New Glenn

There's "oil" on Titan.

>he doesn't know about platinum-group metal asteroids

Now I understand all the SpaceX butthurt here. It's all Blue Origin faggots.

kek how they've copying everything SpaceX has already accomplished; drone ships, first stage landings, etc.

>over the long term

And until then SpaceX is currently launching rockets and making money, eating up a large section of the launch market. The upcoming CRS2 missions are going to add more revenue, alongside Falcon Heavy which will allow even heavy geostationary payloads to recover all first stage booster cores. Only heavy payloads to beyond-Earth-orbit destinations will require expenditure of cores anymore. More missions and reuse of cores is where SpaceX will have a significant profit margin advantage over every space company, until BO starts flying their launch vehicle successfully, at which point SpaceX will merely have a price competitor.

In the mean time New Glenn probably won't fly for at least two or three years, during which time SpaceX can keep their price aroudn what it is today with no market repercussions, no matter how much money they save by reusing cores. When (if) New Glenn becomes fully operational and starts competing with SpaceX, SpaceX can just lower the launch cost to a comparable level and remain strong in the market. The side effect of course is that suddenly ULA and Arianespace will be competing with tow companies who have undercut their price points by an order of magnitude, and with their current lineup of Vulcan and Ariane 6, they will have no chance of matching that price.

>judging engineering on render quality
When I see shit like that, I wonder why they didn't spend the money on engineers

>he doesn't know that those metals are bound up in iron-nickel alloy and it is absurdly expensive to extract a small amount impurities from iron alloys.

>but their drone ship MOVES
>and New Glenn doesn't NEED a boost-back or reentry burn

Strange how BO would choose to forego potential fast recovery and reuse with return to launch site landing in favor of a several day voyage at sea every time their rocket launches.

SES-10 is later this month and the first reuse mission of a Falcon 9 stage one.

correct

Im not holding my breath though, sadly those launches keep getting pushed back.
>I want to believe

>going to space for resources is the only way to make money in space
>no that's too expensive it is therefore impossible to make money in space :^)

You make money by sending things TO space for people who need their things IN space to make money. EG, communication satellites, weather satellites, internet satellites. Those markets are not fully realized at this point because launch costs are prohibitive for most projects. Lower launch costs will allow satellite companies to redesign for mass production and shorter lifetimes, taking advantage of being able to afford more cheap launches in order to lower their own production costs in the long run.

>sadly those launches keep getting pushed back

Source? Other that the Amos-6 incident I don't think anything's happened to push launches back except for some priority-shuffling.

Those markets don't really exist. They are very small.

Virgin was selling a really expensive amusement.

it produced some neat engineering with Rutan though.

Really slow landing
Have they learned nothing from SpaceX? Also what about the reentry burn ?

>woman
nice PR propaganda

The market doesn't exist because of the insane costs. If you magically made launch costs 1$/kg the market would grow 100fold over the next couple of years.

>If you magically made launch costs 1$/kg the market would grow 100fold over the next couple of years
100fold is a huge understatement

1$/kg is nothing. large scale space expansion would immediately occur

Yeah it might just be an effect of the backlog caused by Amos-6 and so on, so hopefully it will improve.

As for source, i've just been following the date changes seen on SpaceFlightNow
spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

So you have like
>Falcon 9 • EchoStar 23
>Delayed from 3rd quarter, 4th quarter, Jan. 8, Jan. 26, Jan. 30, Feb. 3 and Feb. 28

>Falcon 9 • SES 10
>Delayed from 3rd Quarter, October and February

>Falcon 9 • Formosat 5 & Sherpa
>Delayed from May, June, July, September and October.

>Falcon 9 • SpaceX CRS 11
>Delayed from June 2, Aug. 15, Jan. 13 and Feb. 1

And so on. Hopefully, if they start hitting their launch schedule it will be like fucking missile macros on both east coast and west coast

But isn't the rocket the cheap part, relatively speaking? Also, why not just land it in the sea and go fish it out?

salt water corrodes everything.

they shuttle boosters ditched in the ocean and were recovered to be reused. it was too much work and they were solid fuel.

would be cool to have some /scinsider/ info
just don't shill

>The contracts, and therefor theoretical private market, is extremely small.
You have no idea how wrong you are.

People want extremely high resolution realtime Earth imagery.
You need absolute shitloads of satellites for that.

Things have been getting pushed back continuously the last several months.

Blue Origin has already landed a booster half a dozen times, and by the time New Glenn flies it will be 50-100 times.
BO stands a pretty good chance of nailing the landing on its first try; certainly better than SpaceX did when they first started out.

The only butthurt I see here is a bunch of redditors who only like like SpaceX and Elon Musk, and don't actually care about space travel.

>Really slow landing
That's exactly how New Shepard lands.
NS and NG have engines that can dip below a TWR of 1, allowing for non-"hoverslam" landings, which are more reliable.

>Have they learned nothing from SpaceX
I'm sure they have been watching everything their competitor has done closely.

>Also what about the reentry burn?
There is none, atm, and if they can pull it off it will mean more fuel savings.

The three-stage variant of NG is obviously meant to cater to an emerging Lunar market.

I suspect BO will build a large (perhaps 10-24 person) capsule by 2022-23, and that it will have a service module allowing it to enter Lunar orbit unlike Dragon 2.

There is a very big difference in both size and speed between New Shepard and New Glenn. Add to that the difficulties of landing on a moving target and I really don't see them starting out with a high success rate.

>size
This doesn't matter in any way aside from engine complexity (and keep in mind this engine will be flown a dozen times on Vulcan and certified for national security launch before NG ever flies.) Elon himself said that the reason they are using powered landings for Mars is that the technology is easily scaleable.

>speed
NG speed at separation will be maybe 40% higher than NS at most. I do agree that the biggest unknown on the first flight will be reentry.

>Add to that the difficulties of landing on a moving target
Why would this be difficult? It's just adding an extra reference frame to consider in the computer. An undergrad could do this. The moving ship will be more stable (due to moving) and have a larger deck, and will be able to sail directly back to port. Also, the booster will almost certainly have enough margin to hover and reorient itself for landing if need be.

>I really don't see them starting out with a high success rate.
It's reasonable to expect that they won't make the first landing but there's no reason they cannot achieve it much quicker than SpaceX did.

>allowing for non-"hoverslam" landings, which are more reliable.
Only for a person, makes no difference to a computer, just means they are wasting more fuel

They haven't launched any payload to orbit yet, you KNOW that they are going to have problems with landing failures & rocket blow ups, its inevitable
That will set them back years, even if they manage to launch first in 2020

We'll see if they can do reentry without a burn, SpaceX does one for a reason

>Only for a person, makes no difference to a computer, just means they are wasting more fuel
At least two of the SpaceX landings (SES-9 and Eutelsat/ABSat) failed due to the hoverslam approach.
NS has a higher landing success rate (5:6) vs falcon 9 (8:13). The non-hoverslam approach is objectively more reliable.

>They haven't launched any payload to orbit yet, you KNOW that they are going to have problems with landing failures & rocket blow ups, its inevitable
see this post >That will set them back years, even if they manage to launch first in 2020
Eh, not really. Unless they blow up their own pad, the next NG will be leaving the assembly line shortly after the first. Also, consider how deep Bezos's pockets are compared to Musk's.

>We'll see if they can do reentry without a burn, SpaceX does one for a reason
Well they obviously think it might work. I doubt these people would just say "fuck it lets give this a try." That's not BO's style.

kek

>isn't the rocket the cheap part, relatively speaking?
In what way? The rocket basically costs as much as an airliner. The tank of fuel costs as much as maybe ten or thirty tanks of airliner fuel. Looking at the launch itself, the rocket is by far the most expensive part.

Looking at the payload, the satellites are expensive mainly because the launches are expensive (and have to be ordered far in advance). They can't take chances with the design, or they'll end up getting stuck with a non-working satellite and have to pay for another launch, another satellite, and all the resulting downtime. Cheap launches would mean cheap testing in space, eventually even in manned labs.

I think he means in relation to the satellite, in which case he's correct.

The biggest savings from reusability go directly to the launch provider. Consider SpaceX: who will likely be able to launch a reused F9 for $35-40 mil but will continue to charge $60 mil until a competitor comes along with something that beats that $60 mil price.

SpaceX had problems because they were cutting their margins razor thin to maximize payload.
If they don't get the thrust they expect out of an engine, that'll be a crash landing, same thing for New Glenn.

SpaceX had several tests before they were confident on hitting a target, it's not THAT easy.

>the next NG will be leaving the assembly line shortly after the first
The government will still force you to do a standdown to investigate things. Maybe SpaceX/Trump will have fixed that bureaucratic bullshit by the time New Glenn gets to flying, maybe not.

When they do their first launch then discover that design changes need to be made, could easily add years to development.

not to mention a liquid booster would have no chance of surviving splashdown, the solids could only do it because they had steel casings and were essentially giant combustion chambers, whereas a liquid stage is mostly very thin and fragile fuel tank with some very complex engines on the bottom.

This, even if BO manages to get New Glenn flying by 2020, and there are no problems or slowdowns and BO immediately becomes a SpaceX competitor, SpaceX will have already enjoyed over a year of high-profit margin launch contracts, revenue that would almost certainly be funneled back into the R&D of next generation technology.

Then we need to use a ground based slingshot to get satellites into orbit without anything else.

Literally ZERO cost.

>>I really don't see them starting out with a high success rate.
>It's reasonable to expect that they won't make the first landing but there's no reason they cannot achieve it much quicker than SpaceX did.
Indeed. Blue Origin's not doing an expendable-to-reusable incremental process. There's no compromise in the design for the demands of cost-effective and schedule-compatible expendable launch.

You can see the additional reliability features like testing fin and leg actuation on the launchpad. That's just the stuff that's easy to see.

It's probably more fair to compare ITS and New Glenn, despite the size difference, than Falcon 9/Heavy and New Glenn. SpaceX's public plan is to skip a reasonable intermediate of an ITS upper stage as lower stage, with a single-Raptor upper stage. Similarly, SpaceX skipped the step of suborbital spaceflight, although it was in their plan for a while.

>slingshots and the associated logistics are totally free

wew

>>allowing for non-"hoverslam" landings, which are more reliable.
>Only for a person, makes no difference to a computer, just means they are wasting more fuel
No, the capability of hovering will increase the reliability of computer-piloted landings as well. The "hoverslam" is a desperate maneuver which leaves little room for small irregularities of performance or gusts of wind.

Rubber bands really aren't that much.

Why would they use satellites for that when drones do it way better?

Market for what, exactly?

>Consider SpaceX: who will likely be able to launch a reused F9 for $35-40 mil but will continue to charge $60 mil until a competitor comes along with something that beats that $60 mil price.
The bigger competitive advantage SpaceX is going to get from reuse isn't price reduction, but schedule freedom. To date, they haven't been able to keep up with demand.

Once they get reuse working, they're going to be able to launch much more often than is needed by the existing market. Being regularly able (not just as a limited opportunity, like ULA is selling) to order a launch one month and have your payload fly in the next month will change the way the industry works.

Currently, people have to order launches years in advance, before they even start building their satellite. This necessitates extremely conservative planning and business arrangements.

>Why would they use satellites for that when drones do it way better?
With drones, you need permission from every country they enter the airspace of. To do that globally is impossible.

With satellites, it's a different story. No country has a recognized right to prevent satellites overflying them or taking pictures from space.

>With drones, you need permission from every country they enter the airspace of. To do that globally is impossible.
Stealth drones. We are already using them.

Logistically, drones just make a lot more sense.

there are no stealth drones...

We've had them for over 10 years...

In fact they are harder to detect than stealth planes since they are so much smaller.

If you sit there hovering for 3-4 seconds every time, that will also offer more risk of its own unique failure modes
SpaceX already has very reliable landings

The benefit of SpaceX starting with an expendable rocket is that they could risk failure to develop their landing approach.
Until you test to failure, you don't know how exactly accurate your sensors are for how much fuel you have left, for example.

>Paris-based Eutelsat, one of the largest satellite telecom operators in the world, has signed up as the first paying customer for a New Glenn launch in 2021 or 2022.
>2021 or 2022

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHHA

see >The benefit of SpaceX starting with an expendable rocket is that they could risk failure to develop their landing approach.
Blue Origin has more than enough funding to not have to worry about landing failures on test flights.

>Until you test to failure, you don't know how exactly accurate your sensors are for how much fuel you have left, for example.
What? SpaceX has cameras inside every tank.
Also, SpaceX has never ran a rocket until it runs out of fuel (because the engine would simply explode if that happened.)

>how dare BO have conservative and realistic timelines!
>everyone should over-promise and under-perform like mah boy Musk!

>conservative and realistic
kek, I can't wait until he inevitably delays

>over-promise and under-perform
>words matter more than actions

ok

SpaceX also uses the hoverslam because F9 does not have the performance to do it any other way.

If Merlin had the throttle capability they could do a hover, but Elon said that even with the ITS they plan on using hover-slams because they're just more efficient. The reliability is more difficult to achieve with a hoverslam but it CAN be achieved, or at least that's what the people doing hoverslams have achieved.

When was the last time a Falcon 9 first stage didn't successfully land on a mission that actually attempted a landing, anyway?

>kek, I can't wait until he inevitably delays
Why would there be delays?
3 and a half years is more than enough time to build a rocket, especially when the engine already exists.

>words matter more than actions
>FH will fly in 2012
>FH will fly in 2013
>FH will fly in 2014
>FH will fly in 2015
>FH will fly in 2016
>FH will fly in 2017

They had landing failures last year, for various reasons

I don't doubt Blue Origin will run into one off landing issues that destroy their rocket too
Since they are starting with an expensive larger rocket, that will be more of an issue than SpaceX

Why do you believe that Blue Origin will magically be allowed to launch whenever they want. It's not like SpaceX is allowed to go do test flights with their Falcon 9's

>why would there be delays
>gives example of a company that has delays

are you paid to post this?

>If Merlin had the throttle capability they could do a hover
or if it had more fuel to weigh the rocket down (i.e. F9R-Dev)

>but Elon said that even with the ITS they plan on using hover-slams because they're just more efficient
We don't really know what they will do with ITS initially, even if he's said that that is the eventual goal.
I'd imagine that they'll go for as little risk as possible initially with their $700 million toy.

>Since they are starting with an expensive larger rocket, that will be more of an issue than SpaceX
What part of
>Blue Origin has more than enough funding to not have to worry about landing failures on test flights.
did you not understand?

Musk is a wealthlet compared to Bezos.

>Why do you believe that Blue Origin will magically be allowed to launch whenever they want.
What? Where did I say anything like that? Are you delusional? Are you reading words that are nonexistent?

SpaceX is historically terrible with scheduling.
You cannot deny this.

After the anti-trust lawsuits against Amazon, Bezos will have less money

>You cannot deny this.
I never did. But you implied that BO would have no delays. I would like some proofs on that one. Of course you have none, so you are just a butthurt faggot.

>If you sit there hovering for 3-4 seconds every time, that will also offer more risk of its own unique failure modes
It's not going to hover for a fixed amount of time, it's going to be responsive to circumstances. It's that flexibility that will reduce the risk. It's like getting a few chances instead of just one.

I expect ITS will be capable of hovering when it comes in to land (the higher max chamber pressure should make it possible to throttle down further in atmosphere).

>SpaceX already has very reliable landings
Not really. They only have four successful landings in a row since their last failure. They could still have a 10-20% failure rate.

If I had to guess, I'd say their current recovery reliability is about 95% for flyback, and somewhat under 90% for downrange landing. They're surely going to improve it with experience, but I don't think they'll get over 99% for downrange like Blue Origin is aiming for. Too many variables.

For downrange landings, Blue Origin is both going to have a more forgiving landing system, and land on a more stable platform (it won't pitch and roll like SpaceX's barge).

>Musk is a wealthlet compared to Bezos.
>throwing money at problems is how you solve them

Musk is getting money from launches that are ALREADY happening. Also, he has Tesla revenue for additional funding. You are underestimating his autism.

>the rockets launch during twilight
>the boosters land under the midday sun
What did they mean by this?

The engines for FH have existed for nearly a decade.

>anti-trust lawsuits
kek

You're implying that BO will have additional delays in their schedule (which I have already stated is conservative on purpose) because SpaceX has had delays, which is literally not an argument.

Again I will ask:
Why would there be delays?

>throwing money at problems is how you solve them
When that "problem" is lack of a working booster because of a failed landing, you literally need to throw money at it to fix it.

Uhh, ok?
What are you trying to say here?

also meant to reply to

>conservative on purpose
I demand proofs.

>Blue Origin is both going to have a more forgiving landing system

I think you will have to wait and see when it first lands to tell how forgiving it is, and how much margin they keep to land with.

Obviously their rocket is not going to survive one of the legs failing to deploy, or if the single center engine fails any time in the mission, or if their sensors have an error causing it to miss its target.

None of SpaceX's failures would have been saved by having hover capability, because they were never keeping the fuel margin to do that.

>I need proof that BO isn't making retarded and bombastic schedule claims because I only pay attention to Elon Musk, and think everyone acts that way.
Admit it; if this was Musk announcing this rocket he'd say something like "this is our new heavy lift vehicle that we expect to fly sometime next year."

Nigger, where exactly did I say Musk is not delaying? I simply stated that he has rockets that are flying today. For every other future rocket, no matter the company, I expect delays, because that's how rocket science works. You are just a butthurt faggot.

The USG can't run out of money. State capitalism can be extremely profitable.

>I think you will have to wait and see when it first lands to tell how forgiving it is
You can tell that it will be more forgiving just by observation, my dude.
>more margin because there's literally no payload it could launch today that would exceed its margins
>deep throttle engines that allow hovering
>near zero chance of leg failure, & leg redundancy
>larger and more stable platform to land on
>they've already demonstrated this landing technique 5 times with NS
>engines will be tested in flight dozens of times before NG flies

>Obviously their rocket is not going to survive one of the legs failing to deploy
...are you retarded?

>None of SpaceX's failures would have been saved by having hover capability, because they were never keeping the fuel margin to do that.
Nearly every failure that has happened with F9 landings is mitigated in this design (sticky throttle control valve and running out of hydraulic fluid being the only ones not covered, far as I can tell)
NG can afford to launch dozens of high-margin missions where they will have plenty of time and fuel to get it right. The only problem will be reentry.

>For every other future rocket, no matter the company, I expect delays, because that's how rocket science works.
and as I've said, these "delays" are already factored into their conservative schedule

Consider that SLS, a monumentally more bureaucratic rocket, has been delayed little more than a year over its entire development time.
SpaceX's ridiculous delays are by no means the
industry standard.

>You are just a butthurt faggot.
You mad, brah?

...

>You mad, brah?

Nah, you're just butthurt that Musk will have a dragon on Mars before BO ever flies a real rocket.

Why would I be butthurt about space things happening?

Oh wait, you're a Musk groupie that thinks it's SpaceX vs everyone else, like a 12 year old girl.

>Why would there be delays?
Track record. Blue Origin is an older company than SpaceX, founded by a guy with more money, yet they're still saying they're years away from their first orbital launch attempt, twenty years after founding. If Bezos didn't have basically bottomless pockets, Blue Origin would have folded like the typical rocket startup: no customers, no cash flow, no vehicle.

Back in 2006, New Shepard said they'd be doing paying flights in 2010, after extensive testing from 2007-2009.

This isn't like Falcon Heavy. They weren't too busy upgrading and using an active vehicle to produce variants. They were just failing to make a space rocket at all up until 2015.

Based on track record of delays, New Glenn might not fly until the late 2020s. And New Shepard might end up getting abandoned in favor of work on New Glenn before reaching actual customer service.

BE-3 only completed development in 2015
BE-4 should complete development sometime in 2018

Next.

>You simply can't make profit going into space.
The asteroid anteros is only 5 km/s delta-v from earth orbit and has an estimated mineral value of $5.5 Trillion

That's like 1/3 of US GDP

>Market for what, exactly?
Literally fucking anything. At $1/kg a dominos franchise in china could ship you a pizza by ICBM in 30 minutes or less

>founded by a guy with more money
Musk's investments into SpaceX exceeded Bezos's total investments into BO within the first year.
SpaceX has received billions in government contracts at this point.

Why do Musk groupies like to lie so much, Veeky Forums?

>SLS, a monumentally more bureaucratic rocket, has been delayed little more than a year over its entire development time.
SLS is the same rocket project as Ares V. They were supposed to do a moon *landing* in 2019, with an extensively LEO-proven Orion capsule. SLS is a drastic downgrade of Ares V after it was determined that it would take until the late 2020s, at they pace they were going.

The bill that funded SLS *mandated* that it launch by 2016. It's 2017 and SLS is nowhere near ready to launch. They haven't even fired four SSMEs together, one of the key technical hurdles for the program (during shuttle development, when they first fired three SSMEs together, they shook each other apart, and needed redesign).

>SpaceX's ridiculous delays
Is this some bullshit about Falcon Heavy? Falcon Heavy is a variant of the Falcon 9 line. It was never a primary goal to get Falcon Heavy flying, and Falcon 9 has been upgraded to the point that Falcon Heavy isn't needed for its original purpose (i.e. to launch industry-typical comsats to GTO with an expendable rocket).

Or is this some whining about launch rate? Because SpaceX is ramping up faster than Atlas V or Ariane 5, the two current workhorses of the West.

basically, just show a tiny fucking modicum of imagination

A lot of the senior engineers from Blue Origin came from the defunct DCX program, so they've worked out a lot of the worst kinks in a reusable booster with prior first hand experience. Once the engines work (this will probably take a bit), they shouldn't have too horribly much trouble landing a booster.

>was never a primary goal
>isn't needed
dat damage control tho

SpaceX could have easily have built a larger Falcon rocket, if thats what they wanted/valued, then done these higher margin "safer" landings

It's foolish to imagine that they will launch the rocket with massive margin remaining every time.

>...are you retarded?
Nevermind, didn't count the number of legs properly haha

>Nearly every failure that has happened with F9 landings is mitigated in this design
Most of them would still have failed, because all these landings have been experimental landings, they don't intend to aggressively reuse the older landed boosters.

Theres generally nothing in rocket design that can be "forgiving", shit either works or they go boom.

>SLS is the same rocket project as Ares V
Stopped reading there.

The delays honestly make sense. They've cannibalized their own market for the rocket with iterative Falcon 9 development, and also needed to fix the mistakes that resulted in the loss of two vehicles.

>SpaceX could have easily have built a larger Falcon rocket, if thats what they wanted/valued, then done these higher margin "safer" landings
>It's foolish to imagine that they will launch the rocket with massive margin remaining every time.
They haven't had the money to make a larger rocket.

>Most of them would still have failed, because all these landings have been experimental landings
???
As I said, nearly every failure mode experienced in SpaceX landings is mitigated in this design.

>The delays honestly make sense.
musk perfect businessman and lover.
no can make mistake.

It's the same project, you chimp. Same contractor, same people. Ares V never had a finalized design until SLS. Was it going to be five SSMEs? Six RS-68s?

They settled on four SSMEs and renamed it SLS.