5 ms·

Note 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 r

Note 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 ago
SpaceX's BFR is full reusable, and is currently the main engineering focus of the company.
- the-pigeon 8y ago
  SpaceX's BFR is planned but there's never been a BFR launch. I don't think plans count.
  - JshWright 8y ago
    Both New Glenn and BFR are effectively paper rockets at this point. Seems reasonable to compare them.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      BFR 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 ago
    New Glenn hasn't launched either. They're on similar schedules, BFR has suborbital testing scheduled for 2019.
    - ChuckMcM 8y ago
      The 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 ago
        Which to be fair, Bezos will die long before he runs out of money, even pouring several billion a year into Blue Origin.
      - stirlo 8y ago
        Bezos’s “play money” is a far larger pile than SpaceX will accumulate from operations. Hopefully both can succeed.
        ChuckMcM 8y ago
        No 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.
    - asendra 8y ago
      Is that on the same time scale as Falcon Heavy doing it's first launch in 2013?
      - fpoling 8y ago
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    Seems reasonable to compare it with other rockets that have never been launched, then. I think it is a much more impressive concept than anything anybody else is seriously talking about building in the near future, but it really is next on SpaceX's "list". BO's next planned rocket doesn't get a pass on its non-existence just because it's less impressive (maybe a bit more impressive than what SpaceX has already flown to orbit). Personally a lifetime of learning to be cynical makes me think that BFR is too awesome to be true and that it will never happen. Maybe BO's careful approach and Bezos' deep pockets will let them succeed where SpaceX will ultimately fail. On the other hand, SpaceX has not yet given us any concrete reason to expect them to fail. Quite the contrary, in fact.
  - HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
    That sounds disingenuous to me. This was a reply to a comment for an upcoming rocket that is currently just a blueprint. I don't understand why people actively choose to discount Musk's blueprints but other companies' blueprints don't get the same responses.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      And BFR is well past the blueprint stage anyway. They're doing actual fabrication and testing of many parts of that rocket already. It's the main engineering focus of the company -- Falcon 9 is effectively done and Falcon Heavy is a side project (also mostly done).
      - HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
        I am aware. I'm following r/spacex closely. But with lack of official confirmation of a test article I was taking the worst possible stand against SpaceX to still prove my point.

CydeWeys 8y ago

SpaceX's BFR is full reusable, and is currently the main engineering focus of the company.

the-pigeon 8y ago
SpaceX's BFR is planned but there's never been a BFR launch. I don't think plans count.
- JshWright 8y ago
  Both New Glenn and BFR are effectively paper rockets at this point. Seems reasonable to compare them.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    BFR 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 ago
  New Glenn hasn't launched either. They're on similar schedules, BFR has suborbital testing scheduled for 2019.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    The 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 ago
      Which to be fair, Bezos will die long before he runs out of money, even pouring several billion a year into Blue Origin.
    - stirlo 8y ago
      Bezos’s “play money” is a far larger pile than SpaceX will accumulate from operations. Hopefully both can succeed.
      - ChuckMcM 8y ago
        No 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.
  - asendra 8y ago
    Is that on the same time scale as Falcon Heavy doing it's first launch in 2013?
    - fpoling 8y ago
- caconym_ 8y ago
  Seems reasonable to compare it with other rockets that have never been launched, then. I think it is a much more impressive concept than anything anybody else is seriously talking about building in the near future, but it really is next on SpaceX's "list". BO's next planned rocket doesn't get a pass on its non-existence just because it's less impressive (maybe a bit more impressive than what SpaceX has already flown to orbit). Personally a lifetime of learning to be cynical makes me think that BFR is too awesome to be true and that it will never happen. Maybe BO's careful approach and Bezos' deep pockets will let them succeed where SpaceX will ultimately fail. On the other hand, SpaceX has not yet given us any concrete reason to expect them to fail. Quite the contrary, in fact.
- HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
  That sounds disingenuous to me. This was a reply to a comment for an upcoming rocket that is currently just a blueprint. I don't understand why people actively choose to discount Musk's blueprints but other companies' blueprints don't get the same responses.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    And BFR is well past the blueprint stage anyway. They're doing actual fabrication and testing of many parts of that rocket already. It's the main engineering focus of the company -- Falcon 9 is effectively done and Falcon Heavy is a side project (also mostly done).
    - HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
      I am aware. I'm following r/spacex closely. But with lack of official confirmation of a test article I was taking the worst possible stand against SpaceX to still prove my point.