Some notes! First: Falcon Heavy to LEO is indeed 30 tonnes, because as stated in the video, we quoted fully reusable, RTLS and droneship landing. The number you see on wikipedia (63,800 kg) is fully expendable. If you need a source on 30 to LEO here's Elon talking about it - t.co/xPA9bGiNB9 (Also backed up by a true physics simulation too) Second: That said, YES, I did have an error! I swapped graphics out last minute and forgot to change the lbs conversion of OmegA. So, the kN's are still accurate but the translation to pounds is incorrect. That number should be 4.9 million lbs. The corrected slide is on my website: everydayastronaut.com/new-glenn-2018/
Bro I love your videos but you seem concerned lately. Hope things are well! Merry Christmas and thank you so much for your great work! Season's greetings from Switzerland
If you only had to see the comments I get calling me an amazon shill for quoting the wrong number for Falcon Heavy, or that I’m a terrible science communicator and lying because I didn’t include SLS... etc etc etc. it’s just my way of trying nip stuff in the bud before rather than deal with every 10 comments like that. Not worried, just preventative 😉
I'm just a dummy when it comes to the science so talking about Kn's and all the math included. I'm just estatic that I'm alive to witness this evolution. I stare at the sky and watch stars with my naked eye and am aways at awe at it's vast expansion. Perhaps one day before I'm dead I'll be able to say I've been up there too .
Sure you can learn a lot by sitting back and letting your competitors test what you would like to do. Then steal the Tech. Make yours +20% different and use your patent Trolls to say you thought of it first! Reminds me have to check the patent office to see if my patent for breathing on other planets is approved.
I don't know what the first words spoken on Martian soil will be, but the last words before stepping off will be, "Right, who wants Jeff to name a rocket after them?"
Pardon me, but I think you underestimate the ability of some to scour up amusement while locked down on this terrestrial prison. As such, I accept that challenge. Personally, I have always wanted to live among the stars, so consider me biased... I imagine a world where we find such need to leave that we take our billionaires, specifically the ones who won't support space exploration/travel/etc... and we put them into a pool. Not one filled with water, but one filled with chance. Every time a test rocket needs a volunteer (weekly testing sounds good), a billionaire from the pool is selected and strapped in (or on). If the rocket succeeds, the billionaire walks away with a free ride and the story of a lifetime. And if not, well let's just say its a win-win-win situation for most everyone. Slightly twisted, but a powerful positive feedback loop... Space exploration gets some seriously needed funding (and ratings). The Networks go nuts. Jobs are created like never before. Those who want to get to JUMP! And those billionaires, well they're not a cheap as they used to be.
@thecatmorgan, I completely agree. Is this what it was like to watch Howard Hughes build and fly new experimental airplanes? Or even further back when tycunes were racing to have the fastest passage across the Atlantic? It's amazing to have such a comparative experience for our era.
I hope they have the same amount of cameras that SpaceX has. It always feels weird to go back to ULA's or Roscosmos launches, where we barely get an animation.
@R LopezTo my opinion they are just doing tests and trying to stay unnoticed. It's hard to hide rocket launch and they prefer to appear like they are just playing around. But in reality they have quite a bit hidden. New Glenn for example is a massive jump from now. They have no need to entartain because Bezos has deep pocket. If you ask me they are big competitor in this space race. I might be wrong but we'll see.
The Apollo module will NEVER be a joke. It may be outdated in terms of technology but it's guaranteed to be a system that will always work. The way that thing was designed is still clever, even by today's standards.
@@stevenlornie1261 Apollo module is only able to land on a low gravity place, like the Moon. It was the DC X rocket, the first one to land by it self on Earth, probably.
My prediction is that Blue Origin is gonna shut down. Sooner or later they'll be sued for stalling development of BE-4, and they'll NEVER get a contract with NASA.
Yes, expecting a return on your investment is unreasonable. Either way, return on investment or not, it's something that absolutely had to be done regardless of success in acquiring the patent. The fact that SpaceX is making use of the concept, before they are, makes that "patently" clear. What would happen if SpaceX files said patent successfully? These companies aren't NASA or any federally funded program. They are companies. If they didn't file this patent, you'd probably be posting "Oh, stealing ideas sounds just like jeff who."
And all the intellectual theft that Musk has committed for his criminal organization named SpaceX is somehow ignored and endorsed by the SpaceX loving public? One would swear you Muskovites get handjobs from him through the mail to support his fraudulent company.
Elon does it for the Humanity, Jeff for Money, who will make the Race? We would see it. Blue Origin just builds really big Space-Dildos but Musk is more like a all in one Package with Tesla, building Cars that need no Atmosphere to Drive and developes Energy storage systems, Boring Company developing and provide Tunneling Tech to build underground Transportation an maybe even Underground Cities, Solar City, wich develope and provide Power Production that will work everywhere, wher the Sun is shining and SpaceX that develope and provide not that big but still impressive Rockets, that not just can reach any Eart Orbit but even can fly to Mars and beyond...
@@polishnosacz5800 Would be awesome, but I doubt it has enough margin for TLI while lifting a space station module. Hopefully its 3-stage variant does, after all we've came a long way since the Apollo era as far as efficiency goes. The Saturn V was the last rocket that would have been capable of building a lunar space station, and it looks like we have three modern options, the Starship, the SLS, and the fully built New Glenn.
dddduuuuuhhhhhhhh capitalism is more sustainable if we create schools on how to survive in capitalist societies our schools are programmed for socialist societies.
Using my slide rule and protractor, I calculate we still wont have a Moon Base or Mars base in the next decade. Maybe 25+ years, maybe. Of course I could be wrong, wont know until we invent microprocessors and computers to replace my trusty slide rule.
@Marci maybe I missed an update. I don't read the science journals daily. I'll admit it, I get my news off Google. The last article mentioned a company called Space X which was polluting our sky with hundreds if not thousands of tiny satellites in order to sell cheap, wireless internet to the whole world. Kind of short-sighted as far as blocking our atmosphere for future spacecraft launches. And the launch vehicle still uses chemical rockets just like NASA did 50+ years ago when we 1st went to the moon. I'm sure that they are more efficient now but still the same basic tech. Still no anti-gravity, nor any sort of faster-than-light tech.
Lilly Anne Serrelio you do understand how much worthless garbage floats in our atmosphere. These small satellites won’t be seen. How often do you see all of the 100s off thousands of debris that isn’t benefiting this planet at all????
Yes, thank goodness for that. Edit: Considering this is a scientific topic, albeit easy-going, it makes sense even for Americans to use metric in this video, since that's the norm in the science space (hehu) in USA. Now if you were only arsed to switch to metric even for regular use it would be more pleasant for everyone.
Why build something that's going to be absolete out of the gate? They miscalculated elons speed , falcon has totally defeated new Glen The best it would achieve is to be back up for lunar missions and those have severe competition !
It is increasing to appear that Everyday Astronaut is becoming an excellent and nearly thorough source of space program activity... which until recently, has been delayed and shrouded in secrecy from the supporting public. Your revelation and detail of the growing immensity of rockets and their engines is the greatest enlightenment and entertainment. I am a retired teacher. When I talk to my retired comrades, I've discovered that we all; when our computer awakes are first browsing for anything Everyday Astronaut, SpaceXcentric or Labpadre will reveal today. Our greatest appreciation!
At first i only chose SpaceX's rockets and hated every other rocket out there, but thanks to your videos ive changed my mind, space is an us thing now im cheering for SpaceX, BO, Rocket Lab, NASA, ULA and every space company out there
Couldn't agree more about the tribalism thing. It'll be nice to have some good re-usability competition out there. We might see a new space race come about just because of that. And maybe we'll find a way to get a colony set up on the moon. :D
The downside is that its tough to keep competition going. Eventually it seems like one puts the other out of business, hope not. Falcon 9 might stay tops on number of launches because its size, interesting. All that being said I have to say all this space engineering is mighty awesome, reminds me of the 20's and 30's air racing competitions.
Elon himself says if SpaceX stimulates more and better rocketry and space exploration, that's one of his goals. All goes to making humanity a 2 planet species. Says the same thing about Tesla, just wants to see a huge shift to electric vehicle. Is why Tesla's patents are open-source, available to anyone.
@@cin806 I'm more of a "let's wait and see" kind of guy concerning this. I'm not saying that BO doesn't have what it takes. They may turn out to be better than SpaceX. The point is that getting rockets right is very tricky, no matter how much money you throw at the problem. That's why I hesitate to make any predictions.
@@cin806 I see the New Glenn as Falcon 9 on steroids but the BFR will be a totally new system where you recover the 2nd stage too. Full reusability. And my guess is that SpaceX'/Elon Musks philosophy to use the simplest system possible to reach a goal is a very strong argument: Same fuel, same basic engine for 1st and 2nd stage. And with lots of not so powerful engines you learn much faster about lifetime / patterns of stress etc.
@Obergruppenstuppentruppensturmfuhrer SuperStuka im not sure man, it depends on if they meet their deadline, not saying they wont but we have seen almost nothing with this rocket
@@cin806 you can't really be comparing starship to new glenn. The one is an interplanetary rocket with 5 times the thrust of the other. New glenn is more in the falcon heavy league
Here we are in late April 2024 and New Glenn has still not launched. Sure Starship has launched a few times, each ending in a RUD, but that is more than New Glenn will do over the next few years
Yeah unless BO leapfrogs Starship, SpaceX will be the most competitive launch provider until they run the competition out of business (or, more likely, huge government subsidies go out to other companies to develop similar reusability). BO is externally funded so they can theoretically remain in the R&D stage indefinitely until they have something that can even hope to challenge the king.
Well this aged poorly, it's nearly the end of 2021 and Blue Origin just only flew New Shepherd for the 1st time and Space X is making huge stép on Starship
@FridayGood 2022 is pretty near now and with rockets, i think from New Shepherd to New Glenn is a giant leap and with how Blue Origin work, not as fast as Space X, it could be hard to even have the first flight in 2023
I just started watching this channel...spent the whole day...mostly on your channel...you are awesome ...I am a retired chem engineer ..that now has the time to get geeky..like you space nerds ...keep them cong ...great job...might contribute :-)
Hey, great video! Could you perhaps make a video sometime about the different landing techniques that SpaceX and Blue Origin use? SpaceX uses the 'hoverslam', ofcourse, which means that the rocket's velocity reaches zero at the exact moment that the legs hit the ground. Blue Origin, however, 'float' their rockets above the landing pad before touching down. I assume this is to do some last minute corrections and make sure they hit the pad spot on. This is probably also the reason that it's easier for BO to land their rockets on a moving ship. But surely this has to have an impact on fuel use, etc? Curious to know if you also noticed this and what you think about it. Keep up the good work!
@@marvinkitfox3386 well, afaik SpaceX uses the Hoverslam afaik not because of Efficiency, but because even when using only one Engine on minimum thrust it has too much of it (it can only accelerate forwards/upwards against gravity, not balance against it). Hovering for a short moment would be safer, but its not possible for Falcon 9 Boosters.
@@marvinkitfox3386 Each second of time they spend in the air for landing is also fuel needed to be hauled up with the rocket on takeoff, detracting from its payload capacity. However, New Glenns' are massive rocket, so they should have plenty of fuel margins regardless. They can afford the inefficiency. Falcon 9 rockets, however, are much smaller than New Glenn, thus they have to make the most out of what fuel they do have. One has more margins for error than the other.
@@EverydayAstronaut Also, is it just me or are SpaceX's barge landings shorter and more agressive than the RTLS landings? I've never heard anything about this but comparing videos it certainly seems that way...
@@BrokenLifeCycle That's not the reason for Falcon 9's hoverslam. It's a good reason for why they might still do it even if they didn't have to, but UniTrader is right: A single Merlin engine cannot be throttled down far enough to hover. Its thrust is higher than Falcon 9's weight at the time of the landing.
@@arcaipekyun4232 Nah. He might be doing some good now but he too has a history of exploitative business praxis, monopolizing, tax evasion etc. Not saying every rich person is evil, just that it's impossible to get that rich without screwing someone over.
Saturn 5 was super heavy. It is better compared to SLS and BFR. Those are the ONLY rockets that we know of currently in development that are even close.
@@morosis82 Even that classification is off. Saturn 5 can do 20,000 pounds more to LEO than SLS can, and the Saturn 5 does 90,000 pounds more than Starship. The closest thing to the Saturn 5 is actually the Long March 5 heavy variant, which will be able to move the heaviest payloads to LEO of any modern rocket, and even it is still 2,000 pounds behind the Saturn 5. Its crazy that something from more than half a century ago is still more powerful than any vehicle we are even considering now. Saturn 5 is closer to WW2 than it is to us, and its still stronger.
@@Henriburger1 You left out that if you were too close at launch, the Saturn 5 would kill you with just the sound. It would literally liquefy your entire body.
Although I admit to being squarely in the SpaceX camp, I welcome the competition from Blue Origin and these other companies, as competition forces a person or company to get more out of themselves than they would otherwise. Better, bigger, faster, cheaper--let the games begin! ;-)
You only say that because if it wasn't for Boeing, NASA, ULA, and Blue developing these technologies, then Elon musk and spacex wouldn't have anything to steal from them and he wouldn't be able to build any rockets of his own. He's yet to come up with a single idea that he didn't steal from another company, and he's yet to develop a single thing with his own company that he didn't outright steal from others. You better HOPE to heck that Blue and these other companies succeed or your precious Spacex is going nowhere. And don't hate either, because Elon Musk proudly admits that he steals everything from everyone else. He has zero problem with ripping off engine designs from NASA and other companies and stealing the proprietary technology that Blue developed and perfected such as landing a booster back on it's launch pad or on a ship at sea.
@@jkutyna What do you mean by Musk stole Blue Origin's proprietary idea of Landing boosters which they developed and perfected? How can you say that the idea was proprietary when the government invalidated their patent? Filing a patent and developing and perfecting a technology are two different things SpaceX developed and perfected the technology before Blue Origin I would like to know which other proprietary technology did Musk stole from Boeing, NASA and ULA
@@biplabkumarghosh6300 Blue Origin demonstrated a booster return and touchdown of its rocket before spacex did. Check your facts buddy. Spacex never even developed any of their engines, they just copied everything and reverse engineered nasa engines. Musk admits that, its on youtube. You people forget any facts simply because blue has been slow for 10 years building their infrastructure and company up while musk is just a little meth addicted rodent moving at a thousand mph forcing his employees to do the impossible. Thats why he has so many rockets blow up. No safety at all in spacex. I would sooner ride on a kerbal rocket personally.
@@jkutyna you cant compare the New shepard's landing to the falcon 9, one is a sub orbital booster which goes up then down and the other is a orbital booster which goes higher, much faster and is much taller which makes it less stable, the high speeds makes it a much more toasty reentry, also the New shepard can keep a large fuel reserve for landing and can hover even while nearly empty, both of those the falcon 9 cant do since It would make it's payload to orbit much smaller, which means if you think you can just copy blue origin's landing code and hardware and be able to land the falcon 9, you're very wrong, which is why Spacex crashed dozens of boosters trying to develop their own systems
Plot twist: by now, SLS is fully developed and could be assembled anytime, Starship has seen a lot of progress and we've only got one single pic of some New Glenn segment
Blue origin puts it plainly They want to copy starship! Why build a ship that will be rendered immediately absolete 😂 It actually makes sense , falcon 9 already defeated them ! Let blue do tourism, astronaut training and stuff Jeff has no real Target in space he's basically providing expression for musk haters in the establishment
@@cedriceric9730 well, I'm not completely against New Glenn, I think it's important that there is a great variety of options (when talking about heavy lift rockets), plus even though Starship when finished will indeed be far more cost effective, New Glenn will still beat by a lot SLS' payload capacity and price
Back when Blue Origin was a serious contender for building a competent booster, and not a company drowning in internal complaints about a toxic workplace and unsafe practices to rush the launch that would place their founder in space over competition with Virgin Galactic.
SpaceX was faced with the same 'toxic workplace' complaint. Not sure how it ended🤔. About the unsafe practices, I think you mixed it up with Virgin galactic, who lost a pilot during test flight and took an unplanned trajectory during the flight with its founder, because they had some issue with reaching the orbit if they did so. By changing the trajectory mid flight, they have violated safety practices, whereas Blue Origin's automated system has multiple failsafe modes to ensure the passengers' safety.
It's so upsetting that patent law can inhibit innovation. If you are only testing, you should be able to use any method you please. We're going to sue ourselves into cutting up space into tiny corporate pieces, and that's sad.
Maybe I should patent that rail vehicles can run only on rails. If that is not already patented. Or, I could patent patent trolling. Wait, that sounds actually useful...
Patents are about incentivising technological development. It adds competitive value to R&D. You can't patent stupid stuff like landing on drone ships, but you can patent new and unique design solutions. Kennedy asked if space would be a sea of peace or a new theatre of war - I think it'll be a mixture of both, no different to life on earth. Why should it?
Patents used to be important to investment in innovation. Now they tend to tweet it. We should shorten the duration before all patents and copyright becomes available for public use. That is what is meant to happen.
The fact that blue origin patented ship landings shows the different drives behind the two companies. Blue origin’s mission is to make money for their rich CEO. SpaceX’s mission is to go to Mars
@@nikiwiki2006 you are getting this comment completely wrong. Blue Origin's mission is to make money for their CEO SpaceX is making money to send people to Mars (well, making money to develop the technology to get humans there) as apposed to the money going straight to Elon's pockets
I feel like New Glenn is more on par with BFR / Starship and not the Falcon Heavy, as they are both still at a conceptual/experimental level and seem like they will come in to service around the same time as each other. Whereas a Falcon Heavy has actually flown, and is due to continue to do so. Great video though! Can’t wait for the next one 👌🏻
Good point! Perhaps better asked as, 'How far BEHIND New Glen are the BFR-Starship and the SLS?'. If the answer for either is, 'Well they might be about even.' then they should have been part of this review.
Blue Origin trying to patent everything to slow the competition and profit more than everyone else. Essentially slowing down progress, is why I choose to vote SpaceX.
The patent was invalidated because of prior art. But it shouldn't have been issued in the first place because a patent is supposed to show how it's done, to enable a person skilled in the art to perform the invention without undue experimentation. Has Blue Origin shown how it's done? Obviously not. Clearly actually landing an orbital-class rocket takes a *lot* of experimentation!
@@totalermist Reality sucks... patents have turned into a war on actual engineering with patent mills in a Texas town being tied in with the court system there for the sole purpose of sucking money out of companies through legal fees for ideas that are obviously covered under prior art or obvious to an expert in the field exclusions.
When are people going to learn. You arent going to know anything until they decide to let you know. People have gotten so used to Space X that they forget how literally every other company operates
Chaotic Geek Almost. In the past it was the government heading things up. This time it’s private industry and hopefully...us cheerleading the industry 🙂
Although I was against nasa dropping the shuttle program. I will admit I’m really enjoying the new space race and the amount of launches and technology coming from it. These upcoming years will be extremely interesting! Great video
What did the shuttle do? Years of running circles around the Earth without meeting its objective in the shuttle program - lower the cost to space. 135 flights to conduct science experiments, deploy the Hubble telescope, repair the Hubble, and build the ISS. It was a very inefficient use of limited resources. Every launch had the potential to bring the external tank into orbit, but didn't. Imagine several dozen external tanks linked into a massive space station instead of the ISS. NASA belongs as a research facility, not as a national access to space provider. I agree with the private companies creating a new era of excitement for space. Our government should create incentives for US companies to conquer the final frontier.
@@saxonsoldier67 They thought of that (ET's to form a space station) but in practical terms it couldn't be done. The foam would "popcorn" off the tank as it degraded and make TONS of orbital debris. Plus, the "wet workshop" idea (converting the propellant tanks into an orbital habitat) had a lot of drawbacks. Even if you DID put a bunch of ET's in orbit, it would take MANY dozens of missions to outfit them to do anything useful with all that space inside them. Plus, a lot of modifications would have to be done on the ground to make it feasible-- for instance, pre-installed hatches and pressurized tunnels between the LOX and LH2 tanks, plus hatches at either end to connect them together, plus the required structures to link the tanks together into some kind of usable configuration. All that adds weight and complexity and would have to be designed to survive the rigors of launch, to manrated standards, (ie, sealing off completely with the weight and pressure of hundreds of tons of pressurized cryogenic propellants on top of the hatches, with essentially ZERO chance of failing, and yet still be light enough for flight hardware and still capable of working correctly once in orbit for the manned phase.) The idea was "good at first sight" but then when you really dig into the mechanics of it, it's a nightmare. Even converting the tanks in orbit using astronauts-- say to weld in connecting tunnels or cut open the bottom of the tanks to connect them, etc, has huge challenges-- how do you ensure the welds are good enough to hold, etc.?) That's why it was never done. One thing they learned from Skylab was, it was almost "too big" size-wise internally... Shuttle ET's were over 5 feet larger in diameter. In the end, it was decided it just wasn't worth the effort and expense. Particularly the part about overcoming the foam shedding problem, which would have required a HUGE redesign. Adapting hardware from one purpose to something else is NEVER as easy as it seems at first-- just look at the COMPLETE REDESIGN of the ET from shuttle external tank into the SLS core, which was "supposed" to be a simple job, just requiring "tweaking the design"... Later! OL J R :)
@@lukestrawwalkerNice reply. I know they looked at it and decided that it was too messy. An extensive redesign of the tank could have solved all of these issues for less than the $100 + Billion the ISS costs. A private company would have cared more about costs rather than aesthetics.
@@saxonsoldier67 True, but they would have STILL had to develop most of the systems for ISS-- remember that's why we brought the Russians in to the station program, replacing the "Space Station Freedom" (SSF) with the "International Space Station". Reagan had greenlighted the SSF way back in 1986, in the wake of the Challenger disaster. He ordered NASA to build a space station "within a decade". Of course the NASA bureaucracy bogged the program down, particularly when Congressvermin got involved and everybody wanted "their pet project" added. SO SSF suffered through at least 3-4 redesigns, and was still YEARS from "bending metal" to build it when suddenly the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, and suddenly a lot of ex-Soviet rocket, missile, and space engineers were suddenly out of work and selling stuff on streetcorners to survive. Meanwhile the later-named "Axis of Evil" third world countries looking to build missile arsenals and obtain nuclear weapons, awash in petrodollars in most cases, were looking to hire anybody who could further their missile and nuclear programs. The gubmint had NASA look into the situation, discovered that "the really HARD parts of SSF had yet to be done (the modules are the "easy part"; developing in-space propellant transfer, a service module and propulsion system suitable to reboost the space station and prevent it from reentering the atmosphere due to the slight drag of the incredibly thin (but yet present) atmosphere at that altitude, and provide stabilization, power, life support, and other essential services necessary to operate the modules, hadn't even been touched yet by NASA. Now suddenly we had the former Soviet now Russians, struggling to keep their space program afloat in the post-Soviet era, and they had been developing space stations and support capabilities (like orbital refueling, reboost propulsion, stabilization, orbital resupply, and automated rendezvous and docking) for decades, and already had operational systems. Thus it was just "natural" to bring the Russians in and toss "SSF", morphing the project into the "ISS". We paid them for the Shuttle/Mir program, where we flew our shuttle to their Mir space station, and paid them to have our astronauts aboard for months at a time, virtually continuously, for several years. We also paid them to finish their "Mir 2" space station core module, which became the "Zarya" module once they launched it aboard a Proton rocket in the late 90's... We sent up the "Unity" node on shuttle and ISS was born. It would be 13 years and 40-odd shuttle missions before construction was halted (technically it wasn't "finished" as planned, just "called it finished" as the shuttle was being retired, and rightfully so). We also paid the Russians to finish building one of their "Mir 2" modules that became Zvezda. We supported their space program with badly needed cash infusions, and in exchange we got access to their "service module" (Zarya) for the essential services ISS would need, so NASA wouldn't have to design it all from scratch, and we also got access to their "Progress" space freighter/tanker resupply vehicle, which had automated rendezvous and docking capabilities, plus was already operating and configured to dock itself to the Russian module, refill the booster engine and stabilization thruster fuel tanks, provide pressurized resupply cargo capability for the crew, as well as acting as an "orbital trash dumpster" once its supplies were transferred to the station and it was refilled with the stations "garbage", to burn it all up on reentry. This lifted a HUGE development weight off NASA, as it would have taken them a decade and BILLIONS to design, evaluate, build, and test all those systems and build flight hardware ready to launch. Of course we wanted a lot of electrical power, so we built things like the rotary joints and solar panels and power system, and many other things as well... I agree that ISS is ENTIRELY too expensive for what it does. But then, so was shuttle. We now know that the costs for each shuttle launch in the program were EXTREMELY exorbitant and basically we'd have been better off to build a smaller crew launch vehicle and an unmanned "heavy lifter" for cargoes, (much like what replaced shuttle, but more akin to the EELV's than Ares V super-heavy lift vehicles). Shuttle became an albatross around NASA's neck and kept us trapped in LEO for 30 years, as it was TOO EXPENSIVE to do *anything* else AND shuttle at the same time. Now its the same with ISS-- we can either do deep space missions, ie "Moon, Mars, and Beyond", or we can do ISS... there simply IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY to do BOTH... SO, as long as ISS is still flying, you can forget much beyond a couple of "demonstration and test flights" for SLS/Orion... there simply isn't FUNDING for anything more substantial, and won't be until ISS is sunk and that money can be freed up to do other things. Sad but true... Later! OL J R :)
A little bit of Googling "New Armstrong" turned up rumors that it might use larger diameter propellant tanks than the Saturn V, and an even bigger Methalox engine (likely called the BE-5). I'm 30, and I guess I was born at the right time to see the real start of human exploration of space. The Apollo program truly was impressive, and I wish it continued to manned exploration of Mars and more (S-N third stage [using NERVA engine]? Yes Please!), but hearing of all these plans of Moon to stay, and plans for the capability to land ~100 tons of cargo on Mars have me really excited about the next 20 years of spaceflight, especially since now it looks like some of the money to back up those plans won't be subject to political whims (which has been notably unreliable).
I wish there were more than just rumors. Whatever it is, I would guess the plan would be to upstage the competition with something massive, and for some reason that really makes it exciting!
The fact that a rocket landing on a ship could be considered for a patent anyway shows how broken the system is. I mean going by that logic someone could have patented parking cars in driveways....
+KelDG3 The USPTO is not *supposed* to accept patents for (a) things that were published before (there is "prior art"), whether patented or not, and (b) "obvious to practitioners of the art", Landing a rocket on a ship should fail due to (b) and probably (a). The problem is that the USPTO is grossly under-resourced and under-staffed. Their patent inspectors do cursory looks over the patent, and unless there's a real clanger in it, will rubber stamp it. They don't do much research of their own records, let alone any other. They're never provided with a sample apparatus, so, they never test that it works either. The USPTO is relying on the court system to rule on patent disputes. Which is why there's so many patent trolls.
Just one quick observation (about rivalries): SpaceX (Elon Musk), is essentially an altruistic endeavor, whereas Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos), is more of an entrepreneurial endeavor. Ditto with regard to Tesla (both for EV's and solar products, and domestic or commercial batteries): it's primarily and even entirely altruistic! Elon saw that Solar, and EV's, and big-lift Reusable Rockets were all needed, and so that's what he did. Bezos is more about control, and income (hence the patent fight over nautical recovery platforms, not to mention Elon's open source patents for Tesla). Big difference!
worstformm, People are/can be different. Yes, people can believe Elon is different. Allow them that, just like everyone allows you to believe they are no different from each other.
This aged... well. New Glenn is not built at all. The BE-4 engine doesn't work despite having been in development for many years. (Note that it is very similar to the Raptor engine, which went from the test stand to a flying rocket, and hopefully orbital this year.) Blue Origin seems to be the company of making big promises and not delivering.
BeepBoopSpace Same here, more people need to realize that it isn’t about picking sides in this new age “space race”, but rather we should be excited that multiple companies are working to achieve the same goal and can learn from each other. It’s all about progress in the ultimate frontier, which is why I wake up every day on pins and needles, itching for news on rocket development.
@@gj9157 Hmmm. I would wait for spacex to put more funding towards starship before I even talk about it happening before 2030. Currently it's only like 1% of their budget.
@@wheresmycar9559 Yeah, but they have far more experience with rocket technology, let alone had numerous successful launches in the past year. Blue Origin barely scratched the surface until recently.
@@gj9157 Doesn't matter. Many of blue origins employees are ex members of ula and spacex. Also, spaceX has its priorities in the commercial crew certification of Falcon9. Blue Origin has had their eyes on New Glenn for a while now, and as said in the video have been very conservative with their timelines, unlike spacex.
New Glenn is a F9 and FH competitor, and it definitely will be an amazing rocket. However, BFR is in a much higher rocket category. They teased a New Armstrong rocket, and that will certainly be in a class with BFR.
The only reason I hate Blue Origin is because they just aren’t fun. SpaceX just does a lot of their stuff because it’s cool, like launching Elon’s car into space. Blue Origin just does stuff for the practicality of it, and it’s kinda no fun.
Some notes! First: Falcon Heavy to LEO is indeed 30 tonnes, because as stated in the video, we quoted fully reusable, RTLS and droneship landing. The number you see on wikipedia (63,800 kg) is fully expendable. If you need a source on 30 to LEO here's Elon talking about it - t.co/xPA9bGiNB9 (Also backed up by a true physics simulation too)
Second: That said, YES, I did have an error! I swapped graphics out last minute and forgot to change the lbs conversion of OmegA. So, the kN's are still accurate but the translation to pounds is incorrect. That number should be 4.9 million lbs. The corrected slide is on my website: everydayastronaut.com/new-glenn-2018/
Bro I love your videos but you seem concerned lately. Hope things are well! Merry Christmas and thank you so much for your great work! Season's greetings from Switzerland
If you only had to see the comments I get calling me an amazon shill for quoting the wrong number for Falcon Heavy, or that I’m a terrible science communicator and lying because I didn’t include SLS... etc etc etc. it’s just my way of trying nip stuff in the bud before rather than deal with every 10 comments like that. Not worried, just preventative 😉
Tim why don’t you just call your album max-Q for sort.
I like the formality of Maximum Aerodynamic Pressure 😉 just a personal thing. Cooler album title IMO. Of course you can call it max q for short!
I'm just a dummy when it comes to the science so talking about Kn's and all the math included. I'm just estatic that I'm alive to witness this evolution. I stare at the sky and watch stars with my naked eye and am aways at awe at it's vast expansion. Perhaps one day before I'm dead I'll be able to say I've been up there too .
Guys I'm from the future. Starship has done more progress than new Glenn.
I was just thinking about how two years ago Starship wasn't even in the conversation.....Now it is the entire conversation.
@@Lenny8ux2 you described it perfectly
Is there in the future a rocket company called red origin
Fr mans speaks the truth
@@karanasstelios6141 you replied perfectly
"2021 can't come soon enough" this man is years ahead of his time
Lmaooo
Sure you can learn a lot by sitting back and letting your competitors test what you would like to do. Then steal the Tech. Make yours +20% different and use your patent Trolls to say you thought of it first! Reminds me have to check the patent office to see if my patent for breathing on other planets is approved.
Hopefully this ages well
Yeah...
@@greyveteran7007 Entering a competition late to gain an advantage is a complete normal thing and nothing to be butthurt about.
2018: "The BE-4 is very far along in its development."
2022: "The BE-4 is very far along in its development."
Tory Bruno: *where's my engines*
Jeff Bezos: u will get in the next decade 😂😂
"The first scheduled flight is scheduled for 2021" it's 2022 and the engines downt work yet ☠
@@AspynDoesStuff Do you follow what happening around or just say things on the go?
@@selvasurya049 what ☠
I have to wonder why Tony Bruno didn't go with Raptor.
This is dated. New Glenn is no closer to flying in 2021 than in 2018.
And Starship is pretty much ready to go.
it was further ahead in '18
I'd argue that it's more up to date than it should be
@@RD-270 definitely not
Actually they have a pressure test tank, but honestly your right
Soooo their first Mars Rocket is gonna be called "New Musk?"
It's gonna be called "Old Besos" by that time, more likely ;)
I don't know what the first words spoken on Martian soil will be, but the last words before stepping off will be, "Right, who wants Jeff to name a rocket after them?"
BOOM BABY
New Musk? Sounds like a really bad cologne.
😏
Nothing is cooler than billionaires fighting to see who can get us into space cheapest.
Pardon me, but I think you underestimate the ability of some to scour up amusement while locked down on this terrestrial prison. As such, I accept that challenge.
Personally, I have always wanted to live among the stars, so consider me biased... I imagine a world where we find such need to leave that we take our billionaires, specifically the ones who won't support space exploration/travel/etc... and we put them into a pool. Not one filled with water, but one filled with chance.
Every time a test rocket needs a volunteer (weekly testing sounds good), a billionaire from the pool is selected and strapped in (or on). If the rocket succeeds, the billionaire walks away with a free ride and the story of a lifetime. And if not, well let's just say its a win-win-win situation for most everyone. Slightly twisted, but a powerful positive feedback loop...
Space exploration gets some seriously needed funding (and ratings). The Networks go nuts. Jobs are created like never before. Those who want to get to JUMP! And those billionaires, well they're not a cheap as they used to be.
@thecatmorgan, I completely agree. Is this what it was like to watch Howard Hughes build and fly new experimental airplanes? Or even further back when tycunes were racing to have the fastest passage across the Atlantic? It's amazing to have such a comparative experience for our era.
I hope that neither of them are members of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. ! We shd keep an eye out for volcanoes with electric sunroofs.
Just to match what the federal government achieved 40 years ago
@@clintgossett1879 the power of the free market competition breed excellence
I hope they have the same amount of cameras that SpaceX has. It always feels weird to go back to ULA's or Roscosmos launches, where we barely get an animation.
lol or ariane
@R Lopez Alexa, Launch to orbit!
Alexa, terminate the rocket!
SpaceX=KSP
Jesus christ guys, are you 5? It's not "MY SPACE COMPANY IS BETTER THAN YOURS". Do you even work there? No. So why are you obsessing?
@R LopezTo my opinion they are just doing tests and trying to stay unnoticed. It's hard to hide rocket launch and they prefer to appear like they are just playing around. But in reality they have quite a bit hidden. New Glenn for example is a massive jump from now. They have no need to entartain because Bezos has deep pocket. If you ask me they are big competitor in this space race. I might be wrong but we'll see.
Blue Origin: We have achieved the first propulsive landing after reaching space
Apollo Lunar Module: Am I a joke to you?
Wrong. You can't compare these two.
@@aligajani its a joke
Also Curiosity
The Apollo module will NEVER be a joke. It may be outdated in terms of technology but it's guaranteed to be a system that will always work. The way that thing was designed is still clever, even by today's standards.
@@stevenlornie1261 Apollo module is only able to land on a low gravity place, like the Moon. It was the DC X rocket, the first one to land by it self on Earth, probably.
Ahhh, a video from back in the days before we learned that waters towers can fly.
You have the perfect light touch!
Xp Reflex ew emojis delete that
Xp Reflex Is dildo a type of rocket configuration, for a single core without side boosters, and with payload/ fairings wider than the main tank?
Kerbodynamic X it just looks like a dildo
Supreme potato 🤣🤣🤣
As King of Kings... I'm REALLY looking forward to the King of Heavy Lift Rockets. 🚀
Jesus Christ
In Elon we Musk .
I thought Elon was the king of Kings?
We know Jesus can walk on water and rest on clouds. But can Jesus lift cargo to orbit?
@@CombraStudios talk to me when Jesus can propulsivly land on a drone ship
@Jesus Christ I know rockets are cool, but can't we talk about the likes of Bezos hoarding wealth?
“I just wanna look to the future and not be sad”
Elon Musk
We do too.
Take drugs ,it's legal in most states! You'll be happy.
Love the fact that you're even-handed about all of these competitors.
@@MichaelDouglasSkewes yeah if you wanna be a real genius that’s a good idea!
When I remember that it's 2021:👁️👄👁️
yep and SLS is definitly not flying this year.......BOEING!
NASA needs that SLS is flying this year because the SRB are ready and their ,,best before” ends at the end of the year.
@@filippomasciulli7206 SLS is definitely flying this year, what with the new green run and warranty concerns
@@bee5440 really happy to be dead wrong !!
Starship is the new king
Jeff Who?
*-I’m sorry-* *I’M NOT SORRY*
This is acceptable 😂
Bezos is goddamn Bruce Wayne incarnate, wouldn't sleep on Blue
@@tamie341 its like DC vs Marvel, Tony Stark vs Bruce Wayne
Jeff Bezos has accomplished some great things, but I find him to be the least interesting person when he speaks
Sanket R MY NAME IS FALCON HEAVY AND I LOVE MY ADVENTURES
BFR: Hold my beer
Cue Enron Musk's endless redesigns of Big Fake Rocket
@@gadzy screw off flattard
*Starship and Super Heavy
dammit elon
stop changing the name of the rocket! please! it's getting tiring!
@@sillysaili BFR was never the official name, only the code name. He said after the falcon heavy launch that they were still looking for a name.
gadzy you also said the falcon heavy was fake...and the falcon 9, and the Tesla Model s. Just go away. Your track record sucks.
"2021 can't come soon enough"
Oh my sweet summer child.
You sure about that?
Yeah lol u sure mate?
I'm typing this comment on 27 jan 2021
Hi I’m from the future
Game of thrones vibes
"new Glenn will be the best heavy lift rocket ever"
Elon musk: laughs in starship
My prediction is that Blue Origin is gonna shut down. Sooner or later they'll be sued for stalling development of BE-4, and they'll NEVER get a contract with NASA.
Starship is a super heavy launcher
@@zacharyj6465 man these fandoys are cringe.
@@muuubiee Yeah that's not gonna happen. Don't mean to disappoint. 🤷🏻♂️
@@GSF404 oh believe me, we ALL want new glenn to fly. It just doesn't))) they are nowhere near real testing, come on man.
filing a patent for basic rocket reusability sounds just like jeff who.
Yeah. I remembered 1-Click back in the days.
You don't become the richest man on earth playing fair. Even if you're pioneering space exploration for generations to come.
Yes, expecting a return on your investment is unreasonable. Either way, return on investment or not, it's something that absolutely had to be done regardless of success in acquiring the patent. The fact that SpaceX is making use of the concept, before they are, makes that "patently" clear. What would happen if SpaceX files said patent successfully?
These companies aren't NASA or any federally funded program. They are companies. If they didn't file this patent, you'd probably be posting "Oh, stealing ideas sounds just like jeff who."
And all the intellectual theft that Musk has committed for his criminal organization named SpaceX is somehow ignored and endorsed by the SpaceX loving public? One would swear you Muskovites get handjobs from him through the mail to support his fraudulent company.
Elon does it for the Humanity, Jeff for Money, who will make the Race? We would see it.
Blue Origin just builds really big Space-Dildos but Musk is more like a all in one Package with Tesla, building Cars that need no Atmosphere to Drive and developes Energy storage systems, Boring Company developing and provide Tunneling Tech to build underground Transportation an maybe even Underground Cities, Solar City, wich develope and provide Power Production that will work everywhere, wher the Sun is shining and SpaceX that develope and provide not that big but still impressive Rockets, that not just can reach any Eart Orbit but even can fly to Mars and beyond...
I am huge fan of spaceX but mostly i am fan of space. So I cheering as much when little electron lift off as mighty falcon heavy.
I hope the New Glenn will be able to add some new modules to the ISS, that's something we haven't seen since the shuttle era
@@DeeSnow97 i hope it will take part in building lunar gateaway.
@@polishnosacz5800 Would be awesome, but I doubt it has enough margin for TLI while lifting a space station module. Hopefully its 3-stage variant does, after all we've came a long way since the Apollo era as far as efficiency goes. The Saturn V was the last rocket that would have been capable of building a lunar space station, and it looks like we have three modern options, the Starship, the SLS, and the fully built New Glenn.
niezly kosmiczny nosacz z Ciebie :)
@@DeeSnow97 hopefully, it will able to deliver modules as wide as Skylab's "dry workshop". People could run around on its walls.
SpaceX and Blue Origin are going to create some crazy competition and produce some crazy rockets. This is sick.
Cole Smith capitalism bad, socialism good
dddduuuuuhhhhhhhh For individual wellbeing, yes. Overall technical development, no.
Yep and will create a snowball effect later in the future
dddduuuuuhhhhhhhh capitalism is more sustainable if we create schools on how to survive in capitalist societies our schools are programmed for socialist societies.
@@dddduuuuuhhhhhhhh oh yes!!!
Now a couple of years later they already have one half of a fairing :DD
Great job, BO!!
they can't get it up :)
Funny that SLS will fly before New Glenn will
@FridayGood Bezos is worth 200 billion money is not a problem
@FridayGood Are roaches pets?
@FridayGood Typo
OMFG... I can't believe I'm alive in this new golden era of space travel :')
Using my slide rule and protractor, I calculate we still wont have a Moon Base or Mars base in the next decade. Maybe 25+ years, maybe. Of course I could be wrong, wont know until we invent microprocessors and computers to replace my trusty slide rule.
RIGHT!
Cliente Promedio me too. Lol
@Marci maybe I missed an update. I don't read the science journals daily. I'll admit it, I get my news off Google. The last article mentioned a company called Space X which was polluting our sky with hundreds if not thousands of tiny satellites in order to sell cheap, wireless internet to the whole world. Kind of short-sighted as far as blocking our atmosphere for future spacecraft launches.
And the launch vehicle still uses chemical rockets just like NASA did 50+ years ago when we 1st went to the moon. I'm sure that they are more efficient now but still the same basic tech. Still no anti-gravity, nor any sort of faster-than-light tech.
Lilly Anne Serrelio you do understand how much worthless garbage floats in our atmosphere. These small satellites won’t be seen. How often do you see all of the 100s off thousands of debris that isn’t benefiting this planet at all????
I love the fact that you use metric units in your videos.
Yes, thank goodness for that.
Edit: Considering this is a scientific topic, albeit easy-going, it makes sense even for Americans to use metric in this video, since that's the norm in the science space (hehu) in USA.
Now if you were only arsed to switch to metric even for regular use it would be more pleasant for everyone.
Well.. it caters to the whole world.
Except for the US, Myanmar, and Liberia..
Jaden S. Yes indeed, but numerous American's videos use Imperial units
Why? Are there any other units used in science?
@@tarassu Yes! Imperial units are used to crash "landers" hard into the surface of Mars ;-)
3 years later, and New Glenn has been delayed, as the first stage has barely even got a mockup, and the BE-4 is still not flight worthy.
Sad.
ULA is still waiting for their rockets...
Why build something that's going to be absolete out of the gate?
They miscalculated elons speed , falcon has totally defeated new Glen
The best it would achieve is to be back up for lunar missions and those have severe competition !
and sn20 is having an orbital launch.
At this rate, Starship will be launching commercial payloads before New Glenn makes its first demo flight.
Will New Glenn be the KING of Slowly build Rockets?😆😆😆
It is increasing to appear that Everyday Astronaut is becoming an excellent and nearly thorough source of space program activity... which until recently, has been delayed and shrouded in secrecy from the supporting public. Your revelation and detail of the growing immensity of rockets and their engines is the greatest enlightenment and entertainment. I am a retired teacher. When I talk to my retired comrades, I've discovered that we all; when our computer awakes are first browsing for anything Everyday Astronaut, SpaceXcentric or Labpadre will reveal today. Our greatest appreciation!
Alpha Farabee secund that. Brilliant.
Hi, it's me, Tim astronaut, the everyday Dodd!
You must have come from an Austin Evans video... 😑
@@isaacroufs5779 who's that?
@@TonyMacaroni69_ tech UA-camr
From a Cessna to a 747?
From a canoe to a cruise ship?
From an ant to an elephant?
These metaphors are spicy.
Should be A380.
Read More.
Read More.
Beluga XL
From Jeff who to Elon Musk.
From Blue Origin to real spaceflight company.
From Donald Trump to Wilt Chamberlain.
this aged like milk
Jeff Who?
*I'm sorry*
THAT is going to be a running gag
manamajeff
🅱️ezos
That's it ...,No Amazon for you.:)
Yes
At first i only chose SpaceX's rockets and hated every other rocket out there, but thanks to your videos ive changed my mind, space is an us thing now im cheering for SpaceX, BO, Rocket Lab, NASA, ULA and every space company out there
YESSSSS 🙌🙌🙌 that’s the attitude I like to hear!
Are you buying launch services? Why do we care whether you like the idea of certain rockets or not? I'm guessing you're not an engineer.
chris kerwin umm am i not aloud to express my opinion? Anyways why are you spreading negativity?
I second this! Although, still having a bit of trouble cheering on non-reusable rockets…
chris kerwin ignore him, he must be having a bad day
Couldn't agree more about the tribalism thing. It'll be nice to have some good re-usability competition out there.
We might see a new space race come about just because of that. And maybe we'll find a way to get a colony set up on the moon. :D
Competition is always a good thing nothing will make someone work harder then someone else out doing them.
Better even NASA has said that they will make a moon base just look up their last promo vid
The downside is that its tough to keep competition going. Eventually it seems like one puts the other out of business, hope not. Falcon 9 might stay tops on number of launches because its size, interesting.
All that being said I have to say all this space engineering is mighty awesome, reminds me of the 20's and 30's air racing competitions.
SpaceX > Blue Origin
Elon himself says if SpaceX stimulates more and better rocketry and space exploration, that's one of his goals. All goes to making humanity a 2 planet species. Says the same thing about Tesla, just wants to see a huge shift to electric vehicle. Is why Tesla's patents are open-source, available to anyone.
I would first have to see the new Glenn actually launching successfully until I'm as impressed with Blue Origin as I am with SpaceX.
@@cin806 I'm more of a "let's wait and see" kind of guy concerning this.
I'm not saying that BO doesn't have what it takes. They may turn out to be better than SpaceX.
The point is that getting rockets right is very tricky, no matter how much money you throw at the problem. That's why I hesitate to make any predictions.
@@cin806 I see the New Glenn as Falcon 9 on steroids but the BFR will be a totally new system where you recover the 2nd stage too. Full reusability. And my guess is that SpaceX'/Elon Musks philosophy to use the simplest system possible to reach a goal is a very strong argument: Same fuel, same basic engine for 1st and 2nd stage. And with lots of not so powerful engines you learn much faster about lifetime / patterns of stress etc.
The fastest they failed the fastest they succeeded. I am like both. The more they compete the more beneficial for the rockets industries and human.
@Obergruppenstuppentruppensturmfuhrer SuperStuka im not sure man, it depends on if they meet their deadline, not saying they wont but we have seen almost nothing with this rocket
@@cin806 you can't really be comparing starship to new glenn. The one is an interplanetary rocket with 5 times the thrust of the other. New glenn is more in the falcon heavy league
Guys, they did surgery on a Soyuz
they did surgery on a space shuttle
they did surgery on a Space Launch System
They did surgery on a Saturn 5
They did surgery on delta heavy
They did a surgery on a grape
Who is this Jeff guy that you're talking about? Isn't Blue Origin the subortibal Amazon delivery service?
He's clearly the guy you weren't paying attention to, if that's really all you know...
Jesus, how much is that Prime account going to cost?
Kirt McKenna dfgUhj
@@stardolphin2 r/whooosh?
yeah!
Ahh yes 4 years ago and still we have no idea where it's going
By the time Bezos gets to the moon Musk will be there sipping a Coke.
Or swimming in a pool. (If you understand that reference)
Adrian Hepburn the next rockets of blue are going to be way more powerful , don’t under estimate them plus they have more funds.
@@IsurfFloridaa r/wooooosh
@@alt8791 what if xkcd?
jackie sui yes! Ding ding ding!
Like - SpaceX
Comment - Blue Origin
I liked my own comment
Blue
The bfr will fail
@@ulyssesgrant4324 because..?
Both.
Both
Guys I’m from the future, by the time new glenn comes out its going to be old glenn.
Here we are in late April 2024 and New Glenn has still not launched. Sure Starship has launched a few times, each ending in a RUD, but that is more than New Glenn will do over the next few years
Fast forward 3 years and BO make record progress in number of law suits handing out.
New Glenn will be King of obsolete rockets by the time it flies.
It's funny because it's true.
Yeah unless BO leapfrogs Starship, SpaceX will be the most competitive launch provider until they run the competition out of business (or, more likely, huge government subsidies go out to other companies to develop similar reusability). BO is externally funded so they can theoretically remain in the R&D stage indefinitely until they have something that can even hope to challenge the king.
Its finna have to compete with the N-1
So much for 2021, they are now saying 2023. Guess we'll see what they say in 2023.
*coming: 2029*
@@oren2000 more like 2032
@@Random_192 bruh
@@Random_192 it's not that low
@@Random_192 more like 6969
*BFR has entered the chat*
Personally, even though I hate Bezos' guts, I'm pretty excited to see the new space race between Blue Origin and SpaceX
that would be soooooo cool
*Starship has entered the chat*
*BFR has left the chat*
Well this aged poorly, it's nearly the end of 2021 and Blue Origin just only flew New Shepherd for the 1st time and Space X is making huge stép on Starship
yh it really did
@FridayGood 2022 is pretty near now and with rockets, i think from New Shepherd to New Glenn is a giant leap and with how Blue Origin work, not as fast as Space X, it could be hard to even have the first flight in 2023
@@khoinguyentranmai2178 I totally agree with this. It's common in the aero space industries that the timelines are not achieved.
@FridayGood they are behind schedule. 2022 was not their original target date.
I support the company who will send me to The Mars
Me to
...if you're a billionaire.
Sebi One SpaceX is planning to charge $200,000 per person for Mars. The idea is that you can sell your house and move there
I to will go to The Mars.
If they'd only fly tomorrow...
One of the few Everyday Astronaut videos that is still up to date, as design of New Glenn has not changed too much in 5 years as opposed to Starship.
jef who where is new glen its 2022
Well, its 2021, and New Glenn i nowhere near. Omega wont fly also... Said.
More launches out of Vandenberg would be awesome. Great viewing from my backyard.
Luckyyyyyyyy
Same here. I live & work in Lompoc, so having something awesome like this makes up or "living the Lompton life" lol.
Same !!!! Lol i stop everything im doing everytime there is a launch!
I just started watching this channel...spent the whole day...mostly on your channel...you are awesome ...I am a retired chem engineer ..that now has the time to get geeky..like you space nerds ...keep them cong ...great job...might contribute :-)
Blue Origin: We have achieved the first propulsive landing after reaching space
Apollo Lunar Module: Am I a joke to you?
This video was published a week before Elon announced Starhopper. Oh, how things have changed..
Well, that did not age well.
Hey, great video! Could you perhaps make a video sometime about the different landing techniques that SpaceX and Blue Origin use? SpaceX uses the 'hoverslam', ofcourse, which means that the rocket's velocity reaches zero at the exact moment that the legs hit the ground. Blue Origin, however, 'float' their rockets above the landing pad before touching down. I assume this is to do some last minute corrections and make sure they hit the pad spot on. This is probably also the reason that it's easier for BO to land their rockets on a moving ship. But surely this has to have an impact on fuel use, etc? Curious to know if you also noticed this and what you think about it. Keep up the good work!
Good idea!!!
@@marvinkitfox3386 well, afaik SpaceX uses the Hoverslam afaik not because of Efficiency, but because even when using only one Engine on minimum thrust it has too much of it (it can only accelerate forwards/upwards against gravity, not balance against it). Hovering for a short moment would be safer, but its not possible for Falcon 9 Boosters.
@@marvinkitfox3386 Each second of time they spend in the air for landing is also fuel needed to be hauled up with the rocket on takeoff, detracting from its payload capacity. However, New Glenns' are massive rocket, so they should have plenty of fuel margins regardless. They can afford the inefficiency. Falcon 9 rockets, however, are much smaller than New Glenn, thus they have to make the most out of what fuel they do have.
One has more margins for error than the other.
@@EverydayAstronaut Also, is it just me or are SpaceX's barge landings shorter and more agressive than the RTLS landings? I've never heard anything about this but comparing videos it certainly seems that way...
@@BrokenLifeCycle
That's not the reason for Falcon 9's hoverslam. It's a good reason for why they might still do it even if they didn't have to, but UniTrader is right: A single Merlin engine cannot be throttled down far enough to hover. Its thrust is higher than Falcon 9's weight at the time of the landing.
Now Starship can fly through maxq and New Glen is nowhere to be seen
Lost any respect i had for Bozos when i learned he tried to pattent landing a spacecraft
Lost the respect I didn't have for Bezos when I realised he was alive.
@Thomas Cath-Fawcett So you don't have any respect for any rich people? Great!
@Thomas Cath-Fawcett Very much against. It's pretty pretty much impossible to get "rich" without exploiting someone.
@@ToxNano no, Bill Gates is pretty fine.
@@arcaipekyun4232 Nah. He might be doing some good now but he too has a history of exploitative business praxis, monopolizing, tax evasion etc.
Not saying every rich person is evil, just that it's impossible to get that rich without screwing someone over.
2022 and it's still the King of Paper Rockets.
2024 still hasn't launched.
BFR(whatever you call it): *Go bully someone your own size*
Alex Morrison big falcon rocket
@Alex Morrison starship
energia is 50 meters lol
The Saturn 5 is still the benchmark. When we see a rocket surpass it than it can be dubbed “The new king of heavy lift rockets”.
Saturn 5 was super heavy. It is better compared to SLS and BFR. Those are the ONLY rockets that we know of currently in development that are even close.
Plus Energia
@@morosis82
Even that classification is off. Saturn 5 can do 20,000 pounds more to LEO than SLS can, and the Saturn 5 does 90,000 pounds more than Starship. The closest thing to the Saturn 5 is actually the Long March 5 heavy variant, which will be able to move the heaviest payloads to LEO of any modern rocket, and even it is still 2,000 pounds behind the Saturn 5. Its crazy that something from more than half a century ago is still more powerful than any vehicle we are even considering now. Saturn 5 is closer to WW2 than it is to us, and its still stronger.
Henri Bergeron
Isn’t starship going to deliver 150 tons to Leo?
@@Henriburger1 You left out that if you were too close at launch, the Saturn 5 would kill you with just the sound. It would literally liquefy your entire body.
2021 update: no
Although I admit to being squarely in the SpaceX camp, I welcome the competition from Blue Origin and these other companies, as competition forces a person or company to get more out of themselves than they would otherwise. Better, bigger, faster, cheaper--let the games begin! ;-)
You only say that because if it wasn't for Boeing, NASA, ULA, and Blue developing these technologies, then Elon musk and spacex wouldn't have anything to steal from them and he wouldn't be able to build any rockets of his own. He's yet to come up with a single idea that he didn't steal from another company, and he's yet to develop a single thing with his own company that he didn't outright steal from others. You better HOPE to heck that Blue and these other companies succeed or your precious Spacex is going nowhere.
And don't hate either, because Elon Musk proudly admits that he steals everything from everyone else. He has zero problem with ripping off engine designs from NASA and other companies and stealing the proprietary technology that Blue developed and perfected such as landing a booster back on it's launch pad or on a ship at sea.
@@jkutyna the new glen has a much diffrent landing its barely moving compared to the falcon 9 and can hover
@@jkutyna What do you mean by Musk stole Blue Origin's proprietary idea of Landing boosters which they developed and perfected?
How can you say that the idea was proprietary when the government invalidated their patent?
Filing a patent and developing and perfecting a technology are two different things
SpaceX developed and perfected the technology before Blue Origin
I would like to know which other proprietary technology did Musk stole from Boeing, NASA and ULA
@@biplabkumarghosh6300 Blue Origin demonstrated a booster return and touchdown of its rocket before spacex did. Check your facts buddy. Spacex never even developed any of their engines, they just copied everything and reverse engineered nasa engines. Musk admits that, its on youtube. You people forget any facts simply because blue has been slow for 10 years building their infrastructure and company up while musk is just a little meth addicted rodent moving at a thousand mph forcing his employees to do the impossible. Thats why he has so many rockets blow up. No safety at all in spacex. I would sooner ride on a kerbal rocket personally.
@@jkutyna you cant compare the New shepard's landing to the falcon 9, one is a sub orbital booster which goes up then down and the other is a orbital booster which goes higher, much faster and is much taller which makes it less stable, the high speeds makes it a much more toasty reentry, also the New shepard can keep a large fuel reserve for landing and can hover even while nearly empty, both of those the falcon 9 cant do since It would make it's payload to orbit much smaller, which means if you think you can just copy blue origin's landing code and hardware and be able to land the falcon 9, you're very wrong, which is why Spacex crashed dozens of boosters trying to develop their own systems
Plot twist: by now, SLS is fully developed and could be assembled anytime, Starship has seen a lot of progress and we've only got one single pic of some New Glenn segment
But why aren't they pushing harder?
@@newhorizon3229 what are you referring to? SLS or New Glenn?
Blue origin puts it plainly
They want to copy starship!
Why build a ship that will be rendered immediately absolete 😂
It actually makes sense , falcon 9 already defeated them !
Let blue do tourism, astronaut training and stuff
Jeff has no real Target in space he's basically providing expression for musk haters in the establishment
@@cedriceric9730 well, I'm not completely against New Glenn, I think it's important that there is a great variety of options (when talking about heavy lift rockets), plus even though Starship when finished will indeed be far more cost effective, New Glenn will still beat by a lot SLS' payload capacity and price
@@cedriceric9730 and I'm all in for Bezos' Halo/Elysium looking space station hotels/vaults idea
I freaking love space
word
Basketvector I am so lucky to be able to see some rocket launches for free
don't forget, ｓｔａｒｓｈｉｐ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｄ
Soooo their Mars rocket is going to be called New Musk?
Back when Blue Origin was a serious contender for building a competent booster, and not a company drowning in internal complaints about a toxic workplace and unsafe practices to rush the launch that would place their founder in space over competition with Virgin Galactic.
SpaceX was faced with the same 'toxic workplace' complaint. Not sure how it ended🤔. About the unsafe practices, I think you mixed it up with Virgin galactic, who lost a pilot during test flight and took an unplanned trajectory during the flight with its founder, because they had some issue with reaching the orbit if they did so. By changing the trajectory mid flight, they have violated safety practices, whereas Blue Origin's automated system has multiple failsafe modes to ensure the passengers' safety.
Guys I‘m from the future of the future. Starship flew and New Glenn wasn’t seen yet.
I thought it blew up?
@@davidstevenson9517 yep, but at least it flew for a time
@@davidstevenson9517from range safety? Lmao
2 years later and they still haven't done anything
It's so upsetting that patent law can inhibit innovation. If you are only testing, you should be able to use any method you please. We're going to sue ourselves into cutting up space into tiny corporate pieces, and that's sad.
Maybe I should patent that rail vehicles can run only on rails. If that is not already patented. Or, I could patent patent trolling. Wait, that sounds actually useful...
Indians should patent all of the sex positions as they were the ones who came up with the kamasutra.
Heck Someone should patent breathing
Patents are about incentivising technological development. It adds competitive value to R&D. You can't patent stupid stuff like landing on drone ships, but you can patent new and unique design solutions. Kennedy asked if space would be a sea of peace or a new theatre of war - I think it'll be a mixture of both, no different to life on earth. Why should it?
Patents used to be important to investment in innovation. Now they tend to tweet it. We should shorten the duration before all patents and copyright becomes available for public use. That is what is meant to happen.
7:29 didn’t age well
The fact that blue origin patented ship landings shows the different drives behind the two companies. Blue origin’s mission is to make money for their rich CEO. SpaceX’s mission is to go to Mars
keco185 If the Space X mission is not to make money, then there is no mission to Mars.
Has anyone ever tried to patent landing on the ground?
@@nikiwiki2006 you are getting this comment completely wrong. Blue Origin's mission is to make money for their CEO
SpaceX is making money to send people to Mars (well, making money to develop the technology to get humans there) as apposed to the money going straight to Elon's pockets
One wants to help humanity and the other wants to get rich
@@Matrixprogrammmer more rich than he already is
Not at this rate.
The one thing I don't want space future to be is to be ruled by Mr. Bezos.
But the rocket is still awesome 😁
I don't want it to be ruled by Elon Musk either. Two crazy billionaires.
Jeff Bezos looks like a Bond evil mastermind tho :D
I think I prefer elon over bezos even tho I love amazon and never use PayPal lol.
Son ,he really is going to rule though
@Mr. Gandalf 'fly, you fools'. And 'wise fool'.
But ofc, 'hope is kindled'.
I love the fact that you literally heart basically every comment you see. Also, great video! Keep up the great work!
😘 gotta show love back to those who appreciate the videos! 🙌
wowowowowowowowowowowow
@@EverydayAstronaut You da best! Love your content!
@@EverydayAstronaut what a hottie 😘😉
Eh, it makes the heart pretty useless if every comment has it.
New glenn: Im a really big Rocket
BFR: how cute
yeaahh
Space Launch System: what he said.
@@Shadowkey392 Long March 9: shut up, kids don't talk during adult dinner time
Vulcan: you two are bastards
@@politonno2499 Vulcan will fit into Starships fairing
starship & superheavy :
Let us introduce ourselves
I feel like New Glenn is more on par with BFR / Starship and not the Falcon Heavy, as they are both still at a conceptual/experimental level and seem like they will come in to service around the same time as each other.
Whereas a Falcon Heavy has actually flown, and is due to continue to do so.
Great video though! Can’t wait for the next one 👌🏻
Good point! Perhaps better asked as, 'How far BEHIND New Glen are the BFR-Starship and the SLS?'. If the answer for either is, 'Well they might be about even.' then they should have been part of this review.
New Armstrong
I appreciate the naïve optimism in this video. Reminds me of a time we actually thought BO was capable of accomplishing things.
Your videos have improved, and you don't keep information as a suspense till the end which is nice.
Blue Origin trying to patent everything to slow the competition and profit more than everyone else. Essentially slowing down progress, is why I choose to vote SpaceX.
The patent was invalidated because of prior art. But it shouldn't have been issued in the first place because a patent is supposed to show how it's done, to enable a person skilled in the art to perform the invention without undue experimentation. Has Blue Origin shown how it's done? Obviously not. Clearly actually landing an orbital-class rocket takes a *lot* of experimentation!
Have you actually looked at patents recently? You'd be surprised!
@@totalermist Reality sucks... patents have turned into a war on actual engineering with patent mills in a Texas town being tied in with the court system there for the sole purpose of sucking money out of companies through legal fees for ideas that are obviously covered under prior art or obvious to an expert in the field exclusions.
Well, its 2021, and no word has come out that they have even started building. (Unless im wrong)
When are people going to learn. You arent going to know anything until they decide to let you know. People have gotten so used to Space X that they forget how literally every other company operates
@@purona2500 its a joke, calm down.
@Nathan Carranza and now it is delayed to 2022 so... ;)
Well, at least thex Have a mockup of New glenn
We are getting into a golden age!
This is the Information age? golden age was like 2,000 some years ago?
Chaotic Geek Almost. In the past it was the government heading things up. This time it’s private industry and hopefully...us cheerleading the industry 🙂
@@royalblue2324 OrAnGe MaN bAd
If the Libs don't mess things up!
@@ThomasLee123 Trump is the one who hates science.
Well that didn’t age well!
Where’s New Gagarin
Although I was against nasa dropping the shuttle program. I will admit I’m really enjoying the new space race and the amount of launches and technology coming from it. These upcoming years will be extremely interesting! Great video
Center Of The Earth Mining , well said!
What did the shuttle do? Years of running circles around the Earth without meeting its objective in the shuttle program - lower the cost to space. 135 flights to conduct science experiments, deploy the Hubble telescope, repair the Hubble, and build the ISS. It was a very inefficient use of limited resources. Every launch had the potential to bring the external tank into orbit, but didn't. Imagine several dozen external tanks linked into a massive space station instead of the ISS. NASA belongs as a research facility, not as a national access to space provider. I agree with the private companies creating a new era of excitement for space. Our government should create incentives for US companies to conquer the final frontier.
@@saxonsoldier67 They thought of that (ET's to form a space station) but in practical terms it couldn't be done. The foam would "popcorn" off the tank as it degraded and make TONS of orbital debris. Plus, the "wet workshop" idea (converting the propellant tanks into an orbital habitat) had a lot of drawbacks. Even if you DID put a bunch of ET's in orbit, it would take MANY dozens of missions to outfit them to do anything useful with all that space inside them. Plus, a lot of modifications would have to be done on the ground to make it feasible-- for instance, pre-installed hatches and pressurized tunnels between the LOX and LH2 tanks, plus hatches at either end to connect them together, plus the required structures to link the tanks together into some kind of usable configuration. All that adds weight and complexity and would have to be designed to survive the rigors of launch, to manrated standards, (ie, sealing off completely with the weight and pressure of hundreds of tons of pressurized cryogenic propellants on top of the hatches, with essentially ZERO chance of failing, and yet still be light enough for flight hardware and still capable of working correctly once in orbit for the manned phase.) The idea was "good at first sight" but then when you really dig into the mechanics of it, it's a nightmare. Even converting the tanks in orbit using astronauts-- say to weld in connecting tunnels or cut open the bottom of the tanks to connect them, etc, has huge challenges-- how do you ensure the welds are good enough to hold, etc.?)
That's why it was never done. One thing they learned from Skylab was, it was almost "too big" size-wise internally... Shuttle ET's were over 5 feet larger in diameter.
In the end, it was decided it just wasn't worth the effort and expense. Particularly the part about overcoming the foam shedding problem, which would have required a HUGE redesign. Adapting hardware from one purpose to something else is NEVER as easy as it seems at first-- just look at the COMPLETE REDESIGN of the ET from shuttle external tank into the SLS core, which was "supposed" to be a simple job, just requiring "tweaking the design"...
Later! OL J R :)
@@lukestrawwalkerNice reply. I know they looked at it and decided that it was too messy. An extensive redesign of the tank could have solved all of these issues for less than the $100 + Billion the ISS costs. A private company would have cared more about costs rather than aesthetics.
@@saxonsoldier67 True, but they would have STILL had to develop most of the systems for ISS-- remember that's why we brought the Russians in to the station program, replacing the "Space Station Freedom" (SSF) with the "International Space Station". Reagan had greenlighted the SSF way back in 1986, in the wake of the Challenger disaster. He ordered NASA to build a space station "within a decade". Of course the NASA bureaucracy bogged the program down, particularly when Congressvermin got involved and everybody wanted "their pet project" added. SO SSF suffered through at least 3-4 redesigns, and was still YEARS from "bending metal" to build it when suddenly the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, and suddenly a lot of ex-Soviet rocket, missile, and space engineers were suddenly out of work and selling stuff on streetcorners to survive. Meanwhile the later-named "Axis of Evil" third world countries looking to build missile arsenals and obtain nuclear weapons, awash in petrodollars in most cases, were looking to hire anybody who could further their missile and nuclear programs. The gubmint had NASA look into the situation, discovered that "the really HARD parts of SSF had yet to be done (the modules are the "easy part"; developing in-space propellant transfer, a service module and propulsion system suitable to reboost the space station and prevent it from reentering the atmosphere due to the slight drag of the incredibly thin (but yet present) atmosphere at that altitude, and provide stabilization, power, life support, and other essential services necessary to operate the modules, hadn't even been touched yet by NASA. Now suddenly we had the former Soviet now Russians, struggling to keep their space program afloat in the post-Soviet era, and they had been developing space stations and support capabilities (like orbital refueling, reboost propulsion, stabilization, orbital resupply, and automated rendezvous and docking) for decades, and already had operational systems. Thus it was just "natural" to bring the Russians in and toss "SSF", morphing the project into the "ISS". We paid them for the Shuttle/Mir program, where we flew our shuttle to their Mir space station, and paid them to have our astronauts aboard for months at a time, virtually continuously, for several years. We also paid them to finish their "Mir 2" space station core module, which became the "Zarya" module once they launched it aboard a Proton rocket in the late 90's... We sent up the "Unity" node on shuttle and ISS was born. It would be 13 years and 40-odd shuttle missions before construction was halted (technically it wasn't "finished" as planned, just "called it finished" as the shuttle was being retired, and rightfully so). We also paid the Russians to finish building one of their "Mir 2" modules that became Zvezda. We supported their space program with badly needed cash infusions, and in exchange we got access to their "service module" (Zarya) for the essential services ISS would need, so NASA wouldn't have to design it all from scratch, and we also got access to their "Progress" space freighter/tanker resupply vehicle, which had automated rendezvous and docking capabilities, plus was already operating and configured to dock itself to the Russian module, refill the booster engine and stabilization thruster fuel tanks, provide pressurized resupply cargo capability for the crew, as well as acting as an "orbital trash dumpster" once its supplies were transferred to the station and it was refilled with the stations "garbage", to burn it all up on reentry. This lifted a HUGE development weight off NASA, as it would have taken them a decade and BILLIONS to design, evaluate, build, and test all those systems and build flight hardware ready to launch. Of course we wanted a lot of electrical power, so we built things like the rotary joints and solar panels and power system, and many other things as well...
I agree that ISS is ENTIRELY too expensive for what it does. But then, so was shuttle. We now know that the costs for each shuttle launch in the program were EXTREMELY exorbitant and basically we'd have been better off to build a smaller crew launch vehicle and an unmanned "heavy lifter" for cargoes, (much like what replaced shuttle, but more akin to the EELV's than Ares V super-heavy lift vehicles). Shuttle became an albatross around NASA's neck and kept us trapped in LEO for 30 years, as it was TOO EXPENSIVE to do *anything* else AND shuttle at the same time. Now its the same with ISS-- we can either do deep space missions, ie "Moon, Mars, and Beyond", or we can do ISS... there simply IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY to do BOTH... SO, as long as ISS is still flying, you can forget much beyond a couple of "demonstration and test flights" for SLS/Orion... there simply isn't FUNDING for anything more substantial, and won't be until ISS is sunk and that money can be freed up to do other things.
Sad but true... Later! OL J R :)
“Where are my engines, Jeff?”
20:49 - 21:07 lol, both SLS and Starship have flown and NG wasn't even assembled onse.
Yep, Maybe in 2024... Maybe
yep, Maybe in 2025... Maybe. @Giovani992
Loved the video. Super informative and well put together. I hope you do a video about the Blue Origin New Armstrong Super Heavy someday!
@Guero Rodriguez lol
A little bit of Googling "New Armstrong" turned up rumors that it might use larger diameter propellant tanks than the Saturn V, and an even bigger Methalox engine (likely called the BE-5).
I'm 30, and I guess I was born at the right time to see the real start of human exploration of space.
The Apollo program truly was impressive, and I wish it continued to manned exploration of Mars and more (S-N third stage [using NERVA engine]? Yes Please!), but hearing of all these plans of Moon to stay, and plans for the capability to land ~100 tons of cargo on Mars have me really excited about the next 20 years of spaceflight, especially since now it looks like some of the money to back up those plans won't be subject to political whims (which has been notably unreliable).
I wish there were more than just rumors. Whatever it is, I would guess the plan would be to upstage the competition with something massive, and for some reason that really makes it exciting!
BFR.
24 minutes I enjoyed
The fact that a rocket landing on a ship could be considered for a patent anyway shows how broken the system is. I mean going by that logic someone could have patented parking cars in driveways....
+KelDG3 The USPTO is not *supposed* to accept patents for (a) things that were published before (there is "prior art"), whether patented or not, and (b) "obvious to practitioners of the art", Landing a rocket on a ship should fail due to (b) and probably (a).
The problem is that the USPTO is grossly under-resourced and under-staffed. Their patent inspectors do cursory looks over the patent, and unless there's a real clanger in it, will rubber stamp it. They don't do much research of their own records, let alone any other. They're never provided with a sample apparatus, so, they never test that it works either.
The USPTO is relying on the court system to rule on patent disputes. Which is why there's so many patent trolls.
Just one quick observation (about rivalries): SpaceX (Elon Musk), is essentially an altruistic endeavor, whereas Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos), is more of an entrepreneurial endeavor. Ditto with regard to Tesla (both for EV's and solar products, and domestic or commercial batteries): it's primarily and even entirely altruistic! Elon saw that Solar, and EV's, and big-lift Reusable Rockets were all needed, and so that's what he did. Bezos is more about control, and income (hence the patent fight over nautical recovery platforms, not to mention Elon's open source patents for Tesla). Big difference!
👏
Yeah. That's why I'm rooting for Elon. He is contributing to humanity, while making money, where the others are mainly in there for their own wallet.
George Schieck,
Well said.
so naive. you think Elon is different from Bezos ? LOL
worstformm,
People are/can be different. Yes, people can believe Elon is different. Allow them that, just like everyone allows you to believe they are no different from each other.
This aged... well.
New Glenn is not built at all.
The BE-4 engine doesn't work despite having been in development for many years. (Note that it is very similar to the Raptor engine, which went from the test stand to a flying rocket, and hopefully orbital this year.)
Blue Origin seems to be the company of making big promises and not delivering.
I predict it will land about 1,558 km away, just offshore from the closest bar in Bermuda
Jeff Bezos : Elon who?
Elon Musk : Jeff who?
Me : Who's who?
Who's on first?
What's on second?
No what's on 3rd.
@@cynthiaayers7696 - I don't know is on 3rd... I don't give a darn is the short stop.. -grin-
And f*** it's in the dugout haha!!
2 years later and the answer is… if they ever build one, maybe!!
First time watching other than space x videos on this channel
Your content and quality is awesome. better than 90% of the other content.
Tim, I love your non-partisan approach. I genuinely appreciate your efforts in remaining factual while not picking sides. Thank you.
Only if our news channels were the same..
BeepBoopSpace Same here, more people need to realize that it isn’t about picking sides in this new age “space race”, but rather we should be excited that multiple companies are working to achieve the same goal and can learn from each other. It’s all about progress in the ultimate frontier, which is why I wake up every day on pins and needles, itching for news on rocket development.
@@tubulartopher Then they'd actually be considered news.
He picked a side when he chose to ignore the BFR comparison.
We’ll see how it matches up with SpaceX Starship rocket! Exciting times to be alive 🚀
SpaceX will do it first.
@@gj9157 Hmmm. I would wait for spacex to put more funding towards starship before I even talk about it happening before 2030. Currently it's only like 1% of their budget.
@@wheresmycar9559 Yeah, but they have far more experience with rocket technology, let alone had numerous successful launches in the past year. Blue Origin barely scratched the surface until recently.
@@gj9157 Doesn't matter. Many of blue origins employees are ex members of ula and spacex. Also, spaceX has its priorities in the commercial crew certification of Falcon9. Blue Origin has had their eyes on New Glenn for a while now, and as said in the video have been very conservative with their timelines, unlike spacex.
New Glenn is a F9 and FH competitor, and it definitely will be an amazing rocket.
However, BFR is in a much higher rocket category. They teased a New Armstrong rocket, and that will certainly be in a class with BFR.
The only reason I hate Blue Origin is because they just aren’t fun. SpaceX just does a lot of their stuff because it’s cool, like launching Elon’s car into space. Blue Origin just does stuff for the practicality of it, and it’s kinda no fun.
True. Plus i hate the nationalism (like, why new glenn, not new gagarin?)