

 

[InvariantCapitalist]

They have real competition. Ariane 64 is roughly the same price (after subsidies).

Ariane 64 is at least $106M and only 21 tons to LEO, barely 15% more. Its GTO performance is significantly better, but that’s it and doesn’t matter to constellation builders, ie most of market.

New Glenn is lower when you consider it lifts twice as much as F9.

It will lift double some day but for just its overweight and all reports are it’s only around 25 tons. And its cost structure is far higher. Even $100M pricing would likely be at breakeven.

 

[Helernus]

BO is also milling their tanks

How does SpaceX do it, then?

 

[EllPeaTea]

How does SpaceX do it, then?

SpaceX do skin-and-stringers. The metal sheets come in to the forming process already at their final thickness, and then reinforcing stringers are welded to the insides (as opposed to milling down a thicker sheet).

 

[Dtiffster]

Moving to methalox upper stage would make all their in orbit refueling plans dead. While you think they should have Methalox upper (because SpaceX did that and everything SpaceX does is right and everything SpaceX doesn't do is stupid) I am sure no matter what happens NG 9x4 will have a hydrolox upper. Hydrolox is what makes their crew lander not require 14+ tanker launches just to get to the moon.

Even if they are wrong Blue clearly sees the isp value of hydrolox for cislunar and deep space missions and if you need hydrolox in orbit then your upper stage likely needs to be hydrolox.

Methalox isn't the reason why starship may require 14+ launches, it's because starship is huge. Much too big for near term missions, probably (you've argued as much many times). Blue Moon is smaller relative to the rocket it is launching on than HLS is to starship, that's as big a reason why it take fewer flights as the choice of hydrolox.

Also the calls to switch New Glenn to a methalox upper have nothing to do with starship or fanboi-ism, it's because New Glenn was originally supposed to have a methalox second stage. This was 'optimized' away by Bob Smith in the name simplifying NGs path to flight (that went well), but a methalox upper for New Glenn would have been smaller and cheaper (and easier to make reusable) and just as capable to LEO. It'd be optimizing the rocket for the majority of the flights as well, which should be mega constellation work in LEO.

For high energy work they would have had a hydrolox third stage, which would be much more performant than the compromise hydrolox second stage. Likewise they could fitted a methalox second stage (expendable or reusable) with a hydrogen tank onboard to serve as a tanker, and they would be able to have the lunar architecture they want without compromising the rocket for the majority of its flights.

 

[mschira]

Absurd. Until BO develops a reusable upper stage, they will have a hard time keeping up with Starship launch rates. But the bigger worry for BO, I suspect, will be price. A fully reusable Starship will probably cost less per flight than NG (in any configuration).

Of course, SpaceX will have to prove Starship is cheap and reusable. We'll see what happens.

Your last sentence contradicts your first.
We will have to wait and see, neither is properly flying at this stage. NG seems closer though.

 

[Statistical]

Methalox isn't the reason why starship may require 14+ launches, it's because starship is huge. Much too big for near term missions, probably (you've argued as much many times).

That is one reason but not the only reason. Hydrolox also reduces the number of fueling flights. 9x4 would reduce it further.

For high energy work they would have had a hydrolox third stage, which would be much more performant than the compromise hydrolox second stage. Likewise they could fitted a methalox second stage (expendable or reusable) with a hydrogen tank onboard to serve as a tanker, and they would be able to have the lunar architecture they want without compromising the rocket for the majority of its flights.

This is last generation thinking. The payload can be its own high performance third stage now that cryogenic payloads are being fueled on the pad. I don't know if people realize this but NG 7x2 doesn't send the Blue Moon 1 lander to the moon. It just lifts it into LEO. The BM1 "lander" is departure stage, insertion stage, and lander all in one. Scaling BM1 up would allow NG 9x4 to send 10 tons to the lunar surface with zero refueling. With refueling a bm-2 based expendable lander can put 30 tons of the surface with just 3 NG 9x4 launches.

Also the idea that a hydrolox upper stage is compromised is simply wrong. If you simulate the numbers hydrolox upper stages hold their own. Hydrolox boosters and sustainer core yeah those are terrible ideas better left in the trash bin of history.

 

[sigan7]

BO is also milling their tanks. They would need either a complete redesign or a lot more milling machines.

Blue Origin have already said they are pursuing a lower-cost monocoque tank design. This flight rate probably doesn't depend on milled tanks.

 

[Dtiffster]

That is one reason but not the only reason. Hydrolox also reduces the number of fueling flights. 9x4 would reduce it further.

And upgraded versions of starship and optimizing prop transfer will do the same. It's strange to me to treat Blue Origin's ambitions as fait accompli given their track record, while minimizing what SpaceX can accomplish given theirs. I get that musk is a huge dick that is enshittifying SpaceX, but Bezos isn't much better (he's maybe quieter, but that's it).

This is last generation thinking. The payload can be its own high performance third stage now that cryogenic payloads are being fueled on the pad. I don't know if people realize this but NG 7x2 doesn't send the Blue Moon 1 lander to the moon. It just lifts it into LEO. The BM1 "lander" is departure stage, insertion stage, and lander all in one. Scaling BM1 up would allow NG 9x4 to send 10 tons to the moon with zero refueling.

Also the idea that a hydrolox upper stage is compromised is simply wrong. If you simulate the numbers hydrolox upper stages hold their own. Hydrolox boosters and sustainer core yeah those are terrible ideas better left in the trash bin of history.

Last generation thinking, really? So in your analysis working their tails off to build as many expendable upper stages as possible is not? I get it that for anyone that is not SpaceX that would be a huge improvement, but there still is some wisdom in skating to where the puck is gonna be and not where it is. Or did we all decide that full reusability is not the next generation?

And I do realize that 7x2 doesn't lift blue moon to a high energy orbit. I wasn't arguing that a hydrolox upper stage would be used to launch blue moon, I was arguing you could use a similar idea by just fitting a hydrogen tank in the payload fairing and filling it on the pad just like you would an in fairing third stage or cryo payload. If it's just a LEO space truck and is not being re tanked up in LEO to act as a third stage (which it is not), then why does it need to have the same prop as what it tanks up. The fact is that at some point they made a decision to go with a hydrolox second stage, and it's worth asking whether they made the wrong choice and maybe doubling down on it by just building an even bigger version of it for you block upgrade to the rocket isn't sending good money after bad.

A Hydrolox upper stage optimized for a recoverable booster is larger than a methalox upper stage, full stop. Hydrogen gets its performance advantage by being lighter and staging faster. When you put a speed limit on staging the booster, it has to get larger which is pushing it against the direction it wants to optimize. Blue pulled out all the tricks it could with those big strakes and its booster TPS to allow faster staging, and it still ends up with a stage which is at least 50% larger than what the methane upper stage would have been. A 9x4 upper will be more than double. And we don't really know whether those tricks worked either, New Glenn is still pretty conservative booster profile wise, they probably still don't have a solid idea of their envelope yet.

This matter quite a bit when they are talking about making 100 of the latter and 30 of the former a year. SpaceX makes 170 stages a year, but they are 15% the volume of 7x2 and probably 10% of a 9x4 using a simpler construction method. Using a single modified version of your booster engine also makes a difference. A methalox upper stage for 9x4 could have been the same size as 7x2 with a single BE-4U. That would be easier to either make a lot of or to make reusable.

 

[Statistical]

And upgraded versions of starship and optimizing prop transfer will do the same. It's strange to me to treat Blue Origin's ambitions as fait accompli given their track record, while minimizing what SpaceX can accomplish given theirs. I get that musk is a huge dick that is enshittifying SpaceX, but Bezos isn't much better (he's maybe quieter, but that's it).

I did nothing of the sort. Entirely possible Blue will fail. I never said otherwise. Never said Bezos was better or the long list of strawmen you created.

You win though. SpaceX is the bestest evah. Nobody else should try anything different. No need to discuss anything just talk about how bestest SpaceX will be forever.

 

[Dtiffster]

I did nothing of the sort. Entirely possible Blue will fail. I never said otherwise. Never said Bezos was better or the long list of strawmen you created.

Come on man, you started this by saying:

because SpaceX did that and everything SpaceX does is right and everything SpaceX doesn't do is stupid

In response to someone that had the gall to argue for a configuration that sounded kinda like a falcon 9 or that used methane in the upper stage like starship (but was exactly the original concept of New Glenn). The tone of your posts with regards to SpaceX have gotten extremely negative, but the same thing isn't true for blue origin. I don't think it's a straw man to point out the hypocrisy in that, especially not with you throwing out Elon fanboi ad hominems left and right. They are both terrible people and you can either separate that from your love of space or you can't, but I don't like being called a fanboi because I chose to try and discuss rockets without letting Elon live rent free in my head.

For the record I was extremely happy when blue origin changed its HLS architecture to blue moon 2.0, when Limp took over and they seemed to get some urgency, when they succeeded on their first launch and second landing attempt, and when they announced 9x4. I've been hoping for years that blue origin would step up and compete with SpaceX. Doesn't mean that I can't raise technical objections to their approach, or that when I do it is automatically because I'm an Elon fanboi.

You win though. SpaceX is the bestest evah. Nobody else should try anything different. No need to discuss anything just talk about how bestest SpaceX will be forever.

Sigh, at least this is better than the original post you edited, but this is still pretty trollish. It's a shame because I know you're capable of being very knowledgeable and insightful, but this isn't that.

 

[Wickwick]

I think most people will agree Blue will miss all those numbers and dates. However it is pretty clear they are thinking big, very big. That alone is cool.

If 9x4 doesn't launch until 2030 and "only" flies 30 times in 2032 that is still impressive compared to the entire rest of the world excluding SpaceX. It is worth noting that 9x4 is comparable to payload capabilities of SLS.

If 9x4 launches for the first time in 2030, the word "only" isn't the appropriate word to describe flying 30 launches in 2032. The correct word would be "miraculous."

 

[Wickwick]

Cryogenic cooling does not add extreme cost. BE-3 are in low production today. However arguing they are expensive due to low production as a reason they can't be used at a rate of 400+ per year is circular logic.



Gravity losses are to first order of approximation based on the TWR of the booster. Lower TWR uppers have an impact but it is small compared to the booster certainly not enough to throw away the higher isp of hydrolox.

Moving to methalox upper stage would make all their in orbit refueling plans dead. While you think they should have Methalox upper (because SpaceX did that and everything SpaceX does is right and everything SpaceX doesn't do is stupid) I am sure no matter what happens NG 9x4 will have a hydrolox upper. Hydrolox is what makes their crew lander not require 14+ tanker launches just to get to the moon.

Even if they are wrong Blue clearly sees the isp value of hydrolox for cislunar and deep space missions and if you need hydrolox in orbit then your upper stage likely needs to be hydrolox.

What on earth does being hydrolox have anything to do with the number of launches needed for propellant for lunar missions? SpaceX requires a large number simply because their departure vehicle / lander is 100 tonnes dry. So long as Blue Origin doesn't try to send 100 structural tonnes to the moon, they won't need so many launches.

Hydrogen tanks are larger than methane, so the added dry mass for an upper hurts except in the most extreme of high energy orbits. LEO propellant transfer is not such a profile.