Blue Origin - New Glenn

[scaesare]

Seeing as how there's a thread for Blue Origin - New Shepherd, and this isn't a "versus SpaceX" topic, here's a thread for New Glenn.

According to this Ars article B.O. seems confident New Glenn will Launch in 2024, and it will need to if it wants to make the August '24 launch window for Mars that NASA wants to send its craft to.

I like Berger's Law: "...the guideline championed by my Ars colleague which states that if a launch is scheduled for the fourth quarter of a calendar year—and if it is at least six months away—the launch will delay into the next year. Given Blue Origin's history of New Glenn delays, that's probably the safer bet. New Glenn's inaugural flight has been delayed from 2020 until 2021, then 2022, and for now, is slated for 2024."

Nonetheless the article seems reasonably upbeat that they may do it, but they have a lot to do in the next 9 months.

Lars Hoffman, Blue Origin's vice president of government sales, seems like he wants to JUST paint a rosy picture, lol:

The manufacturing pace is just picking up by the day

[the launch pad] is just ready to go, and we’ll put it to good use starting next year.

I also found interesting: "Two Blue Origin officials told Ars that the company is not currently planning to perform a full-scale test-firing of an entire New Glenn booster, with all seven of its BE-4 engines, before the inaugural launch. If this holds, it would be unusual."

 

[ecarfan]

According to this Ars article B.O. seems confident New Glenn will Launch in 2024, and it will need to if it wants to make the August '24 launch window for Mars that NASA wants to send its craft to.

NASA is going to entrust a Mars spacecraft to a rocket that has never been launched before. From the article:

The Mars science mission, named ESCAPADE, consists of two small identical spacecraft to study the Martian magnetosphere. It is relatively low in cost, and NASA is willing to accept some risk in launching it on the first New Glenn flight, but if it doesn't depart Earth next year, the mission faces a two-year delay.

Surely there is a very reliable existing rocket that could be used for those spacecraft, which together weigh about 300kg fueled. And of course there is; an F9 can take 4,020kg to Mars.

Obviously NASA wants to support BO as a future alternative launch provider. But to me it’s ridiculous to put valuable Mars-bound spacecraft on the very first flight of an all new rocket.

 

[JB47394]

Obviously NASA wants to support BO as a future alternative launch provider. But to me it’s ridiculous to put valuable Mars-bound spacecraft on the very first flight of an all new rocket.

Not that valuable. The ESCAPADE program budget is around $80 million - including launch costs. The original plan was to rideshare with the Psyche mission, but Psyche switched to a Falcon Heavy, and that eliminated the opportunity for a rideshare. So they needed some way to get launched on the cheap.

Besides, many rockets are successful on their first flight, including Falcon 9. I give New Glenn about an 80% chance of success. When they launch is a different question.

 

[ecarfan]

Not that valuable. The ESCAPADE program budget is around $80 million - including launch costs.

Well at that price BO is basically providing the launch for free. Still, it is much riskier than an F9 launch even though it would cost more.

I realize that Mars missions usually cost hundreds of millions. To me, spacecraft that cost tens of millions of dollars are definitely valuable! Why risk that much money when there is a very low risk alternative.

I think BO is giving away that launch to that particular NASA mission so that Bezos can say that BO beat SpaceX to Mars. After all, he’s the guy who said, when SpaceX first successfully recovered an F9 booster, “Welcome to the club”. That was a profoundly ignorant statement, equating landing a suborbital New Shepard capsule with landing an orbital class booster many times the size. It was a dick move on his part. But typical.

 

[scaesare]

NASA is going to entrust a Mars spacecraft to a rocket that has never been launched before. From the article:

Surely there is a very reliable existing rocket that could be used for those spacecraft, which together weigh about 300kg fueled. And of course there is; an F9 can take 4,020kg to Mars.

Obviously NASA wants to support BO as a future alternative launch provider. But to me it’s ridiculous to put valuable Mars-bound spacecraft on the very first flight of an all new rocket.

I was pretty sure we talked about that a while ago, and went digging for the thread... sure enough we did... I found it and lol'd when I realized it was your post from a few weeks ago:

 

[JB47394]

Why risk that much money when there is a very low risk alternative.

Cost. Their budget was $80 million. A Falcon 9 flight is $67 million. I'm not sure they could work out a rideshare with any other missions for the forseeable future.

I realized it was your post from a few weeks ago:

Yeah, I figure that @ecarfan either has a terrible memory or he just likes to get people talking. I know that I look forward to every discussion here. New ones are better, though.

 

[ecarfan]

Yeah, I figure that @ecarfan either has a terrible memory or he just likes to get people talking.

I can assure you that it is the former!

 

[Cosmacelf]

I can assure you that it is the former!

I've been known to completely forget that I said things before. In fact, in one episode I began reading this cool long form post on some platform and I then wondered who wrote it - it was me of course.

 

[bxr140]

I think BO is giving away that launch to that particular NASA mission so that Bezos can say that BO beat SpaceX to Mars.

First flights are always dirt cheap; first flights are always missions that don’t care about timeline AND are willing to take the risk of failure—exactly like escapade.

The only motivation blue has is to launch as credible a mission as possible on the first flight rather than a hunk of nothing. They (and Ariane) have been shopping their first flights for a few years now and we’ve all given them the “Thanks but no thanks”. Escapade is a score.

 

[scaesare]

First flights are always dirt cheap; first flights are always missions that don’t care about timeline AND are willing to take the risk of failure—exactly like escapade.

The only motivation blue has is to launch as credible a mission as possible on the first flight rather than a hunk of nothing. They (and Ariane) have been shopping their first flights for a few years now and we’ve all given them the “Thanks but no thanks”. Escapade is a score.

It will be cool if they nail it first launch. As much as their slow progress has been bemoaned, I'm hopeful that we get another credible player in the industry looking to push the envelope.

Has there been any other rocket that has launched a real customer payload on it's maiden voyage? Much less one to another planet?

 

[ecarfan]

Has there been any other rocket that has launched a real customer payload on it's maiden voyage? Much less one to another planet?

Pretty sure the answer to your second question is “NO”.

 

[bxr140]

Has there been any other rocket that has launched a real customer payload on its maiden voyage? Much less one to another planet?

Yes and basically yes (in a few weeks). It’s not like there’s a significant data set here of big rockets, but:

Eutelsat got a screaming deal on the first flights of both Atlas 5 and Delta 4 to put [I think backup] geocomm sats into GTO.

Ariane 5 intended to put some science sats into HEO, likely a similar scenario to escapade.

XTAR (who partnered with Hispasat) got a screaming deal on the Ariane 5 return to flight for the cryo upper stage, which for the satellite industry is just about the same as a first flight. That flight also had an ESA science mission on it with the less-than-creative name of “Sloshsat” (you get 0 guesses to identify its mission).

Vulcan aspires to huck something at the moon in Jan.

There’s also slightly less critical first flights of various configurations for all the above that all carried real customers.

 

[scaesare]

Yes and basically yes (in a few weeks). It’s not like there’s a significant data set here of big rockets, but:

Eutelsat got a screaming deal on the first flights of both Atlas 5 and Delta 4 to put [I think backup] geocomm sats into GTO.

Ariane 5 intended to put some science sats into HEO, likely a similar scenario to escapade.

XTAR (who partnered with Hispasat) got a screaming deal on the Ariane 5 return to flight for the cryo upper stage, which for the satellite industry is just about the same as a first flight. That flight also had an ESA science mission on it with the less-than-creative name of “Sloshsat” (you get 0 guesses to identify its mission).

Vulcan aspires to huck something at the moon in Jan.

There’s also slightly less critical first flights of various configurations for all the above that all carried real customers.

Cool... thanks.. so not unheard of.

If the rocket fails and the payload is lost, I assume there's liability for that... insurance? If so, who is responsible for obtaining that? Or is that all part of the contract negotiations?

 

[bxr140]

Typically a satellite procurement contract hands over liability (and corollary insurance) of the satellite from the manufacturer to the customer/operator at “intentional ignition” of the rocket.

Generally a commercial customer/operator won’t insure first flights—the premium is way too high. For reference SX has been down at 3% premium or so (it’s up to about 8% right now because of the recent sat anomalies though once SX is absolved that will come back down). Other big rockets are typically no lower than 5-6%—much higher than SX for obvious reasons. I’d speculate first flight insurance could be 25-50% or more, and one probably would only get a few bids from the underwriter circus (and thus may not be able to insure the full value of the mission.)

Im not totally sure what state funded missions do but I don’t think they ever insure. If it’s lost, it’s lost.

 

[JB47394]

If the rocket fails and the payload is lost, I assume there's liability for that... insurance? If so, who is responsible for obtaining that? Or is that all part of the contract negotiations?

Yes, there is a space insurance industry. The owners of the payload would take out an insurance policy on their payload. There's also liability insurance, in case somebody's property gets damaged as a result of rocket operations. Note that those insurance policies only apply to failures during launch and/or during operation (coverage time periods of "launch plus one [year]" are common). The satellite that was lost when that Falcon 9 that blew up on the pad may not have been insured because it was before the launch. Perhaps they had a separate policy for transportation prior to the launch.

I don't know whether the insurance industry insures reusable spacecraft. That's a new thing. Right? Traditionally, a launch guarantees the loss of the rocket. I ran across this little blurb:

[The] Starship launch license [...] requires SpaceX to earmark $548 million in insurance coverage for the pre-flight testing activities and the launch itself. Within this figure, the bulk, or $500 million, is for the rocket launch, while the remainder is for the ground operations.

I assume that means that SpaceX has to be ready to handle $500 million in damages, whether by purchasing an insurance policy or by having that money ready for claims (in 2020, the amount was $200 million). Insurance premium rates seem to be all over the place, depending on how bad any recently payouts were. I've seen percentages from 2-4% up to "mid-teens". I'm guessing that the total payout for the insurance policy is that percent of the coverage amount. So if SpaceX had purchased insurance for the Starship launch, they might have had to pay someone $50 million so that they would cover damages. I'm guessing that they didn't go to an insurer, given Elon's preference to go-it-alone.

 

[scaesare]

Cool, thanks... I actually was thinking of AMOS-6 blowing up on the pad, as you refer to, when I wrote that.

Found this report which says:

The satellite was insured by a group of insurance companies, including U.K-based Lloyd's of London and Marsh Ltd., as well as Israel-based Peltours Insurance Agencies Ltd. According to the lawsuit AMOS-6 was covered by a “full risk” insurance policy totaling $236 million and EUR 43.1 million. The insurers have paid IAI approximately $215 million to date, but the company claims it deserves some $62 million more.

 

[ecarfan]

 

[scaesare]

And they mated the stages for the first time: BLUE ORIGIN on LinkedIn: The first and second stages of New Glenn’s test vehicle mate for the first… | 28 comments

 

[HVM]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757506047516836030

 

[ecarfan]

“Stage 1 and 2 simulator hardware”?

I can understand how that can be useful, but I thought it was supposed to launch this year? Where’s the “real hardware”?

The stage 2 “simulator” looks…skeletal.