Opening - Detail - Summary. Absolutely on the point and unbiased. No BS, color commentary, etc. It's like reading a well-written report. Thank you. Never change your format.
Really love your videos dude. Short, to the point and informative. Most of all its about spaceflight in general and not a spaceX Infomercial. Keep up the good work!
I still don't know how a company that never shot a rocket into orbit even as a test can secure all these contracts but never the less I hope to see another large rocket succeed in both take off and landing.
They must have a very good sales team 😂. Honestly, though, they do have a reasonable track record with new shepherd. Sure it's not orbital, but it is a rocket. They probably have a fair number of employees with a track record in space flight. They have solid funding in Jeff Besos. He is, in fact, his own customer for several of the contracted launches 😅. The contracts are probably also worded in such a way as to be low risk for the customer.
I mean at least they have experience with recovering rockets and their engines have been used on an orbital rocket. As far as non-spacex reusable rocket companies go, it doesn’t get much better than that.
I often wonder why people think going to orbit and how exactly that is achieved, has to be learned again each time someone does it for the first time. Is it illegal to write down how to do it?
Great! I was looking forward to this when I was in my earlier career. Then I changed jobs, retired, moved , built a new building, and watched SpaceX launch 400 times. Really looking forward to Blue making it to orbit!
I hazard to guess that if Blue Origin succeed in landing the booster on the first attempt. It will not only because of the skill of their team of engineers, but also what has been learned from SpaceX successes. Hoping that the static fire, and the launch are a success for Blue Origin. It is fantastic seeing another U.S. based company working to get humanity into space!
@@Coocoocachoo809 design is only one part of making. The size and scale of these things, you have to make the things to make the things with. Often buildings have to be designed around the thing to make the things. There is a ton of work for sure.
No one landed a booster on the first try? Well - if you don't consider catching a superheavy booster by the launch tower as landing it, then I guess that's right.
@@oberonpanopticon I understand, but the first try in catching the orbital super-heavy, SpaceX was successful. As far as launching and landing all in one, this would be a first if they pull it off. I really, hope they do, as that would be great for the country and space development.
B.O. is trying to spin their slower and more expensive development process as better because they didn't crash any prototype orbital rockets before attempting to launch a payload. Although, that payload is a prototype.
That was starship's fifth flight. They had done soft landings during the first few flights. The correlation to this flight would be soft landings for the first few flights before attempting a landing. Was similar for falcon 9, before attempting a landing. They are betting on their experience with New Shepherd landings to help with their software and hardware. More power to them.hioe to see them successful. Starship catch was amazing, but not exactly the same thing.
@@andrewbstevens The key words here are "first try" not "first fly and land": SpaceX didn't try or attempt to catch or "land" until the fifth flight, and were successful on that first attempt.
Iirc they’re still analyzing whether or not it’d be worth it. ULA is competitive with spacex and they’re fully expendable last I heard. And as scout said, it doesn’t need to compete with spacex, it’s a different vehicle for different missions.
New Glen is more capable than Falcon 9, especially for higher orbits (Falcon 9 is optimised for LEO). Starship is also ridiculously LEO optimised, and would need a third stage or refuelling to reach higher. Assuming Starship doesn’t just totally upended the entire launch market and become the absolute default for everyone with access to US launchers (personally I think SpaceX will struggle to keep the per launch costs down even if they get the cost per kg unbeatably low, and cost per kg only matters if you have that much mass to launch), I think there’s a market for New Glenn.
Nope new Glenn is addressing a different need and capability. Starship won’t be ready for a while. It still has a year or two. Plus given that market demand is clearly there doesn’t hurt to have competing launch providers as clients are looking to diversify from SpaceX.
It basically already is. Even if they have a successful launch Blue moves extremely slow so I would anticipate it taking a couple years to ramp up New Glenn launches but by then Starship will be fully operational! When SpaceX starts launching Starlink satellites on Starship and both the booster and ship land back at Starbase it's over for the competition cuz nobody will be able to match their costs!!
When it comes to commercial space flight, the more of the competition goes up and returns to the ground the merrier. We want civilians to go into space in our lifetime not someone else's. Go, go go!! Oh, and build up my space tech stock portfolio as well.
@@hawkdsland dump station segments in orbit with it. I'm looking forward to them doing what bezos companies do and go from low key to how the fuck are they everywhere already lol
If Blue Origin succeeds in delivering a payload into orbit - even if it doesn't land - I will finally be able to retire my old jokes about Blue Origin being the industry leader in CGI and VR rocket science.... Here's hoping for their success. As much as I enjoyed clowning on Blue Origin, Elon Musk is right. We need more American aerospace companies capable of reusable heavy lift operations, as possible, to propel the U.S. into the future - the real future - of human space exploration.
Starship has been in development for 15 years now, and even though it has landed a couple times, it's still in prototype, and has 1 more block/version to go yet for the Ship, and two more for the booster before it's fully operation. New Glen is supposed to be fully operation from the start. However, I don't care how long it takes to develop these things. It's not an indicator of anything. For example, Starliner started development in 2014, and is complete junk. The only thing that matters is, does it work, is it reliable, and is it relatively cheap.
@hawkdsl starship as we know it has been in development since 2018 everying before that (ITS/BRF) were pretty much completely scrapped until they went back to the drawing board and started from scratch in Boca Chica
No one cares if they can land the booster in the first attempt. What matters are results and costs. There are only two options - you can make cheap and reliable orbital rockets or you can't. So far, they can't.
They care if they land the booster. Customers don’t care if rockets are reusable at all. All the customers care about is reliably and cost. How you accomplish that is irrelevant to them. But SpaceX achieves both via reusability. Cost is obvious, reliability because what would you trust more, a car that’s just been built, or a car you’re already driven a dozen times and know was built correctly? Blue Origin need reuse to work or they won’t come close to SpaceX in cost or reliability. Honestly, from their prospective, a booster landing probably matters more than the second stage reaching orbit. Both are things they must get to work reliably at some point, but landing is harder to fix if they did something wrong.
@@thorin1045 What do you mean? I'm referring to the name of their first ship. BO is trying to make a virtue out of their fear of taking reasonable risks.
So 850 tons is ready to launch and be reused for another launch right? No? Look, the cost of a one-time shot is like flying from LA to Brisbane and then throwing away the 747. It just doesn't make any sense.
Their 7m fairing provides unprecedented mass and volume capabilities? Doesn't that mean that there hasn't been anything else like it before? Have these guys not heard of Starship? I think 9m is a bit bigger than 7m.
The problem with Starship is how big the payload bay door can be without structural degradation. It doesn't matter what the cubic feet/meter capacity is, only how big the door can be. That's why I love the James Bond approach that Rocket Lab is using for Photon. The entire payload bay opens like a flower. They may end up being able to carry physically bigger payloads then starship. That may be far more important for exploration missions, and military missions.
I do hope that New Glenn succeeds first time, I really could care less for Starship's development style. It's just a justification for mass production.
And NG will be different than starship how exactly? It might not be mass produced to the same extent, but it’s not as if they’ll just build a single booster and call it a day.
@@oberonpanopticon The thing is SpaceX in regards to Starship, outside looking in, looks like they are mass producing garbage. This last Starship that flew was SN31 I think? Between the first successful landing, which was SN15 to now has been 16 times they've built these things. Somewhere in the process it looks like engineers gave up on engineering and forced the development on the welders.
I think both companies hope for "mass production" like car manufacturing. When these ships are fully mature, they will be able to crank them out. All the parts will be standardized, and very little custom parts will be needed. That will bring the cost down significantly.
Opening - Detail - Summary. Absolutely on the point and unbiased. No BS, color commentary, etc.
It's like reading a well-written report.
Thank you. Never change your format.
I love it. Simple and informative.
Agreed really enjoying the 'just the facts' format to the video on this channel!
It's AI
Really love your videos dude. Short, to the point and informative. Most of all its about spaceflight in general and not a spaceX Infomercial. Keep up the good work!
Another beast soon to fly high!
They already mastered the paint jobs. Now they need to fly it.
I really hope Peter Beck tweets "Welcome to the club" when this reaches orbit!
I still don't know how a company that never shot a rocket into orbit even as a test can secure all these contracts but never the less I hope to see another large rocket succeed in both take off and landing.
They must have a very good sales team 😂. Honestly, though, they do have a reasonable track record with new shepherd. Sure it's not orbital, but it is a rocket. They probably have a fair number of employees with a track record in space flight. They have solid funding in Jeff Besos. He is, in fact, his own customer for several of the contracted launches 😅. The contracts are probably also worded in such a way as to be low risk for the customer.
I mean at least they have experience with recovering rockets and their engines have been used on an orbital rocket. As far as non-spacex reusable rocket companies go, it doesn’t get much better than that.
It's not uncommon. Even spacex has customers on their very first flight and that one failed. Maybe if you had made and effort to find out..
Wow. It might be something they know that you don’t. Weird.
I often wonder why people think going to orbit and how exactly that is achieved, has to be learned again each time someone does it for the first time. Is it illegal to write down how to do it?
Great! I was looking forward to this when I was in my earlier career. Then I changed jobs, retired, moved , built a new building, and watched SpaceX launch 400 times. Really looking forward to Blue making it to orbit!
Not gonna lie... Wood Grain paneling on a rocket is pretty lit.
I love your Bueller, Bueller voice. It’s way better than AI
I hazard to guess that if Blue Origin succeed in landing the booster on the first attempt. It will not only because of the skill of their team of engineers, but also what has been learned from SpaceX successes. Hoping that the static fire, and the launch are a success for Blue Origin. It is fantastic seeing another U.S. based company working to get humanity into space!
If they pull off the entire mission perfectly the first time, it will just barely be more amazing that the Starship catch with Space X.
"Nobody has landed an orbital booster on the first try." IFT5: am I a joke to you?
Things that go Boom! 💢
Seems like a TON of work on a singular rocket. How mass reproducible are these? At what cost?
Google may have the answers. Maybe check out Everyday Astronauts BO's plant tour... but I know they have three more in production currently.
@@Coocoocachoo809 design is only one part of making. The size and scale of these things, you have to make the things to make the things with. Often buildings have to be designed around the thing to make the things. There is a ton of work for sure.
I don't think their goal is mass production. They have nothing like Spacex's Mars ambitions.
No one landed a booster on the first try? Well - if you don't consider catching a superheavy booster by the launch tower as landing it, then I guess that's right.
Thing is, before IFT5 spacex ran dozens of tests on the vehicle to gather data. BO has no actual practice flying NG.
@@oberonpanopticon I understand, but the first try in catching the orbital super-heavy, SpaceX was successful. As far as launching and landing all in one, this would be a first if they pull it off. I really, hope they do, as that would be great for the country and space development.
B.O. is trying to spin their slower and more expensive development process as better because they didn't crash any prototype orbital rockets before attempting to launch a payload. Although, that payload is a prototype.
That was starship's fifth flight. They had done soft landings during the first few flights. The correlation to this flight would be soft landings for the first few flights before attempting a landing. Was similar for falcon 9, before attempting a landing.
They are betting on their experience with New Shepherd landings to help with their software and hardware. More power to them.hioe to see them successful.
Starship catch was amazing, but not exactly the same thing.
@@andrewbstevens The key words here are "first try" not "first fly and land": SpaceX didn't try or attempt to catch or "land" until the fifth flight, and were successful on that first attempt.
This is the best looking rocket out there
I can't wait to see this beast fly to the Kármán line then return to Earth.
Beautiful rocket also, Blue Origin is goood
It still remains to be see whether it actually IS flight capable...
Go Blue Origin, Go Rocketlab!
Great video, how about one talking about New Gleen's 2nd largest customer, AST SpaceMobile ?
Naming flights with cute sentences is stupid
What is the status of returning the upper stage? In the absence of being able to do that, Blue Origin will never be competitive with SpaceX.
New Glenn goes to SEO, Starship is LEO optimized.
Vastly different markets and Starship cant serve NGs customers.
Iirc they’re still analyzing whether or not it’d be worth it. ULA is competitive with spacex and they’re fully expendable last I heard. And as scout said, it doesn’t need to compete with spacex, it’s a different vehicle for different missions.
Until we know the costs how can you say it's not competitive?
Sure Starship can: Just like LTL (Less than Truckload) trucks serve several customers at the same time.
@@imaginary_friend7300 He can say that because he's a fan of only one rocket manufacture.
I love Rockets!
Finally.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
oh sorry i was just laughing at the headline.
That's because your in a fandom.
Will this have 2 bananas instead of one?
No, they need something new, something different and groundbreaking. Like an orange.
SpaceX flew a fake one. Until a real banana is flown, I refuse to believe in SpaceX, or Blue Origin.
Wow Falcon 9 is on steroids
Why is this even still happening? Just burning money with no hope to recover it.
They already have some flights on the books last I heard.
GOD SPEED BLUE ORIGIN!
0:59 Heheheheh ..... "Transporter"...
Given all the delays, Falcon 9s spectacular success and Starship is much further along, one wonders if New Glenn is obsolete before it's first flight.
100%
New Glen is more capable than Falcon 9, especially for higher orbits (Falcon 9 is optimised for LEO).
Starship is also ridiculously LEO optimised, and would need a third stage or refuelling to reach higher.
Assuming Starship doesn’t just totally upended the entire launch market and become the absolute default for everyone with access to US launchers (personally I think SpaceX will struggle to keep the per launch costs down even if they get the cost per kg unbeatably low, and cost per kg only matters if you have that much mass to launch), I think there’s a market for New Glenn.
Nope new Glenn is addressing a different need and capability. Starship won’t be ready for a while. It still has a year or two. Plus given that market demand is clearly there doesn’t hurt to have competing launch providers as clients are looking to diversify from SpaceX.
It basically already is. Even if they have a successful launch Blue moves extremely slow so I would anticipate it taking a couple years to ramp up New Glenn launches but by then Starship will be fully operational! When SpaceX starts launching Starlink satellites on Starship and both the booster and ship land back at Starbase it's over for the competition cuz nobody will be able to match their costs!!
it is
I keep tellin' people not to sleep on Blue Origin, but nobody wants to listen
It's called fandom.
Wake me up when the finally reach orbit.
When it comes to commercial space flight, the more of the competition goes up and returns to the ground the merrier. We want civilians to go into space in our lifetime not someone else's. Go, go go!! Oh, and build up my space tech stock portfolio as well.
Not as quick as space x though.
Bounds lol😢
Do they have a crew capsule in the works? Starliner is a bust, and NASA is still wants a second crew option.
BO is going to human rate New Glen, but I think the idea is to fly someone else's ship on top. Certainly they plan to fly their HLS on it.
@@hawkdsland dump station segments in orbit with it. I'm looking forward to them doing what bezos companies do and go from low key to how the fuck are they everywhere already lol
If Blue Origin succeeds in delivering a payload into orbit - even if it doesn't land - I will finally be able to retire my old jokes about Blue Origin being the industry leader in CGI and VR rocket science....
Here's hoping for their success. As much as I enjoyed clowning on Blue Origin, Elon Musk is right. We need more American aerospace companies capable of reusable heavy lift operations, as possible, to propel the U.S. into the future - the real future - of human space exploration.
The thing has been in development for going on 11+ years now. It better land first try.
Starship has been in development for 15 years now, and even though it has landed a couple times, it's still in prototype, and has 1 more block/version to go yet for the Ship, and two more for the booster before it's fully operation. New Glen is supposed to be fully operation from the start. However, I don't care how long it takes to develop these things. It's not an indicator of anything. For example, Starliner started development in 2014, and is complete junk. The only thing that matters is, does it work, is it reliable, and is it relatively cheap.
@hawkdsl starship as we know it has been in development since 2018 everying before that (ITS/BRF) were pretty much completely scrapped until they went back to the drawing board and started from scratch in Boca Chica
No one cares if they can land the booster in the first attempt. What matters are results and costs. There are only two options - you can make cheap and reliable orbital rockets or you can't. So far, they can't.
They care if they land the booster.
Customers don’t care if rockets are reusable at all. All the customers care about is reliably and cost. How you accomplish that is irrelevant to them.
But SpaceX achieves both via reusability. Cost is obvious, reliability because what would you trust more, a car that’s just been built, or a car you’re already driven a dozen times and know was built correctly?
Blue Origin need reuse to work or they won’t come close to SpaceX in cost or reliability. Honestly, from their prospective, a booster landing probably matters more than the second stage reaching orbit. Both are things they must get to work reliably at some point, but landing is harder to fix if they did something wrong.
You must be about 12-14 years old? Tough
do we need to ask what was your reaction to the 100% successful launch of the ift-1?
Please think before you post dumbass comments like this please.
We dont need to watch you humiliate yourself like this.
@@thorin1045 What do you mean? I'm referring to the name of their first ship. BO is trying to make a virtue out of their fear of taking reasonable risks.
Good luck to BO, we need more launch capabilities but damn they are more than a decade behind spaceX
How.
So 850 tons is ready to launch and be reused for another launch right? No? Look, the cost of a one-time shot is like flying from LA to Brisbane and then throwing away the 747. It just doesn't make any sense.
Reuse doesn't happen after the first try. Not even for spacex.
Their 7m fairing provides unprecedented mass and volume capabilities? Doesn't that mean that there hasn't been anything else like it before? Have these guys not heard of Starship? I think 9m is a bit bigger than 7m.
Starship cannot deploy a 9m volume mass from is bay.
Starship hasn’t flown any payloads yet.
It gives them volume options. Mass is determined by the performance of the stages.
Starship Mark 2 has a larger payload bay, and Mark 3, is even larger. We often forget Starship is evolving into a usable system as it matures.
The problem with Starship is how big the payload bay door can be without structural degradation. It doesn't matter what the cubic feet/meter capacity is, only how big the door can be. That's why I love the James Bond approach that Rocket Lab is using for Photon. The entire payload bay opens like a flower. They may end up being able to carry physically bigger payloads then starship. That may be far more important for exploration missions, and military missions.
RESULTS count !!!!!! Nothing else counts. Orbit and cargo counts, nothing else.
They cant launch blue rin the must launch a pice of fruit
Please add a hyphen between "Flight" and "Capable."
Blue Origin is to SpaceX as Rivian is to Tesla.
Meh... Tesla ranks as one of the worst car manufactures in build quality... If that extends to rockets, that would be bad news.
@@hawkdslthey're reffering to market cap (also tesla build quality is improving allbeit slowly)
Mr Limp does seem very proud of his huge erector.
..?
I do hope that New Glenn succeeds first time, I really could care less for Starship's development style. It's just a justification for mass production.
And NG will be different than starship how exactly? It might not be mass produced to the same extent, but it’s not as if they’ll just build a single booster and call it a day.
And mass production is the whole point..
@@oberonpanopticon I don't think they have flight cadence ambitions that match Spacex long term goals. So they don't a big fleet of ships and tankers.
@@oberonpanopticon The thing is SpaceX in regards to Starship, outside looking in, looks like they are mass producing garbage. This last Starship that flew was SN31 I think? Between the first successful landing, which was SN15 to now has been 16 times they've built these things. Somewhere in the process it looks like engineers gave up on engineering and forced the development on the welders.
I think both companies hope for "mass production" like car manufacturing. When these ships are fully mature, they will be able to crank them out. All the parts will be standardized, and very little custom parts will be needed. That will bring the cost down significantly.
Blue Origin makes the ugliest rockets!
What? Have you seen Starship? I've seen barn silos look better. At least New Glenn looks like it's mean to fly.
@@12pentaborane Wood grain paneling is lit!
I would love to see Bezos fail spectacularly🤣
Hey I don't like the guy either, but I honestly hope any venture towards making space travel cheaper and better is successful in the end.
Why? This would be amazing for everyone. We want progress.
progress brother
I say this because like Amazon, Bezos wants to use space to dominate a business sector, not to advance humanity.
why?