The Truth About Blue Origin's New Glenn Rocket!
The Truth About Blue Origin's New Glenn Rocket
Last Video: How Mining On Mars Could Save The Earth
• How Mining On Mars Cou...
►The Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: derek@ellify.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars
Bezos needs to stop doing press conferences and start producing results.
And law suits!
@@nightlightabcd if they ever do something they would get that too..!!
Don't worry, he's not involved with the science stuff
@@AethelwulfBretwaldaand that might be the sole reason why Elon is much more succesful in the race
@@StrangeWorld11191 It 100% is not
While SpaceX has gained more than a decade of experience launching and blowing up orbital class rockets to get to a point where they have one of if not the most reliable orbital rocket ever in the Falcon9. They are building on the knowledge and experience of that to build a new super heavy lift rocket in Starship which will truly be an industry leader if they manage to pull it off. In contrast Blue Origin has developed an expensive joy ride rocket and some engines that have never flown. Their New Glenn rocket is really still only a concept as they haven't even built a prototype yet or anything close to it. Maybe they should actually get something to orbit to get some experience before trying to build a reusable heavy lift rocket. As Musk has said many times, getting to orbit is hard, and just throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it.
A proytype Is being made and seens almost complete tought i dont think it will fly, and theres some jarvis stuff made too like a prototype tank
I pretty much agree with your sentiment. The falcon 9 as of July 8th 2023 has launched 237 times with 235 fully successful launches with one partial failure and full failure. Meanwhile new Glenn hasn’t even launched and won’t probably launch this year and by the time it does launch falcon 9 will have 270-320 launches under its belt and anywhere between the 400th and 550th launch I would think falcon 9 will be fully retired because it became obsolete with starship being launched on a regular basis. This means falcon 9s rivals new Glenn and also neutron by rocket lab will be obsolete because the cost for launching a partially reusable rocket will be more expensive than a full reusable starship launch due to expending the upper stage. We don’t know how exactly it will unfold but we will see.
@@paranaenselol So far all anyone has seen is a second stage test tank and a first stage mockup, also I think a fairing test article is done. If they were well along with building the rocket they would show it off because at this stage their lack of progress is quite frankly embarrassing.
The Soyuz rocket remains to this date the most flown rocket in history with over 1900 launches. It would be interesting to see, in terms of reliability, once falcon 9 reaches those numbers (if ever), how it measures up.
@@schrodingerscat1863 I dont blame then really, they must not even have 1/5 The funding spacex has and their Focus are differemt, you cant really compare
While Bezos builds and tests Shepard out in weat Texas and has a nice facility at KSC, SpaceX rebuilt pad 39 and launches people and cargo from there. They also launch payloads from Vandenberg in California, as well as pad 40 at KSC. They went from Mark-1 mock-up to a fully stacked Starship launch in 31/2 years. There is no comparison. It's mind blowing.
It's not, it called "getting the job done". You failure.
I would truly love BO to be successful. On paper at least they look like a near peer to SpaceX. The last time I really cheered for Bo was in 2016 when they did the vertical landing with NS. That was pretty amazing. It's been 7 years since. Nothing out of BO other than sending William Shatner to "space". For reference, SpaceX bought the land for Starbase in 2014, prepped the soil in 2015, and built an antenna there in 2016. Look at all the progress since.
"distant peer" would be closer to correct.
They'll be a near peer to SpaceX when, and if, they ever get New Glenn flying. Over on Ars Technica, some very informed people, whose opinions I respect, don't think they will get off the ground before 2025. Whenever they do start flying, Starship is already going to be at least minimally operational. After that, Starship is going to come to dominate the market at least as much, if not more so, than Falcon 9 does now. I think BO does have a good chance of eventually replacing ULA as the national backup launcher, providing guaranteed access to space in the event some misfortune should ever ground SpaceX for an extended period of time. I remember when BO did that New Shepard landing. A few weeks later, SpaceX landed a Falcon 9 booster that had just sent a payload into *orbit.* Bezos had the temerity to tweet out to Musk, "Welcome to the club." he still gets pushback on that one.
@@odysseusrex5908 I think "minimally operational" is the key here - in the case that New Glenn gets off the pad in the next few years, it will probably have an easier path to full operation than Starship, which will be hampered by lack of in-orbit refueling infrastructure for quite a while.
@@merylsmith8297 I don't know how long it will take them to develop that. Obviously, they are already working on it. Once Starship itself is capable of deploying general payloads, not just Starlinks, it shouldn't take too much longer, maybe a year or two, but that all depends on funding.
A peer would need hundreds of orbital launch's. BO has zero.
The tortoise vs the hare analogy only really works if the hare becomes complacent. Right now, SpaceX hasn't yet shown signs of getting complacent. The only rocket builders that seem complacent right now are the ones that depend on government handouts, such as ULA and Arianne.
Your forgot Blue Origin
And ofc no one has any idea what Roscosmos is up to. We only just heard of Luna 25 when it launched. And it’s crash.
Ah yes, because SpaceX has not received any such "handouts", no government contracts, no DOD launches, no NASA collaboration. It definitely hasn't taken in billions in government money, nor is it years behind on the timetables that it presented in order to win those contracts.
If this is a race, then Blue Origin has lost. It hasn't even left the start line yet. SpaceX operationally launches and recovers Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy on a routine basis. Starship/Super Heavy Booster are relatively close to achieving at least prototypical orbital success. New Glenn has not come to life once, let alone seen the light of day. Being "impressed" at the sight of New Glenn and a successful launch and recovery are worlds apart. The BE4 powered Vulcan booster has yet to put an ounce into orbit. Theory does not pay the bills, practice does.
Well said, except it's not a race. In 100 years it won't matter who was first by a couple of years or decades. Independent company access to space will have a huge value. Right now we don't even fully comprehend the future scale of the space industry. China isn't buying space rides from SpaceX because they know they can copy the vehicle eventually. Having your own space program is just better, it doesn't matter if you're a government or a company.
The BE4 on Vulcan was only delivered in the last few months. They were supposed to deliver them years ago. That put ULA behind schedule for having the full system validated before they have to quit using the Delta IV. The situation is getting to a critical point for them.
I wouldn’t say lost but definitely loosing by a lot
@@Wurtoz9643 Exactly, but you need the New Glenn rocket to take off as soon as possible, since for customers to see it as reliable it needs to be launched many times and be almost perfect, otherwise no one would trust its payload. but it has to be done now, other young companies are also moving forward
their launch frequency is around once every 3-5 days...next year they will probably launch more than 100 times.
6:47 The transfer window not means those Earth and Mars distance is the smallest. It means those 2 body have a specific angle, thats called phase angle. In the trasfer window those distance are not the smallest:D
The first building you get a good up close look at when visiting the Kennedy space center is not the VAB, it’s not the Saturn V building, or even the Rocket Grarden it’s Blue Origin’s massive facility right at the front gates of the visiting center. A massive rocket factory with eye popping blue painted buildings and a pretty large vehicle assembly building. Very cool experience. What’s sad is your only chance of seeing a rocket launch is not a blue origin launch, but a spaceX launch.
Bezos drops 1 billion of his own money into BO every year. They have the cleanest, most modern facility I've ever seen. I think the problem with BO is their management team. SX has Gwen Shotwell, who has worked in the auto manufacture industry. That experience is key to working with very complex logistics and the systems needed to keep it all organized. BO works as if it has no competition, or at least as if that doesn't matter, as Daddy Bezos money is always in the mix. BO doesn't work 24/7, while SX does. BO is building a rocket with no mission, SX at least has a mission (A Starship going to Mars is still remote though). BO is like the American Motors Corporation (AMC), who just can't quite mussel in with the big boys.
Their facility is certainly uncontaminated by rockets. 🤣
He says he put $1 billion into BO yearly, but seems like the lawyers got most of it. Also, BO is filling with old legacy space employees, thus working and building rocket that same way. However, old legacy space was always on cost-plus contracts before, not now.
@@schrodingerscat1863 🤣🤣
@@schrodingerscat1863 You beat me to it lol 🤣
It is not the management team, and as astounding as Shotwell is, it is not her either. It is Elon Musk. It is not happenstance how dominant both Tesla and SpaceX are, and no I am not saying that Musk solves every problem alone, but it is his management and problem solving philosophy that is behind the success of both companies. Also, Musk personally interviewed and approved the first three thousand engineering hires at SpaceX, and he obviously has a far better method of identifying talent than the HR pros at BO. BO has a mission, and that mission is to help Bezos pretend he is the equal of Elon Musk. Literally, that is the mission, and for the whatever reason it seems that mission does not inspire the BO employees to work seventeen hour days seven days a week, like the SpaceX mission of preserving the existence of intelligent life by establishing a self sustaining Mars colony as soon as possible does.
When Musk started he said they would begin with tried and true expendables and then develop better rockets along the way. Bezos hired people who worked on DC-X and they played around with SSTO R&D which they had to give up on. By the time Bezos made the call to redesign SpaceX was way ahead.
Yeah. As if SpaceX really knows what they're doing. Granted, they seem to be doing better than Bezos and Blue Origin. But IMO, neither knows. (IOWs, Musk, or anybody else, is not sending anybody to Mars by 2050.) If you believe that people are actually going to be living on Mars by 2050, I suggest you do some research on that concept.
SSTO, at least in our lifetime, is horribly inefficient. There are existing configurations that could likely do it, sans payload. Not worth the tens of millions just for bragging rights.
@@UncleKennysPlaceI mean it's just the issue that we are on Earth. Our planet is just the right mix that makes SSTOs not work. If we were launching off an airless moon or a low density atmosphere like Mars? Turns out it would actually be a decent choice. Specifically for airless you are always in an environment where you can use a vacuum optimized engine, so there you do not really need to optimize for different portions of the flight. Same goes for gravity loses. If we were to launch from a body with less gravity you could get away with having less efficiency at liftoff and that would help in making an SSTO more viable. But too bad, we launch these things on earth, a planet with a high Gravity and dense enough atmosphere. And also a place where the application of stronger propulsion methods such as nuclear engines would be... Discouraged
@@mobiuscoreindustries You are right. We have seen one successful SSTO, but it was the lunar module.
8 out of 32 engines for a prototype, first edition is pretty darn good. Raptor 2 is already the new hotness, and nothing replaces actual test flights.
Those engines also were hit with concrete shrapnel from the landing pad lol.
and Raptor 3 already being positioned to replace the Raptor 2.
Two didn’t start though. That’s something to work on.
Enjoyed this segment about Blue Origin and New Glenn. Some presenters get upset because as they say there is no competition with SpaceX. The only company to compete with SpaceX at the moment is Rocket Lab and their rocket is not reusable. Your old companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin believed the reusable rocket was a fantasy and no one would achieve it. Now Blue Origin desires to be part of that old boys club wants the government contracts and take years to developed their rockets in secret. SpaceX has established a new way of developing rockets and if Blue Origin continues to follow the old boys club play book they will be a thing of the past.
I don't know of anybody getting upset about it but, the fact is, the only people BO is competing with right now are Virgin Galactic. I wish them both great good success with their suborbital barnstorming ventures and I feel great joy for all the people who get to fly on them, but nobody should regard BO as a significant launch company until they start putting actual payloads into orbit.
to be fair, and although I know little of rocketry, I did find Musk's plan to build a rocket company and after that reuse most of the rockets laughable... now, one of those stage 1 just landed... for the 16th time without a glitch XD. And while I do love what he's doing, I am reminded at each landing how wrong I was :D. So now, when he talks of landing building tall rockets on chop-sticks, I go... whatever!
1:50 The biggest tragedy of the BE-4 is that Raptor 3 was already clocking 269 tonnes-force of thrust back in May, and today on the 10th of July Elon announced that they've hit 276 in the latest revisions, aspiring to get to 300 by the time Starship starts commercial operations. If they had been a bit more aggressive with their development schedule, they might have created an engine that was strictly superior to Raptor at least on one metric (total thrust per engine). Instead the first time the BE-4 powers a Vulcan (never mind New Glenn) it will already be yesterday's news.
Not only that but past the engine you need to consider that New Glenn is not going to use super chilled fuel and is not going to run on the same kinds of tank pressure and fuel flow rates, all contributing to a lower performance of the power pack overall and with less margins to upgrade that over the life of the vehicle. The reason why raptor is able to go that high above it's initial estimated abilities is because spaceX set up the methods through which change can be made, tested and evaluated at lesser costs. Raptor pressure chamber upgrades may not always result in an increase in the actual operating pressures of the engines on the operational vehicle but it can almost directly translate to a more reliable engine with a lot more reserve up it's sleeves if ever needed. And chief amongst all, it is dirty cheap. Which honestly is absolutely fucking mind boggling that this engine, a high performance full flow machine, just so happens to be cheaper and faster to manufacture than the normally dumb and blunt open cycle approach.
BO actually intended that BE-4, in its initial development, would be under-stressed. Sort of like de-rating a jet engine. They also appeared to be afraid to blow things up, at least intentionally.
@@UncleKennysPlace Unfortunately, as we saw at a test last month, they still blow the engines up. Now it is very unlikely that Raptors will ever be used to its full potential, But that continual upgrade of the upper limits will means less work for the engines in flight.
yep, it is very bad for bo that their engines not destroy themselves 33% of the times, before the first stage separation, that is clearly a statistic that needs to be for any engine, especially one that you intent to reuse...
@@thorin1045 By that metric, you would have to say that the BE-4 destroys itself half of the time? One of the two production specimens that would be used for the Vulcan mission exploded during acceptance testing with fewer minutes of firing than would be required for achieving orbit...
Thank you for these insightful videos. There are only 5 space travel/science content creators that I look forward to following each week and YOU are one of them
Who are the other four ?
@@terrysullivan1992 I had the same question: probably WAI, Every Astronaut,
Marcus House, Scott Manly, Tim Dodd…
@@markg5552 and the Schlang
Since neither engine has sent a payload to orbit, the thrust comparison against BE-4 at 250 tons on the test stand should be Raptor 3 at 269 tons on the test stand. Raptor has surpassed BE-4 in thrust, while also being a much smaller and lighter engine.
The Raptor 3 won't be ready for regular use for many months possibly a year or more. So comparing it to the Be-4 is not credible. The Be-4 has been tested and is apparently a viable engine. It was successfully tested on Vulcan. And the problems with Vulcan are not due to the Be-4, but the Centaur stage of the Vulcan.
Also BE-4 creates 550,000 pounds of thrust (275 tons) so the engines are much more comparable
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 And BE-4 isn't going to fly until sometime in 2024 at the earliest. You're trying too hard. They're at an equivalent spot in development.
@@danman3542 250 tons.
@@tomtxtx9617 The next rocket to fly the Be-4 will be the Vulcan and probably in 2024 as you stated. However, the Be-4 is more like the Raptor 2 in development given that the Raptor 3 only just started testing and is a ways off from production while the Be-4 is in production. And the Be-4 would have launched with Vulcan this month if not for the problem with the Centaur second stage!!
Nice channel dude! I like your savvy explanations and style. This is what we in the biz call "good content"
I wonder about Blue Origin, it is one of the best funded enterprises out there period and certainly one of the richest and most independent rocket builders yet they still to this day have not shown well anything. BE-4 is still unproven in flight, New Glenn is a paper tiger that has yet to attempt a static fire let alone liftoff from any pad. Yet the organization is still painting itself as a front runner in the modern space race. We have seen other companies be founded years after Blue Origin and launch commercial contracts to LEO before Blue Origin has managed to reach LEO or even attempt to do it. To me it seems like Blue Origin was a great idea but they have lost their way and are now just trying to best SpaceX while having not achieved much of anything. Now sure they have shot people up and brought them backdown again after a few minutes but SpaceX who Blue Origin seems so desperate to beat is launching cargo, crew and commercial customers to the space station on a regular basis. SpaceX managed to build and launch their super heavy booster and starship in a first test flight and are getting ready to make a second attempt. New Glenn is no where to be seen and seems to still be at least a year away from a first actual fully assembled test let alone a successful launch. Now it is true that Blue Origin unlike SpaceX likes to go the NASA route and plan for every eventuality make sure everything has been calculated to the smallest detail where SpaceX is willing (and financially able thanks to Flacon) to go with a minimal viable product and see what breaks. But we have seen with the NASA approach and their rocket that this leads to extreem delays, cost overruns as a result of that (well in NASA's case extremely risky contracts from a cost perspective where a very large contributor as well of course but still more time spend means more cost even without dumb contract structures) and still things are missed and components fail in unexpected ways. The problem with the slow approach is that correcting such issues is much more difficult in an organization that is not build to be quick and nimble when it comes to design changes. So my guess is New Glenn which is supposed to now fly in Q3 of 2024 is not going to fly at that time. Much like the BE-4 engine has been delayed by many, many months I expect the New Glenn rocket to need at least an extra few years before it actually will attempt to fly. At which point I would not be surprised if the need for such a ship has been completely filled by SpaceX's starship for the near future and with far less launches and being far less flight proven than Starship it is likely that New Glenn is not going to see much demand for it's services when it finally does start flying. The other thing I find interesting is that New Glenn is supposed to be fully reusable yet it is expected to launch a few times a year at most, kind of like it was designed for an world that no longer exists. Where Starship is designed to be fully reusable and is said to be able to launch multiple times in a single day betting on a much higher demand for access to space which makes a lot of sense if you are expecting to significantly push the price per Kg to space down. Until very recently putting anything in space was financially unreasonable for pretty much every organization and most countries even. Yet these days it is quite a regular thing for small companies and even universities to send up small objects, with more and more countries contracting with companies like SpaceX to put their own satellites in space it is quite clear that as the cost per Kg drops the demand grows. SpaceX is on track to launch 2 Falcon rockets per week this year and looks to be aiming for even more for next year. The demand is there, yet Blue Origin is not jumping into this market even though they have some brilliant rocket designers working for them supposedly a quite capable engine in BE-3 and instead are focusing their efforts on building a rocket that they do not expect to ever make any real money on as they simply cannot launch it often enough for that (unless they are charging a very high price compared to the competition). My conclusion is that Blue Origin is only able to continue to operate thanks to the patronage of a very wealthy owner who does not really care if the company turns a profit at any point in time as long as he enjoys the game of building rockets with his company cost are not a concern. I do not think that Blue Origin can survive the loss of its patron nor do I think it can ever become a force that shapes space travel as we know it. SpaceX has already changed space travel by building out a constellation of satellites greater than anything we have ever seen, and launching more rockets in a single year than any other company ever has or can even come close to, they will likely take the record for launching more rockets than any entity including the USA and USSR ever has. As for making money, they are making money for sure the cost of their Falcon rocket launches are way lower than the price paid by customers and this is for a good part funding the Starlink constellation and Starship development efforts. So even though loosing Mr. Musk would be a blow to the organization they can most certainly survive without him though I wonder if Starship development would continue to be pushed this hard without him. Moving at a slightly slower pace might make more financial sense certainly in an industry where timelines are often stretched well beyond the original agreements by pretty much every organization participating in this industry so most customers will be fine with that (and besides they have little other choice than to wait anyway.
Excellent, excellent essay. May I please take the opportunity to respond to some of your points? Your comparison of the relative achievements of BO and SpaceX is spot on. SpaceX has created what never existed before, a commercial outfit providing regular, routing access to space for almost any customer with launch operations happening more than once a week, while BO launches sounding rockets just above the Karman line. Your suggestion that it may be years before New Glenn flies gives me pause. I am certainly expecting some additional delays beyond their Q3 24 date, but I have been assuming they would certainly get off the ground in '25. Even launching in '25 is going to put them right into the teeth of competing with a still developing and improving Starship. If they don't get off the ground until the later part of the decade, that will be like bringing a new style of horse drawn carriage onto the market to compete with the Model T. I have always considered it highly probable that BO would displace ULA as the nation's backup launcher for guaranteeing access to space in the two independent provider philosophy for strategically important payloads. This may be why they project a fairly low flight rate, at least at first. they have been hoping to move into that niche market of guaranteed profitable flights, regardless of cadence or cost, now occupied by ULA. With an operational New Glenn, they could certainly fill that niche better than ULA could with Vulcan. That would provide them a good foundation of assured profitability while they decide if they can actually compete against SpaceX, or if they just want to take that cozy market niche for themselves. If, however, they are not flying in '25, then they will not be able to bid on the next round of national security contracts and whether one or another of the other new space providers will displace ULA will be interesting to see.
In summary New Glenn is a solution in search of a problem, rather than the other way around. BO thought it would be a great idea to build a big rocket, but what’s it for? What problem does it solve?
Really good video. Scripting, editing, VO, content. All great. Thanks!
I still think SpaceX should build a Falcon Super, basically a wider Falcon 9. As the video states, whilst Falcon Heavy has a lot thrust, it has limitations on the width of the payload due to the triple booster design. A Falcon Super (my title) with a wider single booster, basically a Falcon 9 with an extra ring of engines giving a total of say 21 engines using well proven Falcon 9 engines and manufacturing would be relatively simple to design and build and allow wider cargos to LEO for building space stations etc.
I would love to see that, or even a larger fairing for Falcon Heavy if it would be operationally feasible. But I imagine Space X are looking at Starship covering that business, and have elected to wait for it to come on line.
Great content and well produced, and factual. Cheers...!
BO getting contracts for launches without having ever been to orbit, or even had a completed orbital rocket complete a static fire, is cronyism at it's worst. Let's not forget, the BE-4 engine is bug filled too. One of the two slated to go on the centaur which would launch Dream Chaser, did a RUD on the test stand. This wasn't a protype or test item (like SpaceX in McGreggor), this was a production run. Everything indicates BO is not ready for primetime, and yet they've already got a slew of contracts lined up, and none of them even close to the size Glen should be capable of. My last trip to the cape, BO's fancy facility there looked like a ghost town.
If building huge production facilities and developing launch complexes was a sign of progress towards actually launching New Glenn, Blue Origin would be leader of the pack. I have seen both their Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral facilities up close and they’re impressive. Unfortunately no New Glenn just yet. I think one of their problems (BO), is that SpaceX has been hiring all the top people. Even local aerospace businesses are suffering steady personnel losses.
That's not a problem at all! It's a capitalist world, if you want the staff either offer them better conditions or better wages. It really is that simple! Elon Musk is willing to pay people what they are actually worth, and provides very good working conditions, both of these are not things the owner of Amazon is or has ever been willing to give staff. So even this problem is entirely of their own making!
@@gwpcs Agreed, but I think you are ignoring the fact that SpaceX has been significantly more successful because of their RD style. Nobody wants to work for a loser unless they’re forced to.
BO's biggest problem is Jeff Bezos's money. It doesn't matter what they do, or don't do, there is always money available for people to come into work every day and perform their functions. They never have to find customers and meet their expectations. they never have to decide to fish or cut bait. SpaceX, on the other hand, has always had to hustle and drum up business to keep the lights on. That seriously focuses your attention on getting the job done.
BO started earlier, if they lost top people, it seems more like a flaw in their company culture and slow development, than financially better offers from other companies. Space X has lofty goals, and a tendency to put bright minds in decicive and productive positions, regardless their education on paper. Space X does not only develop and test futuristic rocket designs, it also grows and keeps a vertical integrated workforce that is mission driven and willing to reach goals afap. You can see how they start humble and ramp up as soon as they know what actually works. There are no several month taking productions stillstands - they produce to learn how to produce effectively. Compare that with Blue Origin and you know why many bright minds try to work for Space X and keep working there for years! And regarding BO's production facilities: Yes they are impressive, they have been from the very start. And in over a decade they have built there ONE prototype? So most of the time, its just perfectly clean halls wating for the day production/assembly for another rocket could start? I hope they succeed as a serious competitor to Space X, but its getting more unlikely every month that goes by with no start attempt.
@@genius1a In all fairness, it must be understood that BO did not start out as a rocket company or launch provider. Originally, they were more of a think tank, producing studies about how space was and might affect economics and culture. It was only after SpaceX started launching rockets that Bezos decided he wanted to do that too. Now, we don't know what is going on inside their factory. I hope that they have at least started on assembling the first New Glenn. If they haven't. if it's really just clean halls waiting for the day, then you're right, the idea of their ever competing with SpaceX is a rapidly dwindling prospect.
"I am **confident** that they will **likely** be ready” For those of you playing along at home. . "I am **un**confident that they will *un**likely be ready” . . Has exactly the same meaning
The main reason the payload fairing is so large relative to the actual mass it can put it is because satellite constellations tend to be more limited by volume than by mass. That's why falcon heavy is a terrible rocket for satellite constellations for example, it has the power to launch them, but the payload is too small. Also some government spy satellites want space for truly enormous antennas and radar systems- this is also the reason Vulcan has such a large payload fairing. A reusable booster version of New Glenn will be highly competitive with falcon 9 and heavy, beating it in most metrics. It will just come down to cost at that point (with the exception of very large payloads).
Good video! I don't think I'd previously seen any kind of analysis of BO's potential market, and that certainly is an interesting problem. (I wonder if they set their marketing plans before proliferated (and hence survivable) constellations became the LEO focus?)
A good report. Well done. Thank you.
New Glen shows a lot of promise. SpaceX has a track record of success.
Didn't the BE4 just suffer a test failure too? These things occur but still likely to add some more delays
Maybe this video was made before the news of the explosion was reported? What is concerning is that this was a "production" engine slated for an actual flight. Not some kind of "test to destruction" model. Seems to conflict with the "over-engineered" speculation.
I have high hopes for BO. Will their first launch attempt succeed, probably. Will they put a third-party satellite in orbit before starship? maybe. SpaceX stated that their early launches will be deticated to their own satellites, and they haven't started with the problem of deploying a bulky satellite without traditional fairings. I'm wishing, the best of luck for both companies.
You can not compare what SpaceX has achieved to BO. BO has achieved nothing except a pretty mockup. They have been working on their rockets for 2 years longer than SpaceX and have put nothing in orbit.
I like Blue Origin's and Virgin Galactic's Space tourism approach, and both have given us earthlings excellent videos to flight that they have shared. I like SpaceX's crew dragon which is proving itself as a safe, and much more modern, alternative to Soyuz and Apollo, and arguably the Space Shuttle, for getting astronauts and recent tourists into orbit. Each company has achieved success in these crewed ventures, I do not know if Boeing's crewed vessel will also compete. The point I am happy with is, thanks to the ISS and now China, we've had a continuous human presence in space for a long time now. China's new space station is sooooo cool, because it seems less cramped and more organized inside than the ISS. Secretly I am hoping they attempt a manned Mars or Moon mission before anyone else does, so another country that is represented in the UN can 'boldly go where no one has gone before'. If they have the determination, they and the world will reap the benefits their voyages of discovery will bring.
@@kokomo9764Starship is as long in development as is new glenn, and i dont see it putting anything into space, but rather bombarding natural habitats with a meteor shower and covering populated areas in dust
@@johncillis3431 Fifty cent army?
@@phlogistanjones2722 CIA Bot?
As opposed to musk who launches when its not ready and it blows up. Being patient and smart for a change is a nice way to go.
The caveat is that failures where the rocket blows up are your only sure-fire way of knowing what works and what won't. SpaceX has had to blow up a lot of prototypes to get to where it is now.
The BO-turtle hadn't considered that the hare might NOT take a nap before the finish line...😅
I enjoyed the video and even though it was posted only 4 days ago, it is already somewhat out of date since yesterday it was announced that the BE4 blew up during testing. That Mars mission won’t happen as scheduled.
Exciting times, informative video.🎉
Excellent report. Thanks.
It should be pointed out that the 8 engine failures on starship were like caused by being imoacted by large amounts of sand and concrete chunks.
The 2 companies are outstanding but for very different reasons. Both companies started at around the same time. Both companies had comparable goals. Cheaper access to space. In the last 20 odd years one company has progressed at such a fast pace and for such a miraculously small amount of money and are now about achieve the most significant event in spaceflight history. The other spent a fortune relatively speaking and almost as miraculous, managed to get pretty much nowhere. I believe I know the reason. SpaceX did this mostly alone. Although they certainly had help from NASA, They didn't rely or use the old guard companies. Blue Origin made that fundamental mistake of partnering up with these companies who did exactly what they've been doing for 40 years. Nothing of any value! It seems that Jeff's bluff was called. He told the world he wanted to make a difference in spaceflight. Yet despite 2 decades of failure with SpaceX's progress there for all to see. His own Ego just made him double down on his first mistake like some pissed off kid and continue to write checks to a bunch of con men who continue to make damn sure Blue Origin goes nowhere.
Milled aluminium vs stainless steel tanks.
No, the problem has been Jeff Bezos's money. The only person Blue Origin ever had to satisfy was Bezos. Elon was rich enough to start SpaceX, but he could never have kept it going without revenue from paying customers. SpaceX had to get things done or the money would have dried up. Bezos just kept putting a billion a year into BO and didn't care what happened. He owned a space company, that was all he cared about.
Fill the rest of the orbital with satellites to deploy as a network to do prospecting and mapping. Maybe include ability to microwave beam down to equipment and stations electricity. Way to keep everything topoffed extending their uptime for future rovers and chopters. Increase the energy budget for all the gear too.
I work for Blue- trust me when is say. New Glen will launch later this year like Ariane said. It's very impressive that's all I will say
Preach on Brother! But I have this space nerd feeling that BO (Booster Oder), is going to surprise us all with something. They are so silent, and insecure with their upcoming shit. Got to remember they were the first to self land the first stage, but.... they are nowhere near SpaceX. Granted, I would love to see New Glen get its whoomphy ass to orbit, but its to frustrating waiting. Look how fast they rebounded with the non-LEO dildo, that doesn't even reach orbit. They have motive, but it's not showing in the least. But that one day will finally appear, and they will have their day in the spotlight. Great video. One of the best channels I watch. Stay in touch! - NOM
Having 8 out of 30 fail isn't as bad as it sounds, if the main problem was debris coming back and damaging the engines. It would seem, considering the astounding amount of damage from the launch, that debris was the biggest factor. Not something inherently wrong with the engines themselves.
Launch debris was not the biggest factor, poor engine shielding (so one takes out 2-3)and being very early production specimens, were more likely culprits.
@@bowtoy Yeah iirc the bigger culprit was the already phased-out design choice of using a common hydraulic loop for controlling engine gimballing. They knew it wasn't going to work, but since they'd already built it and had it on the stand, they went ahead and launched it anyway just to see how it'd actually fare.
Little Jeffie, just just like to say “me too, me too ! I can do that too, look at me!” To his competitors and the government.
Blue Origin also has to develop the BE-7 engine(s) for its Jarvis upper stage. Given how long it took to get the BE-4 ready, it seems to be a pretty big reach to design, produce and qualify the BE-7 for flight in just over a year to meet escapade's launch window.
ESCAPADE is so small, I doubt it will require Jarvis. The standard upper stage will do fine. of course, we're pretending New Glenn will launch in time to meet ESCAPADE's timeline. I doubt that very seriously.
Not to mention now actually being obligated to provide NASA with a lunar lander completely separate from any of their currently planned programs. How is this company going to balance all of these highly research and development intensive projects? Especially on timelines that are already wildly optimistic.
@@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze It's the US government. At the end of the day, so long as people remain employed, NASA is obliged to remain fine with more delays and budget overruns. If the GAO won't ever hold NASA and its bigshot contractors accountable (as in, actually attempt to claw back funding) for never delivering on-time and under budget, why would Blue Origin be treated any different? Besides, any time they need to demonstrate that American spaceflight is still functional, they can just point at SpaceX and say "and they're taking government funding too!" And that's usually enough to mollify the idiots in charge.
Good video mate, got yourself a sub from Australia…
A good mission to add to this one would be to test the "Plasma Magnet Drive" proposed by Jeff Greason in the following article by "Above Space" "Fast Interplanetary Electric Transport" starting at time stamp 31:00. Round trip flights to Mars in less than a year, earth to Mars in a week to ten days! Propellant less propulsion using the solar wind.
Jeff doesn’t want no pictures or videos of new Glenn out . The tip of new Glenn has been built for 2 years now 😉
We've taken to calling this rocket the "When Glenn..."
On the bright side, space seems a lot safer than the bottom of the ocean, since you can account for far more variables with a much narrower window of failure.
You forgot space shuttle's lost rate?
Imagine paying a quarter million dollars to have your dreams crushed
@@ThisNoNameI'd fly on the space shuttle if offered a free ride. I would not descend in Titan if you offered me a million dollars a year for the rest of my life.
@@owensmith7530 Hindsight is always 20/20. Space shuttle's catastrophic loss between flight are barely twice as good as that of the Titan.
@@ThisNoName The first of shuttle's losses would not have occurred if they had followed their own launch limits, the temperature was too low. With the more safety conscious approach taken during the shuttle's later operation that launch would have been scrubbed. And that halves its failure rate.
This is the preferred launcher fot the vob Braun station ,a wheel-type station with artificial gravity.
Uber vs empty school bus - that was hilarious 😂
Let the economics of private space launch companies determine success or failure. There is going to be stumbles and flops along the way to establish this new developing industry.
We have as much chance of travelling to the stars as my pet cat playing a Rachmaninov piano concerto.
Bezos Hires Musk Inspires That's the difference in their approach and apparently that's everything in this race.
Jeff Bezos is the only man that can make Al Gore seem exciting in comparison
October 2024 is not the Mars closest distance, its the period of the minimal energy required to get to Mars.
They’ve got a huge flaw in the package delivery system. There’s no one at the Mars end to sign for it and a no return policy.
Well Blue Origin did put the first fully reusable rocket over the Karman Line. They do have a mission-ready engine, as opposed to a chuck-it-up-in-the-air-and-see-what-comes-down engine. Then there's the Project Jarvis second stage, about which we know basically bugger all. I guess the proof of the pudding comes when the first stage lands safely, and we see whether Starship or New Glenn did it first.
"Perfect suborbital rocketry " That sounds like BO is actually involved in some kind of rocketry.... BO has always been too little too late.... how many employees have they lost to spacex ?
you mean that ring as the toilett flushes?
BE-4 Engine failed yesterday 10:20 🤣
A higher payload capacity is always a good thing and there will always be demand. BO are aiming big so hopefully we can see a launch in the near future
lol yea right. near future? at this rate Amazon will go Bankrupt before Blue Origin makes it to real outer space not low earth orbit
Indeed. The biggest bottleneck to space exploration is space lift capacity. Anything that increases that should be seen as a good thing for future space travel capacity. That being said, I feel like the saying "Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough." is applicable to Blue Origin. They're trying to get things perfect which is why they haven't launched anything yet. Space X is going for Good Enough, which is why they're so far ahead of not just BO, but everyone else as well.
But by the time New Glenn could be operational there will probably be another rocket that can carry heavier and bigger payloads for less money. The niche in the launch industry that NG could service will be gone.
@unpaintedleadsyndrome based on Blue Origins track record it'll never make it to space, not even his space tourism goes to real outer space
@@unpaintedleadsyndrome it just goes really high up
Blue origin might be reversing their rockets because they're miles behind SpaceX in pushing forward with their technology!
Blue Orgin should focus on smaller rockets with LOE capabilities for carrying small satellites
Blue boy talks while Space X crushes it !
My assumption (part extrapolation, part of Bezos has said through the years) is that the market New Glenn is being developed for is orbital manufacturing and research. In fact, the whole of Blue Origin is aimed towards this goal, which is why it makes sense they didn't start with a smaller rocket like SpaceX did. It needs the large cargo size to accommodate the factory, research, habitation and lifesupport/power modules and the tonnage to do the hauling of raw resources up, and finished products down.
This video could use a part 2 after we just found out the production #3 BE4 blew up on the test stand
New Glenn can be used to send gear such as navigation/prospecting/communications satellites around the solar system. It being methlox it could take over for Falcon.
the fairing diameter is a direct result of both companies to save money at designing the second stages of falcon 9, starshim and new glenn. the idea is, that they both want to use the same machines for the first and the second stage, resulting in an unusual wide second stage. falcon 9 was further limited by the idea of spaceX to make a rocket that can be relative cheaply transported over the US highway system and does not require special permits or even modifications to the route. and once the second stage has the same diameter, it makes no sense to make a smaller fairing to limit the cargo volume while having to deal with the same drag. and cago volume is king. dragon and dragon 2 are too small for their possible cargo mass (unless you want to send cubes of lead uphill). but yes, new glenn is somewhat lacking...updates and appearances.
New Glenn is vaporware.
One is led by a trader and another by a phenomenal engineer
Building a New Glenn is very possible. With this much funding I’d say it’s easy. The question is: Where is it?
We need to use the flying saucers to get there. Its gravatic drive keeps us fit and arrived quickly. We can use the Area 51 rebuilt machines to get there quickly. We need to see if we can find humans on Mars to associate with. They would know about friendly aliens we can associate with.
Why not cast the sides? Seems like best move for modularity too.
@6:36 _see what it does_ Maybe it can take some pictures of *Musk's Tesla Roadster.*
C'mon folks, don't be so negative. Rocket design is not easy! BO has 😮more than one design. It does appear they need a lot more engine testing to be able to refine their design, before mass production.
I wonder if the revised New Shepherd tourist vehicle is intended to enable access to their orbital station?
No, absolutely not. The New Shepard is completely incapable of operating in orbit, much less reentering from there. I'm not sure what you mean by revised but, if you are referring to the launch failure last year, that was due to an engine failure in the booster. It had nothing to do with the capsule and whatever corrections they are make only involve insuring that that kind of failure can not happen again. It will not magically make a suborbital booster into an orbital one (like turning your car into a Formula 1 racer) nor cause the capsule designed to operate for a few minutes in free fall into something that can enter orbit, maneuver, and reenter.
Technology shrinking in size.. is the very reason to increase payload capacity..that is the goal.. on point.. till you missed the target..
INNOVATION always wins !
Part of the raptor failure was engines turning off to balance out, engine outs, that being said concrete tornado😅
It’s a race between New Glenn and Starliner 😂. SpaceX is in a class of its own.
It's so funny to me, that people still think that Starship - in it's current form - will EVER land on Mars.
Starship, in it's current form is a test platform that can carry no passengers, has no landing legs nor life support systems.
Wayward Artemis,bezos needs robot cave exploration
For a company that has an essentially inexhaustible supply of money, it seems very strange that they haven’t even *tried* to put anything into orbit yet.
I think it's because their reason for existence is more of a hobby than anything. They don't have clearly stated and solid targets to pursue.
Why would they though? When you have an inexhaustible supply of money, you have no onus to actually deliver, because Daddy Bezos' ego and the sunk costs fallacy will ensure that they'll never need to deliver. SpaceX, otoh, had to demonstrate profitability despite massively cutting the costs of orbital launches via partial reusability because Musk's fortune (not to mention his attention span) is so much more volatile (so much so that Musk has repeatedly demonstrated that he's perfectly comfortable oscillating between "world's richest man" and "one dumpster fire away from bankruptcy.") If Amazon's stock value fluctuated anywhere as much as Tesla's, Blue Origin would've been written off years ago.
Honestly, New Glenn is probably the better of the 2 rockets from a practicality standpoint. New Glenn is most likely being made for the main purpose of putting large space station modules into orbit, i mean they are doing orbital reef and all. For that purpous, Blue Origin have made a great rocket. And while it hasn't even been fully stacked and flown, seeing their stance on testing via simulation and individual parts before destroying an extremely valuable rocket and getting push backs from the FAA for creating a concrete tornado, i can't really fault them for not being to much of a show-off, even if that method can be effective. And on the other hand, we have the SpaceX Starship, which would be a great ship to take absolutely huge space stations into orbit, except for the fact that there's no real precedent for that. Instead SpaceX are taking the stance that they want to expend a whole upper stage to their reusable rocket every time they want to go to mars or the moon. I mean imagine if every time we wanted to ship cargo across the Atlantic we had to expend the boat to do so, instead of just using the ship to transport cargo to its destination then reusing that ship. I'd be ridiculous and impractical. Best case scenario Starship is used like Blue Origin's New Glenn with its main purpose of building space stations for their LEO economy and possibly getting heavy LEO satellites up to orbit. Even if SpaceX used Starship similar to the space shuttle, it still wouldn't be that practical, as its just straight up oversized and unnecessary. If you want to go to mars you don't use the rocket to get there, you use your reusable system to get mass produced space stations/landers to orbit that would be more effective and many times more numerous that your rocket. While the prospect of using Starship as a lander seems promising, we've already seen plenty of times how previous, more stout landers with wider legs have still fallen down, and having that happen with a full crew on board wouldn't just be bad, I'd be catastrophic for and program going forward, regardless of affiliation to SpaceX.
I got a huge chuckle out of "eight of thirty three Raptor engines failed on Starship". Yes. EIGHT of THIRTY THREE. How many WORKING engines has Bezos built? compared to the hundreds of Falcon engines that are being sent to space and are returning and reused every week? And Elon is already testing Raptor version 3.
- New Glenn is a large, reusable rocket intended for low Earth orbit payloads (00:40, 01:18) - It is powered by 7 BE-4 engines, which are less powerful but more reliable than SpaceX's Raptor (01:43, 02:16) - The rocket is very large, with a 7m wide fairing, but the market for large LEO payloads is questionable (02:47, 03:16) - New Glenn is slated to launch two small Mars missions in late 2024, which will be an early test flight (05:24, 05:55) - There are doubts about New Glenn's readiness, as it has not been tested yet just 1 year before launch (06:56, 07:26) - Development of the BE-4 engine for New Glenn has also faced delays due to issues with ULA's Vulcan rocket (09:34, 10:04) - Overall, New Glenn's capabilities seem ahead of its development progress, with no completed prototypes or engine tests (11:38, 12:08) The key points seem mostly neutral or negative for Blue Origin, pointing out developmental delays and questions about New Glenn's design and market. The upcoming test launch in 2024 will be an important milestone for the program.
VADR? LOL was that an intentional nod at Darth Vader? I must assume yes
The concrete debris and soundwave from the engines is what damaged them
You said it all man
I had almost given up on Blue Origin. Hopefully they will succeed.
Quick question, would increasing surface area allow for easier cooling of engine?
it won't, you want less surface area cause you want less area to be cooled. look out for everyday astronauts' video about cooling rocket engine for better explanation
6:44 The launch window to Mars in NOT when Earth and Mars are at their closest. The launch window is when a minimal energy hohmann transfer orbit from Earth will intersect the orbit of Mars at the same time that Mars is in that same part of it orbit. The spacecraft to Mars is actually in orbit around the Sun, with the low part of its orbit intersecting the Earth's orbit, and the high part of its orbit intersecting Mars' orbit.
I still believe Starship is not enough to go to mars. I believe we still need a huge ship like what was planned in the Constellation Program. But Starship will be massively useful for stuff from LEO to The Moon. Especially if we establish a moon base.
It's def enough to get people to Mars. How big was the constellation program Mars ship?
Raptor 3 has 269-280t thrust (depending on source) vs BE-4 at 250 or so. Raptor is designed for more than 100 uses. Given more than 2x chamber pressure, prob higher ISP and much higher thrust to weight. The 8/33 fail was a problem with fuel feed... not the engine. BO really needed a larger rocket to distinguish itself from the competition which had settled on 3.5-5m diameter. If they pull it off this year (meh, real doubts there) they will have the Only competitor to Spacex for super heavy launch (under $1b price per launch). Agree with your assessment. Anyone else would launch an empty rocket long ago with only 6 months left to correct any issues they will need an Aweful lot of luck to get it right the 1st time. If BE-4 development was any indicator... yikes!
"We're all one big happy fleet"
Should start "small" with a fully operational space station.
I used to be so excited for Blue Origin and their plans. But it seems that's all they are, renders, silence and lawsuits.
... and "donations" to senators.
bo is an interesting group, they had an advantage, they made reusable stuff earlier than spacex, and than they did mostly nothing for years. ok, they also did not blow up several rockets and still managed to go to space (suborbital, but still), the big question will be their introduction launch. spacex blows up a starship every few month, but still not done even a stage separation, so if the bo glenn will just launch in 2024 aug with a mars mission as payload without hitch, well, they are back in position, and the moon lander selection group will be in an interesting position, especially if the next starship test blow up again before separation, and they have to tell why they supported the group with nothing instead of the group that did their job. otoh, if that 20204 aug mars launch fails for the glenn and the next starship test works, bo will be again in the did nothing for years state, probably never recovering.
Raptor 3 is at 269 tf. You might as well add that because the operational Raptor engine will not be Raptor 2. It likely won't even be Raptor 3 by the time Starship is put to real work. SpaceX is technologically so far beyond everyone else, it's hilarious. I do like what Stoke is doing though. Story for another time.
Just for fun Could Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launch the orbital Reef modules? Oh, and StarLink V2 is NOT the final version of Starlink, just the latest current one PLANNED. If Starlink is profitable we will see a V3, V4, V5 and other new versions, we just don’t know what will be different about them
At some point it will become cheaper to have Google Servers in orbit and not on the ground.
@@jessepollard7132 YOU ARE WRONG. It will be cheaper to have SpaceX servers in orbit 🤣🤣🤣
@@VAMobMember SpaceX doesn't do search engines, Google has the best.
@@jessepollard7132More interestingly, because the speed of light is contingent on the medium it's traveling in, and the speed of light in vacuum is like twice that of glass, at some point it'll be cheaper and faster to route the internet's traffic over Starlink inter-satellite links than it is over terrestrial fiber.
"... at scale would be the biggest satellite ever launched." I think that would actually be still be SkyLab by quite a large margin.
A BE-4 blew up during testing on June 30, badly damaging the test stand.