After a 24-second test of its engines, the New Glenn rocket is ready to fly
Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket is nearing its long-delayed first flight after a 24‑second engine test, prompting comparisons with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Starship in payload capacity, cost per kilogram to orbit, and reusability. Commenters debate whether Starship’s promised ultra‑low launch costs are realistic, how to compare “aspirational” pricing across different rockets, and which mission profiles might still favor smaller or more specialized launchers. Many see strong competition between SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab and others as crucial for keeping prices in check, diversifying access to orbit, and enabling new commercial and scientific uses of space.
New Glenn vs. SpaceX
- New Glenn is years late versus earlier promises; many see Blue Origin as far behind SpaceX’s Falcon 9/Heavy and Starship.
- Some argue New Glenn was implicitly framed as a “Falcon 9/Heavy competitor,” with Kuiper as its anchor customer and broader commercial/government payloads filling capacity.
- Others question claims that Starship will be “fully operational” before New Glenn, noting Starship is still in test mode and New Glenn’s first launch and landing attempt are imminent, with up to ~12 missions targeted in 2025.
Launch Costs and Economics
- Heated debate over Starship’s per‑launch cost: cited numbers range from ~$90–100M for current fully expendable test vehicles to Musk’s aspirational $10M or even $2M.
- Some criticize “Elon GAAP” for ignoring fixed infrastructure, labor, and amortized R&D, arguing those dominate total program cost.
- Others counter that mass production, stainless-steel structures, cheap methane, and full reusability will make Starship the lowest cost per kg.
- New Glenn’s often-quoted ~$68M/launch is also characterized as aspirational; posters stress the need for apples-to-apples comparisons (similar maturity, reuse, and accounting assumptions).
Mission Profiles and Market Segmentation
- One camp claims a fully reusable Starship would dominate essentially all mission profiles, including smallsats via rideshare.
- Others argue:
- Small, dedicated payloads and unusual orbits can favor smaller vehicles (Electron, Neutron, New Glenn) on a “dedicated ride” rather than per‑kg basis.
- Some beyond‑LEO or non‑orbital missions may prefer simpler expendable upper stages rather than carrying Starship’s landing hardware.
- Insurance and risk tolerance can steer customers away from the cheapest option or from very large, complex vehicles.
Starship Technical Progress and Risks
- Supporters highlight Starship’s achievements: clustered methalox engines, catching boosters, belly‑flop reentry, and methane engines reaching space.
- Skeptics note ongoing issues with heat shields, incomplete payload capability, and comparisons to historical programs (N1, X‑33), questioning schedule optimism and rapid-turnaround claims.
Telemetry and Static-Fire Data
- Consensus: data from a 24‑second engine test is likely in the MB–GB range, far below LHC scales.
- Most rocket sensors run at tens–hundreds of Hz, with limited high‑speed channels; test video often dominates raw data volume.
Blue Origin Culture and Competition
- Some describe Blue Origin’s hiring and org structure as “Amazon‑like” and insular, with puzzling rejections of experienced candidates.
- Overall sentiment favors Blue Origin and other providers succeeding to keep prices down, avoid a SpaceX monopoly, and enable more ambitious missions (Kuiper, lunar landings, space habitats).