Jeff Bezos Unveils the Design of Blue Origin's Future Orbital Rocket -- New Glenn (theverge.com) 79
Earlier this year, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin said he would unveil details about his company's orbital rocket sometime "later this year." He is now delivering on the promise. Bezos has released some preliminary details about the "New Glenn" rocket which employs seven of the company's new generation BE-4 rocket engines. The rocket, named after the first American to reach orbit, is bigger than Elon Musk's Falcon Heavy rocket. Bezos said he intends to launch the New Glenn in less than a decade from now. The Verge reports: The New Glenn will incorporate reusability, according to an email update from Bezos. The first stage of the rocket will be able to land post-launch, similar to how Blue Origin's New Shepard vehicle lands after a flight. However, the New Shepard is only capable of going to sub-orbital space, so it's not traveling as fast or as high as a rocket going to orbit. Landing an orbital rocket post-launch will put Blue Origin in a whole new ball game. And it looks like there will be a lot of rocket to land. The New Glenn will be 23 feet in diameter and range between 270 and 313 feet high. That height depends on if there is one upper stage or two on top of the rocket. With just one upper stage, the rocket will be able to send satellites and people into lower Earth orbit (LEO). But with two upper stages, the New Glenn is capable of taking payloads beyond LEO. The main portion of the rocket will be powered by seven BE-4s, an engine that Blue Origin is currently developing. It's the same engine that the company hopes to sell to the United Launch Alliance to power the future Vulcan rocket. Combined, the BE-4s should provide 3.85 million pounds of thrust, according to Bezos. That's more thrust than the 2 million pounds the Delta IV Heavy is capable of, and slightly less than the 5 million pounds SpaceX's Falcon Heavy can pull off.Bezos said: Our vision is millions of people living and working in space, and New Glenn is a very important step. It won't be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong. But that's a story for the future.
Re:Elon Musk (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the games begin! I for one welcome a worthy competitor to Musk. The more billionaires we have focusing their attention and resources on real-world problems (rather than squeezing a few more basis points out of their high-frequency trading algorithms) the better off we'll all be. Even Bill Gates -- however buggy his software and however ill-gotten his gains -- appears to be using his economic power for "good" these days.
Meanwhile, what has Jamie Dimon done for you lately? (cough!)2008
Re: (Score:2)
" real-world problems " Uhhh, amusement park rides for the bored class aren't exactly a real-world problem. Building the upcoming leisure society with drastically reduced work requirements and free basic healthcare and living conditions for all are a real problem that needs addressing NOW.
Metal tubes full of kerosene are really nothing interesting or important.
Why are you tech geeks such loathsome misanthropic sociopaths?
We do not know how many of what meet your definition of "real world problems" are solvable by easy and affordable access to space because we do not yet have easy and affordable access to space.
Perhaps fifty years ago you would be complaining that integrated circuits will never solve real world problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, none, because all of the solutions proposed are incredibly energy-intensive and highly polluting. We have huge pollution problems, upcoming due to automation are massive unemployment, antibiotic resistant bacteria, income/wealth/health/freedom disparity. These are real problems, they can all be addressed without massive pollution of the planet on an absurd scale. Instead of worshiping at the altar of scientifism, inform yourself of the real, imminent challenges that we as a species are bringing to ou
Re: (Score:2)
massive pollution of the planet on an absurd scale
The automobile causes this. Cities cause this. Cows cause this. Spaceflight, due to its infrequency, has a relatively insignificant impact on pollution, unless you count all the knowledge we have gained from earth observing satellites. A massive increase in launch frequency would still not make much difference versus these other pollution sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are right. Except for cows, I believe that pastured cows are not the source of pollution that industrial cows are as they are in balance with the pastures they are raised on. You are right in a larger sense regarding the impact on pollution a planet-wide scale, however on a local scale the impacts are decidedly tangible:
http://web.uvic.ca/~gsteeves/e... [web.uvic.ca]
https://www.quora.com/Whats-th... [quora.com]
I am all for getting rid of most cars and replacing them with bicycles and a massively increased clean public tra
Re:Elon Musk (Score:5, Informative)
Except that SpaceX actually is flying stuff today, and this is a render and doesn't exist in the physical world.
Re: (Score:2)
Blue Origin has flown the New Shepard. Four times.
Yes, it's not-quite-there ware so far. But he has a plan that makes as least as much sense as SpaceX.
Re:Elon Musk (Score:4, Informative)
Suborbital has almost nothing to do with orbital -- it's off by orders of magnitude and involves completely different factors. Blue Origin has yet to fly a rocket that can be developed for orbital flight.
Re: (Score:2)
So the rocket should rather be named "New Shepard"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, look at all those other rocketry companies that had to close the doors after losing a launch vehicle on the pad!
Oh wait, that would be none of them. It turns out that space is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, look at all those other rocketry companies that had to close the doors after losing a launch vehicle on the pad!"
You mean all those companies that where developing systems for the government with government money?
As opposed to one of the only other private companies to try and build a launcher.. like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Actually SpaceX does not have anything flying today. They need to find out why the lost yet another Falcon and payload.
I would not dismiss the New Glenn so fast. The fact hat Space X got anything into orbit shows that it is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's possible. But claiming one companies obsolescence merely because another billionaire "unveiled a design" especially in a field like rocketry is absolutely ridiculous.
That's like people saying that ULA is washed up when Musk "unveiled the design" for the Falcon 9. ULA seems to be doing just fine, and so is SpaceX.
Re: (Score:2)
This rocket seems a bit more complicated than the Falcon 9/Heavy, quite a bit larger, and not any more reusable.
More complicated how? The engine design is somewhat more complicated (staged combustion vs gas-generator) but a single rocket core is less complicated than the three-core Falcon Heavy arrangement. Perhaps you mean the optional third stage? I still think that's less complicated than the Falcon arrangement. It's potentially a lot more efficient, too.
Re:How big will the explosion be? (Score:5, Informative)
Rushed into service 10 years from now?
Rockets blow up, cars crash, trains derail and we learn a little bit more every time it happens. Even the ULA's long stretch of mishap free launches is going to have a new risk when they are forced to do what Blue Origin and SpaceX have been proactively doing, develop new engines.
Commercial space launches are the present and the future in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Four years from now... (Score:3)
Rushed into service 10 years from now?
The subheading says "He says it will fly before the end of the decade". That's four years from now, not ten.
Rockets blow up, cars crash, trains derail and we learn a little bit more every time it happens. Even the ULA's long stretch of mishap free launches is going to have a new risk when they are forced to do what Blue Origin and SpaceX have been proactively doing, develop new engines. Commercial space launches are the present and the future in the US.
More realistic (Score:1)
Re:More realistic (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely! There is no way SpaceX can get their rocket into orbit yet, not to speak of actually landing the first stage. They should just wait until someone else can show them how to do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Egg them on! Competition! (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither.
I think those billionaires should go balls to the walls competing and boosting their egos and blowing billions. This will create the new technology, the new industry and eventually we little people will benefit.
Precedent: railroad, auto, aircraft, computing industries. Some made bigger fortunes and others went bust. But in the end, society ended up better. So, we should egg them on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"But in the end, society ended up better"
That is debatable for the tens of millions who were killed as a direct result.
'For the good of all us.
Except the ones that are dead.'
Re: (Score:2)
No, they should work in parallel. That way the best design wins, or at least there is an alternative. It is a win-win.
I think you missed the sarcasm.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He was being sarcastic because SpaceX is already making orbital launches and successfully recovering the 1st stage.
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. I think he meant realistic for Blue Origin. But 10 years from now, who knows where SpaceX will be. Probably conducting launches from their headquarters...on Mars.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Given Elon Musk's push to get to Mars, I thought I'd make a little joke; too little apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe by 1980 they'll get the moonbase finished.
SHADO is working on that in the past, even as we speak!
Re: (Score:1)
Bigger but with less thrust? (Score:5, Interesting)
The rocket, named after the first American to reach orbit, is bigger than Elon Musk's Falcon Heavy rocket ... Combined, the BE-4s should provide 3.85 million pounds of thrust, according to Bezos. That's ... slightly less than the 5 million pounds SpaceX's Falcon Heavy can pull off.
Wait, so the rocket will be bigger, with less thrust? That doesn't sound like an improvement to me. Or do they just mean taller (there are diagrams in the article), but it will somehow manage to have lower mass and so get a better thrust to weight ratio?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute thrust does not matter all that much, as long as the thrust can actually lift the rocket + payload off the ground. Lower thrust means gentler acceleration which is nicer for cargo but especially for crew, if you want to man-rate one day.
Higher thrust also means you go faster before you escape the atmosphere. This increases maximum aerodynamic load.
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger doesn't mean more powerful.
Blue Origin
27' diameter, 270' tall
first stage powered by 7 BE-4 engines producing a total of 3.85m lbf to thrust
second stage powered by a single BE-4 producing 550k lbf of thrust
Falcon Heavy
12' diameter (not counting payload fairing)
230' tall
first stage powered by 9 Merlin 1D engines producing a total of 1.7m lbf of thrust
first stage boosters each powered by 9 Merlin 1D engines producting a total of 1.7m lbf of thrust
Total: 1st stage + 2 boosters = 5.1M lbf of thrust
second
Re: (Score:2)
The Merlin engines of the Falcon 9 use RP-1/liquid oxygen as fuel. If the new Glenn uses liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen as fuel that would explain the size difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so the rocket will be bigger, with less thrust? That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
The relevant criterion is not thrust, but thrust to weight ratio. If they're using a lighter weight, higher specific impulse fuel, methane, since most of the take-off mass is fuel, they may be lighter. So the same thrust to weight ratio may be achieved with lower total thrust.
Or do they just mean taller (there are diagrams in the article), but it will somehow manage to have lower mass and so get a better thrust to weight ratio?
Exactly: thrust to weight is more important than just thrust.
However, the optimum lift-off thrust is an optimization, and is not necessarily the highest thrust. If you compare two vehicles, without knowing a lot more details, you can'
Re: (Score:2)
you're not looking at the big picture, fifty years ago our best rocket only had 7.9 million pounds of thrust and was only capable of sending 54 ton manned craft to the moon....
uh, nevermind
Re: (Score:2)
It is using LCH4 which is a lot less dense than the RP-1 that the Falcon 9 and Saturn V use/used. The tanks are bigger but the fuel is lighter.
The Aunt Gertrude Rapid Escape System (Score:4, Interesting)
While I like John Glenn as much as anybody... well, actually, no. I clearly don't like John Glenn as much as Jeff Bezos, because I would never name a space rocket "New Glenn". It sounds like somebody's 50-something never-married uncle trying to rebrand himself before he goes clubbing.
Re: (Score:2)
Right? Like something he says while he's slicking his hair back in front of everybody who's sitting down to enjoy dinner.
"Dinner? With you losers?" *slick* "No way, losers. That was Old Glenn. This--" *slick* "Is New Glenn. And New Glenn's goin' out to get New Glenn's dick wet. Not like you losers who are sittin' here to get their mouths dry on all this dry overcooked food. Overcooked?" *slick* "Not New Glenn. That was Old Glenn. Peace out you loser bitches."
Re: (Score:2)
Harumph! Trump, please stop posting here.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude! That's totally going to be me in like 5 years!
Re: (Score:2)
New Shepard is named after the first American to reach space on a suborbital flight, and has reached space on suborbital flights.
New Glenn is named after the first American to reach orbit, and is intended to achieve orbital flights.
Sounds logical.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Somewhere small and uncomfortable, I'll bet.
Bad math (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thrust of the New Glenn is close enough to that of the Falcon Heavy that the higher specific impulse of the three-stage New Glenn will likely give it slightly greater payload capacity on high delta-V missions (GEO and beyond), despite the lower thrust at lift-off. So yes, it's only "slightly" less from a practical perspective.
More generally, "slightly" is an entirely subjective term, and in science and engineering it often makes more sense to compare things on a logarithmic, rather than linear, scale. O
Freudian (Score:2)
Two A-Types, boasting about how their 'missle' is bigger. Not that the US and USSR didn't do it first.