
Bezos names big next rocket New Glenn - smb06
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37342181
======
bimmer44
Having these billionaires willing to throw money at competitive space flight
is pretty great - I'm sure positive effects on commercial space exploration
and global internet access will inevitably follow.

I'm intrigued that they plan to go from New Shepard straight to a rocket
that's bigger than Falcon 9 (3.85m pounds thrust for New Shepard vs. latest
Full Thrust version of Falcon 9 at 1.71m pounds). I was under the impression
that New Shepard wasn't as serious as Falcon 1 (.e.g not capable of reaching
orbit) and that SpaceX spent quite a number of years moving from pre-Falcon 1
to the regular launch successes of Falcon 9.

Maybe someone who knows more about this can explain - are the technical
challenges involved less associated with pure size and more to do with
design/fabrication processes etc.?

~~~
Klathmon
Now i'm just an excited but casual bystander in all of this, so don't take
anything i say as anything more than rumour. That being said...

I read that Blue Origin (specifically Bezos) has a lot more funding to throw
at this problem than SpaceX did/does (IIRC Bezos has something like 6x the net
worth of Musk. That alone might not say much, but it's obvious that if push
comes to shove, Bezos can throw more money at the problem). And if you look at
some of the numbers (not sure if they are completely "confirmed" yet), New
Glenn still won't quite have the lifting power of Falcon Heavy (despite it's
larger size).

Also, if you look at the timeline of Falcon 9 (Funded in 2006, first launched
in 2010), Blue Origin's looks very similar, so it's not exactly impossible.

To me it just looks like they are going in a different direction. SpaceX
wanted to get to reusability with an orbital rocket first, then scale up. Blue
Origin is nailing down the extreme reusability in sub-orbital land for now,
and will apply that to an orbital rocket. And the simpler design (one massive
booster VS 3 separate stage-1 boosters) seems like a simpler plan (i'm not
trying to imply in any way that any of this is easy, it's still rocket
science!)

It's looking like we are going to have another space race in the next decade.
And I can't wait!

~~~
stcredzero
_New Glenn still won 't quite have the lifting power of Falcon Heavy (despite
it's larger size)._

If that's true then perhaps they are going the route outlined in _The Rocket
Company_ \-- Fuel is cheap, so make a really freakin huge rocket that holds a
freakin huge amount of fuel and go ahead and send up a relatively small
payload, so long as they have true re-usability.

~~~
Klathmon
(complete speculation here with nothing to back it up).

That's what i'd bet they are going for. Every launch (even GTO launches) will
be RTLS. Plenty of fuel on board to avoid the suicide-burns that SpaceX is
doing, lots left over to give some wiggle room in case corrections are needed.

If they can maintain the same level of reusability that New Shepard is
_expected_ / _hoped_ to have (basically rivaling that of airplanes), then the
additional cost of the rocket itself can be amortized over many many launches.

~~~
greglindahl
SpaceX does suicide burns because of engine throttling issues; that's a
separate issue from margin, and a separate issue from landing on a barge vs
landing on land. It remains to be seen which of these are dangerous enough
that you don't want to do them with a rocket you want to land many times.

------
Pfhreak
Within my lifetime, I hope to see: private spaceflight a reasonable option for
a middle class person, resources mined from asteroids, construction in orbit,
and a human walk on Mars. I want to know what's in the oceans of Europa, and I
want to see detailed images from all the celestial bodies of our solar system.

I think there's a reasonable chance of all of those happening, and it feels
incredible to see companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin building the
foundation of commercial spaceflight. Good luck to both as they continue to
grow and iterate on their journeys to other worlds.

~~~
astazangasta
I want a pony.

Rather than asteroid mining, what I want in my lifetime is an end to mining,
period, an end to exploitative adventurism, an end to expanding our
rapaciousness across the cosmos. I want the development of organic,
sustainable technologies that don't depend on endless inputs. I want people to
love the beauty on this planet before lusting to see another.

~~~
strictnein
I see the beauty in my state, but still want to visit other states. I see the
beauty in my country, but still want to visit other countries. Not sure why
this thought should end at our atmosphere.

Also, the only thing that will end mining on this planet is if all humans are
dead. Until the Zharnog Mining Fleet from Seeplebop 14 strip mines the entire
planet, that is.

~~~
astazangasta
>Also, the only thing that will end mining on this planet is if all humans are
dead.

No, we just need to stop depending on metals and fossil fuels, both of which
are possible and desirable. We've already come close to achieving the latter;
the work of this century will be doing the former. Unless we waste all of our
time trying to get into space, that useless, airless desert.

~~~
jkaunisv1
How would we have ubiquitous computing without metals? Or really any tools,
modern or not?

~~~
astazangasta
Yes, where on Earth can we find examples of computing that rely only on
organic inputs?

~~~
fixermark
Hey, if you can find some with radio or miles-distant electrical or optical
signalling features, go for it.

Until then, I'm going to want at least a few crust-extracted materials to keep
the Internet operational so we can even have this conversation from casually-
anonymous points on the globe.

~~~
astazangasta
Here's some hope for optical signalling:
[http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13615](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13615)

I have very little doubt we'll be printing long wires using just carbon in the
next few decades. Until then, sure, let's use crust-extracted materials, but
the advantages to making them obsolete are enormous and available.

------
mathattack
I like that they named it after John Glenn. I was surprised to see that he's
still alive, albeit not in great health.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3082348/Astronaut-
Jo...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3082348/Astronaut-John-
Glenn-93-American-orbit-Earth-reveals-stroke-left-no-longer-able-read-
drive.html)

~~~
arjunnarayan
The naming scheme is:

Alan Shepard (first American into suborbital) -> New Shepard (Blue Origin
rocket to do reusable suborbital)

John Glenn (first American into orbit) -> New Glenn (Blue Origin rocket to do
reusable orbits)

Neil Armstrong (first American to land on the moon) -> New Armstrong (Blue
Origin rocket to do reusable lunar launches)

~~~
dreistdreist
In that case NASA better hurries up with sending an American to Mars.

------
ChuckMcM
I've read a number of stories on this announcement now, 7 BE-4 engines[1]? If
wikipedia is accurate[2] that suggests seven BE-4's produce 16,800 kN vs 7,605
kN from nine Merlin engines[3]. Twice the thrust should be interesting to
watch. Also the comment about LNG not resulting in soot (carbon deposits) is
interesting as it speaks to the re-usability aspects. All of the landed F9
boosters are covered in soot.

And the last interesting question will be how dynamic is the throttle
capability. I am amazed at the 'net 0' games that SpaceX has to play to bring
the booster to a net zero vertical velocity with an engine that can't reduce
its throttle low enough to operate in a mode that produces less thrust than
the mass of the booster and remaining fuel. 10% of a BE-4 is like 100% of a
Merlin 1D.

All that sums up to a new entry in the field that has chosen many different
options, hence it will provide a lot of new information about choices that
work or don't work well. Can't wait to see it flying!

[1] [https://www.blueorigin.com/be4](https://www.blueorigin.com/be4)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_\(rocket_engine_family\))

------
jacquesm
The only thing that got launched here is a bunch of pictures.

SpaceX is years ahead of Blue Origin at this point, and rather than aiming for
a rocket larger than a Falcon Heavy / Delta IV heavy as a 'starter' (which of
course is excellent PR and makes Blue Origin right away a manufacturer of
larger rockets than SpaceX in the eyes of some) maybe they should go for
something a bit less ambitious to lob into orbit, failure is a lot cheaper on
a smaller scale, and in the beginning there most likely will be failures.

~~~
simonh
I think what everyone's missing is that this is entirely about economics.
SpaceX only had the previous generation expendable rockets for competition and
were cost constrained so went for a low cost rocket system and a tripling-up
strategy for Falcon Heavy. Bezos knows SpaceX exists and knows what their
rocket's characteristics are. A smaller launcher would compete directly with
Falcon 9, better to leave that market to them, so he's scaling up to crate a
more efficient large launcher. It may not quite have the capacity of FH, but
should be significantly cheaper per pound to orbit.

Also Bezos doesn't give a fig about Mars, so his design doesn't have any
compromises BFR might have in terms of size, propellant choice, etc to be a
custom launcher for MCT. Musk had no real existing benchmarks to compete
against when setting SpaceX's strategy because he was leaving everyone else
face down in the dust. Bezos has SpaceX as a benchmark so he's building a
strategy asymmetric to theirs to carve out his own niche and beat SpaceX in
that sector of the market. Also if SpaceX cost efficiencies create an expanded
market for access to space, a larger vehicle will become more viable in that
environment than it might be now. Bezos is aiming for where the puck is
headed, not where it is now.

~~~
nixos
The problem with large rockets is that they require multiple satellites to be
placed in a close orbit.

It's not that simple.

~~~
simonh
Bezos doesn't really talk about launching lots of small satellites. He talks
about heavy industry in space. That will require launching large payloads. I'm
not saying his strategy is right or wrong, just that his strategy appears to
follow from his objectives.

------
Jgrubb
> In a statement on Monday, the Amazon boss said: "Our vision is millions of
> people living and working in space, and New Glenn is a very important step."

Serious question because I don't know - seems like it would introduce a lot of
overhead into daily life having to support that much life "out there". What's
the value prop? Why would I want to live in space (aside from it being cool)?

~~~
Pfhreak
It's the frontier. There's money to be made, there's incredibly quantities of
resources out there -- kilometer wide balls of platinum, chunks of iron larger
than the sum of what humanity has mined to date.

Managed well, a huge pool of resources that would obviate some of the need for
us to destroy our own planet to get at resources.

~~~
idlewords
None of that stuff makes economic sense to retrieve. And the place is called
"space" for a reason.

~~~
perrylaj
I disagree. If your goal is to collect metals only for the purposes of
returning to earth, then perhaps you are right in the short term. However, if
those materials are used off-planet (or on-site) for the further production,
it makes a LOT of sense. Once the foundation of production is in place, mining
and building <more spacecraft, Mars habitats, ...> becomes almost
exponentially more efficient to do off of Earth (especially factoring in time
requirements). Beyond that, there is a good chance that future technologies
will require 'rare-earth' and other precious metals that exceed quantities
that could ever possibly be extracted here at any cost.

~~~
vkou
That's a closed loop. Mining asteroids is extremely valuable because getting
stuff into space is very hard. Making it cheaper to put more raw materials
into space will have the effect of... Making it cheaper to put more raw
materials into space.

How do we profit off of this? Manufacturing?

I understand why you would want to build a widget factory in China, but what
possible goods could we produce on Mars, that wouldn't be easier to produce on
Earth?

I understand the situation of rare-metal shortage, but many of them are rare
because extracting them requires uneconomical amounts of energy. Mining them
from space (And good luck finding an asteroid with more then traces of
Gallium) would still require uneconomical amounts of energy.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I understand why you would want to build a widget factory in China, but
> what possible goods could we produce on Mars, that wouldn 't be easier to
> produce on Earth?_

On Mars? Probably none. In LEO? That might be a different topic. In general,
you don't want to move up the gravity well if you can avoid it.

A naive person in me hopes that as space manufacturing becomes an option, the
terrestrial manufacturing costs will rise significantly as people will no
longer be willing to tolerate the abuse of humans and ecosystem alike that
today's manufacturing is.

------
cwkoss
Growing up, I'd see the cost of "$10k/pound" quoted everywhere as the cost of
getting things into orbit. With the rise of commercial spaceflight and
inflation, how has this number changed?

~~~
valarauca1
Currently it hasn't.

Musk's rockets while landing, haven't been mass re-used yet. So SpaceX hasn't
adjusted it's pricing.

Bezos's rockets while landing/re-launching aren't putting cargo in orbit. So
they have no KG/$$ to obit prices.

Everyone else is just doing single use disposable still. Likely we could see
prices start to fall within maybe 3-5 years once re-usability is proved out
and pricing adjusted.

~~~
neuromancer2701
At its 2016 launch price and at full LEO payload capacity, the Falcon 9 FT
cost $1,233 per pound ($2,719/kg).

~~~
neuromancer2701
Additionally, the Heavy could drop it to $1,600/kg. This does not take into
consideration any of the reusability so SpaceX has lowered the cost an order
of magnitude already.

------
yarapavan
This is why Bezos wins:

<quote>

Our mascot is the tortoise. We paint one on our vehicles after each successful
flight. Our motto is "Gradatim Ferociter" \- step by step, ferociously. We
believe "slow is smooth and smooth is fast." In the long run, deliberate and
methodical wins the day, and you do things quickest by never skipping steps.
This step-by-step approach is a powerful enabler of boldness and a critical
ingredient in achieving the audacious. We're excited to give you a preview of
our next step. One we've been working on for four years. Meet New Glenn:

</quote>

------
walkingolof
7 meter diameter will be a game changer for hauling cargo, that's for sure,
now they just have to build it :)

------
skywhopper
Off-topic, thanks to that meme going around about adjective order in English:
Doesn't the order of the adjectives sound wrong? Am I missing something to
explain why it's "big next rocket" instead of "next big rocket"?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Doesn't the order of the adjectives sound wrong?

Yes.

> Am I missing something to explain why it's "big next rocket" instead of
> "next big rocket"?

Well, if you are looking at the meme, which is incomplete, yes. And even most
of the more complete descriptions of English adjective order I can find are
missing this. But there is a category (I'd call it sequence) that comes before
any of the listed categories, that includes things like "first", "next",
"last", etc.

------
ajarmst
Poor Grissom gets screwed again.

------
binalpatel
I love this, it seems like we've been pushing the frontier of the very large
and the very small in the last few years (space scale and molecular scale),
and I can't wait to see what come out of it.

------
xux
Exciting times. I used to feel a bit disappointed when I read about all the
New World explorations going on back in the 1400s. But now it's starting up
all over!

------
ixtli
Did Aunty Beebs just mess up adjectival order? As a native American English
speaker "big next" sounds awkward to me.

------
nsxwolf
The big one looks like it gives the Saturn V a run for its money. Could that
thing take you to the moon?

------
jondubois
Bezos's big rocket... Unlike Elon, Jeff doesn't seem to be having any trouble
getting it up.

