Blue Origin started BEFORE SpaceX, and yet has never reached orbit.

@ryelor123

28 күн бұрын

I'm guessing their goal is to patent troll companies like SpaceX. That way they can make money licensing ideas.

@aktab9

28 күн бұрын

They focused on the wrong thing. They focused on space tourism and thus suborbital completely reusable rockets were their area of focus. And this got them behind.

@dangorneanu9616

28 күн бұрын

​@@aktab9 SpaceX focused when they started on F9,and that thing for bezos is supposed to kill starship

@withoutstickers

28 күн бұрын

When blue origin flys it will be a production vehicle with a payload. Starship is still a prototype, not comparable.

@hartmutholzgraefe

28 күн бұрын

@@withoutstickers you mean they will be able to skip the prototype step all together and have a production ready vehicle right away?

The fact that a patent was granted for "20 to 150 combustion chambers, or fewer or more" and "maybe with extra gas nozzles for cooling or maybe active cooling" is a good sign of how broken IP law is. Instead of "I came up with a design, don't steal it." it's "I don't want anyone else to be able to come up with a design unless they pay me."

@EagerSpace

27 күн бұрын

That is actually pretty common in patents - you want to word the patent as broad as possible to cover as many intended uses as possible while still being narrow enough that it will gain a patent.

@chyza2012

27 күн бұрын

Patents should be completely abolished, people like to complain about patent trolls as if it's exploiting the system but they don't realize that's it functioning exactly as designed.

@kargaroc386

24 күн бұрын

All it'll do is make sure that countries that don't bother with it excel, and eventually take over those who don't. Essentially natural selection on a national level.

@tribalypredisposed

24 күн бұрын

A patent is just a license to sue. If a claim in a patent is too broad, even if issued it will likely be overturned in court if they attempt enforcement. Here they would be forced to show that the prior art had no patents for fewer than 20 combustion chambers...

@tribalypredisposed

24 күн бұрын

@@chyza2012 So many people fail to understand patents...yes patents can be abused in new fast moving technologies like computers and the internet, places where briefly almost every idea is a new one. But in most area they give exclusive use of the idea for a reasonable time, twenty years, in exchange for making the idea public. This rewards innovation and hard work, if the system works right.

I'm guessing Blue Origin is really just planning on being a patent troll company.

@pseudotasuki

28 күн бұрын

My suspicion is that Stoke's plan is to develop Jarvis, then do a Jobs-style reverse takeover of Blue Origin (NeXT and Apple, Pixar and Disney). The company was even started by BO alums.

@jarichards99utube

28 күн бұрын

Yep...!!! -70SomethingGuy

@swapshots4427

26 күн бұрын

My thoughts exactly.

@swapshots4427

26 күн бұрын

@@pseudotasuki please let it be so. I'm Stoked for Stoke

@Chris.Davies

19 күн бұрын

That seems incredibly unlikely. You don't build rockets if you're trolling.

You need to be more careful. “Big Nozzle” ruined my life my making sure I can never get USB-A in the right way first time.

Big Nozzle cracked me. So evil...

@hitchmille

28 күн бұрын

🤣I don't trust them, we can't let them develop a nozzle monopoly.

Blue Origin is almost there. All they need to do is BUILD a prototype to test suborbital landings. Then BUILD a landing ship. Then BUILD a prototype rocket can make it to orbit. Then BUILD a working model. I mean, if you think about it, it's really its Starship that is behind . . . (enjoy the gaslight)

@michaeldeierhoi4096

26 күн бұрын

It will be interesting how the first flight of New Glenn plays out. They have a narrow window to launch this fall as the payload is destined for Mars. And Mars flights can only happen every 26 months. So I expect I'll be impressed if they can succeed at most of the objectives on the first launch.

@SpaceAdvocate

25 күн бұрын

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Yeah, it's fairly unlikely New Glenn will be ready in time. But if they manage to be ready in time, and the flight is a success, that would be crazy! It would go a long way in repairing my view of them.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

25 күн бұрын

@@SpaceAdvocate You along with a lot of other people. They took the first step with the Be-4 engines performing nominally in the first Vulcan flight, but the first New Glenn flight is a much bigger deal of course. Especially since they have never reached orbit before.

@iamscoutstfu

25 күн бұрын

They already built tested and flown multiple suborbital missions with landings and are currently building a production orbital model...

@michaeldeierhoi4096

24 күн бұрын

@@iamscoutstfu Getting to orbit is much harder than just reaching the Karmen Line.

Sounds to me like Blue Origin is still in the "All Talk, No Substance" stage. They can run on and on about how successful their rocket will be, but unable to say a word about what will make it successful.

I think Stoke Space has a more feasible design.

@jamskinner

28 күн бұрын

I still think it will fail unless they get an influx of cash.

@debott4538

28 күн бұрын

@@jamskinner What if Blue Origin bought Stoke and gave them All The Moneys to build a reusable upper stage for New Glenn?

@Hungary_0987

28 күн бұрын

​@@debott4538i would not zrust BO

@plainText384

28 күн бұрын

Stoke spaces desgine is basically a scaled-down version of New Glenn with the reusable upper stage proposed in one of BlueOrigin's patents. Given that Stoke Space is composed of many ex-BlueOrigin employees, this is incredibly suspicious.

@Ggzerbe4

28 күн бұрын

Stoke was started by and employs a ton of former BO employees.

The size of New Glenn is not weird to me as it was likely to allow for duel launch to GEO with a reusable first stage. Unlike Falcon Heavy, New Glenn has a large enough fairing to carry two GEO satellites at once. This is the same mission Ariane 5 did as it's bread and butter with it having 10 ton to GEO and Arian 6 having 11.5 with 4 srbs. This is discussed in the New Glenn payload user guide from 2019 in section 2.5 Dual Manifest Capability, with the target mass of 6,200 kg per payload.

@debott4538

28 күн бұрын

Good point. Although it does not quite explain why the rocket is this big, when two smaller ones could do the same. Ariane 5 was big, because ESA needed a heavy lifter for LEO, ISS and Hermes. Dual payload is a make-shift solution for big rockets, not their purpose.

@plainText384

28 күн бұрын

​@@debott4538The 7m fairing and heavy lift capability are what enable everything from their lunar landers to the orbital reef space station. Take for example the pressurized lunar rover, which will presumably launch on a modified cargo version of an HLS lander. It'll be 6m long, 5.2m wide and 3.8m tall, which would fit comfortably in a 7m fairing while having the wheels face down on top of the lander.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

Dual-launch was what allowed Ariane to walk all over Delta and Atlas for the GEO market, but nobody knows what the GEO market is like going forward and new glenn will need to fight with both Ariane 6 and Falcon 9/FH for flights.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

Exactly my thoughts. Dual manifest GEO sats is a proven and smart strategy.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

@@debott4538 A single rocket will generally be more cost effective then two smaller ones, and it allows them to survive a doubling of payload size without being squeezed out of the GEO sat launch market as they just become a 1 sat at a time launcher. GEO sats of up to 9 tons have been launched now on a Falcon Heavy and NG looks like it will undercut it on price easily as all multicore rockets are a pain to prep for launch so a single core will always beat them.

Happy to see you mention Ex Rocketman’s blog. I’ve been reading it for years. It’s an incredible resource.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

I was *so* happy to find it for this. Otherwise there's not much to talk about.

@JulianGoesPro

28 күн бұрын

@MarkDenovich Nice to see you again lol :D

@MarkDenovich

28 күн бұрын

@@JulianGoesPro Hello Julian! It’s been a while…

Just found your channel and it's fantastic. It's right at my knowledge level as a 51 year old man who wanted to be an astronaut until I sprouted to 6'5" and my vision went to 20/400 😅. Now my wife is angry because all I want to do is watch your videos. Great job and I love your analysis. I am also a Boeing kid (Tacoma) and my father in law built Minuteman III. Just hard watching them as with Starliner they are bringing a gun to a knife fight. The maned spaceflight paradigm has really changed over the past 4 years! Looking forward to the next 30 hours of your videos 😊

@EagerSpace

26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your kind works

@RENO_K

7 күн бұрын

It sucks I used to love Boeing n what they do but now it's kinda 🫤🫤 Especially the starliner, Aesthetics aside(looks like a flying dong) The fact that it has these many problems is crazy especially they're not using the "make things and break things fast" type of philosophy It's just saddening to see this is what they've turned into

Big Nozzle was my nickname back in high school.

Good assessment. Are you familiar with Aerojet's Thrust Augmented Nozzle? It seemed too good to be true almost, except they actually built and tested it. You inject more fuel+oxidiser into the nizzle, like an afterburner. Allows a large nizzle to be used at sea level. Gains above 40% thrust at sea level, and actually better improved net Isp over the whole launch profile. I'm surprized that it hasn't been picked up by anyone - probably means I'm missing something.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

Do you have a reference?

@francom6230

26 күн бұрын

That sounds like a viable technique to gain thrust. The "afterburner" combustion is additive.. I'm not sure about efficiency but the simplicity might be affordable. Btw, I'm cool with burning some hydrocarbons to try to preserve mankind. .. That concept might explain "aliens" too but that's speculation. Lol 👽

I'm guessing they are going the stainless steel route as the body can double as the tank wall, gets stronger with crygogenics, is resilient, can be easy welded and worked, and it's cheap. I think we will see more and more stainless steel ships in the future.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

If you are trying to do reentry without tiles, stainless is a very logical choice. I *think* there were some early shuttle concepts that planned to use titanium, but I might be misremembering.

@Jaker788

28 күн бұрын

Conventional lithium aluminum rockets also use the body as the tank walls. Same for stainless steel balloon upper stages, and most rockets designs

@pseudotasuki

28 күн бұрын

​@@EagerSpaceCorrect. They switched to aluminum when it grew so large that titanium became unfeasible.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

See here for one example. ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19740011469/downloads/19740011469.pdf

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

No Blue Origin is not stupid, they will use vastly lighter aluminum or vastly stronger and heat resistent Titanium. The only reason SpaceX uses crappy stainless steel is that it was cheap and they knew they would be blowing up tons of metal, BO engineers the vehicle first and then tests to validate design, rather then SpaceX's soviet strategy of design by iteration. The Airospike engine and basefirst re-entry basically demand maximum heat resistent metals, I would not be surprized in Inconel ends up being needed for the very center of the engine, re-entry heat is no joke.

I always love videos about blue origin because it's so secretive. I would love to know what they are up to now

@LyonHeartMusic

24 күн бұрын

They are working on a lunar lander

Now that Starship has survived re-entry and Falcon 9 has landed 300 times, I am so ready for someone else i.e. Blue Origin to do it. It is time.

The Starship re-entry demonstrate the challenges to the second stage re-use. I wonder what special materials New Glenn will use. At the moment the demonstration units appear to be fabricated from aluminium, which is OK for launch but not so much on reentry.

@EagerSpace

21 күн бұрын

Pretty sure the one tank we saw was stainless. The non-reusable versions are probably aluminum lithium

I just found out about this channel and it's awesome. Will there ever be a video about comparison between RFA and ISAR? It would be nice to see the strengths and weaknesses of their radically different design philosophies.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

I've thought about it. I know everyday astronaut has done one on that exact topic (which I haven't watched) and I try not to overlap with the topics that Tim covers unless I think I have a different angle.

I wouldn't say they are copying Starship seems pretty different to me. But I think this was probably a feasibility study outcome they are probably only focusing on Glenn and there lunar lander

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

My point was that I expected them to copy starship but this design is closer to copying Stoke.

@nadca2

28 күн бұрын

they are expending the most expensive part of the rocket, the booster. very different and much more expensive than rapid reuse

@dancingdog2790

28 күн бұрын

@@nadca2 NG booster is supposed to land on their new Romanian barge, Landing Platform Vessel 1.

@plainText384

28 күн бұрын

​​@@EagerSpaceGiven that BlueOrigin has the patent and Stoke has many former BlueOrigin employees, I very much doubt that BlueOrigin is the one doing the copying. Maybe this ends up like the "landing on a ship" idea, where SpaceX got away with taking the idea, because it's to broad to copyright, idk, but if I were Stoke Space, I'd definitely be worried about copyright infringement.

@pseudotasuki

28 күн бұрын

​@@EagerSpaceIt's the other way around. Stoke was started by people who left BO. My interpretation is that this was a direct result of Blue Origin's leadership refusing to develop the ideas in that patent.

At least BO is trying something new, like it

@GoranXII

28 күн бұрын

Well, they _say_ they are.

@jkleylein

25 күн бұрын

They are talking about trying something new, just like they are talking about building a moon lander. Talking is Blue Origin's product. Actually, getting contracts to talk about things is the only income they have.

@qwerty112311

12 күн бұрын

For them, orbit is something new. Not particularly impressive for a company over two decades old.

Something tells me a Chinese reusable upper stage will resemble Starship a lot more than Jarvis. This isn't a slam at the Chinese, I expect if Relativity and Firefly survive long enough to go for a bigger rocket and second stage reuse they'll also use the Starship approach.

@just_archan

28 күн бұрын

Relativity terran R is already very like scaled down Starship. SpaceX proved that this concept can work (SN15/ recent ift4). Stoke/Jarvis concept have to be tested first(proof of concept). It looks good on paper, but re-entry/hypersonics regimes are not well researched. All models are approximate, and in those regimes margin of error is pretty high. Look at ift4 flap. It survived max temp point without damage, it melted in lower point of re-entry when Starship hit denser part of atmosphere. While SpaceX was mostly anxious on max heat point. I don't say that it couldn't work, I am big fan of Stoke approach, but we still don't know what will happen during re-entry with nozzles. Or if cryogenic cooling will be enough.

@Paul_C

27 күн бұрын

Well, speculation allows to go in all directions, all the way to designate Blue Origin a Chinese skunk works setup. Amazon is a crap producer of Chinese made consumer products that fall apart when used. Since it is labelled an American company with a figurehead as ceo, Blue might well be Skunk Works 2.0. Somehow that would even make sense if conspiracy is your game. 😂

I'm confused on how the nozzle operates when the rocket is coming down butt-first. I understand why the sea-level nozzle has to be a tighter angle than a vacuum nozzle (on the way up) to avoid atmosphere infiltration and turbulence, but when the nozzle is firing into the oncoming air, would the front-pressure prevent that infiltration? Actually, hazarding a guess here, since the exhaust is supersonic, the pressure of the oncoming air would do next to nothing to fill a vacuum nozzle with that exhaust, so the turbulence would be a lot worse, wouldn't it? Secondly, I thought an aerospike required the air flow around the engine to help shape the thrust. If the spike is flying butt-first, would it even work at all for slowing down the rocket?

@EagerSpace

26 күн бұрын

That's a very interesting question and one I haven't thought about. My guess is that since the nozzle efficiency depends on the outside pressure, there will be an effect but I didn't know how much there will be.

Everyday astronaut made a very good video on aerospikes. Thank you for this interesting video. Very enjoyable.😊

@EagerSpace

17 күн бұрын

Thanks

I dont exact think that it will be a "starship killer" because starship is on a whole different level, but it will give spacex a run for its money by competing with falcon 9 / heavy.

@ryanab01

28 күн бұрын

Wishful thinking by BO

Great video, and Thanks a lot! I just spent the whole afternoon reading the comments. They were mostly sane and respectful. Great job, everyone! Keep it that way, and this channel will... skyrocket? 🚀

@EagerSpace

24 күн бұрын

I approve of that comment. I *generally* try to police the comments and take out the ones where there isn't a constructive conversation going on.

Ok, didn't expect that an aerospike nozzle actually has lower efficiency than even a sea-level nozzle in a vacuum.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

Yes. If you read the blog post (linked in the description) he has some nice diagrams. The basic problem is that the exhaust from the thrust modules expands to the side when it comes out of those nozzles and the exhaust going to the side doesn't push the rocket forward.

@807800

28 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace Feels like I've been duped by the big aerospike...

@ryelor123

28 күн бұрын

If the things worked, they'd be on every rocket.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

Not surprizing, solutions which are more flexible tend to be lower in efficienty then more specialized and inflexible solutions.

@ReddwarfIV

27 күн бұрын

​@kennethferland5579 Yeah, but usually they're more effective than an option with the _wrong_ specialisation. Here, you might as well just mount the sea level rocket, because it would be more flexible than the vacuum bell while being more efficient than the aerospike at all altitudes.

Great video! I will check that blog, it seems interesting.

The telling line is 'it will take more time and money'. So not until SpaceX makes Blue Origin completely irrelevant. There presently is little need for New Glenn and only Amazon is really committed to using New Glenn. Potential customers look at price to orbit, availability and reliability - Falcon 9 beats a non flying New Glenn hands down, and for heavy lift - Falcon heavy. Project Jarvis will be competing against Starship which is in prototype stage whilst project Jarvis is dreamware. He is hoping that NASA will throw tax payers money at him to fund development of a brand new type engine when it took BO years to produce a handful of BE4 engines.

Correct me if I'm wrong but active cooling has be in used on every launch vehicle since the beginning, in this case you'd just be sending it to an additional location on the heat shield surface not just to the Bell,... not a monumental feet of engineering,.. just more plumbing?

@EagerSpace

27 күн бұрын

I probably should have talked about this... Regenerative cooling of the combustion chamber and nozzle is used on most high performance engines, though some engines use a radiatively cooled nozzle. Merlin vacuum is one of those - that's why it glows on the videos. After a lot of years this is well understood and the amount of heat that it needs to deal with is well known. In this case, you'll need to research to find out an appropriate pattern for the channels so that you get enough heat absorption across the whole surface. The part you need to cool is roughly circular, which makes it extra challenging - if you start in the center the channel density is going to be high, but if they go out to the side, the density will be much lower at the edge. You need to determine how big the channels need to be. Are they only tiny channels or are they big? The fluid you are using changes as you absorb heat. It might start as liquid hydrogen and be hydrogen gas at the end. That's going to change how much heat the fluid can absorb. You also don't really know how much heat it will be. There are some models for capsules but they a) don't have engines around the outside trying to push the plasma away and b) aren't ejecting propellant in the middle of the heat shield.

Thanks for the interesting video! Love your channel!

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

Glad you enjoy it!

The bigger picture here is that your thermal protection system mass subtracts directly from your payload mass. So anything that result in a light TPS is a win, even if it means other compromises. There's a whole bunch of options including nozzles into which you pump liquid methane (for cooling). The methane evaporates and then as a gas absorbs heat before spilling out and creating a buffer zone of (relatively) cooler gas. There's high temperature ballutes that can inflate around the base of the rocket, thus directing hot plasma away from the rest of the vehicle. There's deployable high temperature alloy shields (which can be internally cooled. There's also porous carbon materials into through which you can force liquid methane as a coolant. And of course you can build those to be rapidly replaceable so you can afford some ablation.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

Starship pays a lot for that blanket of tiles and the fin system, but that system requires very little propellant to land. It's not clear what they dead mass increase is for the active cooling systems - you have these complex motor systems with a lot of nozzles and a lot of piping and then you have a heatshield wall that is more complex and more heavy than a simple tank wall. On top of that you are using propellant during reentry, and your use there will be much much more than the starship control. What's the real cost of the active cooling approach? I don't think Stoke or Blue Origin have released their models and since it's never been flown nobody knowns what sort of propellant flow rates will be needed to keep the the vehicle happy.

@saumyacow4435

19 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace I'd love to see it tested purely for the knowledge gained. Looking back at this I can't help but feel that if this aerospike tail end is an attempt to create a re-entry proof surface then it's still going to need either fuel-as-coolant or a bunch of thermal protection in the obvious places. And if they're going to use fuel as coolant, I'm not sure why that can't be applied to a conventional bell nozzle. Again, I come at this from the angle of thinking about one-way Mars cargo-only landers, where it's an advantage to not be dropping parts of your vehicle onto the surface (because it might hit something). So you need the ability to apply thrust through the heat shield. I'd love to see Blue Origin try out even a sub-scale test of what they're doing. One other thing, my idea of a "Starship killer" looks a lot like Neutron. The best second stage is an ultra-light one where what you're throwing away is a tiny part of the overall vehicle mass/cost. Maybe Neutron's second stage can be made reusable at some point in the future (ballute?) but we'll see.

@JoeOvercoat

13 күн бұрын

@@saumyacow4435 It would be fantastic if anyone developed an aerospike engine. Even if it was the Chinese! (We could steal the design from them. All''s fair, and all that.)

Interesting to see how hard it is to keep pointed in the right direction during reentry. I wouldn't want plasma licking up the side

@EagerSpace

27 күн бұрын

That would be bad.

Wake me up when BO actually orbits something.

Coming in tail first from orbit means much less aerodynamic drag and I would think it will be approaching the ground at hypersonic speed. So hypersonic retropulsion and ~10-20 g of deceleration?

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

I did some quick calculations and came up with roughly half the surface area versus sideways, so less drag *but* the drag is proportional to the speed so if you are carrying more speed deeper into the atmosphere you will have more drag there. Empty stages aren't very dense so I don't think you get close to the ground with much speed left. I do think that less drag changes the heat profile and *probably* gives you a higher max heat to deal with.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

No, your still going to be slowed down to terminal velocity in air many km above the ground, you have to engineer an entry vehicle speciifcally to AVOID deceleration to stay anywhere near hypersonic by the time your reaching the ground. The smaller balistic coefficient of tail first rather then side first entry just pushes your altitude of peak heating and decerleration down from ~60 km up to say ~50 km up.

Note that New Glenn has a key advantage over Falcon Heavy in having a big fairing. I don't think it's enough to make it competitive (never mind versus a working Starship), but I do think it's a better market fit than the direct comparison suggests.

@donlindell1994

28 күн бұрын

The economic Kármán line for New Glen is quickly approaching the moon’s orbit given the apparently wasted time and investments made on its behalf. Literally every Amazon work may as well be an Egyptian slave slowly building the pyramids of Jeff’s ego-machine out of their own blood, sweat, and lost days spent away from their families.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

That is fair, and it also presumably has a payload adapter that can carry all the mass while FH cannot do more than 18.5 tons.

@snakevenom4954

28 күн бұрын

There just isn't enough demand for such large volumes is the thing. For the first few years Starship is only going to be launching Starlinks. Falcon Heavy has had a total of 9 launches. And 5 of them were just last year. Just 2 launches are scheduled for this year. Not enough demand for a heavy lift vehicle. I'm sure NASA would like to have another option but as of now, just no demand

@arthurhamilton5222

28 күн бұрын

@snakevenom4954 Demand has to be made. Destinations such as the moon, Mars and back to the pre-earth's old orbit between Mars and Jupiter...aka...the asteroid field of the "Hammered Bracelet" is what the Sumerians called it.

@Neront90

28 күн бұрын

@@snakevenom4954 I think that the more successful tests there are like June 6, the more the appearance of Starship on the market becomes inevitable and the more industry and entrepreneurs will start creating new products specifically designed to be launched by a Starship, big heavy cheap satellites, private space stations, big heavy laboratories, big heavy telescopes, maybe even tourism

It is also important to note that ratio of how many vehicles SpaceX has successfully launched vs BO.

@The1QwertySky

22 күн бұрын

Not just launched, sucesfully launched

7:50 this may vary a bit with different aerospike design but you will get a similar problem with all of them also, these are probably plotted for ambient pressure at that latitude but behind a supersonic rocket you'll ahve al ower surrounding pressure from its movement same effect backwards you want to use sea level optimzied engiens for slowing down a rocket on reentry, in additio nto wanting ot use the same engiens for landing

@EagerSpace

6 күн бұрын

I *was* assuming that launch and return aerodynamics were the same and that's pretty clearly not justified.

BO can’t sue their way into orbit

10:09 Rocket Lab company in New Zealand tested tail first re-entry with their Electron rocket, it was a balancing act to keep the cylinder inside the wake of hot gas, the nozzle was used as is to do the job of a heat shield.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

As does Falcon 9. That's with first stage reentry and there isn't much energy on a first stage because it is travelling so slowly. This would be travelling at orbital speeds, and the energy you need to dissipate is proportional to the square of the velocity. Electron stages at about 8000 km/h. Orbital velocity is about 27,000 km/h. The energy is therefore 27,000^2 / 8000^2 or about 11 times more energy to get rid of. The heating rate is worse; it's roughly proportional to the cube of the velocity, which means its about 38 times the heating.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace Thats why I think the ultimate solution might be 3 stages, with a 2nd stage that is sub-orbital and experiences only half the velocity (and thus a quarter of the energy and 1/8th the heating rate) of typical orbital entry leaving a much smaller 3rd stage needing to withstand that full heating thus allowing minimal thermal protection mass, landing mass and hardwre loss in the case of failure.

@EagerSpace

26 күн бұрын

Sure, but you are adding a third vehicle to build and you didn't have an engine that is appropriately sized for the third stage.

Just found this channel - wow. Brother, you’re going to crush it.

Amuro's Gundam has active cooling for re-entry. It's funny how the absurd fictional concepts end up being quite doable, or at least potentially for now.

Would be cool to see a company genuinely try to develop, produce, and fly an aerospike rocket engine at scale. I think it would be a good fit for New Glenn and would make that launch platform somewhat competitive with the falcons. However, seems like Blue is doing too much at once. No singular focus...new shep, new glenn, be 4 for Vulcan, Jarvis, blue ring, lunar lander. Lots of nice concepts but they need to hurry up and get a new glenn launched and recovered. Then talk about all this fancy upper stage mumbo jumbo and all. I'm guessing the vacuum efficiency being so crap is because of the way in which the hot exhaust gasses are pulled from all angles in space....at least in a traditional bell they are only pulled out the bottom.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

I talked about this more in the nozzle video, but the fact that the aerospike has been around so long without any real implementations is a good indication that it's really not useful.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

New Shepard was completed long ago, New Gleen is in final stages of development and is now moving to manufacturing. BE4 was nessary for their own vehicle so selling to Vulcan was just gravy, Blue ring is a mere satalite bus hardly much of a project, tons of rinkydink startups off something comperable. The Moon lander is now clearly the main project they are working on and Jarvis is just a theory, if it's being worked on at all it's likely back burner.

@JoeOvercoat

13 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace I suggest that is true today, given the limitations of material science. But if & when there is a material science breakthrough, that could change.

I wonder if you could transition from a side-on lifting body mode to an engines-on active cooling mode partway through entry. It would let you do some deceleration at higher altitudes (thus maybe not requiring a separate heat shield) before swapping to your ballistic active cooling mode for a shorter period of time. That said, I feel like the aerospike is a bluff. Peak heating for a cylinder going end-first gets so bad, especially for large designs. But here's hoping I'm wrong, and that they live-stream it!

@debott4538

28 күн бұрын

Not sure if a varying entry profile is a good idea. Low heating is a very short time before you do need a proper shield. Also think of the structural loads that have to be considered from multiple angles, especially during orientation transition time, all with high and low density layers within the atmosphere (think of turbulences). I'm not sure if maneuvers are very feasible under these conditions. I like the idea, but I think it makes more sense to develop just one proper heat shield instead of a hybrid of several. And I absolutely agree on the bluff part. BO's secrecy is very frustrating, because talking about speculations is such a waste of time.

@georgewashington1621

28 күн бұрын

If you watch Starship's latest prototype reentry, it didnt really bleed off any significant amount of speed before the region of the most heating. I was actually surprised how little speed it lost having descended so far down past the 100km altitude.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

I had a slide where I talked about end-first versus sideways first, but I cut it because my explanation didn't make sense. For this design, the area going end first was less than half the area going sideways.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

Base first entry eliminates all the need for flaps but also the chance to generate lift. But it also concentrates your heating into a smaller area, which makes for less mass because double the temerpature on a spot dosn't double the mass needed per unit of area so minimizing area with thermal protection minimizes mass. So long as you stay winthin material heat limits the idea solution is actuall a pointy cone which puts all the heat at the tip, this is how nuclear tipped warheads work.

I hope they didn't create that patent to attack Stoke Space for priority. That would be pretty crappy if true. As it stands, the speed of development of Stoke Space will mean their fully reusable vehicle before BO can pull it off.

The more the merrier, spacex, blue origin, stoke, and electron. May competition helps humanity go further in space.

It's a little eary to call them a "starship killer". They haven't built, let alone tested this thing.

Loving it❤ Blue Origin Rocks!😊

@ryanab01

28 күн бұрын

Lol, you must work there 🤣

Freshman year of college, my buddy copied my engineering homework. I got all the points and he only got half. I'm an engineer and he's a firefighter. Blue origin reminds me of my buddy

One way Jarvis could make up for some of the inefficiencies is by having more than two powerpacks. New Glenn suffers significant gravity losses due to the low TWR of its upper stage, which is a result of cost-cutting efforts. For obvious reasons, a reusable upper stage isn't subject to those concerns.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

Seems unlikely, your probably calculating that Gravity loss by comparing with Falcon/Starship. Yes initialy 2nd stage thrust ~140 ton will be below its mass ~280 ton but thats normal for all 2nd stages, particularly when they stage later and have been thrown harder by the fist stage, they have more lateral velocity and thus don't really need to fight gravity much anymore.

@pseudotasuki

27 күн бұрын

@@kennethferland5579 New Glenn stages fairly early.

@kennethferland5579

26 күн бұрын

@@pseudotasuki Compared to Vulcan it stages early, compared to Starship it stages later.

My 2 cents is that any second stage recovery is worthless after all understood from rocket science...if disposing second stage will give me 300 tonn delivery to LEO and trying to recover second stage will give me 100 tonne..co considering lunching 3 times ,labour cost ,insurance cost and risk of additional two mission going boom, only conider the 1000s houres cost of only the control room will exceed 1 million,reuse of second stage become obsolete either way...I hope that Elon gets over that idea soon

@TheEvilmooseofdoom

26 күн бұрын

The cost is in the building of a new stage. Reuse saves a lot. Clearly your understanding is badly flawed.

@EagerSpace

26 күн бұрын

To understand the economics, you'll want to build a full model that looks at fixed and marginal costs. Based on the numbers, second stage use can be a horrible idea or a great Idea.

@JoeOvercoat

13 күн бұрын

My guess is that they will realize the vanes on Starship need to be as large as the Spare Shuttle's wings, and given wings they will decide to land on a runway, and shuttle the vehicle back to the launch point. But, long before then they will realize Starship needs a reaction control system (for example, when the vehicle starts rolling when they open the bay door). That is, if Starship as we know it today is viable, which is not clear from the launches to date, lacking dummy weight(s). I suggest greatest advantage of disposable vehicles is simplicity. Not just in design, but in *adminstration*. It is easy to focus on the vehicle(s) and forget about the infrastruture, and the risk of not just in the design, but in the infrastructure.

@SpaceAdvocate

12 күн бұрын

@@JoeOvercoat They've already demonstrated that they can get through reentry and land softly. There's no way they are going to change the design radically at this point. Doing a runway landing would be a complete redesign at this point. And Starship has a reaction control system. It worked well on flight four, keeping the vehicle in the correct orientation for reentry.

@SpaceAdvocate

12 күн бұрын

I would expect that reuse of the upper stage would minimally drop the cost of a flight from something like $50 million to something like $20 million. That allows for a few weeks of refurbishment between flights. Already at that point it would be profitable, with upper stage reuse having more like a 40% hit to payload, not 66%. But another consideration is that even if reusing the upper stage were more expensive, it would still make sense for SpaceX. Starship is designed for Mars, and there will be no Mars landings without first figuring out upper stage reuse on Earth. The same goes for using it for crew to Earth orbit or the moon - astronauts wouldn't be able to return without Starship being capable of surviving reentry.

"New Glenn can lift...." oh we are playing imagination in this video ok.... plz continue. The aerospike was originally invisioned to become a SSTO spaceplane platform, it was not supposed to operate in orbit, just create the momentum to get to orbit.

@EagerSpace

17 күн бұрын

New Glenn's payload is aspirational in this context... And, yes, aerospikes were designed for ssto or at least sea level to vacuum flights. But I'm not sure their design is actually an aerospike.

I just remembered Blue Origin accused SPACEX of copying them. This was a long time ago, 6 years or so, maybe after SPACEX did the good landings in the F9.? So low and Behold they see the light and join SPACE Xs design for the second stage? GOOD IDEA, 10 years to late.

Aero-spike may have more benefits as a gimbaled thruster(s) verse the mass needed to gimbal a large bell design.. so your bell thruster engines save mass and don't have to move, can be better shielded as the aero-spikes take entry better, have better ignition at higher speeds into the nozzle (as it can be variable and close down).. but Blue Origin will have to contend with heat shielding anyway.. or much of tier payload will be devoted to slowing down on re-entry.. maybe O.K. for space tourism.. but they still need a smaller proof/tourism model.

@EagerSpace

21 күн бұрын

I've thought a bit about the gimballing tradeoff. If you have a bunch of thrusters you will need to control them individually - which Stoke can do IIRC - but that means valves to control propellant flow at every thruster, which seems to have as much weight as the gimbal mechanism and likely more difficult to get to work well.

If you lose 23 tons to LEO; you're losing ~23 tons to GTO given that the performance decrease is presumably driven by second stage dry mass increase. The way I tend to think about actively cool heat shields is that it's not too dissimilar from regenerative cooling in rocket engines; well ok it literally is also doing that. But the actual heat fluxes that are dealt with in propulsion and re-entry are reasonably similar (I think actually rocket engines need more cooling relative to LEO re-entry). So it's not an entirely new field. The other way I like to think about it; ablative heat shields are to solid rocket motors as regeneratively cooled heat shields are to liquid engines.

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

The heat dispation problem is very different because you have no where near the mass flow of a rocket engine to deal with. Rocket combustion chambers basically need to cool themselves durring steady state operation using propellent flow, nothing else is available. Re-entry thermal energy is a pulse which can be delt with very differently, push the plasma away with shockwaves shapes or thrust, reflect is with high emissivity skins, ablate away a coating, soak it into metals with high melting points or all of the above at the same time.

@jenakuns

26 күн бұрын

@@kennethferland5579 Just to check, roughly what you're getting at is that re-entry is easier to handle than rocket combustion chambers?

Good video, thanks!

So if new Glenn is to large then how about starship? I’m thinking new Glenn serves a larger market and is actually right sized.

@EagerSpace

26 күн бұрын

Starship is a Mars rocket. It's very oversized for the current commercial market but if it's the only fully reusable ticket and it's cheap enough it's going to heavily distort the market. Not sure how. New Glenn is too big for a partially reusable rocket, especially with the way the geo sat market looks these days.

Blue origin thinks that promises and nice futuristic images of imagined rockets will bring them to space

Production capability will be the key to dominating upmass. 5 years from now looks like SX will have just as much, if not more of the advantage that they have now just by looking at the factories they're looking to build and have built.

What do you think of the new russian Angara rocket?

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

I have some ideas for a video on the Russian Space Program but haven't written anything yet. The overall program is dying. SpaceX did a lot of the breaking (see video below), and Russia finished it with the Ukranian war. They used to bring in decent amounts of foreign currency doing launches, but that has gone away and the war is tremendously expensive, so they are just barely hanging on. Angara isn't going anywhere and neither are the other grandiose plans they have shown. They simply don't have the money. And it's very sad. kzread.info/dash/bejne/p5d-o9yHhrqyhqw.html

@eukaryote0

28 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace they achieved some success in flight testing. And some money will come from the gov for their own missions. Besides money and politics it would be interesting to compare their rockets' technical possibilities with the ones from EU/US and maybe China too.

@debott4538

28 күн бұрын

@@eukaryote0 Russian rockets are available in good quantities, but also unreliable, and sanctions and brain drain will only worsen this over time. With a weak Ruble, they might be able to once again undecut international competitors, but even today there are many more competitors compared to pre-2022. Without innovation they are stuck with Soviet-era vehicles. Russia also has the worst launch sites on Earth for GSO missions.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

To answer your question about Angara... It started development in 1992 and first flew in 2014 and has only flown 7 times since then, with 5 successes. It's built by Khrunichev, the same design bureau that brought us the Proton. Proton was a decent success because Ariane was running flat out and there were geosat payloads where customers were willing to risk launching with proton's poor reliability rather than waiting. That's why SpaceX ate their lunch so quickly; Falcon 9 is so much more reliable and it's simpler to launch with a US company. Nobody in the west will launch with Angara as nobody will trust the russians since they stole 36 OneWeb satellites. They may launch for the government but AFAIK the way the russian design bureaus get funded isn't the way we fund launches in the US. I expect that Angara is going to launch rarely and that it will be plagued by the same quality issues that affected Proton and, in the last few years, the entire russian space program.

Maybe if they get one in the sky sometime

Well, It could work! I would LOVE to see them Focus in the space station orbital reef... Focus bezos!!!!!!

@plainText384

28 күн бұрын

Orbital Reef requires New Glenn as a launch vehicle (as do Blue Ring, Blue Moon Mk1 and Mk2, and most of BO's other projects). Focusing primarily on getting a partially reusable NewGlenn off the pad and into orbit is a totally valid strategy.

@kennethferland5579

26 күн бұрын

@@plainText384 Blue Ring looks plenty small enough to launch on other vehicles. It might only be offered if your contracting with BO for launch but thats a marketing choice not a physical limit.

New Glen is a decent size i think they would do better to just copy starship if anything else in the way the upper stage returns. As your video shows aerospike engines suck though from the BO patent it seems like Bezos has a differing opinion about that. The advantage with NG is that being smaller it should be a bit easier to develop but BO have managed to go slower even than the much bigger starship. Once BO do fly and NG if it works out cheap by doing frequent launches and so on then how do spacex react as starship will be more expensive per launch and many external customers will only have small payloads so BO could be very competitive once they finally start flying. It's also interesting that starship is getting bigger rather than smaller - to me it would be interesting to see how this all plays out and if starship could actually get smaller like a shorter booster and upper stage than the present height. Say dropping down to 100 meters height a 60 meter tall booster and a 40 meter tall starship for doing smaller payloads at lower propellant cost but then again they probably are better off to just focus on durability since most of the cost is the hardware depreciation rather than propellant which is only a few million per launch. Probably they can make use of spare capacity in many creative ways. Sending up starlinks or delivering propellant to on orbit tankers for future deep space missions. Make use of spare capacity to carry out space manufacturing operations or something.

@EagerSpace

20 күн бұрын

Bigger rockets have slightly better propellant to material ratios, and I suspect that starship has to get bigger to work.

@stephenhumble7627

20 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace They pretty much just proved it works on IFT4 - now it's a matter of improving it to get the 100+ tonnes to orbit and get it back in good condition as opposed to sinking in the ocean - the present vehicle is also not optimised at all yet proved it's entire flight plan. They got plenty of options including a smaller payload bay and more exotic materials like titanium grid fins like the falcon 9 had. Now that it's done IFT4 they will be able to optimise the design to get significant weight savings knowing how much propellant reserve they need and exactly what structural and thermal loads are like could save great deal of mass. Another advantage of 100% reusable vehicle is the cost of materials and invested manufacturing no longer matters as much because you get 100% back and can spread out the manufacture and materials cost over many flights. Present starship is using plenty of stainless steel so one obvious option is to swap out some of that steel for titanium - maybe on pieces like the drag flaps and engine bells. The savings on the engines and drag flaps could easily be 5000kg. And so far as i know the rockets payload bay structure could be lightened significantly by using thinner steel saving maybe 10000kg. Another option is using thinner thermal tiles on those areas that get less heating now that they know where the hot spots are- that's probably going to save another few tonnes. Anyways i can easily see them getting the vehicle mass down over time and performance optimised until they can do 100+ tonnes. The general strategy would be doing all these little improvements just like the falcon 9 which over time has gotten a larger payload capacity.

You could have resisted until the cows come home

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

I did, but Bessie and Mabel finally got back from their trip to Cabo.

Great Video ! The NASA X-33 SSTO rocket used Aerospike engines ! Also Blue Origin does not mind using a Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel that would be lighter than RP-1 in the second stage ! And a new low inclination LEO CSS heading East from the KSC would be a Fuel efficient orbit to reach ! This orbit can support missions to the moon as Robert Zubrin wrote in his paper "Moon Direct" ! The Tech developed to return to the moon to stay, can take US and the world to Mars and beyond ! tjl

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

The XRS-2200 is the only linear aerospike built. They apparently worked, but the amount of data we have on them is limited. Typically the problem with linear aerospikes is they weigh a lot and take up more space for a given amount of thrust. LM wasn't interested in funding the X-33 themselves after NASA decided to defund it, and the X-33 was only a prototype, not an SSTO.

@darylbardo

28 күн бұрын

I thought the XRS-2200 was based off the J-2S. Perhaps that could be a real-hardware test case of bell vs aerospike efficiency, although they may have made enough other changes for that to not be a fully fair comparison.

Transpiration cooling, or something approaching it is used in HP turbine blades in jet engines and has applications all over the place. A great deal of research is being done in this area.

@EagerSpace

16 күн бұрын

Do they bleed fuel through the blades? Or just cool air?

@jacklav1

16 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace Air is bled from the compressor, and passed through a lots of parts including the HP turbine blades immediately downstream of the combustor that see hot gasses at 1300C. Modern blades have a serpentine channel with ribs and pedestals, and many very small holes to transfer the heat from the metal to the coolant and produce an insulating film of coolant over the blade. The future is to make more elaborate geometries with even finer holes and passageways for better heat transfer and a smoother insulating film. The air from the compressor is about 700C.

@EagerSpace

14 күн бұрын

I'm not a rocket engine designer at all, but I think it would be a big design challenge because of the power density and compact size of the turbo pumps.

@jacklav1

14 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace Yes agreed. Also the smaller the vehicle the less volume/area ratio so the less fuel there is available for cooling per square metre of skin.

So BO is going to use the Stoke's design ? When will this happen? If they follow their Gradatim Ferociter motto, after Musk returns from Mars.

@EagerSpace

21 күн бұрын

It's a similar design. And who knows when/if it will happen.

Project pipedream.

As for second stage reuse --- theoretically the rocket can just brake which is obviously more practical with refilling in orbit. The advantage is of course no additional mass/weight on the spacecraft etc. There are plans for decades to use the bound oxygen on the moon to refill rockets in earth orbit. I'd say it's just around 6 km/s which the rocket has to get rid off.

It can't never be a killer as SB isn't just aiming for renewability, but the material being cheap as hell compared to other ones.

Great video and info. But I laugh thinking about BO killing anything when their rocket hasn't even hit a test stand. Not a fully operational one. Know they had the for show one with functional tanks for testing. Maybe if they get something, anything, to orbit... I'll start mulling the idea. Till then, it's an absolute joke.

@SpaceAdvocate

12 күн бұрын

The first New Glenn launch is supposedly 10-14 weeks away. And because it's an interplanetary mission, it can't be delayed much further. Things will hopefully get interesting fairly soon. But yeah, I doubt we see the first launch this year.

Unlike bell nozzles, advanced compensating nozzles (external-deflection and aerospikes) have options as to the shape. You have to determine what you want, then you can design a nozzle shape that does that thing optimally - to the detriment of the other things. This is why different studies on compensating nozzles get such different results, not realising the shape options are available. So, without knowing what the aerospike was optimised for, the Ex-Rocket Man’s analysis is not really meaningful. I would expect a vacuum optimised aerospike to lie between the vacuum and sea level bells (it will never be as good as a vacuum bell).

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

Did you read the blog post? Lots of detail there.

@hempsellastro

28 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace I have gone over the Website and my thoughts are a) He is designed for atmosphere operation which will reduce the vacuum performance. Generally, this makes sense as one of main potential roles of aerospikes is as an atmosphere compensating engine from launch. However, if Blue Origin are using aerospikes for the second stage, they will want them optimised for vacuum operation and the sea level performance can be rubbish. and b) he does say his lower SI “is very likely an artifact of my not knowing how to optimize the design of aerospike engines” Which is no reflection on his expertise, very few rocket engineers end up working on these long enough to get the subtleties. Full disclosure: my experience was with E-D nozzles and my comments were based on reading across from that. I would not like to say with certainty how aerospikes behave. And c) Another point is if you look at the patent drawings the main combustion and a lot of the post throat expansion is in conventional rocket nozzles. Of course, these are not scale drawings but they make the point that without knowing the exact design and how much expansion is done in these nozzles, the overall stage performance is not really possible to ascertain.

@EagerSpace

27 күн бұрын

a) What are they going to change for the aerospike to give it better vacuum performance? The only thing that seems obvious is to increase the nozzle size, which has other impacts. b) Was that from the first section, or from the update after that. c) Totally agree. d) I'm not sure the blue origin design counts as an aerospike. There's precious little internal spike left and - at least in the drawing - the angle seems to be pretty high. Not sure what's doing to happen with all of that off-axis flow running into each other.

@hempsellastro

27 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace The main thing that alters with subtle changes is the pressure in the entrapped gas region which impacts both the vacuum thrust and the degree of atmosphere compensation. It means you can balance one off with the other. The quote is from the Final Remarks section. Again, I must emphasise this chap knows his stuff (for example, he notes the importance of the speed of the external airflow with all spike nozzles which is missed by many.) And I agree with his overall conclusion that an optimised aerospike cannot match an optimised bell in vacuum performance, I just do not think it will be as bad has he shows.

@EagerSpace

27 күн бұрын

Thanks. I always appreciate comments from those who know more than I do.

Blue Origin needs a Falcon 1 killer first, before going for bigger prey.

Blue origin starship killer😂😂😂 is this a joke?

I hope BO reaches orbit and becomes a viable launch provider instead of these hopes and dreams we continually see from them.

Xerox, the Blue Origin plan for space!

I wonder if SpaceX would be willing to work with third parties for different types of 2nd stages.

@jackdbur

22 күн бұрын

There are planed to be tanker, LEO cargo, starlink v2, propellant depot, manned & mars versions at a minimum already 😮

There is more than one kind of "optimal". For Elon, getting complete combustion is optimal. That may be harder with tiny aerospike combustion chambers.

Feels like when the Chevy Bolt was dubbed the Tesla killer...

Huh. It's almost as if using atmosphere as an expansion surface is not as efficient as using a bell.

@EagerSpace

24 күн бұрын

Yes. Especially where there's no atmosphere.

Incredible, ride a carpet of cryogenic nitrogen exhaust in a distributed aero-spike design all the way down to surface?

Is it really only 25% smaller than starship? I feel like it would be smaller than that

@EagerSpace

17 күн бұрын

Starship is 9 meters, new glenn is 7 meters, so it's actually 23% smaller in diameter.

If blue origin buys Ula, they will have a rocket that covers all the orbits in a single-use vehicle. With a reusable first stage in the BE-4, they will have reusability covered, too.

@jamskinner

28 күн бұрын

If it works. Big step up from new Shepard.

@SpaceAdvocate

28 күн бұрын

I would think Vulcan Centaur would be retired fairly quickly, as soon as they could without messing up their government contracts. It's just too expensive and has no reuse.

@plainText384

28 күн бұрын

​@@SpaceAdvocateit has no reuse *yet*

@SpaceAdvocate

28 күн бұрын

@@plainText384 New Glenn is planned to have reuse from the first launch, as I understand it.

@plainText384

28 күн бұрын

@@SpaceAdvocate I was talking about Vulcan Centaur's planned SMART upgrade.

8:20 this is insane. These numbers are fishy as heck.

Bro this title is a meme I had to laugh so hard 😂

I hear Bell labs is a member of “Big Nozzle” 🤫

Comparing SpaceX to Blue Origin is like comparing Tesla to Rivian. There's really no competition at this point. They're not even in the same league.

@Chris-bg8mk

28 күн бұрын

Not really. Rivian has products that work. Boondoggle Overload does not.

"Starship killer?" Hah! I wonder how BO is coming along with their lunar lander project. I'm glad they finally delivered those engines to ULA. It seems like BO is mostly big talk, big plans, and big lawsuits. Whatever, just so long as Blue Origin doesn't interfere with real progress by filing more lawsuits, they can go ahead and take all the time they please developing whatever they like. I hope their business model is sustainable so some of their R&D winds up actually flying.

Blue Origin will only have a Starship killer, if they can compete with Spacex on payload vs. price. You have to launch one first, to even begin to make that argument...

I'll believe it when I see it. BO talks a good game but everything I've seen out of them kinda stinks.

New Glenn is not over sized, because GEO satalites have been getting bigger over time and Double manifests in which two at a time are launched has been proven by Ariane space to be a very effective market strategy. By making a vehicle that is able to launch 2 current sized satalites now you both gobble up more launches now and protect yourself from being pushed out of the market by payload growth. Your speculative 2nd stage reuse cutting the payload in half DOSE leave a still very reasonable payload, but efficient uses for 13 tons to GTO are not going to be hard to find.

@EagerSpace

27 күн бұрын

Ariane dominated the geo market over Delta and Atlas with dual launch, and they had the market to themselves until proton and falcon 9 showed up. But we didn't have the big market anymore. There were 8 GTO launches in 2023, and probably about that in 2024. For 2025 I see about 5 in the Ariane 6 backlog and only 3 for falcon 9, so, once again, about 8. If new Glenn could get all of those, it's only 4 launches a year. And they won't. The market isn't there right now. One of the principles of business is to go where the other guy isn't, but dual launch goes against the strength of Ariane 6.

@kennethferland5579

26 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace Ariane 6 is not looking like it will be competetive with New Gleen due to lack of reuse, so NG should be able to wrestle commercial launches from it leaving it basically a European natiatonal security supported launcher. Your count of GTO launches basically proves my point, they are not hard to find, were this the ONLY launches New Glenn would do then that would be insufficent volume, but it's just one segment they will serve. My point was that their IS market their, not that it's a big market.

@EagerSpace

26 күн бұрын

Reuse does not automatically mean cheaper. Ariane has been serving this market for years and years and they have the advantage of getting all the European government launches which gives them a higher launch rate. They completed fairly well with SpaceX. New Glenn has to pull launches from both.

@williamgreene4834

24 күн бұрын

You must first have launches to gobble, before gobbling can occur.

That was awesome

Blue Origin needs to shift to a 48 hour work day like SpaceX.

Thanks.

@EagerSpace

21 күн бұрын

You're welcome

Really/ Mr never been to spaceozs!

The headline is hilarious! Blue Origin has yet to put anything in orbit on their own.

@EagerSpace

28 күн бұрын

Hey, I put a question mark there... The reality is that youtube prefers titles like this over "Analyzing Blue Origin's reusable second stage plans".

@ryanab01

28 күн бұрын

​@EagerSpace I don't think youtube cares what any headlines say. The people who watch the videos prefer titles that aren't clickbait, though.

@EagerSpace

27 күн бұрын

This is what people consistently say and I can tell you that it's not true.

Blue Origin should just continue what they're really good at... _suing_

Almost like all those EV's that killed Tesla 6 years ago!

So you made an entire video about what we can do with Starship, but now New Glenn is "too big". I cannot wait until Sept 29 when Blue finally silences the haters.

@alanrickett2537

28 күн бұрын

Ok so on the 30th of September 2024 if BO has not launched to orbit and returned you will see the light and switch side.

@UghIHateTheseThings

28 күн бұрын

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

@kennethferland5579

27 күн бұрын

@@alanrickett2537 If National team completes its Lunar Lander first will you switch sides?

@alanrickett2537

27 күн бұрын

@@kennethferland5579 already support the companies doing the actual work so no, but if new Glenn gets a regular launch schedule of 10 plus a year before star ship I will agree BO hasn't been a waste of money

@TheEvilmooseofdoom

26 күн бұрын

To big?

At this point I think we just need to see BO actually get to orbit.

@eddjordan2399

28 күн бұрын

agreed they have been going 24 years now and nothing in orbit.

@andresitocasla2202

28 күн бұрын

Yeah I say the same thing about starship

@jamskinner

28 күн бұрын

@andresitocasla2202 Well starship basically has made it to orbit. It still has a lot of work to go but it is showing actual improvement. No idea on BO new Glenn.

@dancingdog2790

28 күн бұрын

@@andresitocasla2202 One of these things is not like the other...

@GoranXII

28 күн бұрын

@@andresitocasla2202 Starship is at least making an attempt.

I don’t really buy that the thrust of aerospikes drops with altitude like that like exrocketman’s calculations would suggest. If one extends the clear trend he finds, they’d have rocket engines with arbitrarily low specific impulses at arbitrarily high altitudes. This finding is not replicated by the bulk of professional literature and by physical tests.

@EagerSpace

25 күн бұрын

Thrust drops because specific impulse drops, but that stops when you reach vacuum.

@ryanrising2237

23 күн бұрын

@@EagerSpace But his charts don't seem to reflect that.