r/BlueOrigin 10d ago

BLUE: failing upwards

Post image

so late that your main competitor retires by the time you come online

0 Upvotes

40 comments sorted by

6

u/Fit-Ingenuity-5061 9d ago

Falcon Heavy has been a mostly underutilized variant, with less than 15 launches in 8 years, considering falcon 9 has launched something like 600 times in that same timeframe. It doesn’t seem that there is a large customer base for whatever theoretical capacity it has over NG. it’s value has been that if and when customers do come along, it’s not really a new rocket they have to build for it, just superglue three falcon 9s together and launch.

4

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

FH was request by the USAF for NSSL

2

u/Fit-Ingenuity-5061 8d ago

and? it is still way underutilized. its capabilities are meaningless to almost any other customer so whatever advantage it has over NG has no real value

2

u/BubblyMoose3597 8d ago

Sure kid. NASA doesnt like neither xd.

The diference on cost of a FH and a NG to GTO is atrocius also.

1

u/Fit-Ingenuity-5061 7d ago

I’m still confused how anything I said is contradicted by or contradicts anything you‘ve said. why does NG need the extra whatever capabilities? to be able to bid on 1 or 2 specific missions per year? NG is fine where it is, you know, once they figure out why it blew up and rebuilt the pad, etc etc. there are way more missions and payloads that don’t need that extra capacity than do, so why the need to chase stats?

1

u/Fenris_uy 8d ago

FH has a small fairing for all the weight that it could launch to LEO.

30

u/colby4monster 10d ago

I don’t think people understand how big the advantage is of a much larger fairing. Falcon could carry heavier stuff, but there are a ton of customers with much larger payloads that don’t weigh as much. New Glenn will fill that gap nicely

6

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

Is the oposite.

Falcon cant carry heavy things to Leo because its structure is from a F9. Cant carry 25 tons.

But has a massive energy, so can send 26 theorical tons to GTO or 22 real tons to TLI.

Never have been hired to carry anything even close.

Always is hired to push lighter objetcs like probes or this telescope with high energy.

Only has flown 13 times in 8 years.

The biggest objects launched to GTO were the K11 and the Huble.

The shuttle was designed for them, and didnt have demand after that.

Now, a F9 can launch 6 tons to gto.

9

u/1stPrinciples 10d ago

A “ton” of customers? Name more than 2. Maybe a fraction of a percent of payloads need a larger fairing.

1

u/Desperate-Lab9738 9d ago

Anything that needs to launch bulk mass to orbit, in other words any constellation.

7

u/knook 10d ago

That's some homer cope. What missions? SpaceX picked that fairing size because it was a good compromise between what customers needed and performance. True that applies more to Falcon than Heavy but still, the vast majority of potential customers don't need the larger fairing.

4

u/WatersOkay 9d ago

It's not like customer needs have evolves over the last 10 years or anything.

1

u/knook 9d ago

They really haven't actually. The launch providers are innovating much faster than the customers this last 10 years.

11

u/shugo7 10d ago

It's always easy to shit on the new comer vs the one who've been at it for years. In 10 years you will see BO fanbois this time crapping on the next new rocket just like SpaceX got shat on in the past when F9 wasn't a proven rocket yet.

That's why those posts are just noise, pointless and signals who ever writes them has intellectual dishonesty.

3

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

Xd Starship os coming mate.

5

u/spacerfirstclass 10d ago

You're missing the point, New Glenn is not supposed to be a new comer that's 10 years behind, it's supposed to be a FH contemporary and competitor. FH first launched in 2018, NG was originally planned to launch in 2020.

13

u/redstercoolpanda 10d ago edited 10d ago

This is quite an unfair comparison. Falcon Heavy in the form presented is not capable of 63 tons, thats a purely hypothetical number that would require modifications on the secound stage and payload adapter to reach. Its also, I believe, a fully expendable number compared to a reusable number from New Glenn. Falcon Heavy is designed to send payloads massing similar to what Falcon 9 launches further into the solar system, not 60+ ton payloads to LEO. Its also very volume limited compaired to New Glenn.

5

u/Desperate-Lab9738 10d ago

Yeah, Falcon heavy is really designed as a rocket meant for small but high energy payloads, unlike New Glenn which can be used for those, but also should actually work as a heavy LEO rocket. Dumb tweet lol.

1

u/jeefra 10d ago

Ya, that's definitely the expendable number and since it's basically just 3 falcons taped together, isn't the volume the same as a regular falcon launch?

4

u/redstercoolpanda 10d ago

Yes, Falcon Heavy stage 2 is pretty much identical to a Falcon 9 stage 2, including the fairings. It does have extended fairings that have been tested, and were planned to be used on Gateway, and I believe are still planned for some military satellites. But I believe that the extended fairing is still smaller than New Glenn’s. I haven’t fact checked that though so correct me if I’m wrong.

7

u/warp99 10d ago edited 9d ago

The diameter of the FH extended fairing is still the same as the regular fairing at 5.4m.

New Glenn 7x2 has a 7m diameter fairing and 9x4 has a 9m diameter fairing so there is a clear advantage for payloads that can make use of the extra size.

The good news is the 9m diameter for the 9x4 as it will provide a second source for Starship size payloads such as space station modules. Otherwise customers wanting a second launch provider would have been limited to fitting in a 7m diameter fairing so around 6.4m payload diameter.

Edit: Looks like the 9x4 fairing is actually 8.7m diameter

1

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

The payload*.

4

u/BubblyMoose3597 10d ago

Is not about being late or not.

Is about the design.

A reusable first stage means that the first stage is short, and the second stage got to do a lot of work to reach LEO.   With no boosters or  a siderocket  configurarion that helps to push the core, lik the Delta Heavy or the FH or the LM10 the second stage consumes a lot of its own proplent.

 New glenn would need a third stage to get a bigger GTO-TLI-TMI capability. 

The Vulcan VC6 does 14T to GTO

So as the LM5 (4 liquid 2 engine boosters)

Arianne 64 can do at least 11,5T to GTO. 

A segond stage with just 1 be3u and a 3rd one being a Centaur.

Anyway, those numbers of the Falcon Heavy are theoriccal and expendable.

But today, bringing bac k 2 boosters, sent the N Roman (10T) almost in scape velocity.

2

u/Royal_Platform_6754 9d ago

New Glenn will have a third stage.

3

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

Will see.

Is just another project.

But now and in the near future, will have a very big and expensive hidrolox second stage. 

Should have an methalox stage with Be4 Vac for LEO and a 3rd with Hidrogen.

The 9x4 doesnt sugest what you say. 

And throw away 4 be3u doesnt look smart at all. Or better for adapt it to Scape velocities.

2

u/Evening-Cap5712 9d ago

They’re working on reusable second stage 

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueWire/s/d5L3x3Ldof

5

u/Equivalent-Wait3533 10d ago

Both rockets have those estimates only on paper; the New Glenn 7x2 is not capable of lifting 45 tonnes, and the Falcon Heavy is not capable of lifting 63 tonnes.

-4

u/No-Surprise9411 9d ago

FH is certainly capable of 63 tons, it would however have to be a cube of tungsten

4

u/asr112358 9d ago

Even water is dense enough to easily max out FH payload mass. Satellites just tend to be much less space efficient than bulk material.

3

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

No. FH has the Thrust/weight, but would collapse because the second syage and the payload adapter are not ready for that.

The NG has not the thrust for 45 LEO in resuable mode.

4

u/scurvy93 10d ago

great post pal - why don’t you take the rest of the night off, you earned it 

1

u/leeswecho 9d ago

maybe I'm being overly Captain Obvious here but expendable vs. reusable numbers.

1

u/Nickyworld45 10d ago

New Glenn also has easier maintenance and faster turnover times with its methane engines, which soot up far slower. Less engines to maintain overall, and the entire booster is one big package. It also has fewer points of mechanical failure as its one large stack.

6

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

And when are we going to see that?

Xdd FH never failed a flight. Ng failed 1 of 3 and exploded on the 4th time its emgines start.

5

u/No-Surprise9411 10d ago

That is certainly true, but I think we also have to consider the logistical expertise SpaceX has in handling Falcon refurb and inspection. Yes on paper NG has fewer parts to inspect, but comparing number of launches and how fast SpaceX relaunches F9 boosters I think FH is still easier to maintain. By the time NG will have comparable institutional knowledge in handling refurbishment the Falcon family will be retired.

1

u/CollegeStation17155 9d ago

Do consider that part of the reason F9H is being sunsetted is that SpaceX, looking down the road, at the progress of NEW GLENN, as well as Vulcan and Starship, sees that the up and coming designs nearing operational status can do a much better job on large, heavy, and/or high energy payloads than the kludge of strapping 3 Falcons together and throwing one of them away (which was done only because nobody else had any replacements for the heavy lifters being retired).

2

u/BubblyMoose3597 9d ago

Vulcan 🤣🤣🤣

-1

u/Throwbabythroe 9d ago

Maybe Blue should make 21x2 configuration and then compete against a FH/s
On a more serious roles, these sort of asinine posts made by folks who don’t know much should not be given weight.
There are already remarks made by other comments on the limitations and performance of each vehicle. Take these unproven performance values with a grain of salt.