Competition is a good thing. I see a lot of people dismiss blue origin but if the performance of the BE-4s is anything to go by, I think that there could be a bright future for this vehicle. I for one am excited to see the capabilities of New Glenn. Once blue and rocketlab have their own vehicles going the US will be the only country on earth with a stable of reusable next gen launch vehicles.
@@jtjames79 Do you realize that 10 years from now there will be a totally different reality...these companies work for the long term....if not ask the car companies in their competition with the japanese...it totally changed in one decade...US NEEDS!!!! several space companies...the competitor is not BO ...the chinese...don't forget that
It's interesting that in Tim Dodd's video a few months ago Jeff Bezos said that they are developing reusable ("Project Jarvis") and non-reusable versions of the New Glenn upper stage in parallel. Whichever approach proves to be the most cost-effective is what they will eventually go with. Surely the first flight will use the non-reusable upper stage, but does anyone know what re-entry approach Blue Origin has decided to adopt for the reusable version? The last thing I read was that they were considering three options: 1) a winged design, 2) an aerospike engine design where the engine doubled as a heat shield, and 3) a Starship-inspired flaps design. I wonder how closely Blue Origin engineers watched the SpaceX IFT-4 and IFT-5 missions, especially regarding the Starship re-entries over the India Ocean.
It is going to be very interesting to see how the numbers ultimately work out. It seems that BO has taken a good middle ground path with a realistic size the can effectively fulfill the bulk of the available missions. Get the booster reusability working smoothly first and have a better than falcon system. Then move on to additional reusability down the road which is something falcon can’t do. BO will have a system that is better at launching all those LEO satellites than falcon & without “scratching the stainless steel”. We will see if something can be too big.
Wow, i havent heard about Blue Origins plans to try and develop a reusable second stage, that is amazing news! I wish they'd go for inflatable conical heat shield and a catch tower to catch the second stage by small pins. Aerospike also sounds super cool!
The rocket industry has come a long way since SpaceX landed their first booster. What was once one single partially reusable rocket has grown into an entire family of partially reusable rockets, with New Glenn coming possibly this year and Neutron not too long after.
space x is doing that at least once per week while the other have yet to prove reliability and cadence. like tesla , they are 3-4 years ahead of the competition
I feel like they still have quite a way to go. As the video say they haven't done a static fire test with the completed booster yet. They also haven't done a booster relight test on the ground either.
“No one has landed a reusable booster on the first try.” I’ve got some bad new for him if he hasn’t heard about starship IFT-5. It will still be an incredible feat if they land it first try. It’s a good looking rocket and I’m excited to see it fly.
Hmm why is it called IFT-5 and not IFT-1? But yes, their first attempt to land it on a hard surface was successful. But 2 failed water landings and 1 successful water landing preceded it. But yeah, they caught the booster on the first attempt.
Not really true but the point wasn't to successfully land the rocket. The objective was to gather data not based on guess-timates in their simulators but to have real world data on how the systems actually perform in the real world. Blue's biggest issues is they "Don't know yet, what they don't know yet." When so many things are brand new and going to be tried for the very 1st time, you're really flying blind. Also non-optimal solutions tend to stay non-optimal unless they are mission critical that lead to loss of flight issues. Ie the shuttle foam issues on the Shuttle were know but only addressed after it caused a catastrophic failure. With no early flight testing, finding those issues cannot be addressed early in the R&D cycle and usually have to be "managed" after the systems are in production. The attempt at getting everything right before attempting the 1st flight, is great if it all works perfectly. The danger is some fixes cause a cascade of changes that impact other systems.
Does anyone know what's up with that pattern of silver and brown around the engines? (Seen for example at 0:33) Have they just not finished installing the thermal shielding around the engines, or is there a reason for this irregular pattern?
Given that the lower side walls are also not covered I'm going with "not done yet". It also seems to be a fairly low fidelity part. Maybe it's just a layer to keep the thermal shielding from getting directly blasted and torn apart by whatever strangeness happens in hypersonic reentry?
The video seemed to imply that there would be two New Glenn launches this year, followed by a third launch in March 2025. However, the launch manifest only shows the Maiden flight that will test the Blue Ring Transfer Tug in November 2024, and the Pathfinder 1 mission that will test HLS capabilities to the Lunar neighborhood in March 2025. A 2nd flight in 2024 seemed really unlikely to me. Am I missing something? Thanks.
@@hawkdsl I'm not talking about Blue Origin's plans. Since the 1st launch was pushed back to November I don't think there were ever any plans for a 2nd launch in 2024, yet that's what the video mentions. I think the presenter misspoke but it was enough for me to check the worldwide launch manifest.
@@ysfex3sew And so is the recovery ship. Unless they take no precautions on trajectory (and I can't see that) it won't be coming in at full speed so it won't be lancing through the deck. Not to say that it'll be something to shrug off, just not likely to send it to the bottom.
@@imaginary_friend7300 itd be cool tho. just watching superheavy freefalling makes it look like it could be used as a tactical nuke. we know that the landing precision is insane.
It's funny that they are still going with the "hardware rich approach" when the difficulties delivering to ULA highlighted that the BE4 development was actually hardware poor.
@@kipkipper-lg9vl given that this company hasn't flown anything of this class yet, I wouldn't hold my breath. And you want them to blow up before you actually put a payload on it. You want your vehicle safe and proven. This NG development is backwards.
@@jameskelly3502 so as a company, would you pay to fly your multimillion satellite into space on a prototype aircraft that is not proven and is to most likely destroy your satellite? This is where it doesn't make any sense. You first test, then you use it commercially. You shouldn't use your paying customers as test subjects. If you download an app on your phone, do you expect it to work or do you expect to be there to test it? Imagine when you have millions (satellites, fees, cost of flight, etc) at stake on a test. Also, a company may have deadlines to meet, can't really wait another year to build another satellite and pay again for another flight, at which point, you can safely bet it's going to be on a spacex rocket, BECAUSE THEY ARE PROVEN TO WORK! I think this is a recipe for failure and tarnishing the company's image. Just do the testing, make sure it does everything it needs to do and then fly commercially. But that would probably be after the starship starts operating and Bezzos is not ready for that conversation.
Partially reusable will always cost more than fully reusable. New Glenn will end up more expensive than Starship for that reason alone. Customers, even NASA, do care about cost.
I'm glad New Glenn is coming together, but I can't help but feel SpaceX had sucked all the anticipation out of it. Without Starship in the picture, New Glenn looks like a major step up from F9, with reusability on a much larger rocket, and LNG as propellant. But Starship already supersedes NG in a lot of ways -- methalox full-flow with insane thrust, _proven_ booster return, cheap stainless steel construction, two returns of starship from orbital velocity (though not perfect), high candence even if held back by the FAA. It's good to have competition, sure, but NG isn't really _competitve_ right out the gate. It'll have at most a handful of launches before being made mostly obsolete by Starship. This isn't a case like Rocket Lab, where lighter payloads can find a reason not to use F9. Instead, it's likely that with full reusability, Starship can launch anything NG can (and more) cheaper, relegating NG to payloads that specifically don't want to be launched by SpaceX, and are willing to pay extra for it.
It's amazing how the FAA is allowing NG to fly a payload on an unproven vehicle but when spacex wants to fly a test flight with out payload there's an environment impact report that takes 3 months to complete that grounds the flight. I'm not sure what NG is going to compete with. F9 is extremely well optimised. It has hundreds of real flights. It has falcon heavy which can also fly even more stuff into space for a competitive price. NG has 0 flights completed. It might fail on the first flight. Even if it doesn't, as a company, would you risk your multimillion satellite on an unproven vehicle? It's as if someone knows someone at the FAA to slow spaceX down so that NG can get a few flight under its belt before starship makes everything else obsolete. May the best rocket win!
How so. They will have a reusable rocket slightly more capable then a Falcon Heavy.... not in 5 years... but right now. After New Glen, there is plans for New Armstrong, which will be a reusable Starship class. Shake those Pom Poms fandom dude!
@@hawkdslI understand that the comment is somehow negative but New Sheppard is not particularly better than heavy. It is more capable than falcon 9 though. Falcon heavy can carry heavier payloads to LEO but it has a lower payload volume than New Sheppard.
@imaginary_friend7300 huh? It's not a mystery. They ensure safe aviation and public safety. Real money? silly goose. Now please say I'm wrong, Google it and just say what I said with more words.
@@imaginary_friend7300 You mean "you" who doesn't know what the FAA has been doing nowadays, don't you? Also that was clearly a joke with a partial reality to it. 😂
Thats because, unlike SpaceX, Blue Origin doesn't celebrate when their rockets explode and endanger lives. They take safety much more seriously, than Musk.
I'd be more excited for BO if they weren't so litigious toward SpaceX in past years. Bezos' legal and smear campaigns were totally unnecessary. Just let your people do their thing and work to catch up, and stop sh_tting all over your competitor. We're all on the same team.
SpaceX also has an active legal department, having sued everyone themselves. You take it as an offensive act of violence because fandom, when in actuality, it's standard operating procedure for large corporations.
To be fair, the "Government Accountability Office" did determine that NASA awarded the HLS contract to SpaceX "ILLEGALLY" and Blue Origin did have a legitimate case. But as a military defense contractor, SpaceX got special treatment. P.S. Musk also has a history of sh!tting on his competitors. He's no saint either.
5:43 space x literally landed their starship booster first try... the 4th launch didn't land the booster they did a test of the engines on a landing velocity... when they did go for a test they got it first try so that's statement is just classic blue origin ignoring spacexs achievements bc theyre sour that spacex does way better than them...
Falcon 9 wasn't reusable from the first time in fact falcon 1 was also not reusable and that's SpaceX first orbital launch. The fact that the first orbital launch for blue origin will be using a giant rocket and thay will try to reuse the booster is impressive
@Seanrider1776 they have plenty of suborbital flights and have been developing this for a LONG time.. theyre taking the nasa approach, if it doesn't work that would be frankly embarrassing... no one's saying it's not impressive it is, it's just not the first to do it first try and theyre still gonna claim that because they're known for ignoring spacex achievements to make themselves look better
@@dsdy1205 the lawfare was important because putting HLS's chips in one launcher (SpaceX starship) is risky. They simply wanted a fair contract chance, and it's fixed cost so there is no extra risk for America in terms of cost of Blue Origin doesn't perform as expected, but provides a second option if starship doesn't work out.
Spacex has the “just send it” doctrine. This means they send half-arsed craft into the skies above Texas without intensive attention to optimization. Blue origin simply prefers precision, and the measure-twice-cut-once doctrine. This means their internal progress will be slower, but less failures, and more time for the failures they DO have to be worked upon. Also Blue Origin simply isn’t as vocal as spaceX, so you hear less of their innovation. Don’t diss a company for ‘not bringing anything to the table’ when you simply aren’t capable of anything they do, and don’t tell a private company how to spend their money. Thx.
Oh Yes they say the same about japanese cars in the 1950s and '60s....these companies work for the long term ...they don't have a short sight view like some people...Ariane is still there NO???...and competing...well during the 1980s...they were suppose to be obsolete
Starship doesn't have GTO or GEO capabilities. New Glenn would compete with Falcon Heavy and Vulcan. But you're correct for LEO. Starship is just too promising
A self-landing booster of this size is hardly obsolete. Blue origin is painfully slow to say the least and the company's technology seems inferior to SpaceX in all respecfs. It does not however make them obsolete
They didn't either. IFT 1, 2, and 3 had booster self delete. They also have navigation software developed for Falcon, and is obviously used and modified for Starship.
Pretty sure landing a booster means landing it safely. If it explodes, it's just like not recovering it. So no, no one has to this point said let's make something recoverable and then land it without incident on the first try.
@@hawkdsl They were NOT going for landing catch attempt on 1,2,3,or 4 just system testing. Test 5 was the FIRST attempt to Catch the booster and on the FIRST try they nailed it dead center.
@@eirinym They were NOT going for landing catch attempt on 1,2,3,or 4 just system testing. Test 5 was the FIRST attempt to Catch the booster and on the FIRST try they nailed it dead center with no explosion.
I can imagine BlueOrigin will replace Boeing and become the competitors to SpaceX. Competition will bring a fast progress of Space industry and the dawn of the true Space age
When Blue Origin succeeds in launching (and landing) New Glenn, with a payload capacity four and one half times the tonnage of BOTH Falcons, will you still consider Blue Origin to be "behind" SpaceX? Four and one half times the payload tonnage, Rissole, AND as reusable as the Space'X Falcons?
Even if it flies perfectly the first flight, it proves nothing until they've landed it and flown it 10 or 20 times. Only then are they just catching up to sx.....
Are they trying to catch up? What are they trying to catch up to? I haven't seen them state they want to launch starlink sats. Oh, that's right... They have their own sat service. They want to qualify for National Security flights as well... with a more capable payload rocket then say.. Falcon Heavy. They have to fly 20 times? Why? Space Force only needs 2 launches for National Security payloads. IF they fly perfectly I think it does actually prove something.. a working rocket! Holy FKN flying broom sticks Batman! Enjoy the rest of your day.
It is a great vehicle on specs.. They only thing nagging me is their pathetic attempt at twisting the wording so they are "first" at something.. Just call the things as they are.. It will be a good vehicle. No need to be first..
Those "Strakes" have the same surface area as an F-16... and perform the same job: New Glenn will, literally, FLY back to the landing on "Jacklyn". Check out Jeff Bezos at his BO Factory, describing these "wings" to that funny little guy from "NASA Spaceflight". (Apparently, some con-artist managed to sell him a "ticket to the Moon"... Can you BELIEVE that? Those SpaceX Fanboys!)
@@warpedfusionWhat's your problem? Any space enthusiast should do that. What I actually see is some braindead fanbois of a certain man hijacking and polluting each and every space discussion related to space.
![เปิดใจ “ต้นหอม ศกุนตลา” หลังโดนพาดพิงธุรกิจที่เคยทำ และผลกระทบทำถูกปลดฟ้าผ่า! | แฉ 24 ต.ค.67 [2/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vCi5OIqlxaE/mqdefault.jpg)
Competition is a good thing. I see a lot of people dismiss blue origin but if the performance of the BE-4s is anything to go by, I think that there could be a bright future for this vehicle. I for one am excited to see the capabilities of New Glenn. Once blue and rocketlab have their own vehicles going the US will be the only country on earth with a stable of reusable next gen launch vehicles.
Well said.
"Once they have".... agree
Starship is "next gen". Trash rockets are legacy. Falcon 9 and Heavy are the state of the art.
China is testing falcon like rockets too, but it's just an early stage testing for now..
I'm looking forward to the Blue Origin launch. Hope it works and we have two companies returning the first stage from orbit.
In 1-2 years we could have 4-5 companies doing it. We are living in exciting times.
You do realize competition requires more than simply existing?
@@jtjames79 Yes I do. If Blue Origin can land this booster they will move into a new phase. A phase of "more than simply existing".
@@jtjames79 these space comapnies are working very very hard. stoke, neutron, relativity, firefly, etc.
@@jtjames79 Do you realize that 10 years from now there will be a totally different reality...these companies work for the long term....if not ask the car companies in their competition with the japanese...it totally changed in one decade...US NEEDS!!!! several space companies...the competitor is not BO ...the chinese...don't forget that
It's interesting that in Tim Dodd's video a few months ago Jeff Bezos said that they are developing reusable ("Project Jarvis") and non-reusable versions of the New Glenn upper stage in parallel. Whichever approach proves to be the most cost-effective is what they will eventually go with. Surely the first flight will use the non-reusable upper stage, but does anyone know what re-entry approach Blue Origin has decided to adopt for the reusable version? The last thing I read was that they were considering three options: 1) a winged design, 2) an aerospike engine design where the engine doubled as a heat shield, and 3) a Starship-inspired flaps design. I wonder how closely Blue Origin engineers watched the SpaceX IFT-4 and IFT-5 missions, especially regarding the Starship re-entries over the India Ocean.
Yeah, Steal from:
Dream Chaser or
Stoke or
SpaceX
🙄
It is going to be very interesting to see how the numbers ultimately work out. It seems that BO has taken a good middle ground path with a realistic size the can effectively fulfill the bulk of the available missions. Get the booster reusability working smoothly first and have a better than falcon system. Then move on to additional reusability down the road which is something falcon can’t do. BO will have a system that is better at launching all those LEO satellites than falcon & without “scratching the stainless steel”. We will see if something can be too big.
@@Wi2Low It's hardly stealing, these concepts for upper stage reuse have existed since the 1960s
@@Wi2Low well that's a very childish way to look at the potential of competition pushing the boundaries of spaceflight.
Wow, i havent heard about Blue Origins plans to try and develop a reusable second stage, that is amazing news! I wish they'd go for inflatable conical heat shield and a catch tower to catch the second stage by small pins. Aerospike also sounds super cool!
The rocket industry has come a long way since SpaceX landed their first booster.
What was once one single partially reusable rocket has grown into an entire family of partially reusable rockets, with New Glenn coming possibly this year and Neutron not too long after.
space x is doing that at least once per week while the other have yet to prove reliability and cadence. like tesla , they are 3-4 years ahead of the competition
Woo! This rocket has much ahead of it im excited
Lets go Blue. Up she goes.
I feel like they still have quite a way to go. As the video say they haven't done a static fire test with the completed booster yet. They also haven't done a booster relight test on the ground either.
Good luck New Glenn!🚀
Old Glenn
Let’s get ready to rumbleeeeee
I interpreted as the first launch in December and the second launch bumped back to Spring 2025
perhaps cover the construction of the engines. thank you for your work here.
“No one has landed a reusable booster on the first try.” I’ve got some bad new for him if he hasn’t heard about starship IFT-5. It will still be an incredible feat if they land it first try. It’s a good looking rocket and I’m excited to see it fly.
Hmm why is it called IFT-5 and not IFT-1?
But yes, their first attempt to land it on a hard surface was successful. But 2 failed water landings and 1 successful water landing preceded it.
But yeah, they caught the booster on the first attempt.
@@jordanhenshaw 1st try tower catch. Blue just wants to say "we were first" so they added "at first try"... Wish them and us all well.
Not really true but the point wasn't to successfully land the rocket. The objective was to gather data not based on guess-timates in their simulators but to have real world data on how the systems actually perform in the real world. Blue's biggest issues is they "Don't know yet, what they don't know yet." When so many things are brand new and going to be tried for the very 1st time, you're really flying blind.
Also non-optimal solutions tend to stay non-optimal unless they are mission critical that lead to loss of flight issues. Ie the shuttle foam issues on the Shuttle were know but only addressed after it caused a catastrophic failure. With no early flight testing, finding those issues cannot be addressed early in the R&D cycle and usually have to be "managed" after the systems are in production. The attempt at getting everything right before attempting the 1st flight, is great if it all works perfectly. The danger is some fixes cause a cascade of changes that impact other systems.
How have you managed to forget about ift 2?
@@jordanhenshaw 1st time trying to catch it. IFT 1-4 was never meant to land
Does anyone know what's up with that pattern of silver and brown around the engines? (Seen for example at 0:33) Have they just not finished installing the thermal shielding around the engines, or is there a reason for this irregular pattern?
Given that the lower side walls are also not covered I'm going with "not done yet". It also seems to be a fairly low fidelity part. Maybe it's just a layer to keep the thermal shielding from getting directly blasted and torn apart by whatever strangeness happens in hypersonic reentry?
The video seemed to imply that there would be two New Glenn launches this year, followed by a third launch in March 2025. However, the launch manifest only shows the Maiden flight that will test the Blue Ring Transfer Tug in November 2024, and the Pathfinder 1 mission that will test HLS capabilities to the Lunar neighborhood in March 2025. A 2nd flight in 2024 seemed really unlikely to me. Am I missing something? Thanks.
Plans change... That's what your missing.
They are behind. My guess is January for 1st flight. Maybe December.
@@hawkdsl I'm not talking about Blue Origin's plans. Since the 1st launch was pushed back to November I don't think there were ever any plans for a 2nd launch in 2024, yet that's what the video mentions. I think the presenter misspoke but it was enough for me to check the worldwide launch manifest.
Very kewl but the fact it takes 40 yrs to build/test means it has zero chance of competing with Starship
Starship hasn't done much of it's mission objectives, it will be a good vehicle to launch starlink satellites into orbit maybe?
@TheBonsaiZone
Really? A rocket that will potentially lift over 200 tons is only for starlink. It already has contracts for space station segments.
@@jamskinner it can lift about 50 tons, not 200
@@jamskinner Not even Musk claims, "200 tons" and he exaggerates a lot!
@@kipkipper-lg9vl Musk "claims" it can lift 50 tons.
I'm not sure it can even do that.
Huntsville back in the game. It's about time.
It's going to be sweet to watch them take out their landing ship tring to land the first try.. lmfao
Even spacex didn't sink their barge on their first crash.
@@imaginary_friend7300isn't Glenn way larger than f9 booster tho?
@@ysfex3sew And so is the recovery ship. Unless they take no precautions on trajectory (and I can't see that) it won't be coming in at full speed so it won't be lancing through the deck. Not to say that it'll be something to shrug off, just not likely to send it to the bottom.
@@imaginary_friend7300 itd be cool tho. just watching superheavy freefalling makes it look like it could be used as a tactical nuke. we know that the landing precision is insane.
Do you think they will even show it? They don’t show much now even in new Shepard.
It's funny that they are still going with the "hardware rich approach" when the difficulties delivering to ULA highlighted that the BE4 development was actually hardware poor.
... compared to SLS
@@patricklewis7636both are worse 😅
Nice
LLOYD!!!
Let's gooooooo!!!!!
It must feel weird to have a flight scheduled but the rocket hasn't flown yet. Will it even cleat the launch pad?
yes typically rockets do not explode first time, that's a spacex speciality
@@kipkipper-lg9vl given that this company hasn't flown anything of this class yet, I wouldn't hold my breath. And you want them to blow up before you actually put a payload on it. You want your vehicle safe and proven. This NG development is backwards.
These flights have paying customers, to help cover costs.
This is very common in the industry.
Only SpaceX does it differently.
@@mihaiserbanescu8676 No, you DON'T want any rockets to "Blowup" in flight.
Musk has truly warped peoples mind on how engineering is supposed to work.
@@jameskelly3502 so as a company, would you pay to fly your multimillion satellite into space on a prototype aircraft that is not proven and is to most likely destroy your satellite? This is where it doesn't make any sense. You first test, then you use it commercially. You shouldn't use your paying customers as test subjects. If you download an app on your phone, do you expect it to work or do you expect to be there to test it? Imagine when you have millions (satellites, fees, cost of flight, etc) at stake on a test. Also, a company may have deadlines to meet, can't really wait another year to build another satellite and pay again for another flight, at which point, you can safely bet it's going to be on a spacex rocket, BECAUSE THEY ARE PROVEN TO WORK! I think this is a recipe for failure and tarnishing the company's image. Just do the testing, make sure it does everything it needs to do and then fly commercially. But that would probably be after the starship starts operating and Bezzos is not ready for that conversation.
Partially reusable will always cost more than fully reusable. New Glenn will end up more expensive than Starship for that reason alone. Customers, even NASA, do care about cost.
4:42 “validated” not “invalidated”.
Thst statement about no one landing a reusable vehicle on the first try is no longer true now that super heavy stuck the landing on the first try
I'm glad New Glenn is coming together, but I can't help but feel SpaceX had sucked all the anticipation out of it. Without Starship in the picture, New Glenn looks like a major step up from F9, with reusability on a much larger rocket, and LNG as propellant.
But Starship already supersedes NG in a lot of ways -- methalox full-flow with insane thrust, _proven_ booster return, cheap stainless steel construction, two returns of starship from orbital velocity (though not perfect), high candence even if held back by the FAA. It's good to have competition, sure, but NG isn't really _competitve_ right out the gate. It'll have at most a handful of launches before being made mostly obsolete by Starship.
This isn't a case like Rocket Lab, where lighter payloads can find a reason not to use F9. Instead, it's likely that with full reusability, Starship can launch anything NG can (and more) cheaper, relegating NG to payloads that specifically don't want to be launched by SpaceX, and are willing to pay extra for it.
It's amazing how the FAA is allowing NG to fly a payload on an unproven vehicle but when spacex wants to fly a test flight with out payload there's an environment impact report that takes 3 months to complete that grounds the flight.
I'm not sure what NG is going to compete with. F9 is extremely well optimised. It has hundreds of real flights. It has falcon heavy which can also fly even more stuff into space for a competitive price. NG has 0 flights completed. It might fail on the first flight. Even if it doesn't, as a company, would you risk your multimillion satellite on an unproven vehicle?
It's as if someone knows someone at the FAA to slow spaceX down so that NG can get a few flight under its belt before starship makes everything else obsolete.
May the best rocket win!
In two or three years they will have caught up with where SpaceX was 5 years ago.
How so. They will have a reusable rocket slightly more capable then a Falcon Heavy.... not in 5 years... but right now. After New Glen, there is plans for New Armstrong, which will be a reusable Starship class. Shake those Pom Poms fandom dude!
@@hawkdslI understand that the comment is somehow negative but New Sheppard is not particularly better than heavy. It is more capable than falcon 9 though. Falcon heavy can carry heavier payloads to LEO but it has a lower payload volume than New Sheppard.
@@kevikiru New Sheppard is a %1'er tourist rocket. NG is slightly better then FH, because it has a giant fairing.
@@hawkdsl Being a hater is just as bad as being a fanboy. Maybe even worse.
I've seen your replies on 3 pro SpaceX comments already. 😂
@hawkdsl
The rockets hasn’t flown one time. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Let’s just see what happens.
And I bet the FAA will give them the all clear immediately
All clear on what? Do you even know what the FAA does? I'd bet real money you don't.
@imaginary_friend7300 huh? It's not a mystery. They ensure safe aviation and public safety. Real money? silly goose. Now please say I'm wrong, Google it and just say what I said with more words.
@@imaginary_friend7300 I've heard some dumb shit in my life, but this takes the cake. Anyone who follows space news knows wtf the FAA does.
@@imaginary_friend7300 You mean "you" who doesn't know what the FAA has been doing nowadays, don't you?
Also that was clearly a joke with a partial reality to it. 😂
Thats because, unlike SpaceX,
Blue Origin doesn't celebrate when their rockets explode and endanger lives.
They take safety much more seriously, than Musk.
not too early but gg still
They better do it or China might beat them first, It'd be a shame if they do knowing how long NG has been in the works. 💀💀
I'd be more excited for BO if they weren't so litigious toward SpaceX in past years. Bezos' legal and smear campaigns were totally unnecessary. Just let your people do their thing and work to catch up, and stop sh_tting all over your competitor. We're all on the same team.
SpaceX also has an active legal department, having sued everyone themselves. You take it as an offensive act of violence because fandom, when in actuality, it's standard operating procedure for large corporations.
To be fair,
the "Government Accountability Office" did determine that NASA awarded the HLS contract to SpaceX "ILLEGALLY" and Blue Origin did have a legitimate case.
But as a military defense contractor, SpaceX got special treatment.
P.S. Musk also has a history of sh!tting on his competitors. He's no saint either.
5:43 space x literally landed their starship booster first try... the 4th launch didn't land the booster they did a test of the engines on a landing velocity... when they did go for a test they got it first try so that's statement is just classic blue origin ignoring spacexs achievements bc theyre sour that spacex does way better than them...
Falcon 9 wasn't reusable from the first time in fact falcon 1 was also not reusable and that's SpaceX first orbital launch. The fact that the first orbital launch for blue origin will be using a giant rocket and thay will try to reuse the booster is impressive
@Seanrider1776 they have plenty of suborbital flights and have been developing this for a LONG time.. theyre taking the nasa approach, if it doesn't work that would be frankly embarrassing... no one's saying it's not impressive it is, it's just not the first to do it first try and theyre still gonna claim that because they're known for ignoring spacex achievements to make themselves look better
Honestly dont understand the blue origin hate in this comment section. Whats so bad about them?
The bad thing is them being slow AF and not bringing anything New to the table.
This was a joke. Have a fine day! ❤
don't forget all the lawfare they brought to the table. Me I'm glad most of that's behind them
@@dsdy1205 the lawfare was important because putting HLS's chips in one launcher (SpaceX starship) is risky. They simply wanted a fair contract chance, and it's fixed cost so there is no extra risk for America in terms of cost of Blue Origin doesn't perform as expected, but provides a second option if starship doesn't work out.
Spacex has the “just send it” doctrine. This means they send half-arsed craft into the skies above Texas without intensive attention to optimization. Blue origin simply prefers precision, and the measure-twice-cut-once doctrine. This means their internal progress will be slower, but less failures, and more time for the failures they DO have to be worked upon. Also Blue Origin simply isn’t as vocal as spaceX, so you hear less of their innovation. Don’t diss a company for ‘not bringing anything to the table’ when you simply aren’t capable of anything they do, and don’t tell a private company how to spend their money. Thx.
Blue ring
Clipper
Zero boil off hydrogen
Orbital reef
.........
👍
New Glenn is right on schedule. It should launch an early 2035.😮
November 2024.
I was thinking the opposite i.e. ~3520. Give or take a decade. But fingers crossed. Cheers Ran-D
2035?
So about 5 years before Starship will be ready.
It must be depressing to know that your brand new rocket is obsolete before it even has its first launch.
fr, even the name of the booster is obsolete
Oh Yes they say the same about japanese cars in the 1950s and '60s....these companies work for the long term ...they don't have a short sight view like some people...Ariane is still there NO???...and competing...well during the 1980s...they were suppose to be obsolete
Your comment is obsolete 😂
Starship doesn't have GTO or GEO capabilities. New Glenn would compete with Falcon Heavy and Vulcan.
But you're correct for LEO. Starship is just too promising
A self-landing booster of this size is hardly obsolete. Blue origin is painfully slow to say the least and the company's technology seems inferior to SpaceX in all respecfs. It does not however make them obsolete
Why it takes them so long? Common already, invest more time and money in the project, you’re way behind the competitors.
Because they are Old Space.
They followed the old legacy path of development. It does tend to produce working articles when they finally do cross the finish line.
@imaginary_friend7300
I think the problem is as complexity increases you’re more likely to miss something.
Not sure how you top a first try at a tower catch - jaw dropping.
Gonna explode 😉
" nobody ever landed a booster on the first try" Well SpaceX had something to say about that.
They didn't either. IFT 1, 2, and 3 had booster self delete. They also have navigation software developed for Falcon, and is obviously used and modified for Starship.
@@hawkdsl According to Elon in a Tim Dodd interview, starship doesn’t use any Falcon guidance code.
Pretty sure landing a booster means landing it safely. If it explodes, it's just like not recovering it. So no, no one has to this point said let's make something recoverable and then land it without incident on the first try.
@@hawkdsl They were NOT going for landing catch attempt on 1,2,3,or 4 just system testing. Test 5 was the FIRST attempt to Catch the booster and on the FIRST try they nailed it dead center.
@@eirinym They were NOT going for landing catch attempt on 1,2,3,or 4 just system testing. Test 5 was the FIRST attempt to Catch the booster and on the FIRST try they nailed it dead center with no explosion.
I expect it to be a reflection of the companies horrible culture, vindictive assaults on competition, and inexperienced leadership! BOOM! LMFAO
5:43 "No one has landed a reusable booster on the first try" About that...
Gj
I can imagine BlueOrigin will replace Boeing and become the competitors to SpaceX. Competition will bring a fast progress of Space industry and the dawn of the true Space age
It will never leave the ground in one piece. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Show me the money... put it on the table...
Sorry bud jeff bazos has a serus lack of vision and his prodution methds are to slow and he lacks proper ambition to compeet fairly
Did you go year 3 English or nah?
@mathewferstl7042
Being nice takes zero effort.
Their nonsense about no one landing a booster on the first try just shows their owners self delusion.
Im hoping for a success and some competition with space x but Blue Origin seems to be behind and by a lot.
When Blue Origin succeeds in launching (and landing) New Glenn, with a payload capacity four and one half times the tonnage of BOTH Falcons, will you still consider Blue Origin to be "behind" SpaceX?
Four and one half times the payload tonnage, Rissole, AND as reusable as the Space'X Falcons?
Y is this obsoleet rocket being harelded
It's still a step in the right direction.
You can't even write, fanboy. Sit down.
Who the f cares about the flight industry? SpaceX Rules!
Even if it flies perfectly the first flight, it proves nothing until they've landed it and flown it 10 or 20 times. Only then are they just catching up to sx.....
Are they trying to catch up? What are they trying to catch up to? I haven't seen them state they want to launch starlink sats. Oh, that's right... They have their own sat service. They want to qualify for National Security flights as well... with a more capable payload rocket then say.. Falcon Heavy. They have to fly 20 times? Why? Space Force only needs 2 launches for National Security payloads. IF they fly perfectly I think it does actually prove something.. a working rocket! Holy FKN flying broom sticks Batman! Enjoy the rest of your day.
@@hawkdsl Is Amazon not planning on flying a pile of their kuiper sat missions on these?
@imaginary_friend7300
That’s their main client probably. Assuming they can fly fast enough.
It is a great vehicle on specs.. They only thing nagging me is their pathetic attempt at twisting the wording so they are "first" at something.. Just call the things as they are.. It will be a good vehicle. No need to be first..
We’ll see how well the fins work. They are giant.
Those "Strakes" have the same surface area as an F-16... and perform the same job: New Glenn will, literally, FLY back to the landing on "Jacklyn".
Check out Jeff Bezos at his BO Factory, describing these "wings" to that funny little guy from "NASA Spaceflight".
(Apparently, some con-artist managed to sell him a "ticket to the Moon"... Can you BELIEVE that? Those SpaceX Fanboys!)
Elon... Been there done that. Next.
No Wehrner von Braun was first
@@notgreg123 Goddard was first.
@@notgreg123no, the mayans were first
@notgreg123
Not really.
Elon's is vastly more complex and efficient.
Me watch the chaos unfold 🍿
Yi PPY ! who cares!?
Keep hating cuck
Space Enthusiast.
@@hawkdsldude, you have replied to almost every comment on this video. Are you Jeff's alt or a 13 year old? 😂
@@warpedfusionWhat's your problem? Any space enthusiast should do that. What I actually see is some braindead fanbois of a certain man hijacking and polluting each and every space discussion related to space.