Slashdot Mirror


Jeff Bezos Unveils the Design of Blue Origin's Future Orbital Rocket -- New Glenn (theverge.com)

Earlier this year, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin said he would unveil details about his company's orbital rocket sometime "later this year." He is now delivering on the promise. Bezos has released some preliminary details about the "New Glenn" rocket which employs seven of the company's new generation BE-4 rocket engines. The rocket, named after the first American to reach orbit, is bigger than Elon Musk's Falcon Heavy rocket. Bezos said he intends to launch the New Glenn in less than a decade from now. The Verge reports: The New Glenn will incorporate reusability, according to an email update from Bezos. The first stage of the rocket will be able to land post-launch, similar to how Blue Origin's New Shepard vehicle lands after a flight. However, the New Shepard is only capable of going to sub-orbital space, so it's not traveling as fast or as high as a rocket going to orbit. Landing an orbital rocket post-launch will put Blue Origin in a whole new ball game. And it looks like there will be a lot of rocket to land. The New Glenn will be 23 feet in diameter and range between 270 and 313 feet high. That height depends on if there is one upper stage or two on top of the rocket. With just one upper stage, the rocket will be able to send satellites and people into lower Earth orbit (LEO). But with two upper stages, the New Glenn is capable of taking payloads beyond LEO. The main portion of the rocket will be powered by seven BE-4s, an engine that Blue Origin is currently developing. It's the same engine that the company hopes to sell to the United Launch Alliance to power the future Vulcan rocket. Combined, the BE-4s should provide 3.85 million pounds of thrust, according to Bezos. That's more thrust than the 2 million pounds the Delta IV Heavy is capable of, and slightly less than the 5 million pounds SpaceX's Falcon Heavy can pull off.Bezos said: Our vision is millions of people living and working in space, and New Glenn is a very important step. It won't be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong. But that's a story for the future.

79 comments

  1. Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will make spaceX obsolete.

    1. Re:Elon Musk by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let the games begin! I for one welcome a worthy competitor to Musk. The more billionaires we have focusing their attention and resources on real-world problems (rather than squeezing a few more basis points out of their high-frequency trading algorithms) the better off we'll all be. Even Bill Gates -- however buggy his software and however ill-gotten his gains -- appears to be using his economic power for "good" these days.

      Meanwhile, what has Jamie Dimon done for you lately? (cough!)2008

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:Elon Musk by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that SpaceX actually is flying stuff today, and this is a render and doesn't exist in the physical world.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Elon Musk by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Blue Origin has flown the New Shepard. Four times.

      Yes, it's not-quite-there ware so far. But he has a plan that makes as least as much sense as SpaceX.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I saw SpaceX's last flight. What a blast!

    5. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This will make spaceX obsolete."

      Based on what metric? This rocket seems a bit more complicated than the Falcon 9/Heavy, quite a bit larger, and not any more reusable. The questions that will make it or break it will probably be its reliability (something SpaceX is still working on), cost (SpaceX is currently by far the cheapest) and payload. It'll be nice to have some competition to keep SpaceX honest, but Blue Origin has its work cut out for it if it expects to keep up with SpaceX let alone surpass them.

    6. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " real-world problems "
      Uhhh, amusement park rides for the bored class aren't exactly a real-world problem. Building the upcoming leisure society with drastically reduced work requirements and free basic healthcare and living conditions for all are a real problem that needs addressing NOW.

      Metal tubes full of kerosene are really nothing interesting or important.

      Why are you tech geeks such loathsome misanthropic sociopaths?

    7. Re:Elon Musk by chispito · · Score: 1

      This rocket seems a bit more complicated than the Falcon 9/Heavy, quite a bit larger, and not any more reusable.

      More complicated how? The engine design is somewhat more complicated (staged combustion vs gas-generator) but a single rocket core is less complicated than the three-core Falcon Heavy arrangement. Perhaps you mean the optional third stage? I still think that's less complicated than the Falcon arrangement. It's potentially a lot more efficient, too.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    8. Re:Elon Musk by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Suborbital has almost nothing to do with orbital -- it's off by orders of magnitude and involves completely different factors. Blue Origin has yet to fly a rocket that can be developed for orbital flight.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    9. Re:Elon Musk by chispito · · Score: 1

      " real-world problems " Uhhh, amusement park rides for the bored class aren't exactly a real-world problem. Building the upcoming leisure society with drastically reduced work requirements and free basic healthcare and living conditions for all are a real problem that needs addressing NOW.

      Metal tubes full of kerosene are really nothing interesting or important.

      Why are you tech geeks such loathsome misanthropic sociopaths?

      We do not know how many of what meet your definition of "real world problems" are solvable by easy and affordable access to space because we do not yet have easy and affordable access to space.

      Perhaps fifty years ago you would be complaining that integrated circuits will never solve real world problems.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    10. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, its burning on the launch pad pretty good. Musk is finished.

    11. Re:Elon Musk by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, look at all those other rocketry companies that had to close the doors after losing a launch vehicle on the pad!

      Oh wait, that would be none of them. It turns out that space is hard.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    12. Re:Elon Musk by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      So the rocket should rather be named "New Shepard"?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    13. Re:Elon Musk by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Uh, none, because all of the solutions proposed are incredibly energy-intensive and highly polluting. We have huge pollution problems, upcoming due to automation are massive unemployment, antibiotic resistant bacteria, income/wealth/health/freedom disparity. These are real problems, they can all be addressed without massive pollution of the planet on an absurd scale. Instead of worshiping at the altar of scientifism, inform yourself of the real, imminent challenges that we as a species are bringing to ourselves and will violently confront in the near future.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    14. Re:Elon Musk by chispito · · Score: 1

      massive pollution of the planet on an absurd scale

      The automobile causes this. Cities cause this. Cows cause this. Spaceflight, due to its infrequency, has a relatively insignificant impact on pollution, unless you count all the knowledge we have gained from earth observing satellites. A massive increase in launch frequency would still not make much difference versus these other pollution sources.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    15. Re:Elon Musk by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right. Except for cows, I believe that pastured cows are not the source of pollution that industrial cows are as they are in balance with the pastures they are raised on. You are right in a larger sense regarding the impact on pollution a planet-wide scale, however on a local scale the impacts are decidedly tangible:
      http://web.uvic.ca/~gsteeves/e...
      https://www.quora.com/Whats-th...
      I am all for getting rid of most cars and replacing them with bicycles and a massively increased clean public transportation infrastructure. Also, I persist in my main statement that our major problems are (those I listed, there are others of course) here on earth and there is no conceivable scenario in which expending resources on space-flight are going to solve them.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    16. Re:Elon Musk by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually SpaceX does not have anything flying today. They need to find out why the lost yet another Falcon and payload.
      I would not dismiss the New Glenn so fast. The fact hat Space X got anything into orbit shows that it is possible.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    17. Re:Elon Musk by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, look at all those other rocketry companies that had to close the doors after losing a launch vehicle on the pad!"
      You mean all those companies that where developing systems for the government with government money?
      As opposed to one of the only other private companies to try and build a launcher.. like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:Elon Musk by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Of course it's possible. But claiming one companies obsolescence merely because another billionaire "unveiled a design" especially in a field like rocketry is absolutely ridiculous.

      That's like people saying that ULA is washed up when Musk "unveiled the design" for the Falcon 9. ULA seems to be doing just fine, and so is SpaceX.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  2. How big will the explosion be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious if this rocket will produce a bigger fireball than Musk's did when it blows up on the pad after being rushed into service to try to turn a profit?

    1. Re:How big will the explosion be? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rushed into service 10 years from now?

      Rockets blow up, cars crash, trains derail and we learn a little bit more every time it happens. Even the ULA's long stretch of mishap free launches is going to have a new risk when they are forced to do what Blue Origin and SpaceX have been proactively doing, develop new engines.

      Commercial space launches are the present and the future in the US.

    2. Re:How big will the explosion be? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are right. Why rush things? We have been launching things into LEO with chemical rockets for about 60 years now. We still have a lot to learn about it. It might take another 60 to make it reliable enough to launch people reliably. Who knows at this point?

    3. Re:How big will the explosion be? by ronaldbeal · · Score: 1

      FTA: "Then, the plan is to fly to the New Glenn "before the end of this decade," according to Bezos." "this decade" implies by 2020, or within the next 4 years, NOT "in a decade"

    4. Re:How big will the explosion be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that wasn't sabotage by some pissed off NASA bureaucrats???

  3. More realistic by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    This is a more realistic goal: a reusable orbital rocket to be launched around 10 years from now.

    1. Re:More realistic by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Absolutely! There is no way SpaceX can get their rocket into orbit yet, not to speak of actually landing the first stage. They should just wait until someone else can show them how to do it.

    2. Re:More realistic by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No, they should work in parallel. That way the best design wins, or at least there is an alternative. It is a win-win.

    3. Re:More realistic by pr0t0 · · Score: 2

      Lol. I think he meant realistic for Blue Origin. But 10 years from now, who knows where SpaceX will be. Probably conducting launches from their headquarters...on Mars.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    4. Re:More realistic by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      If you mean Mars, Pennsylvania you are right. How would SpaceX build a HQ on Mars in 10 years?

    5. Re:More realistic by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe by 1980 they'll get the moonbase finished.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    6. Re:More realistic by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Don't be so negative. 2050 is probably more realistic to have a semi-permanent base on the moon. Assuming the economy hasn't completely collapsed by then.

    7. Re:More realistic by jlv · · Score: 1

      No, they should work in parallel. That way the best design wins, or at least there is an alternative. It is a win-win.

      I think you missed the sarcasm.

    8. Re:More realistic by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      How confusing. So is he saying that only SpaceX should be trying at this point? Why is he being sarcastic?

    9. Re:More realistic by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      Given Elon Musk's push to get to Mars, I thought I'd make a little joke; too little apparently.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    10. Re:More realistic by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe by 1980 they'll get the moonbase finished.

      SHADO is working on that in the past, even as we speak!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:More realistic by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      He was being sarcastic because SpaceX is already making orbital launches and successfully recovering the 1st stage.

    12. Re:More realistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they are sometimes anyway. But we did orbital launches 60 years too. Does that mean that no one else should?

    13. Re:More realistic by ronaldbeal · · Score: 1

      FTA: "Then, the plan is to fly to the New Glenn "before the end of this decade," according to Bezos." "this decade" implies by 2020, or within the next 4 years, NOT "in a decade"

  4. Wait for the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BOOM!

    Race to the bottom ... of the sea!

  5. Egg them on! Competition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neither.

    I think those billionaires should go balls to the walls competing and boosting their egos and blowing billions. This will create the new technology, the new industry and eventually we little people will benefit.

    Precedent: railroad, auto, aircraft, computing industries. Some made bigger fortunes and others went bust. But in the end, society ended up better. So, we should egg them on.

    1. Re:Egg them on! Competition! by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly. There is no harm in having multiple competing designs. It is preferable actually. As long as everyone is honest about expectations.

    2. Re:Egg them on! Competition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But in the end, society ended up better"

      That is debatable for the tens of millions who were killed as a direct result.

    3. Re:Egg them on! Competition! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      "But in the end, society ended up better"

      That is debatable for the tens of millions who were killed as a direct result.

      'For the good of all us.
      Except the ones that are dead.'

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Bigger but with less thrust? by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The rocket, named after the first American to reach orbit, is bigger than Elon Musk's Falcon Heavy rocket ... Combined, the BE-4s should provide 3.85 million pounds of thrust, according to Bezos. That's ... slightly less than the 5 million pounds SpaceX's Falcon Heavy can pull off.

    Wait, so the rocket will be bigger, with less thrust? That doesn't sound like an improvement to me. Or do they just mean taller (there are diagrams in the article), but it will somehow manage to have lower mass and so get a better thrust to weight ratio?

    --
    A recursive sig
    Can impart wisdom and truth
    Call proc signature()
    1. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      If it is more reliable than any alternative it is a HUGE improvement. Size and thrust isn't everything. Trust me!

    2. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need more reliability..... size and thrust isn't everything....

      errrr.... are we still talking rockets? 'Cause it feels like you are driving at something else here.....

    3. Re: Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was struck by 3.8 million being only "slightly less the 5 million".

      Seems more substantial then "slightly".

    4. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Absolute thrust does not matter all that much, as long as the thrust can actually lift the rocket + payload off the ground. Lower thrust means gentler acceleration which is nicer for cargo but especially for crew, if you want to man-rate one day.

      Higher thrust also means you go faster before you escape the atmosphere. This increases maximum aerodynamic load.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    5. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Bigger doesn't mean more powerful.

      Blue Origin
      27' diameter, 270' tall
      first stage powered by 7 BE-4 engines producing a total of 3.85m lbf to thrust
      second stage powered by a single BE-4 producing 550k lbf of thrust

      Falcon Heavy
      12' diameter (not counting payload fairing)
      230' tall
      first stage powered by 9 Merlin 1D engines producing a total of 1.7m lbf of thrust
      first stage boosters each powered by 9 Merlin 1D engines producting a total of 1.7m lbf of thrust
      Total: 1st stage + 2 boosters = 5.1M lbf of thrust
      second stage by 1 Merlin 1D engine producing 210k lbf of thrust

      So, yes, the New Glenn is bigger and produces less thrust. It uses a different fuel, requiring a larger rocket.
      That doesn't make it better or worse.

    6. Re: Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author received a $100 Amazon.com gift card for inserting that "slightly."

    7. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I just mean we need to make sure it doesn't explode prematurely.

    8. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BE-4 uses methane. It has lower density than RP-1 so you need bigger tank to hold same mass of the fuel. Though it should have better Isp, so it might need somewhat less fuel than Falcon.

    9. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have we never played KSP or another orbital launch game/simulator? Low thrust rockets use a ton of fuel (possibly part of the reason for this launchers size), all of that fighting atmospheric drag and gravity adds up pretty quickly. True enough that there is a balancing act between getting your rocket out of the atmosphere/into orbit and the safety/comfort of the payload, but thrust it is a pretty big consideration when you factor in that your launch vehicles size, weight and complexity grows very quickly for each additional second you spend in the atmosphere & suborbital space.

    10. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Melkman · · Score: 1

      The Merlin engines of the Falcon 9 use RP-1/liquid oxygen as fuel. If the new Glenn uses liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen as fuel that would explain the size difference.

    11. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Wait, so the rocket will be bigger, with less thrust? That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

      The relevant criterion is not thrust, but thrust to weight ratio. If they're using a lighter weight, higher specific impulse fuel, methane, since most of the take-off mass is fuel, they may be lighter. So the same thrust to weight ratio may be achieved with lower total thrust.

      Or do they just mean taller (there are diagrams in the article), but it will somehow manage to have lower mass and so get a better thrust to weight ratio?

      Exactly: thrust to weight is more important than just thrust.

      However, the optimum lift-off thrust is an optimization, and is not necessarily the highest thrust. If you compare two vehicles, without knowing a lot more details, you can't tell which one is better based only on the thrust.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    12. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the Ars Technica article the first stage uses LNG (liquefied natural gas) and LOX. Which I assume has a lower energy density than the RP-1 that the Falcon uses.

    13. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More Isp, more burn duration. Simple rocket equation dynamics. A rocket flying slowly in the lower atmosphere experiences less drag loss than a rocket with a solid booster blazing away.

    14. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you're not looking at the big picture, fifty years ago our best rocket only had 7.9 million pounds of thrust and was only capable of sending 54 ton manned craft to the moon....
      uh, nevermind

    15. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Falcon 9 Heavy first stage uses two side-mounted boosters that are basically copies of the first stage core. So there is a lot of weight in engines, tanks, plumbing and structure because everything is tripled. The BE-4 just has one big first stage, which is more weight-efficient so it will require less thrust. For example, a fuel tank with three times the volume doesn't weigh as much as three copies of the smaller tank - which means you need less fuel to lift it and you can shrink the tank some more! Because of this, the BE-4 is in fact smaller than the Falcon 9 Heavy by mass as well as volume - it's just taller because of the way it's laid out. The trade-off that SpaceX is counting on is that by re-using regular Falcon 9 stages for the Heavy, they can keep the manufacturing costs down. The side-by-side configuration may also make the rocket easier to transport and handle on the ground. The BE-4 is probably going to be more expensive, but looks like it could lift bigger payloads, and if it's indeed reusable the cost may not matter as much. Landing that monster stage is going to be a huge challenge though!

    16. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Falcon Heavy first stage has three identical cores that are side by side, so the "diameter" number is misleading. It's 40' wide, bigger in volume and heavier than the New Glenn, hence it requires more thrust. It's just shorter because of the shape. In theory the New Glenn can be more efficient because of its single first stage (not lifting all kinds of duplicated hardware) so it will be able to lift more payload per fuel mass. It may cost more to manufacture - the heavy Falcon uses the same first stage core as the Falcon 9 so they could potentially mass-produce them, while the New Glenn first stage is only used for the New Glenn.

    17. Re:Bigger but with less thrust? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is using LCH4 which is a lot less dense than the RP-1 that the Falcon 9 and Saturn V use/used. The tanks are bigger but the fuel is lighter.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. The Aunt Gertrude Rapid Escape System by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I like John Glenn as much as anybody... well, actually, no. I clearly don't like John Glenn as much as Jeff Bezos, because I would never name a space rocket "New Glenn". It sounds like somebody's 50-something never-married uncle trying to rebrand himself before he goes clubbing.

    1. Re:The Aunt Gertrude Rapid Escape System by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Right? Like something he says while he's slicking his hair back in front of everybody who's sitting down to enjoy dinner.

      "Dinner? With you losers?" *slick* "No way, losers. That was Old Glenn. This--" *slick* "Is New Glenn. And New Glenn's goin' out to get New Glenn's dick wet. Not like you losers who are sittin' here to get their mouths dry on all this dry overcooked food. Overcooked?" *slick* "Not New Glenn. That was Old Glenn. Peace out you loser bitches."

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    2. Re:The Aunt Gertrude Rapid Escape System by gtall · · Score: 1

      Harumph! Trump, please stop posting here.

    3. Re:The Aunt Gertrude Rapid Escape System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking Superstore Glenn

    4. Re:The Aunt Gertrude Rapid Escape System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least this rocket is much-less penis shaped then the New Shepherd

    5. Re:The Aunt Gertrude Rapid Escape System by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Dude! That's totally going to be me in like 5 years!

      --
      Only I can judge you.
  8. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Named after the first American put into orbit, but only reaches suborbit?

    SpaceX is da best!

    1. Re:Wait... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      New Shepard is named after the first American to reach space on a suborbital flight, and has reached space on suborbital flights.
      New Glenn is named after the first American to reach orbit, and is intended to achieve orbital flights.
      Sounds logical.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:Wait... by HeavenlyWhistler · · Score: 1

      And if you like those, wait until you see New Marvin. Guess where that is going!

    3. Re:Wait... by bheerssen · · Score: 2

      Somewhere small and uncomfortable, I'll bet.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
  9. Bad math by Topwiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Verge math: A number that is 77% of the larger number is described as "slightly less".

    1. Re:Bad math by legRoom · · Score: 1

      The thrust of the New Glenn is close enough to that of the Falcon Heavy that the higher specific impulse of the three-stage New Glenn will likely give it slightly greater payload capacity on high delta-V missions (GEO and beyond), despite the lower thrust at lift-off. So yes, it's only "slightly" less from a practical perspective.

      More generally, "slightly" is an entirely subjective term, and in science and engineering it often makes more sense to compare things on a logarithmic, rather than linear, scale. On a log scale, 17.1 MN and 22.8 MN are barely distinguishable: the two rockets will directly compete with each other for payloads.

  10. Quick, call the Security Council by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An unanimous Security Council resolution against Jeff Bezos and all his companies would be a nice thing. I'm tired of hearing of Amazon this and Amazon that, sanctioning the hell out of them would level the play field a bit. This rocket looks like a big ass ICBM if you ask me. I'm puzzled that individuals may develop ICBM capabilities these days. Is he going to plead 2nd Amendment?

  11. Freudian by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Listen carefully, and you can hear faint, Austrian-tinged laughter.

    Two A-Types, boasting about how their 'missle' is bigger. Not that the US and USSR didn't do it first.

  12. Four years from now... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    Rushed into service 10 years from now?

    The subheading says "He says it will fly before the end of the decade". That's four years from now, not ten.

    Rockets blow up, cars crash, trains derail and we learn a little bit more every time it happens. Even the ULA's long stretch of mishap free launches is going to have a new risk when they are forced to do what Blue Origin and SpaceX have been proactively doing, develop new engines. Commercial space launches are the present and the future in the US.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  13. Dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our vision is millions of people living and working in space, and New Glenn is a very important step. It won't be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong. But that's a story for the future.

    Given how Amazon treats it's workers, I don't think I'd like to see his version of this vision come true.

  14. No reusable 2nd stage.Smaller than a BFR/MCT. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, talk about being a total mouthpiece for Bezos. F9H will be likely flying within the year, and BFR/MCT likely will launch in the same time frame as New Glenn.