5 ms·
The article glosses over what kind of rocket this is, so it's worth pointing out that New Shepherd is a suborbital booster. You can't launch satellites with it,
by wlesieutre 8y ago
The article glosses over what kind of rocket this is, so it's worth pointing out that New Shepherd is a suborbital booster. You can't launch satellites with it, only go up and fall back down.
Still cool though!
ADDENDUM - if you want to keep an eye on other projects, their reusable orbital booster is New Glenn. IIRC it's higher capacity than Falcon 9, maybe more toward Falcon Heavy. Last I heard they're shooting for a first test launch in 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
- rory096 8y agoNote that New Glenn, like Falcon 9, is only partially reusable — the booster is recovered but the second stage is expended. Both companies have aspirations to reuse the second stage, but few tangible plans so far. New Shepard is in some ways a technology pathfinder for New Glenn's second stage, which will (as of January[0]) use a vacuum-optimized version of New Shepard's BE-3 booster engine. New Glenn's payload is somewhat greater than reusable Falcon Heavy.[1] Falcon Heavy's is likely greater with a center core expendable or fully expendable mission, which Blue Origin says it will never opt to do. [0] https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-switches-engines-for-new-glenn-second-stage/ https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-switches-engines-for-new-g... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5ygtaa/new_glenn_payload_mass_to_leo_is_18_38_greater/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/5ygtaa/new_glen...
- CydeWeys 8y agoSpaceX's BFR is full reusable, and is currently the main engineering focus of the company.
- the-pigeon 8y agoSpaceX's BFR is planned but there's never been a BFR launch. I don't think plans count.
- JshWright 8y agoBoth New Glenn and BFR are effectively paper rockets at this point. Seems reasonable to compare them.
- CydeWeys 8y agoBFR is the main engineering focus of the company. They've already started fabricating and testing many of the parts (including the engines, fuel tanks, and fuselage). It is far past the point of existing only on paper.
- wlesieutre 8y agoNew Glenn hasn't launched either. They're on similar schedules, BFR has suborbital testing scheduled for 2019.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoThe big difference being the SpaceX can use Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9 launches to continue to pay the bills while they develop BFR and as yet Blue Origin is just being funded by Jeff's massive wealth.
- thebluehawk 8y agoWhich to be fair, Bezos will die long before he runs out of money, even pouring several billion a year into Blue Origin.
- stirlo 8y agoBezos’s “play money” is a far larger pile than SpaceX will accumulate from operations. Hopefully both can succeed.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoNo doubt Bezos has a deep pool to draw from, and the folks at Blue Origin always know that their investors are aligned with their goals. Operationally though, I think the jury is still out on how much money SpaceX can pull in there. At 22 launches per year that would be nominally $2.2 billion in revenue per year. Make three of those launches Falcon Heavy and that takes it closer to $2.5 billion. How much of that ends up on the bottom line is a good question, I'm guessing we won't know for sure until the S-1 drops.
- crispyambulance 8y agoSo basically, it's a very very expensive 10 minute amusement park ride with 10G's and a lot of danger? :-)
- Griffinsauce 8y agoAnd a lot of pollution.
- wlesieutre 8y agoAs with everything else, depends on where the energy came from. The rocket itself is burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, so the only exhaust is steam. You have to take a step back and look at the energy supplied to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and to cool and store it. Conceivably that could be done from renewable sources if customers are willing to pay for it.
- 24gttghh 8y agoWhat orbital rockets today are launching a 1st stage with liquid oxygen and hydrogen? I thought they are mostly used for upper stages where they are required for combustion in space. For example, the Falcon 9 uses LOX and refined kerosene in 1st/2nd stages. and the to-be New Glenn burns methane/LOX for it's 1st stage. It matters less what the 2nd/3rd/etc stages use as they are basically out in space at that point. Admittedly, the New Shepard booster from the article uses LOX/LH2, but, it's sub-orbital.
- wlesieutre 8y agoI was referring to the suborbital New Shepherd there. Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy are LOX/LH2 orbital rockets, though the light version of that is being phased out.
- outworlder 8y ago> I thought they are mostly used for upper stages where they are required for combustion in space. Why are they required for combustion in space?
- rich-and-poor 8y agoNew Glenn is not higher capacity than anything, it has never reached orbit.