NASA Chooses Blue Origin's Rocket To Launch Smallsat Mission To Mars (spacenews.com) 71
NASA selected Blue Origin in February to launch the Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (ESCAPADE) mission, a pair of smallsats that will study the interaction of the solar wind with the magnetosphere of Mars. The space agency now expects the mission will be on the first launch of Blue Origin's New Glenn launch vehicle next year. SpaceNews reports: Neither Blue Origin nor NASA disclosed exactly where in the manifest of New Glenn launches ESCAPADE would take place. "It will be an early New Glenn mission and we're going to be ready," one Blue Origin executive, Ariane Cornell, said at the Satellite 2023 conference in March. At a Nov. 20 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council's human exploration and operations committee, Bradley Smith, director of NASA's Launch Services Office, said he was "incredibly excited" about the ESCAPADE launch, which he said was scheduled for about one year. His charts, though, and past presentations, listed an August 2024 launch for ESCAPADE.
"It's an incredibly ambitious first launch for New Glenn and we really appreciate the partnership," he said. Later in the committee meeting, he confirmed that NASA expected ESCAPADE to be on the inaugural New Glenn launch. "We will very likely be the very first launch of New Glenn," he said. That is acceptable, Smith said, since ESCAPADE is what NASA characterizes as a "class D" mission with a higher tolerance for risk. "We're willing to take a little bit of risk with a price tag and a mission assurance model that reflects that risk."
Besides the inherent technical risks in the first launch of a new rocket, there are also schedule risks. New Glenn development is years behind the original schedule Blue Origin put forward. The company has not provided recent updates about progress towards a first launch of the rocket, although Jarrett Jones, senior vice president for New Glenn at Blue Origin, said at World Satellite Business Week in September that the first flight vehicle would arrive at a Florida integration facility by the end of the year, with the company planning "multiple" launches of New Glenn in 2024.
"It's an incredibly ambitious first launch for New Glenn and we really appreciate the partnership," he said. Later in the committee meeting, he confirmed that NASA expected ESCAPADE to be on the inaugural New Glenn launch. "We will very likely be the very first launch of New Glenn," he said. That is acceptable, Smith said, since ESCAPADE is what NASA characterizes as a "class D" mission with a higher tolerance for risk. "We're willing to take a little bit of risk with a price tag and a mission assurance model that reflects that risk."
Besides the inherent technical risks in the first launch of a new rocket, there are also schedule risks. New Glenn development is years behind the original schedule Blue Origin put forward. The company has not provided recent updates about progress towards a first launch of the rocket, although Jarrett Jones, senior vice president for New Glenn at Blue Origin, said at World Satellite Business Week in September that the first flight vehicle would arrive at a Florida integration facility by the end of the year, with the company planning "multiple" launches of New Glenn in 2024.
Re: SpaceX not woke enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what price BO had to come down to in order to win the business? I wouldn't be surprised if it's at cost, or even below it. BO has so few credentials right now, it's something of a long-shot to ask them to get to the Moon, let alone Mars.
Clearly, Nasa wants to stimulate the other market participants here, otherwise SpaceX is a defacto monopoly. They're taking a risk for sure, but I'll bet they're not gambling as much money as anyone thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
"I wonder what price BO had to come down to in order to win the business? I wouldn't be surprised if it's at cost, or even below it. "
Wouldn't that be a capitalist capital crime?
Re: (Score:2)
"I wonder what price BO had to come down to in order to win the business? I wouldn't be surprised if it's at cost, or even below it. "
Wouldn't that be a capitalist capital crime?
Blue Origin has to do the first launch anyway, to establish their credibility, so the cost to them of adding the spacecraft is just the cost of integrating the spacecraft onto the launch vehicle.
The cost was $20 million, according to Robert Clark: https://arstechnica.com/space/... [arstechnica.com] That's a LOT cheaper than most launches of this V.
Re: (Score:2)
Loss leaders are pretty common. As is the "the first hit is free" business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be free. If they weren't sticking these on they would probably be launching a mass simulator, some school nanosats or maybe Bezos' Honda.
Re: SpaceX not woke enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Their starship is better than yours.
Re: SpaceX not woke enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of the cool features of Starship require refuelling. This is because the thing has far too much fucking mass to go anywhere past LEO without 5-6 refueling trips by other Starships.
Now, given that they're hopefully going to be fully reusable, the price for this refueling still makes it a compelling launch vehicle, but without that refueling, it is indeed "a huge piece of junk".
So in 10 flights,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a one-trick pony.
A Falcon Heavy can delivery to TLI. Starship cannot (without refuelling)
Comparing them is silly.
EscaPADE (Score:2)
Just as a note, EscaPADE was originally selected as a low-cost ride-along "mission of opportunity." It was to hitch a ride to Mars with the Psyche spacecraft and drop off as the spacecraft flew past Mars. Thus, it had an anticipated launch cost of nearly nothing. But the Psyche mission got delayed, which meant that when Psyche gets to the orbit of Mars, Mars is no longer anywhere near. Rather than cancel the mission, they announced that it would go on a different launch vehicle.
I expect that, since the Blue
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to be in the position of having a "single supplier" for anything crucial.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting to orbit, let alone leaving it (Score:4, Interesting)
Blue Origin is just a company that seems to exist to half complete in, if not impede, things. They bring the rich to space, but not orbit. They sue for being ruled out in a bidding war - because they have never demonstrated the required technology - and slow everybody down. It almost seems that the company exists to boost the ego of its owner.
So fine, they won a contract to go to Mars. They have not even gotten into Earth orbit let, let alone been able to leave orbit and orbit another body, like the moon. They need to provide a lot of untested skills to make that happen, let alone navigate the extremely long distance toward Mars. But maybe this contract will get them to the level of a SpaceX competitor and yes, that would be good for competition.
Re:Good luck getting to orbit, let alone leaving i (Score:4, Informative)
Blue Origin is contracted to deliver supplies to the Lunar surface too. They are supposed to be landing the second load of people, after SpaceX.
NASA is hedging its bets a little, since potentially either BO or SpaceX could fail to demonstrate safe landing of people on the Moon in time. Either way though, once one of them manages to do it, it won't be long before commercial flights to the surface start. I expect it will be the ultra wealthy on a joyride at first.
Re: (Score:1)
Rich people get to do things others don't? That's fucking horrible! We should kill and eat them.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, I hear they are delicious.
To be honest I was thinking more about how the Moon will become commercialized, and what the implications are. The US is signed up to a treaty that prevents any nation laying claim to the Moon, and it's a matter of some debate if that extends to private property rights. It probably does, given how maritime and international flight laws work.
NASA has already asked people to respect the Apollo landing sites. I can see them becoming tourist attractions.
Mineral rights could
Re: (Score:1)
Moon treaty? Like the one we signed that says space won't be weaponized? But the US, Russia/USSR, China have all confirmed space weapons?
Who is going to enforce this treaty everyone signed and will ignore?
Re: (Score:1)
No, they won't use any rockets. They will be dead and eaten. But I do find it funny you're still so triggered from some crap 2 days ago that you're still stalking me on other articles unrelated to it. See a shrink.
Re: (Score:2)
"Blue Origin is contracted to deliver supplies to the Lunar surface too. "
Only to Prime subscribers.
that's why it makes sense! (Score:2)
that's why it makes sense!
Mars gravity is lower than earth's, so inability to reach *earth* orbit isn't a problem.
[take *that*, logic!] :)
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Blue Origin is just a company that seems to exist to half complete in, if not impede, things. They bring the rich to space, but not orbit. They sue for being ruled out in a bidding war - because they have never demonstrated the required technology - and slow everybody down. It almost seems that the company exists to boost the ego of its owner.
So fine, they won a contract to go to Mars. They have not even gotten into Earth orbit let, let alone been able to leave orbit and orbit another body, like the moon. They need to provide a lot of untested skills to make that happen, let alone navigate the extremely long distance toward Mars. But maybe this contract will get them to the level of a SpaceX competitor and yes, that would be good for competition.
The grapes are pretty sour, are they not?
Like it or not, Spacex and Musk are not the designated sole providers of launches, and the whole modern day plan is designed to have them to not have a monopoly on rockets and space exploration.
Have they failed to consider (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But do you remember the shock and awe when the first Dalek levitated itself?
Ooooh aaaah!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They've done a bunch of suborbital work including nailing down reusability.
New rocket companies seem to hit orbit in 6 to 8 years. Blue Origin? 23 and counting to first orbital ATTEMPT. As to re-usability you do know that their suborbital rocket exploded last flight don't you?
This is the 3rd December in a row they have claimed they would do their first launch of New Glenn. But they also have scheduled a Maiden Flight for August? Why do they need that Maiden if they are doing the December launch for project Kuiper? If it is launched in August that will be nearly 24 years from
Re: (Score:1)
Do you remember the hoopla about how Blue Origin was going to use New Glenn to put up the "Orbital Reef" space station? They pulled out of that plan for unstated reasons. Partners screwed as they were relying on BO to provide launches and now don't have a station. Maybe they will redesign around a Starship launch system and go bigger. Just another reason to be pessimistic about BO.
Re: (Score:2)
The success rate of first launch to orbit attempts is less than 30%, so betting against Blue Origin launching these satellites successfully isn't exactly rocket science.
Not much of their suborbital stuff carries over either. New Glen uses a new engine of a completly different desgin, of a type only made once or twice in the west; multiple engines; multi-stage; much bigger; completely different flight profile; basically nothing in common with New Shepard.
The engine hasn't flown yet either, which further lowe
Re: (Score:3)
Much like the Daleks ambition to take over the world was stopped by the first flight of stairs, Blue Origin's ambition to get to Mars may be thwarted by their inability to get to orbit.
True, and after Starship made it to orbit and safely returned to earth, making history that shall not be repeated until Musk sets the first colonists on Mars next spring. Why we allow anyone to launch rockets other than Spacex is a crime.
What I wrote was ridiculous. But so was your statement that because Blue Origin hasn't made it to orbit, they never will.
Because Starship not landing nor making it to orbit does not mean they never will.
reeks of antiMusk (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, i know at this point it's practically official US government policy to hate on Musk at every opportunity, but is putting a science mission on THE FIRST LAUNCH of a private firms new system that's already *years* behind target an objectively rational idea?
I'm all for private launch companies in space, and for that to work there has eventually to be competition. And to get healthy competition occasionally the government might need to pick the other guy(tm) even if it's not absolutely the best price. B
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a cheap payload though, $79 million I think I read, very small beer in Mars mission terms. Plus if they miss the 2024 Mars window (likely), then it will probably have had several launches by 2026. But it does seem a little foolhardy nonetheless.
Re: reeks of antiMusk (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX simply wouldn't exist without the US government. After the first successful Falcon 1 launch, SpaceX received a 1.6B contract from NASA, saving the company that was on the verge of bankruptcy at that time. And SpaceX still regularly takes well paid government contracts.
So, I wouldn't call giving a chance to a company that is not SpaceX being "hate on Musk". It is a bet, but the US government made a bet with SpaceX too. Plus SpaceX is not just Elon Musk. Elon Musk is the boss, and media figure, but he
Re: reeks of antiMusk (Score:1)
Take Musk's cock out of your mouth so we can understand you please.
Re: (Score:2)
After the first successful Falcon 1 launch
^^^ That seems like a pretty important detail, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
After the first successful Falcon 1 launch
^^^ That seems like a pretty important detail, don't you think?
And it's inaccurate. NASA contracted SpaceX at a time when they had failed three times in a row with their Falcon-1 vehicle.
Ballsy move, but it worked.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX simply wouldn't exist without the US government. After the first successful Falcon 1 launch, SpaceX received a 1.6B contract from NASA,
Before the first successful launch of Falcon-1.
saving the company that was on the verge of bankruptcy at that time.
And to be fair, Musk has never been hesitant to credit NASA with saving SpaceX from bankruptcy.
And SpaceX still regularly takes well paid government contracts. So, I wouldn't call giving a chance to a company that is not SpaceX being "hate on Musk". It is a bet, but the US government made a bet with SpaceX too. Plus SpaceX is not just Elon Musk. Elon Musk is the boss, and media figure, but he is not alone at the company, far from it.
Yes, NASA is essentially doing with Blue Origin the same thing it had done with SpaceX, investing in a company that has not yet launched to orbit.
Worked the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the first successful launch of Falcon-1.
If it says "1.6B contract", I'm assuming it's Commercial Resupply Services [wikipedia.org], which according to that page was awarded in December 2008, which is three months *after* Falcon 1's first successful flight in September 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
>SpaceX received a 1.6B contract from NASA, saving the company that was on the verge of bankruptcy at that time.
and how much did the government save on this contract, compared to its alternatives?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, i know at this point it's practically official US government policy to hate on Musk at every opportunity,
Given Musk's behaviour towards the current government, can you blame them? He's already demonstrated that he's not reliable (or even completely in touch with reality). A reminder of how much his businesses are dependent on government money might bring him back down to earth.
Years behind target doesn't mean something is wrong either. So many products have been released flawed because someone had to meet a deadline. When it comes to a rocket, late but working is better than on time but explodey.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Blue Origin hasn't shown much reason to be considered trustworthy. OTOH, this appears to be a low stakes bet in an attempt to avoid a monopoly situation. Probably a good move, even though it probably won't be successful.
Re: (Score:3)
Look, i know at this point it's practically official US government policy to hate on Musk at every opportunity,
Given Musk's behaviour towards the current government, can you blame them? He's already demonstrated that he's not reliable (or even completely in touch with reality). A reminder of how much his businesses are dependent on government money might bring him back down to earth.
Exactly what "behavior towards the current government" are you referring to?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX regularly launches payloads for the US government far cheaper than anyone else, and is currently the only way for the US to get humans into space. They're pretty reliable.
Musk likes to beak off on Twitter a lot, but so does half of US officialdom, including the previous president.
Re: (Score:3)
Short answer: Yes.
Medium answer: If you're asking if what NASA did with public money has an objectively rational reason behind it, the answer is yes.
Long answer:
The first launch is sold cheap, generally half price. And, while I don't enjoy the secrecy
Re: (Score:2)
Look, i know at this point it's practically official US government policy to hate on Musk at every opportunity, but is putting a science mission on THE FIRST LAUNCH of a private firms new system that's already *years* behind target an objectively rational idea?
I'm all for private launch companies in space, and for that to work there has eventually to be competition. And to get healthy competition occasionally the government might need to pick the other guy(tm) even if it's not absolutely the best price. But this is just dumb to the point of making their political motivations just a little too flagrant.
We should get with the program, eliminate NASA and have Spacex be the only launch provider. It's a natural monopoly, there is not need for more than one launch provider, and Musk does not fail. NASA and everyone else should be shut down, and all their assets given to Musk if her wants their worthless crap that is. How we ever got where we are at without Musk's guiding hand is a mystery, but it's time these other slackers step aside and let the smartest man on earth work his magic.
Re: (Score:2)
is putting a science mission on THE FIRST LAUNCH of a private firms new system that's already *years* behind target an objectively rational idea?
Yes, because it is more important to have a competitive space industry than it is to succeed in the immediate mission.
It makes perfect sense for this mission (Score:3)
This mission is part of a program that is all about low-cost projects that are willing to take on more risk. The total cost of the mission was $80 million including $20 million for launch. A Falcon 9 launch costs around $70 million, which would have been more expensive than all the other hardware and operations costs combined. So if it works NASA get a great bargain, and whether it works or not they are helping develop competition in the launch market.
How does this work? (Score:3)
I understand the whole trying to get more companies in the launch business which is good for all. But at this point, the average slashdoter has an equal amount of experience at reaching orbit as Blue Origin.
And, yes, the SpaceX comparisons are valid because NASA did not give money to SpaceX to do outlandish things way beyond their progress at the time.
On the other hand I prefer throwing some money after small players (even though Blue Origin specifically has been very disappointing so far), than Boeing...
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the whole trying to get more companies in the launch business which is good for all. But at this point, the average slashdoter has an equal amount of experience at reaching orbit as Blue Origin.
And, yes, the SpaceX comparisons are valid because NASA did not give money to SpaceX to do outlandish things way beyond their progress at the time.
On the other hand I prefer throwing some money after small players (even though Blue Origin specifically has been very disappointing so far), than Boeing...
We need to dissolve Blue Origin, and all the other rlounch vehicle providers, and merge NASA into Spacex, then Spacex and only Spacex will be allowed to launch any rockets. P After all - if BO hasn't reached orbit yet, they have no legitimate reason to ever launch any rocket, they will never reach orbit, and the rest of these groups are eating into Spacex profits, We really need to get our act together, and stop this silly different launch providers.
Other choices (Score:2)
RocketLab is one with a decent track record and success rate. They’ve had their eyes on a demo flight to Venus for a couple of years - just barely in the capabilities of their Electron rocket. They primarily launch small sats
Re: (Score:2)
Which of those even claim that they can deliver a package to Mars (for cheap).
FWIW, I don't expect this to be successful, but I don't see that many contenders, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Of the myriad launch service providers out there that *aren’t* SpaceX or ULA, I wonder why Blue Origin got the nod.
Presumably because they were the lowest bid.
...RocketLab is one with a decent track record and success rate.
They are the ones building the spacecraft. Not clear, though; does Electron have the launch capability to send a pair of spacecraft of this mass to Mars?
Re: (Score:2)
It is a stretch, to be sure. This rundown [slashdot.org] indicates they can *just barely* get a small payload (10-20 kg, flyby) to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't going to orbit. It's going to Mars. SpaceX, ULA and the Russians are the only providers who can do that at the moment, and Falcon Heavy isn't actually ideal for interplanetary launches for some technical reasons. And ULA is experiencing some difficulties.
Right, they "chose" Blue Origin. (Score:2)
Good to have multiple suppliers but... (Score:2)
Good to have multiple suppliers but I doubt it will be on schedule. Maybe it's just not that important?
From the article:
"NASA expects that a Mars smallsat mission will be on the first launch of Blue Origin’s New Glenn launch vehicle within a year, although with some risk about whether the rocket will be ready in time."
"Besides the inherent technical risks in the first launch of a new rocket, there are also schedule risks. New Glenn development is years behind the original schedule Blue Origin put forw
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be more believable if NASA select Vulcan-Centaur. But that rocket have so much backlog cargo for USSF and NRO, NASA will have to look for a different non-SpaceX vendor (I presume the Non-SpaceX was implicit in the way contract was tendered).
Sure (Score:1)
Has anybody picked up on (Score:1)
That they're partnered with Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and other big-time 'defense' contractors.
There'll be some bullshit cost overruns on some other dod (purposely lowercase) contracts that will pay for it.