This is not a fixed pie. The more the merrier. No matter how successful Starship becomes, more options means a bigger market. More opportunities for more players.
Yep. Anyone who thinks everyone else should quit because Space X is ahead is advocating for the failure of spaceflight. We need competition and innovation if we're going to get anywhere
Exactly! As long as there are more rockets available, there will obviously be more satellites in orbit. More satellites = more data, which means that there are better tech developments down here on Earth! No matter your opinion on a rocket or a company, it is good that they are helping the future by simply competing with others.
OK, this response is purely non sequitur: please feel free to ignore it. But given the increasing density of spacecraft operating in low Earth orbit, shouldn't we be thinking about how we're going to police the spaceways to ensure they don't get too crowded? So . . . what should we call this police force? Maybe "Starship Troopers"?
@@johndemeritt3460That's not actually a non-sequitur though - there are plenty of fields where more competition isn't a good way to develop an industry and they're generally areas where there's very constrained resources or high costs from duplicated/redundant efforts - the former definitely applies here with the fairly limited real estate available in LEO
Sure, but the history of rocket development and 1st launches say, that is kind of unlikely. We shall see. I am kind of thinking if they just focused on launching it 2 years ago in an expendable configuration. They would be much further along here in Jan of 25. They could of also experimented with gathering data on having the 1st stage re-entering even without a landing attempt.. They also would of been much further along proving out the basics of the launch system. It is a roll of the dice, throwing everything into 1 basket with an all or nothing launch. A problem early during the 1st launch means they lose the opportunity to even gather any quality data on how the landing systems work. There is a reason why race car designers do so much actual track testing of their designs to prove out the drawing board designs. Everything works on the drawing board and in the simulators but in the real world, issues pop up that no one thought of especially when dealing with the bleeding edge tech. Very minor problems can cascade into much larger issues. No matter how much work went into planning this launch out, it is still Blue's 1st orbital attempt. It 1st launch with that launch complex, 1st 2 stage rocket, 1st attempt at staging. All of the software is brand new. Then attempting to landing the 1st stage is much more complex over New Shep's straight up and down landing systems. Being a few degrees off with New Shep isn't a big deal. 100 of Km's out even just 0.00025% off is a major problem. It isn't that some problems most likely will come up during this 1st launch. The real test will be how nimble is BO being able to address and fix this issues? Considering it has taken them 25 years to make this 1st orbital attempt? The culture usually doesn't change that quickly. Then if it works 100%, how quickly can they ramp up the production of the rockets? What kind of shape is the 1st stage in if they land it? To me the most amazing thing about those ~130 launches of the Falcon last year was the production of all those 2nd stages. How quickly can BO ramp up production of the 2nd stages? Yes the NG 2nd stage is very capable but is it over kill for deploying Kuiper satellites in LEO? Will the Starship launch system be much cheaper for Amazon shareholders? A few billion dollars still is a few billion. Blue will eventually have to be profitable.
Well ,their modus operandi is oposite to spacex, they take a lot more time to light the candle, but then you expect a more polished product, I wish them luck.
Same here! I'm extremely hopeful and excited to see this beast take off, praying that none of the engineers have a heart attack during countdown hahaha
Indeed, and Space X to be successful on lucky 13th. I do wonder about SpaceX approach considering the round trip time to Mars. You can't have 4 or 5 ships in flight with improvements if the first has a fatal flaw. It's not like popping down the shops. Great time to be watching though, those Boomers had all the fun in the run to the moon. Now our turn. Although technically I did see it I was more worried about my nappy at the time and its payload....
@@zakelwe good point, so much to be proved yet, not just the technology difficult enough as that is, but the systems thereafter to exploit it and make it pay. Refuelling will be great but for Space X it’s a necessity too because of its design decisions restricting capacity to get beyond LEO. So not only does refuelling need to be proved as a technology it needs to be achieved easily enough and cost effective enough to make it competitive. You are right as the saying goes a chain is as strong as the weakest link and the whole wide ranging process is going to have to work reliably for even amazing technology to actually work. Starship has a long way to go to prove both its technology and create the methodology to fully exploit it. Will a less immediately ambitious but expandable approach prove better in the long run, it will be fascinating to see, far too many barriers and questions to answer I think as yet.
@@zakelwe Now, now. ☝🏽🙂 Some of us 73 yo "Boomers" are still alive and interested☑ Gotta say, though, that you youngun's have BETTER views, what w onboard LIVE STREAM cameras; close up drone "launch and take off" views (instead of that far-away NASA B-57 camera views of launch that we had); interior and exterior staging shots and on-screen telemetry to see why the flight dynamics are. Wanna give a SHOUT OUT to all of you that are following these new companies in space vehicle flight and development. DON'T EVER LET THE INTEREST WANE OR DIE OUT as we did after the moon landings. = YOU = all are the treasure of the future to keep space flight front and center in the minds of the public ‼ I CONGRATULATE YOU ALL that are watching these YT space pages and taking time to communicate your thoughts in these spaces. MANY of us "old timers" wish you SUCCESS‼✅👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
11 days into the year and New Glenn has already been delayed FOUR TIMES not counting the fact that the 1st date was a continuation of the delays that have been going on for 4 years.
But if it does, then it will achieve 50% reusability on it's first try. Starship will reuse a single engine after six flights... 100% is preeettty far off at this point.
@@TheGeffryI’m a massive SpaceX fan but I do feel like the rest of the space community and SpaceX fanboys aren’t quite seeing the possibility that New Glenn could be “operational” before starship while also achieving 50% reusability, I mean heck it has a payload on its inaugural flight.
The main benefit of taking things slow is that they probably had tons of idle engineers double checking everything over and over. I think there is a decent chance of things going well. The engines themselves are already proven.
@@thecounter.54231 A prototype, which according to the Musketeer, should have landed on Mars in 2022 and has it's projected lifting capacity halved every year or so. I'm no hater, but I also don't believe in fairy tales...
Doesn't matter how good it looks, it's whether it works or not is the important thing or Jeff will have to go back to launching his sex toy into sub orbital forays!
Right, but beauty fades quickly with failure. Many thought the nighty Saturn V was both ugly and beautiful, but its real "beauty" was in its flawless performance as a moon mission launcher, decades ago! : )
@@rareraven It's good to have "fan boys" and girls, that's how some people get interested in maybe pursing space work and careers. I was a big fan boy of Apollo, as kid, and it inspired me to eventually, after college, go into a 33-year career in science, (Biology) for example. : ) I hoped to find interesting life on other planets,.. but settled for this one. LOL ; )
The 7th Saturn V launch was Apollo 15 Launched on July 26, 1971, it featured the first Lunar Roving Vehicle. Astronauts David Scott, James Irwin, and Alfred Worden conducted three Moonwalks, collected 77 kg of samples (including the Genesis Rock), and completed the first deep-space EVA. The mission lasted 12 days
I worked at the US Space and Rocket Center over the summer and my favorite thing to do was wander around staring at the engines after hours. They had the signed prototype for the BE4 powerhead and I would just trace the wires and tubing with my eyes for hours.
US Space and Rocket Center is one of my favorite places! How's the progress on the Shuttle pathfinder restoration going? Last time I was there was 2020 right when they were locking everything down.
Sounds like the difference between Blue Origin and SpaceX is the difference between Jamie and Adam. In a recent video on Tested, Adam said that he and Jamie would get their respective solution in about the same amount of time, but Jamie will have drawn his 4 times and built it once while Adam will have drawn his once and built it 4 times.
You really think this is “in about the same time?” BlueOrigin was founded in 2000 and this will be their first rocket to reach Low Earth Orbit. SpaceX was founded in 2002, first rocket to Low Earth Orbit in 2008, currently takes way more than half of all cargo launched into space there worldwide annually and takes cargo and astronauts to the ISS. While this rocket from BO looks decent, without full reusability their prices have to be much higher than what SpaceX will charge for Starship, and needing a second Starship launch to fuel the first for deep space missions will actually be trivial given the low launch costs and the ability of SpaceX to make Starships rapidly. SpaceX will be able to launch two Starships for way less than BO can launch one rocket for. Also, patent drawings are evidence BO can reach full reusability soon? Soon for BO is ten years from now, maybe. Ten from now is not at the same time.
@@tribalypredisposed Both vehicle programs started at the same time. Starship is currently not capable of launching payloads that are not shaped like pizza boxes. Presumably they will have to spend a great deal of time iterating an actually useful payload solution. They are also still iterating through heat tile issues... a "reusable" rocket with its fins melted off doesnt sound very actually "rapidly" reusable to me. Honestly, I think they are iterating themselves towards a Space Shuttle and Im going to howl with laughter when it happens.
@@patreekotime4578 The simple fact that the Space Shuttle lands horizontally while Starship lands vertically already makes it impossible for them to end up with the same design
@@rizizum Well, it's no longer landing on legs, so I wouldn't discount anything. So far they havn't had much luck keeping thier heat tiles on, and especially the moveable fins are giving them issues. I can almost smell a fixed wing coming, maybe with control surfaces on the unshielded side. And how are they going to get larger payloads in and out of the bay? Large doors on the unshielded side also seems pretty obvious.
@@thatmajestictoad yeah but I wonder why does shitty ass 2d game (sfs) get more spotlight from people than jno? hate such fact. still jno deserves better
@@KiryuutodKazuto well it's because SFS, although simple, is a good game and appeals to a specific niche of 2d flight sims and you can also play on mobile. It's also just been around longer. JNO has always been playable on mobile but on top of the normal learning curve of the game the controls aren't just optimized for mobile so it was mainly played on PC where it was dominated by the likes of KSP so JNO has always unfortunately been overshadowed. Once SFS 2 comes out we'll see as it's essentially JNO but the big part is that it's more akin to KSP so it'll likely draw more attention as SFS is already the bigger game (numbers wise) and is automatically coming to steam. Then you have new projects like KSA which may further bury JNO.
I want America to have as many launch vehicles, especially reusable ones, as possible. One thing I wonder about this one is the short landing gear. I feel as though Falcon 9's barge landings have taught us the benefit of a wider landing base on a pitching flight deck.
@@Scanner9631 Interesting. Thinking back on it, Grumman went through this thought process back when they were designing the landing gear for the lunar module. 5 was too much mass, 3 meant they had to be too long to be stable, so 4 turned out to be the choice.
Between the higher number of legs as previously mentioned and the larger scale of everything meaning less movement from the same size of waves, plus the booster itself is so much wider, I think it'll be plenty. Remember, Falcon 9's diameter is constrained by road transport. It's weirdly skinny.
I don't get why people want New Glenn/Blue Origin to fail and Space X to maintain their monopoly in reusable launchers. It is stupid, competition is always good. It's not like either company is more worthy of success. Wanting starship to succeed does not mean wishing all other rockets to fail.
@@owensmith7530 It's a Falcon Heavy / Arianne 6 / Vulcan / Proton competitor. It is a wannabee for those until it proves it can launch deploy its tiny little cargo and land again. So far all it has demonstrated is the ability to NOT launch.
Musk talking about the $2 million launch is the special K talking. Other sources in the company have said the long term goal is more like $200m, with the price likely remaining much higher for some years because it's built to fulfil a market that doesn't exist yet. New Glenn is marginally more expensive than Falcon 9 for GTO performance rivaling Falcon Heavy and volume exceeding Arianne V or VI. It's not only real competition it's an existential threat to ULA and Ariannespace since it sits itself squarely in the niches they had that Falcon couldn't break into, and while Falcon Heavy is a small part of SpaceX's business Glenn threatens to price it out entirely.
@@DaraM73 what is that? Sounds interesting, as I'm fascinated by you tubers like Scott who make money doing no "real work" except looking stuff up and reporting on it. Seems a smart way to get income!! I did "real work" as a field biologist for 33 years, BTW, but never got "rich" at doing it!! LOL ;D
@@ronschlorff7089 few people get rich via RUclips videos sadly, you have to work damn hard or be a serious celebrity to get enough hits to make much of a living beyond that of a hermit. Hard work from what I have been told. Very hard work for most to do it exclusively so don’t get too jealous.
Myself, I don't really care about brands. Just hardware that works. Hoping BO gets to work on a reusable second stage, at some point -- or maybe that gets saved for New Armstrong.
Competition is vital for great success! That said, that we have two sociopathic billionaires owning and running the two foremost rocket companies really isn't a super great thing, we'll need to keep a close eye on both of these guys to make sure what they're doing lines up with the interests of humanity as a whole. I mean, would you want current-day Elon owning and running a colony on Mars? Seriously? What if you were black or brown or LGBTQ+ or a dozen other things. Would you trust that you were safe, and that you or someone you love won't get, you know, spaced or something like that all of a sudden. And if you are the victim of some sort of a crime/hate crime, would you as a minority have recourse in a Musk-run universe? I'm not so sure about that, this current version of Elon doesn't instill any confidence in me. :/ And Beff "let them pee in bottles" "no unions for you!" Jezos literally letting people scurry like ants until they drop in non-airconditioned warehouses scorching under the sun isn't any better. How does this guy value your life on a lunar base or the like. "Oh he died? No worries, we can always ship up more worker bees!" Not something he'd say straight out necessarily I assume (could be wrong tho), but think it? Sure, why not. He's working people to death already.
@@cacogenicist Dave Limp and Jeff Bezos have stated that the plan is to work on 2 things at once: 1) Designing a super cheap upper stage and 2) Designing a reusable upper stage. Whoever comes out with the lowest cost per launch will be the winner.
@lennyvalentin6485 "would you want current-day elon owning and running a mars colony" 100% yes. I would prefer him to own it over any government on this entire planet because there is not a single government I support on this whole planet anyway and I feel that ever single government on the planet is incompetent and unable to colonize mars if they tried. The fact that we didn't land a human on Mars before the year 2000 is a completely travisty that I blame on the whole planet and Musk is the only person on the planet that is actually making it happen. And please clarify the "Black or brown or LGBTQ+" what has Musk ever done to any of those groups? Nothing that's what. Because people like you keep just trying to make him into a monster because your pissed he has accomplished so much. Stop being jealous and shut up.
I do hope this thing finally gets up there. About time and all that, but it will be great for the industry - and exciting too (which is all I really care about in the end ;)
I think the major factor that will determine BO's success is their iteration rate. At their current snail's pace prices will remain high and fewer customers can get their satellites launched so they would still prefer SpaceX.
They still need to prove their current version fully works, it reached orbit but the booster didn't seem close to attempting a landing. As it's BO we will no doubt learn little to nothing about why the booster landing failed so who knows. It took SpaceX a lot of attempts to land a Falcon booster and there is no reason to think BO won't need several more attempts. This raises a problem in that a New Glenn rocket is very time consuming to build and now they have to build a whole new rocket before they can try again. The rate SpaceX churns out new hardware is not typical of the Space industry.
ESCAPADE is a class D mission, though. "Class D: High risk tolerance missions, normally represent- ing a lower priority mission with a medium to low complexity. Class D payloads may be launched on Risk Category 1 rock- ets or rockets that NASA has not certified." "Category 1: High Risk - New, common rocket configuration with little or no prior demonstrated flight history"
Yep. ESCAPADE was going to fly on New Glenn because that was their fallback after their previous ride-share plans (launching with Psyche) fell through. Bluntly, they're willing to accept a lot more risk than more expensive missions, because the mission budget can't afford anything better...
I'm suddenly more worried about NASA's personnel policy. But seriously, coming from NASA, that still doesn't mean they're going to put it on a rocket that they think is going to blow up. It's still a pretty decent vote of confidence.
@andrewfleenor7459 Keep in mind the alternative... when it became clear that NG wasn't going to make the launch window, ESCAPADE basically got put into storage until they can find another no-cost launch. And this for the second time. This isn't a vote of confidence, it's a vote of desperation... they either accept a high degree of risk, or they cancel the mission entirely.
Great overview of NG! The hydrogen upper stage should be a beast for launching high energy missions (even more so if it's paired with a potential third stage). Fun fact, the two BE-3U engines have a combined thrust 70% greater than the single J-2 engine of the Saturn S-IVB stage and probably a higher ISP, so it should be a very capable stage for lunar and planetary missions and has sufficient thrust to power stretched versions of the upper stage. Crossing fingers that this first mission goes well!
I wonder if in some version of modded KSP (RSS/RO, etc.), you'd be able to build a modern Saturn V-like mega moon rocket out of Starship and New Glenn parts. Like a Superheavy booster as the S-IC first stage, an expendable Starship-like second stage to replace the Saturn V S-II and something like the new Glenn second stage to replace the S-IVB third stage. Could that carry Orion and a fully fueled BlueMoon Mk2 to TLI?
I certainly hope New Glenn succeeds. Competition is good. New Glenn at least for a while should be competitive with SpaceX Falcons and initial Starships. When and if Jarvis goes operational, New Glenn should be able to give even advanced Starship a run. With Neutron coming on line, space, should become more accessible by great leaps. ESA needs to get their act together.
I suspect that Starship is as big as it is because their Falcon 9 experience said that is what was needed for a practical fully reusable craft. If so then New Glenn won't be practically reusable.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom The smaller it is the higher the percentage of the craft is used up by the landing systems and fuel. At the size of Falcon 9 SpaceX found there was not enough payload to be practical if you reused the 2nd stage. All or almost all of the payload space was taken up by landing related mass. It is one of the reasons catching the booster is brilliant, only those landing pegs are carried instead of landing gear massive enough for Starship or the booster to land on. Lots of mass saved for payload. Think of trying to design a safe car for highway speeds that carry an adult human of normal size. Now consider the cost of such a car and compare it to that of a larger vehicle like a bus and the cost per person drops enormously.
@@Scanner9631 Starship was conceived purely to launch bulk Starlink satellites. Launching 20 odd at a time is hemorrhaging many billions every year & it's impossible to deploy anywhere close to the full array before what's up there passes it's 4 year lifespan. Any other suggested reason is pure puffery for future investment rounds. It's clearly never going to the moon & the Mars thing is a gimmick to fool the cult members & capital investors.
So basically: one accomplished the mission but failed the booster reentry (for its first lauch) the second catch the booster, but lost the vehicle, after the 7th time. Who is more successful?
@@rolletroll2338 they're catching rockets out of the air and stacking them back on the launch pad to be immediately refueled and launched again. On top of that they plan to refuel rockets on orbit.
@@rolletroll2338 um, no? SpaceX has the money only rocket that can land, and does so reliably and with repeatability. This is not stuff any other rocket can do. I hate Musk with a passion, but be for real.
Why do people just assume that SpaceX will succed? They are far behind schedual, the vehicle is far short of its target payload, the engines are still unreliable, the vehicle design is frequently and radically changed ever year or so each time cutting away key features like langing legs and the payload bay door. All these things would make a highly question any other government or corporate rocket development program.
They already have succeeded in dramatically reducing the cost to put something in orbit. Yes they do make changes and there are delays but they are iterating faster than the competitors. Which in the long run will lead to better performance and results. As evidenced by there current success is reducing payload cost.
You made the point that Blue Origin can put a reusable upper stage on New Glenn. Of course SpaceX could potentially put a non-reusable upper stage on Super Heavy. Whether it makes sense to do that is another question. Especially if New Glenn takes that market. Anyway it's great to see them launch it. I'm looking forward to both these rockets flying on a regular basis.
It only took the 20+ years in that time SpaceX has built 3 different orbital class rockets. Starship is just getting started and it's already close. As much as I hate SpaceX, it's unrealistic to say BO beat anyone at anything.
rockets like weight savings, look at the first few Shuttles, the external fuel tanks were painted white, then they lost the final gloss coat, to save weight, and went with the primer coat only, and it looked better with a white and rusty red scheme.
@@benjaminrickdonaldson yes it’s on the 15 but it won’t go. Weather is worst. They will say the 16 but it’s not better. They should have canceled the whole window. The next one according to weather is probably around the jan24. I don’t understand why they called dates when weather was that messy
@@websitemartianhonestly doubt the FAA would allow that. You have to shut down the airspace and clear the ocean of boats. Doing that in two locations simultaneously seems like a recipe for disaster.
Their 1st scheduled launch date was back in 2021 they have had 4 years of delayed launch after delayed launch and already 4 more delays in the 11 days of this year.
The Blue origin BE-4 engines are not undergoing the evolution of the Raptor engines. They will remain more complicated. If hundreds of launches occur, this is an advantage for SpaceX.
@@jamskinnerand always two awards. Since monopolies are bad idea, unless it is natural unavoidable monopoly. At which point it shall be regulated public good monopoly, not a commercial monopoly. If only way two avoid monopoly is to pay more to secure second provider, then so be it. Cheapness isn't everything and anyway in long run monopolies usually lead to price gouging once the monopoly player deems they are entrenched enough in their position to get away with it.
@@aritakalo8011 Trouble is that two awards is twice the overhead. A managed monopoly is always cheaper. The best way to have competition is for there to be enough market demand to keep at least two companies fully occupied. Sorta like Boeing and Airbus, though one of those has shot itself in the foot. SpaceX bringing in so much capacity of a very specific capability may be over doing it.
@@abarratt8869 We had a managed monopoly. It lacked innovation and was better than an order of magnitude more expensive. TBF Boeing and Airbus have both shot themselves in their feet lately. As for two awards having twice the overhead, it's even a bit more than that, but they don't want a repeat of what happened with the shuttle that stranded people in space and I can relate.
@@Saturn_Enslaved I think it's just that nobody expected what spacex wanted to do was possible and now everyone thinks it's an insurmountable piece of tech and will be what we are flying for the next century. When in reality to put it in computer terms the falcon 9 was the Apple II and starship is the first apple Mac and just like those got real competition so will spacex.
I believe New Glenn will be successful. But as slow as BO moves, how soon till we have enough units, and a quick relaunch turnaround time, to have timely launches? Hopefully rocket unit production will speed up now.
@@Jordan44752 Technically, what SpaceX wants to do still doesn't look possible. Starship looks 3 years of iterations away from being usable. Kind of crazy to think that if New Glenn launches successfully Monday it will have leap frogged Falcon 9 & Heavy to become the biggest and cheapest rocket on the market for at least 2 to 3 more years until Starship is ready to go.
Thank you for your balanced and enthusiastic support of all space launchers. Some channels do a disservice to the space community at large when they cheer only one company, or worse pit one against another. IMO it is best to cheer ALL space companies like Scott does, as all of them help humanity to get closer to that Sci-Fi future all your viewers dreamed of as kids. I cheer on countries and private space companies, since the more participants in a space race, the better off we all are. Continued thanks to dedicated channels like Scott, Marcus, Fraser, Tim, Felix and others that keep us up to date on a space fairing future!
My best guess is New Glenn will get plenty of business from folks who want to be on a more traditional rocket, since Starship is still fairly experimental. As they get better at catching and landing Starship that might change, but it's still developing that capability, while NG might be pretty much ready to go after this test. "Might" is the key word though!
My prediction is that there will never be humans flown on Starship. If it ever does make it to cargo hauler status, the actual economics will not make sense (unless SpaceX plans to sunset Falcon Heavy) and it will be almost exclusively for DOD and SpaceX use.
@@criticalevent I think the refueling is also a huge factor. If Starship truly can solve in-flight refueling, that would be a massive upgrade. But as far as we've seen, that's still way experimental.
@@criticalevent I'd be careful predicting anything about SpaceX especially by using the word "never". 150t LEO for about 10 million kinda makes sense economically.
mom, i named my industrial barge after you. After I scrapped the scrap ferry I previously bought and named after you. I'm also thrusting a long cylindrical object at a circular marking on your name sake. Nothing Freudian here. 😇
I think competition is good, the more players the better. It also seems that the engines blue origin makes are in demand, so maybe that's something they could specialize in. Once space industry becomes larger there'll be a large market for specialized companies that do one particular thing really well.
"but starship can carry 100t to orbit!!!" Very simple answer: "No, it can't" :) Or did I miss a flight where it actually went to orbit AND it wasn't empty? Cuz right now I don't think it has done either
@@nicewhenearnedrudemostlyel489are you trying to make my point? I reiterate: musk says "100t" scott repeats "100t" right now the proven capability is 0t! i d argue that since it hasn't even reached orbit empty yet the proven capability is actually negative once or if it reaches orbit with a payload we can start talking in the present
I have really been looking forward to this one, make no mistake, this is one bad ass rocket. I also like the get it right first time approach Blue Origin take. Good luck to everyone at Blue Origin.
@@zacharys41 Correct, it completed all mission objectives first launch. The next block 2 version will take humans to lunar orbit and back on the Orion capsule, then the final block 3 version is supposed to the mission that transfers astronauts to starship for the landing itself. I am quite sceptical about starship being a safe lunar lander and would prefer to see the Blue Origin lander do that and use starship to take payload there.
Excited to see this launch. I hope they provide good launch video coverage, but on the other hand I'm glad to see a rocket company that is more about rockets than being a fan club.
Well the fan club rocket company was founded to reignite interest in space exploration and it has done that very well! Not a big fan of the head at the moment, but boy have they achieved excitement in the public!
It seems that the biggest difference between SpaceX and Blue Origin as well as many other rockets is going to be cost per kilo to LEO. SpaceX has already built most of if not all of the parts and sections for at least a dozen Starships and boosters. And since they are basically just big empty steel tanks they are cheap and easy to build. Also, SpaceX's iterative process means rapid versatility. If you want a bigger cargo door, you just build it on the next one. Finally, SpaceX's Starship is so far the only fully reusable design upper stage. If Starships come anywhere close to the Falcon 9's overall success of minimal cost per build and launch, they are still going continue to be in a different league than Blue Origin and most other rocket companies.
New Glenn's EscaPADE launch contract was reportedly only ~$20M, which for a 45t to LEO capable launch vehicle would come out at about 445$/kg, much cheaper than Falcon9 at 6000$/kg. The EscaPADE launch was likely at a reduced price in order to compensate for the increase in schedule risk and risk of mission failure that comes with a brand new launch vehicle, but even if BlueOrigin were giving NASA 90% off the regular launch price, New Glenn will be cheaper than current SpaceX prices. What I expect to happen is that as additional supply is added to the market by New Glenn, and then again by Starship and Neutron in a year or so, and then again by Firefly's MLV a year after that, launch prices for rideshare missions to LEO will fall from SpaceX Falcon 9's current 6000$/kg price point. Larger vehicles with longer wait times and reduced launch cadence, like New Glenn, may end up slightly cheaper, but basically, everyone will be charging the same market rate.
Nova will certainly not be ready this year. It's unclear whether Neutron is ready by the end of the year. They plan a summer launch, but delays are likely. (I guess Starship will reuse its lower stage this year, but probably not yet its upper stage.)
I’m a big fan of SpaceX and Starship, but I’m also rooting for BlueOrigin and their Nee Glen rocket. The general consensus among space enthusiasts is we are all excited about launch providers like SpaceX, BlueOrigin, and Rocket Lab - concerned for ULA and rather disappointed with Boeing. Hopefully BlueOrigin’s first non-test launch goes well! I hope they release or stream footage of the landing on the drone ship.
1) different tech paths and new Glenn has some serious tech that have a higher long term potential if it works 2) Neither have reached orbit so far, so I wouldn't count starship as something that makes new Glenn obsolete before it proves functionality 3) the reliance on extremely logistically taxing refuelling might make starship non viable. Too many launches for one mission that introduces far too many points of failure as well as operational challenges.
The weakness with starship is refueling. New Glenn might be superior due to being able to be a 3 stahe rocket. If it succeeds, it will still fall behind due to their weak rate of production.
You are right. Correction: Starship designed for Mars missions. Therefore refueling on the low orbit is mandatory. This are chemical rockets after all:-) nuclear rocket engines are banned for development. Hopefully Mask will workaround nuckear ban somehow ...
New Glenn's weak point compared to Starship is its payload mass. 25-45t vs. 150-200t LEO and with full reusability Starship's launch cost can be a fraction of New Glenn's. Starship can also carry a 3rd stage without refueling.
What starship does is actually normalise the size of New Glenn. Without it i suspect would be asking whether there was a demand for such a large vehicle.
Scott Manley said "Blue Origin's ability to hover whould give them more accurate landings" Falcon 9's landings are amazingly accurate even though they cant hover. I am NOT an elon fanboy
@@MM22966 I don't know what your second sentence means, but they're right. I don't like to admit it either, because of the kind of person Elon has become, but you can't deny that their rockets' landing precision is astounding. EDIT: That said, I'm sure having the ability to hover will make things easier for blue origin.
@@b33thr33kay Sorry; I meant that you felt it necessary to add the caveat disavowing any liking of Elon Musk, given how swiftly the media has polarized his name.
@@notgreg123 It's not like BO needs to learn how to land a rocket, that's the one thing they actually managed to do well, albeit only with suborbital rockets.
Such a shame it's less phallic than New Shephard. In all seriousness, i hope they nail the landing first time. It'll go some way to justify the tediously methodical approach they've taken with the development of New Glenn. But, lets face it, we all wanna see Starship more 😁
Most companies aim for success 1st attempt. They design based off proven technology that already exists. It may fail, but don't be shocked if it doesn't.
Honestly I'm equally as excited by this launch as for Starship. But why did it take so long for this rocket to get ready, wasn't it supposed to launch years ago?
Kuiper needs to have 1600+ satellites orbited in the next 16 months or lose their license. The primary launch vehicles, Vulcan, New Glenn and Ariane 6. They also have as secondary the last few Atlas launches and a handful of Falcon 9. Unknown to me as to how big the satellites will be. They need to start launching SOON in volume.
@@Scanner9631new Glenn will be an amazing asset for this. It has double the payload capacity and volume as falcon 9 so they'll effectively get 2 launches for the price of one
I really hope they pull this off, because more competition is a good thing. It will push SpaceX to do better. The video does a good job of highlighting what a gamble Starship is. New Glenn is ambitious but not so much of a gamble. Starship really starts to pay off when they get into a rhythm and start reusing Upper stages, that's when launch costs will start to approach "just the cost of refuelling and staff to run the facilities", but there are a lot of steps they need to progress through to get there. I wouldn't bet against SpaceX, but they have a way to go yet. There's a chance Blue Origin could be operational after this first flight. If they can ramp up their launch cadence fast, they will be in a good position... until Starship catches up.
Competition improves the breed and gives the consumer options which lowers cost in addition to increasing choice. But the old guard has pretty much priced itself out of the market and their ability to respond efficiently to new challenges has been thoroughly beaten out of them by their own bureaucracies.
What's wild to me is that both NG and Starship were announced in 2016, and if BO successfully land stage 1 on the barge, they will only be trailing SpaceX by a few months at recovering a super heavy lift 1st stage - despite having never launched an orbital rocket before. I think we sometimes overestimate the effectiveness of SpaceX's iterative approach.
If New Glenn launches and recovers successfully, Blue Origin would leap frog SpaceX. New Glenn would be a larger rocket than Falcon 9 while having a similar cost. At the same time, New Glenn could get payloads to the moon in a single launch while Starship is currently estimated to require 15+ launches. Kind of crazy that for all of the years of talking smack about BO, in just one launch they could instantly jump to #1.
@gracialonignasiver6302 it's RARE that nothing goes wrong with a first launch of something new like this. It would be good to have multiple options. One company can focus on one area of space operations while the other is given a different mission.
Regarding similar cost as f9, not true. NG second stage has hydrigen engines, they are going to be burn out and lost every flight. NG is going to compete with Starship for a moon mission. Nevertheless NG WILL NOT be able to compete Mars missions . Refueling are required for both rockets for Mars destination. t@@gracialonignasiver6302
This is not a fixed pie. The more the merrier. No matter how successful Starship becomes, more options means a bigger market. More opportunities for more players.
Yep. Anyone who thinks everyone else should quit because Space X is ahead is advocating for the failure of spaceflight. We need competition and innovation if we're going to get anywhere
antiquated thinking really. This doesn't foster development and innovation despite what people have heard.....
Exactly! As long as there are more rockets available, there will obviously be more satellites in orbit. More satellites = more data, which means that there are better tech developments down here on Earth! No matter your opinion on a rocket or a company, it is good that they are helping the future by simply competing with others.
OK, this response is purely non sequitur: please feel free to ignore it. But given the increasing density of spacecraft operating in low Earth orbit, shouldn't we be thinking about how we're going to police the spaceways to ensure they don't get too crowded?
So . . . what should we call this police force? Maybe "Starship Troopers"?
@@johndemeritt3460That's not actually a non-sequitur though - there are plenty of fields where more competition isn't a good way to develop an industry and they're generally areas where there's very constrained resources or high costs from duplicated/redundant efforts - the former definitely applies here with the fairly limited real estate available in LEO
Wishing all the engineers working on these rockets all the success they hope for. It would be fantastic to see NG make a flawless first flight.
Sure, but the history of rocket development and 1st launches say, that is kind of unlikely. We shall see. I am kind of thinking if they just focused on launching it 2 years ago in an expendable configuration. They would be much further along here in Jan of 25. They could of also experimented with gathering data on having the 1st stage re-entering even without a landing attempt.. They also would of been much further along proving out the basics of the launch system.
It is a roll of the dice, throwing everything into 1 basket with an all or nothing launch. A problem early during the 1st launch means they lose the opportunity to even gather any quality data on how the landing systems work. There is a reason why race car designers do so much actual track testing of their designs to prove out the drawing board designs. Everything works on the drawing board and in the simulators but in the real world, issues pop up that no one thought of especially when dealing with the bleeding edge tech. Very minor problems can cascade into much larger issues.
No matter how much work went into planning this launch out, it is still Blue's 1st orbital attempt. It 1st launch with that launch complex, 1st 2 stage rocket, 1st attempt at staging. All of the software is brand new. Then attempting to landing the 1st stage is much more complex over New Shep's straight up and down landing systems. Being a few degrees off with New Shep isn't a big deal. 100 of Km's out even just 0.00025% off is a major problem.
It isn't that some problems most likely will come up during this 1st launch. The real test will be how nimble is BO being able to address and fix this issues? Considering it has taken them 25 years to make this 1st orbital attempt? The culture usually doesn't change that quickly.
Then if it works 100%, how quickly can they ramp up the production of the rockets? What kind of shape is the 1st stage in if they land it? To me the most amazing thing about those ~130 launches of the Falcon last year was the production of all those 2nd stages. How quickly can BO ramp up production of the 2nd stages? Yes the NG 2nd stage is very capable but is it over kill for deploying Kuiper satellites in LEO? Will the Starship launch system be much cheaper for Amazon shareholders? A few billion dollars still is a few billion. Blue will eventually have to be profitable.
Global rocketry Kessler Syndrome: Go big or go home.
Well ,their modus operandi is oposite to spacex, they take a lot more time to light the candle, but then you expect a more polished product, I wish them luck.
Same here! I'm extremely hopeful and excited to see this beast take off, praying that none of the engineers have a heart attack during countdown hahaha
As one of those engineers, thank you! It was a good lunch this morning. Not flawless (no landing) but overall quite awesome!
Big question from an audience perspective is, how many onboard cameras will they have for us to follow progress?!
It'll be like ULA - CGI and a 12 year old in a bow-tie.
I think it’s paywalled btw
@@johndanger8717 It's not, that was a rumor started by someone outside of BO. It will be streamed live on RUclips and X.
@@johndanger8717No it's not, it's still going to be streamed on youtube
That and RUclips are the biggest advances in space travel today.
I would be delighted if they all went off flawlessly.
Indeed, and Space X to be successful on lucky 13th. I do wonder about SpaceX approach considering the round trip time to Mars. You can't have 4 or 5 ships in flight with improvements if the first has a fatal flaw. It's not like popping down the shops.
Great time to be watching though, those Boomers had all the fun in the run to the moon. Now our turn. Although technically I did see it I was more worried about my nappy at the time and its payload....
everyone wants to see success in space, for whom ever tries it.
@@zakelwe good point, so much to be proved yet, not just the technology difficult enough as that is, but the systems thereafter to exploit it and make it pay. Refuelling will be great but for Space X it’s a necessity too because of its design decisions restricting capacity to get beyond LEO. So not only does refuelling need to be proved as a technology it needs to be achieved easily enough and cost effective enough to make it competitive. You are right as the saying goes a chain is as strong as the weakest link and the whole wide ranging process is going to have to work reliably for even amazing technology to actually work. Starship has a long way to go to prove both its technology and create the methodology to fully exploit it. Will a less immediately ambitious but expandable approach prove better in the long run, it will be fascinating to see, far too many barriers and questions to answer I think as yet.
Yea competition is good
@@zakelwe Now, now. ☝🏽🙂 Some of us 73 yo "Boomers" are still alive and interested☑ Gotta say, though, that you youngun's have BETTER views, what w onboard LIVE STREAM cameras; close up drone "launch and take off" views (instead of that far-away NASA B-57 camera views of launch that we had); interior and exterior staging shots and on-screen telemetry to see why the flight dynamics are.
Wanna give a SHOUT OUT to all of you that are following these new companies in space vehicle flight and development. DON'T EVER LET THE INTEREST WANE OR DIE OUT as we did after the moon landings. = YOU = all are the treasure of the future to keep space flight front and center in the minds of the public ‼ I CONGRATULATE YOU ALL that are watching these YT space pages and taking time to communicate your thoughts in these spaces. MANY of us "old timers" wish you SUCCESS‼✅👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
As long as there are waiting lists for payloads, no company is too late to step into rocketry
Except Virgin.
More competition in the market is always good, will be happy to see what they have up their sleeve.
they still have nothing...
Vaporware
11 days into the year and New Glenn has already been delayed FOUR TIMES not counting the fact that the 1st date was a continuation of the delays that have been going on for 4 years.
@@marct8160 with tax payer subsidies, neither would exist
@@Scanner9631 yup, its been four years of bad weather
I will say, the wing strakes on new glenn's booster are pretty cool
Agreed, it’s a beautiful rocket.
I used to build KSP rockets with those. Tends to work great with Far.
I've heard F9's grid fins described as cartesian plain, but I actually think they look quite spiffy
Looks like a huge aim-120 amraam
It's such a cool looking rocket.
I will be amazed if New Glenn goes perfectly first time (rockets are hard). Hoping it works because it looks cool.
But if it does, then it will achieve 50% reusability on it's first try. Starship will reuse a single engine after six flights... 100% is preeettty far off at this point.
@@TheGeffryI’m a massive SpaceX fan but I do feel like the rest of the space community and SpaceX fanboys aren’t quite seeing the possibility that New Glenn could be “operational” before starship while also achieving 50% reusability, I mean heck it has a payload on its inaugural flight.
The main benefit of taking things slow is that they probably had tons of idle engineers double checking everything over and over. I think there is a decent chance of things going well. The engines themselves are already proven.
@@TheGeffry New Glenn is a fully developed rocket, while Starship is still a prototype. Hard to compare at the moment.
@@thecounter.54231 A prototype, which according to the Musketeer, should have landed on Mars in 2022 and has it's projected lifting capacity halved every year or so.
I'm no hater, but I also don't believe in fairy tales...
New Glenn is such a nice looking rocket
Doesn't matter how good it looks, it's whether it works or not is the important thing or Jeff will have to go back to launching his sex toy into sub orbital forays!
Right, but beauty fades quickly with failure. Many thought the nighty Saturn V was both ugly and beautiful, but its real "beauty" was in its flawless performance as a moon mission launcher, decades ago! : )
@ it hasn’t even launched yet, don’t be a fanboy
@@astrofpv3631We need more fanboys. Always gives me a good laugh. 😆
@@rareraven It's good to have "fan boys" and girls, that's how some people get interested in maybe pursing space work and careers. I was a big fan boy of Apollo, as kid, and it inspired me to eventually, after college, go into a 33-year career in science, (Biology) for example. : )
I hoped to find interesting life on other planets,.. but settled for this one. LOL ; )
The 7th Saturn V launch was Apollo 15 Launched on July 26, 1971, it featured the first Lunar Roving Vehicle. Astronauts David Scott, James Irwin, and Alfred Worden conducted three Moonwalks, collected 77 kg of samples (including the Genesis Rock), and completed the first deep-space EVA. The mission lasted 12 days
I worked at the US Space and Rocket Center over the summer and my favorite thing to do was wander around staring at the engines after hours. They had the signed prototype for the BE4 powerhead and I would just trace the wires and tubing with my eyes for hours.
US Space and Rocket Center is one of my favorite places! How's the progress on the Shuttle pathfinder restoration going? Last time I was there was 2020 right when they were locking everything down.
I love us space and rocket center and the be4 they have there
You must be the life and soul of any party you attend? (Yawn)
That in my view is the problem. Complexity when simplicity is better.
@@adenwellsmith6908 I agree with you. That's the very rats nest that Space X have worked so hard to lose. Simplicate and add lightness
Sounds like the difference between Blue Origin and SpaceX is the difference between Jamie and Adam. In a recent video on Tested, Adam said that he and Jamie would get their respective solution in about the same amount of time, but Jamie will have drawn his 4 times and built it once while Adam will have drawn his once and built it 4 times.
You really think this is “in about the same time?” BlueOrigin was founded in 2000 and this will be their first rocket to reach Low Earth Orbit. SpaceX was founded in 2002, first rocket to Low Earth Orbit in 2008, currently takes way more than half of all cargo launched into space there worldwide annually and takes cargo and astronauts to the ISS. While this rocket from BO looks decent, without full reusability their prices have to be much higher than what SpaceX will charge for Starship, and needing a second Starship launch to fuel the first for deep space missions will actually be trivial given the low launch costs and the ability of SpaceX to make Starships rapidly. SpaceX will be able to launch two Starships for way less than BO can launch one rocket for.
Also, patent drawings are evidence BO can reach full reusability soon? Soon for BO is ten years from now, maybe. Ten from now is not at the same time.
@@tribalypredisposed Both vehicle programs started at the same time. Starship is currently not capable of launching payloads that are not shaped like pizza boxes. Presumably they will have to spend a great deal of time iterating an actually useful payload solution. They are also still iterating through heat tile issues... a "reusable" rocket with its fins melted off doesnt sound very actually "rapidly" reusable to me. Honestly, I think they are iterating themselves towards a Space Shuttle and Im going to howl with laughter when it happens.
@@patreekotime4578That's all the Dream Chaser is. A Shuttle that doesn't stupidly put the Orbiter on the side.
@@patreekotime4578 The simple fact that the Space Shuttle lands horizontally while Starship lands vertically already makes it impossible for them to end up with the same design
@@rizizum Well, it's no longer landing on legs, so I wouldn't discount anything. So far they havn't had much luck keeping thier heat tiles on, and especially the moveable fins are giving them issues. I can almost smell a fixed wing coming, maybe with control surfaces on the unshielded side. And how are they going to get larger payloads in and out of the bay? Large doors on the unshielded side also seems pretty obvious.
Lets see if it can beat SpaceX by lifting TWO bananas to the Indian Ocean.
Fuck it, lift a bunch😅
Thats ambitious...myb we should settle with 1.1 bananas
I'm excited for flight 7's payload deployment: they're ejecting 10 dummy starlink v3 sats into the same (not quite) orbit
I'd suggest to be careful on that approach. Maybe two bananas, but the small kind, and one of them peeled.
_two bananas_
Many a slip?
So nice seeing Juno New Origins as the model this time instead of KSP
Fr JNO deserves its flowers. Such an underrated game. I get that the learning curve is a lot more severe than KSP but still.
@@thatmajestictoad yeah but I wonder why does shitty ass 2d game (sfs) get more spotlight from people than jno? hate such fact. still jno deserves better
@@KiryuutodKazuto well it's because SFS, although simple, is a good game and appeals to a specific niche of 2d flight sims and you can also play on mobile. It's also just been around longer. JNO has always been playable on mobile but on top of the normal learning curve of the game the controls aren't just optimized for mobile so it was mainly played on PC where it was dominated by the likes of KSP so JNO has always unfortunately been overshadowed.
Once SFS 2 comes out we'll see as it's essentially JNO but the big part is that it's more akin to KSP so it'll likely draw more attention as SFS is already the bigger game (numbers wise) and is automatically coming to steam. Then you have new projects like KSA which may further bury JNO.
Oops I ditto your comment and I accidentally already wrote one like it. Juno FTW!
The truth is that the more operational rockets, the more competition and the more fun 😊
yes, let's now MRFA aka Make Rockets Fun Again!!
Right, Scott? LOL ;D
I want America to have as many launch vehicles, especially reusable ones, as possible. One thing I wonder about this one is the short landing gear. I feel as though Falcon 9's barge landings have taught us the benefit of a wider landing base on a pitching flight deck.
The claim is that the extra landing legs enhance stability with a smaller stance if true it may be equal to F9 in stability on the barge.
@@Scanner9631 Interesting. Thinking back on it, Grumman went through this thought process back when they were designing the landing gear for the lunar module. 5 was too much mass, 3 meant they had to be too long to be stable, so 4 turned out to be the choice.
Between the higher number of legs as previously mentioned and the larger scale of everything meaning less movement from the same size of waves, plus the booster itself is so much wider, I think it'll be plenty. Remember, Falcon 9's diameter is constrained by road transport. It's weirdly skinny.
You also have to remember that the booster tanks are almost empty at the time of landing so the weight is all at the bottom.
@@pi.actual of landing so the weight is all at the bottom.
And those are heavy engines.
I don't get why people want New Glenn/Blue Origin to fail and Space X to maintain their monopoly in reusable launchers. It is stupid, competition is always good. It's not like either company is more worthy of success.
Wanting starship to succeed does not mean wishing all other rockets to fail.
I don't think they want BO to fail. I think most people think it's not competition. It's not even really in the race.
@@gasdiveNew Glenn is targeting a different market than Starship. It's a Falcon Heavy / Arianne 6 / Vulcan / Proton competitor.
@@owensmith7530 It's a Falcon Heavy / Arianne 6 / Vulcan / Proton competitor.
It is a wannabee for those until it proves it can launch deploy its tiny little cargo and land again. So far all it has demonstrated is the ability to NOT launch.
@@Scanner9631 And there the next hater was...
Remind us how many launches it to for falcon to become reliable...
Musk talking about the $2 million launch is the special K talking. Other sources in the company have said the long term goal is more like $200m, with the price likely remaining much higher for some years because it's built to fulfil a market that doesn't exist yet.
New Glenn is marginally more expensive than Falcon 9 for GTO performance rivaling Falcon Heavy and volume exceeding Arianne V or VI. It's not only real competition it's an existential threat to ULA and Ariannespace since it sits itself squarely in the niches they had that Falcon couldn't break into, and while Falcon Heavy is a small part of SpaceX's business Glenn threatens to price it out entirely.
I love how there is an exact one week delay between him being interesting in something on twitter and then a video with the same topic
Almost like he is a professional research scientist...
Or just tier adjusting income
@@DaraM73 what is that? Sounds interesting, as I'm fascinated by you tubers like Scott who make money doing no "real work" except looking stuff up and reporting on it. Seems a smart way to get income!! I did "real work" as a field biologist for 33 years, BTW, but never got "rich" at doing it!! LOL ;D
@@ronschlorff7089 few people get rich via RUclips videos sadly, you have to work damn hard or be a serious celebrity to get enough hits to make much of a living beyond that of a hermit. Hard work from what I have been told. Very hard work for most to do it exclusively so don’t get too jealous.
@@ronschlorff7089so Scott kinda like asianometry, an Semiconductor reporter.
This is an exciting time! Love to see these two vehicles usher in a new era of exploration and discovery.
Love the Juno New Origins demo fro the rocket
Glad I'm not the only one who enjoyed that :D
Same I ditto your comment before I saw it
I'm for any and all new reusable rockets. I love spacex but I want them to have competition.
Hear, hear! Competition makes the competitors better.
Myself, I don't really care about brands. Just hardware that works. Hoping BO gets to work on a reusable second stage, at some point -- or maybe that gets saved for New Armstrong.
Competition is vital for great success!
That said, that we have two sociopathic billionaires owning and running the two foremost rocket companies really isn't a super great thing, we'll need to keep a close eye on both of these guys to make sure what they're doing lines up with the interests of humanity as a whole.
I mean, would you want current-day Elon owning and running a colony on Mars? Seriously? What if you were black or brown or LGBTQ+ or a dozen other things. Would you trust that you were safe, and that you or someone you love won't get, you know, spaced or something like that all of a sudden. And if you are the victim of some sort of a crime/hate crime, would you as a minority have recourse in a Musk-run universe? I'm not so sure about that, this current version of Elon doesn't instill any confidence in me. :/
And Beff "let them pee in bottles" "no unions for you!" Jezos literally letting people scurry like ants until they drop in non-airconditioned warehouses scorching under the sun isn't any better. How does this guy value your life on a lunar base or the like. "Oh he died? No worries, we can always ship up more worker bees!" Not something he'd say straight out necessarily I assume (could be wrong tho), but think it? Sure, why not. He's working people to death already.
@@cacogenicist Dave Limp and Jeff Bezos have stated that the plan is to work on 2 things at once: 1) Designing a super cheap upper stage and 2) Designing a reusable upper stage. Whoever comes out with the lowest cost per launch will be the winner.
@lennyvalentin6485 "would you want current-day elon owning and running a mars colony" 100% yes. I would prefer him to own it over any government on this entire planet because there is not a single government I support on this whole planet anyway and I feel that ever single government on the planet is incompetent and unable to colonize mars if they tried.
The fact that we didn't land a human on Mars before the year 2000 is a completely travisty that I blame on the whole planet and Musk is the only person on the planet that is actually making it happen. And please clarify the "Black or brown or LGBTQ+" what has Musk ever done to any of those groups? Nothing that's what. Because people like you keep just trying to make him into a monster because your pissed he has accomplished so much. Stop being jealous and shut up.
I do hope this thing finally gets up there. About time and all that, but it will be great for the industry - and exciting too (which is all I really care about in the end ;)
I think the major factor that will determine BO's success is their iteration rate. At their current snail's pace prices will remain high and fewer customers can get their satellites launched so they would still prefer SpaceX.
They still need to prove their current version fully works, it reached orbit but the booster didn't seem close to attempting a landing. As it's BO we will no doubt learn little to nothing about why the booster landing failed so who knows. It took SpaceX a lot of attempts to land a Falcon booster and there is no reason to think BO won't need several more attempts. This raises a problem in that a New Glenn rocket is very time consuming to build and now they have to build a whole new rocket before they can try again. The rate SpaceX churns out new hardware is not typical of the Space industry.
My daughter is an engineer working on the New Glenn team. I'm always hoping it suceeds
Finally! 2025 should be an incredible year for Space.
ESCAPADE is a class D mission, though.
"Class D: High risk tolerance missions, normally represent-
ing a lower priority mission with a medium to low complexity.
Class D payloads may be launched on Risk Category 1 rock-
ets or rockets that NASA has not certified."
"Category 1: High Risk - New, common rocket
configuration with little or no prior demonstrated
flight history"
and here I thought it was actually Thaumiel class
Yep. ESCAPADE was going to fly on New Glenn because that was their fallback after their previous ride-share plans (launching with Psyche) fell through. Bluntly, they're willing to accept a lot more risk than more expensive missions, because the mission budget can't afford anything better...
I'm suddenly more worried about NASA's personnel policy.
But seriously, coming from NASA, that still doesn't mean they're going to put it on a rocket that they think is going to blow up. It's still a pretty decent vote of confidence.
@andrewfleenor7459 Keep in mind the alternative... when it became clear that NG wasn't going to make the launch window, ESCAPADE basically got put into storage until they can find another no-cost launch. And this for the second time. This isn't a vote of confidence, it's a vote of desperation... they either accept a high degree of risk, or they cancel the mission entirely.
@@simongeard4824Psyche was not ready for the first Escapade launch window. Escapade does not have a budget to pay for a dedicated Falcon launch.
Aye - CHECK YER STAGING!!! Good luck Blue Origin!
the second stage is likely to make the rapid unscheduled disassembly quite spectacular...
love that RUD term, so "elegant" way to describe a total "sh*t show"!! LOL ;D
Great overview of NG! The hydrogen upper stage should be a beast for launching high energy missions (even more so if it's paired with a potential third stage). Fun fact, the two BE-3U engines have a combined thrust 70% greater than the single J-2 engine of the Saturn S-IVB stage and probably a higher ISP, so it should be a very capable stage for lunar and planetary missions and has sufficient thrust to power stretched versions of the upper stage. Crossing fingers that this first mission goes well!
I wonder if in some version of modded KSP (RSS/RO, etc.), you'd be able to build a modern Saturn V-like mega moon rocket out of Starship and New Glenn parts. Like a Superheavy booster as the S-IC first stage, an expendable Starship-like second stage to replace the Saturn V S-II and something like the new Glenn second stage to replace the S-IVB third stage. Could that carry Orion and a fully fueled BlueMoon Mk2 to TLI?
White and gold of NG looks really good. Might be the best looking rocket right now
I certainly hope New Glenn succeeds. Competition is good. New Glenn at least for a while should be competitive with SpaceX Falcons and initial Starships. When and if Jarvis goes operational, New Glenn should be able to give even advanced Starship a run. With Neutron coming on line, space, should become more accessible by great leaps. ESA needs to get their act together.
I suspect that Starship is as big as it is because their Falcon 9 experience said that is what was needed for a practical fully reusable craft. If so then New Glenn won't be practically reusable.
@@Scanner9631 Why does it have to be big to be fully reusable? I don't follow the logic.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom
The smaller it is the higher the percentage of the craft is used up by the landing systems and fuel. At the size of Falcon 9 SpaceX found there was not enough payload to be practical if you reused the 2nd stage. All or almost all of the payload space was taken up by landing related mass.
It is one of the reasons catching the booster is brilliant, only those landing pegs are carried instead of landing gear massive enough for Starship or the booster to land on. Lots of mass saved for payload.
Think of trying to design a safe car for highway speeds that carry an adult human of normal size. Now consider the cost of such a car and compare it to that of a larger vehicle like a bus and the cost per person drops enormously.
@@Scanner9631 Starship was conceived purely to launch bulk Starlink satellites. Launching 20 odd at a time is hemorrhaging many billions every year & it's impossible to deploy anywhere close to the full array before what's up there passes it's 4 year lifespan. Any other suggested reason is pure puffery for future investment rounds. It's clearly never going to the moon & the Mars thing is a gimmick to fool the cult members & capital investors.
3:30 Just like SpaceX I always try to get more and more performance from a much smaller package as well
Vacuum booster pump helps performance lol
Watching this while going through the multiple launch delays on New Glenn
So basically: one accomplished the mission but failed the booster reentry (for its first lauch) the second catch the booster, but lost the vehicle, after the 7th time. Who is more successful?
What SpaceX is attempting is infinitely more difficult.
@dascherofficial separing a first stage and a second stage?
@@rolletroll2338 they're catching rockets out of the air and stacking them back on the launch pad to be immediately refueled and launched again. On top of that they plan to refuel rockets on orbit.
@@dascherofficial lot of plans to achieve basically what every other rockets do.
@@rolletroll2338 um, no? SpaceX has the money only rocket that can land, and does so reliably and with repeatability.
This is not stuff any other rocket can do.
I hate Musk with a passion, but be for real.
It's best for all of us if they are both successful.
Why do people just assume that SpaceX will succed? They are far behind schedual, the vehicle is far short of its target payload, the engines are still unreliable, the vehicle design is frequently and radically changed ever year or so each time cutting away key features like langing legs and the payload bay door. All these things would make a highly question any other government or corporate rocket development program.
They already have succeeded in dramatically reducing the cost to put something in orbit. Yes they do make changes and there are delays but they are iterating faster than the competitors. Which in the long run will lead to better performance and results. As evidenced by there current success is reducing payload cost.
You made the point that Blue Origin can put a reusable upper stage on New Glenn. Of course SpaceX could potentially put a non-reusable upper stage on Super Heavy. Whether it makes sense to do that is another question. Especially if New Glenn takes that market. Anyway it's great to see them launch it. I'm looking forward to both these rockets flying on a regular basis.
I like the realistic portrayal of not landing on center for the recover
New Glenn beats starship to orbit !!
It only took the 20+ years in that time SpaceX has built 3 different orbital class rockets. Starship is just getting started and it's already close.
As much as I hate SpaceX, it's unrealistic to say BO beat anyone at anything.
Whomever decided not to paint the heatshield deserves a high-five. That is one pretty rocket.
Appearance over function
@@Scanner9631it was actually to save time. Looking sick as hell just so happens to be a side effect lol
rockets like weight savings, look at the first few Shuttles, the external fuel tanks were painted white, then they lost the final gloss coat, to save weight, and went with the primer coat only, and it looked better with a white and rusty red scheme.
Hey Scott, I think a lot of people at blue origin would like to thank you.
Pretty sure New Glenn uses H2O2 thrusters for S1 control not cold gas.
BO has job reqs out for a new 9 engine version of S1 too which is interesting.
What is S1 in this context?
1st stage
If true then it sounds like they know New Glenn isn't going to live up to their claims as is.
@@Scanner9631...or maybe they're working on a better version? Odd conclusion to jump to
@@Scanner9631 very few launch vehicles meet their actual PUG MTO as a block 0 or block 1 vehicle. My guess is they are not at a 45T MTO capability.
Not if Starship blows up and New Glen doesn't.
What will be the turnaround time for NG to get another rocket on the pad if this one goes boom?
New starship date targeting 15th of Jan.
new Glenn targeting 13th.
@@benjaminrickdonaldson jan 15 is worst weather than the 13
So both got just delayed.
they should do same day
@@benjaminrickdonaldson yes it’s on the 15 but it won’t go. Weather is worst. They will say the 16 but it’s not better. They should have canceled the whole window. The next one according to weather is probably around the jan24. I don’t understand why they called dates when weather was that messy
@@websitemartianhonestly doubt the FAA would allow that. You have to shut down the airspace and clear the ocean of boats. Doing that in two locations simultaneously seems like a recipe for disaster.
Too many more delays and it’ll just be “Glenn”.
Go Blue Origin!
Lmao
😆
Their 1st scheduled launch date was back in 2021 they have had 4 years of delayed launch after delayed launch and already 4 more delays in the 11 days of this year.
teenn glenn
Old Glenn sounds like a fine bourbon
That engine from Blue Origin looks like a fusion reactor with all the tubing and wiring. Looks much more complicated than the latest SpaceX engines.
The Blue origin BE-4 engines are not undergoing the evolution of the Raptor engines. They will remain more complicated. If hundreds of launches occur, this is an advantage for SpaceX.
Great analysis as usual Scott, thanks!
Do we know if Blue Origin will be using Starlink to gather data and Livestream from launch to landing/re-entry?
So long as NASA demands a second launch system for human travel, there will be room for a second launch company.
I think they should always have competition.
@@jamskinnerand always two awards. Since monopolies are bad idea, unless it is natural unavoidable monopoly. At which point it shall be regulated public good monopoly, not a commercial monopoly.
If only way two avoid monopoly is to pay more to secure second provider, then so be it. Cheapness isn't everything and anyway in long run monopolies usually lead to price gouging once the monopoly player deems they are entrenched enough in their position to get away with it.
@@aritakalo8011 Trouble is that two awards is twice the overhead. A managed monopoly is always cheaper.
The best way to have competition is for there to be enough market demand to keep at least two companies fully occupied.
Sorta like Boeing and Airbus, though one of those has shot itself in the foot.
SpaceX bringing in so much capacity of a very specific capability may be over doing it.
right, "eggs and baskets" come to mind!! Let's see who "gets" that "idiom". A test for our foreign friends. LOL ;D
@@abarratt8869 We had a managed monopoly. It lacked innovation and was better than an order of magnitude more expensive.
TBF Boeing and Airbus have both shot themselves in their feet lately.
As for two awards having twice the overhead, it's even a bit more than that, but they don't want a repeat of what happened with the shuttle that stranded people in space and I can relate.
"Is it too late"? ... my friend, it has only just begun.
Helps when you have infinite funding runway when a billionaire is funding you...
@@Saturn_Enslaved I think it's just that nobody expected what spacex wanted to do was possible and now everyone thinks it's an insurmountable piece of tech and will be what we are flying for the next century. When in reality to put it in computer terms the falcon 9 was the Apple II and starship is the first apple Mac and just like those got real competition so will spacex.
Blue Origin is already swimming in Amazon launch contracts.
I believe New Glenn will be successful. But as slow as BO moves, how soon till we have enough units, and a quick relaunch turnaround time, to have timely launches? Hopefully rocket unit production will speed up now.
@@Jordan44752 Technically, what SpaceX wants to do still doesn't look possible. Starship looks 3 years of iterations away from being usable. Kind of crazy to think that if New Glenn launches successfully Monday it will have leap frogged Falcon 9 & Heavy to become the biggest and cheapest rocket on the market for at least 2 to 3 more years until Starship is ready to go.
I'm a absolute Starship-Fanboi but lets be real here: MORE ROCKETS = MORE BETTER!!!! I don't cyre who launches them
Elons a con.
And a facist
@@joshuawaddell9247 good "con", all the way to $450 billion, beats what I've done. You too? LOL ;D
@ 7:15 - I was expecting a large sack of concrete for the "Blue Ring Mass Simulator" 😄
1:56 they say will not recover the 2nd stage. Full rusable or partial?
Thank you for your balanced and enthusiastic support of all space launchers. Some channels do a disservice to the space community at large when they cheer only one company, or worse pit one against another. IMO it is best to cheer ALL space companies like Scott does, as all of them help humanity to get closer to that Sci-Fi future all your viewers dreamed of as kids. I cheer on countries and private space companies, since the more participants in a space race, the better off we all are. Continued thanks to dedicated channels like Scott, Marcus, Fraser, Tim, Felix and others that keep us up to date on a space fairing future!
Haha, „Amazon, you might have heard of them…“ Scott as dry as always! Loved it! 😂
yes, at our house we have heard Too Much of them, ...on a weekly basis!! LOL ;D
My best guess is New Glenn will get plenty of business from folks who want to be on a more traditional rocket, since Starship is still fairly experimental. As they get better at catching and landing Starship that might change, but it's still developing that capability, while NG might be pretty much ready to go after this test. "Might" is the key word though!
My prediction is that there will never be humans flown on Starship. If it ever does make it to cargo hauler status, the actual economics will not make sense (unless SpaceX plans to sunset Falcon Heavy) and it will be almost exclusively for DOD and SpaceX use.
@@criticalevent I think the refueling is also a huge factor. If Starship truly can solve in-flight refueling, that would be a massive upgrade. But as far as we've seen, that's still way experimental.
@@minikawildflower We are so many years from that it's not even worth talking about.
@@criticalevent I'd be careful predicting anything about SpaceX especially by using the word "never". 150t LEO for about 10 million kinda makes sense economically.
@@kpbendeguz Ya $10 million per seat on Dragon made sense too, what a fantasy that was.
Successful landing and recovery of the booster for this flight would be truly amazing
Expecting 100% success on something so large with so many points of failure on the first attempt is a long shot
mom, i named my industrial barge after you
no, the mega yacht already has a name
mom, i named my industrial barge after you. After I scrapped the scrap ferry I previously bought and named after you. I'm also thrusting a long cylindrical object at a circular marking on your name sake. Nothing Freudian here.
😇
I think it's a vote of confidence from Jeff...you don't name something after your mother if you expect it to explode.
I think competition is good, the more players the better. It also seems that the engines blue origin makes are in demand, so maybe that's something they could specialize in. Once space industry becomes larger there'll be a large market for specialized companies that do one particular thing really well.
Scott.... u not seen the accuracy of F9 booster landings?. Bullseye 🎯 😊
So amazing to witness all this. Definitely rooting for all the rocket team’s success.
"but starship can carry 100t to orbit!!!"
Very simple answer: "No, it can't" :)
Or did I miss a flight where it actually went to orbit AND it wasn't empty? Cuz right now I don't think it has done either
Name 3 rockets that have delivered or surpassed their defined payload limit. Right now. Lol.
@@nicewhenearnedrudemostlyel489are you trying to make my point?
I reiterate: musk says "100t" scott repeats "100t"
right now the proven capability is 0t!
i d argue that since it hasn't even reached orbit empty yet the proven capability is actually negative
once or if it reaches orbit with a payload we can start talking in the present
I have really been looking forward to this one, make no mistake, this is one bad ass rocket. I also like the get it right first time approach Blue Origin take. Good luck to everyone at Blue Origin.
The "get it right first time" approach was what NASA did with SLS. It went off successfully on the first go.
@@zacharys41 Correct, it completed all mission objectives first launch. The next block 2 version will take humans to lunar orbit and back on the Orion capsule, then the final block 3 version is supposed to the mission that transfers astronauts to starship for the landing itself.
I am quite sceptical about starship being a safe lunar lander and would prefer to see the Blue Origin lander do that and use starship to take payload there.
@@dazuk1969 Ditto.
Excited to see this launch. I hope they provide good launch video coverage, but on the other hand I'm glad to see a rocket company that is more about rockets than being a fan club.
Well the fan club rocket company was founded to reignite interest in space exploration and it has done that very well! Not a big fan of the head at the moment, but boy have they achieved excitement in the public!
Having a fan club and being serious about rockets are not mutually exclusive if the development is transparent.
It seems that the biggest difference between SpaceX and Blue Origin as well as many other rockets is going to be cost per kilo to LEO. SpaceX has already built most of if not all of the parts and sections for at least a dozen Starships and boosters. And since they are basically just big empty steel tanks they are cheap and easy to build. Also, SpaceX's iterative process means rapid versatility. If you want a bigger cargo door, you just build it on the next one. Finally, SpaceX's Starship is so far the only fully reusable design upper stage. If Starships come anywhere close to the Falcon 9's overall success of minimal cost per build and launch, they are still going continue to be in a different league than Blue Origin and most other rocket companies.
New Glenn's EscaPADE launch contract was reportedly only ~$20M, which for a 45t to LEO capable launch vehicle would come out at about 445$/kg, much cheaper than Falcon9 at 6000$/kg. The EscaPADE launch was likely at a reduced price in order to compensate for the increase in schedule risk and risk of mission failure that comes with a brand new launch vehicle, but even if BlueOrigin were giving NASA 90% off the regular launch price, New Glenn will be cheaper than current SpaceX prices.
What I expect to happen is that as additional supply is added to the market by New Glenn, and then again by Starship and Neutron in a year or so, and then again by Firefly's MLV a year after that, launch prices for rideshare missions to LEO will fall from SpaceX Falcon 9's current 6000$/kg price point. Larger vehicles with longer wait times and reduced launch cadence, like New Glenn, may end up slightly cheaper, but basically, everyone will be charging the same market rate.
There's a good chance that we get 5 reusable rockets this year. Falcon-9, Starship, New Glen, Neutron, and Nova.
You left out Falcon Heavy. Neutron I THINK is scheduled for 2026.
What is nova?
@@Scanner9631 Neutron is summer 2025.
@@jonahhekmatyar That is the rocket being developed by Stoke space.
Nova will certainly not be ready this year. It's unclear whether Neutron is ready by the end of the year. They plan a summer launch, but delays are likely. (I guess Starship will reuse its lower stage this year, but probably not yet its upper stage.)
many excellent observations there scott.
Excellent and thorough, as usual.
I’m a big fan of SpaceX and Starship, but I’m also rooting for BlueOrigin and their Nee Glen rocket. The general consensus among space enthusiasts is we are all excited about launch providers like SpaceX, BlueOrigin, and Rocket Lab - concerned for ULA and rather disappointed with Boeing.
Hopefully BlueOrigin’s first non-test launch goes well! I hope they release or stream footage of the landing on the drone ship.
Don’t forget….there’s a New Armstrong on the horizon somewhere.
That is a fantastic thought. Following this line of thought, we will have to wait for a Mars landing to know what comes after Armstrong.
@@mmicoskicould do "New Young" or "New Crippin" after the first space shuttle flight ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wouldn't it be funny if Elon goes on the first mars landing and BO ends up calling it New Musk.
1) different tech paths and new Glenn has some serious tech that have a higher long term potential if it works
2) Neither have reached orbit so far, so I wouldn't count starship as something that makes new Glenn obsolete before it proves functionality
3) the reliance on extremely logistically taxing refuelling might make starship non viable.
Too many launches for one mission that introduces far too many points of failure as well as operational challenges.
Technically, both recent Starship flights were orbital. IFT-5 had a perigee of 40km, IFT-6 had 60km (due to the engine relight).
The weakness with starship is refueling. New Glenn might be superior due to being able to be a 3 stahe rocket. If it succeeds, it will still fall behind due to their weak rate of production.
You are right. Correction: Starship designed for Mars missions. Therefore refueling on the low orbit is mandatory. This are chemical rockets after all:-) nuclear rocket engines are banned for development. Hopefully Mask will workaround nuckear ban somehow ...
@@vlmrv9108 I certainly hope Elon never gets his hands on nuclear material.
New Glenn's weak point compared to Starship is its payload mass. 25-45t vs. 150-200t LEO and with full reusability Starship's launch cost can be a fraction of New Glenn's. Starship can also carry a 3rd stage without refueling.
3:51 why had nozze tip glowing? Speed is only 861m/s and air density is 10,7g/m3. KSP2 dont apply aerodynamic?
Does Blue Origin have more of these built? If they don't get it to land on their barge, how long before there's a next one ready?
Savage video title lol. That kinda made my eye brows pop up. I hope they do atleast relatively well and find a good pace
What starship does is actually normalise the size of New Glenn. Without it i suspect would be asking whether there was a demand for such a large vehicle.
My gosh, I was but a child when they started down this path to New Glenn. And this is there first orbital class vehicle
Yes, people seem to forget that - oddly. Even Mr Manley.
@@Ingens_Scherz What makes you think Scott forgot that?
Good to see your flight using Juno New Origins. Did you make the New Glen Model?
first experience in orbit after 25 years, go for it jeff...
Scott Manley said "Blue Origin's ability to hover whould give them more accurate landings"
Falcon 9's landings are amazingly accurate even though they cant hover.
I am NOT an elon fanboy
I find it hilarious you had to add the caveat at the end. That media-shaping operation is really hardening things up nicely, isn't?
@@MM22966 I don't know what your second sentence means, but they're right. I don't like to admit it either, because of the kind of person Elon has become, but you can't deny that their rockets' landing precision is astounding.
EDIT: That said, I'm sure having the ability to hover will make things easier for blue origin.
That's mainly a result of them doing it over and over again. Being able to hover will (hopefully) give it this capability from day one
@@b33thr33kay Sorry; I meant that you felt it necessary to add the caveat disavowing any liking of Elon Musk, given how swiftly the media has polarized his name.
@@notgreg123 It's not like BO needs to learn how to land a rocket, that's the one thing they actually managed to do well, albeit only with suborbital rockets.
That felt like a sales pitch of New Glenn.
Such a shame it's less phallic than New Shephard.
In all seriousness, i hope they nail the landing first time. It'll go some way to justify the tediously methodical approach they've taken with the development of New Glenn.
But, lets face it, we all wanna see Starship more 😁
But the payload is called "Blue Ring", which is almost as comical.
I' be interested in what the costs are per payload mass to LEO for Falcon 9, Falcon Super Heavy, Starship, and New Glenn
They will all coincidently fall around the price gouging limit 😂
Very well explained. You got my sub
"More competition is better." If only Blue Origin was a competitor instead of an also-ran.
Thanks Scott!
I will be very surprised if New Glenn works on the first try. Space is hard.
Most companies aim for success 1st attempt. They design based off proven technology that already exists. It may fail, but don't be shocked if it doesn't.
Honestly I'm equally as excited by this launch as for Starship. But why did it take so long for this rocket to get ready, wasn't it supposed to launch years ago?
those initial shots showing all the tubing for the motors seems overly complex given what we have seen out of other launch groups
I must have missed where starship actually worked.
BO will have a cadence issue. Besides, I think they only plan to launch New Glenn about a dozen times a year.
Kuiper needs to have 1600+ satellites orbited in the next 16 months or lose their license. The primary launch vehicles, Vulcan, New Glenn and Ariane 6. They also have as secondary the last few Atlas launches and a handful of Falcon 9. Unknown to me as to how big the satellites will be. They need to start launching SOON in volume.
@@Scanner9631new Glenn will be an amazing asset for this. It has double the payload capacity and volume as falcon 9 so they'll effectively get 2 launches for the price of one
I really hope they pull this off, because more competition is a good thing. It will push SpaceX to do better.
The video does a good job of highlighting what a gamble Starship is. New Glenn is ambitious but not so much of a gamble. Starship really starts to pay off when they get into a rhythm and start reusing Upper stages, that's when launch costs will start to approach "just the cost of refuelling and staff to run the facilities", but there are a lot of steps they need to progress through to get there. I wouldn't bet against SpaceX, but they have a way to go yet. There's a chance Blue Origin could be operational after this first flight. If they can ramp up their launch cadence fast, they will be in a good position... until Starship catches up.
So we are going to see 10 years of very safe and methodical test launches of new glenn now?
Today they made pretty fireworks
Competition improves the breed and gives the consumer options which lowers cost in addition to increasing choice. But the old guard has pretty much priced itself out of the market and their ability to respond efficiently to new challenges has been thoroughly beaten out of them by their own bureaucracies.
i fully support Blue Origin New Glenn and hope they succeed
who wouldn't love _B.O.N.G. rockets_
LOL, maybe not the crews? ;D
When it crashes is that a BONG hit?
What's wild to me is that both NG and Starship were announced in 2016, and if BO successfully land stage 1 on the barge, they will only be trailing SpaceX by a few months at recovering a super heavy lift 1st stage - despite having never launched an orbital rocket before. I think we sometimes overestimate the effectiveness of SpaceX's iterative approach.
Recovery on the barge and recovery on the launch mount have quite different implications for launch rate.
If New Glenn launches and recovers successfully, Blue Origin would leap frog SpaceX. New Glenn would be a larger rocket than Falcon 9 while having a similar cost. At the same time, New Glenn could get payloads to the moon in a single launch while Starship is currently estimated to require 15+ launches.
Kind of crazy that for all of the years of talking smack about BO, in just one launch they could instantly jump to #1.
@gracialonignasiver6302 it's RARE that nothing goes wrong with a first launch of something new like this.
It would be good to have multiple options. One company can focus on one area of space operations while the other is given a different mission.
Regarding similar cost as f9, not true. NG second stage has hydrigen engines, they are going to be burn out and lost every flight. NG is going to compete with Starship for a moon mission. Nevertheless NG WILL NOT be able to compete Mars missions . Refueling are required for both rockets for Mars destination. t@@gracialonignasiver6302
Factual video, truth spoken excellent video. Go New Glenn!
Very unbiased comparson.. well done 👏