SpaceX Falcon Heavy vs. BO New Glenn

[Grendal]

Some might then point out that the BO New Glenn will offer more payload capability at a competitive price and take launches from FH. My response would be that New Glenn is at least two years away from the first test launch and doesn’t even exist yet. During that time SpaceX will continue to refine their manufacturing and launch processes and reducing costs and improving their already massive competitive edge. BO has a long way to go to catch up; it still has not lifted anything to orbit!

Just my non-expert opinion. If you have some professional aerospace experience that leads you to a different conclusion I would like to hear it.

New Glenn is probably more than two years away from their first test. That's taking into account the $1 billion a year that Jeff Bezos says he will throw into the business. As far as we know, the only thing that BO has relating to the New Glenn is a BE-4 engine being tested. While I am confident that BO will eventually build and test a New Glenn rocket, I have lots of doubts that it will show up on time and work anywhere near as well as F9 or FH. So I'm pretty confident in guessing that it will be 2022-2025 before a New Glenn launches and successfully lands a booster. SpaceX is incredibly rapid in what it does and they've taken many years to get to the level of success we've seen. That is with lots of launches and building lots of rockets and engines. The infrastructure to support their launches has taken many years as well. BO is only a little ahead of where SpaceX was in 2010. The difference being that SpaceX already had a rocket and engine get a payload into orbit.

 

[mongo]

Can BO/ anyone ever be cheaper enough than SpaceX to offset the risk of the unknown? Assuming SpaceX can keep capacity up (and at this point that boils down to making 2nd stages and fairings) what is the incentive to use anyone else? (other than government dual source requirements for multiple launch programs)

 

[Grendal]

Can BO/ anyone ever be cheaper enough than SpaceX to offset the risk of the unknown? Assuming SpaceX can keep capacity up (and at this point that boils down to making 2nd stages and fairings) what is the incentive to use anyone else? (other than government dual source requirements for multiple launch programs)

New Glenn has a larger fairing that has already got them a few payloads. You can just look at the two rockets (FH and New Glenn) specifications and see that FH is the more well designed rocket. It has more capacity to LEO and GTO and it is a smaller sized rocket. New Glenn can have three stages and its third stage can get more mass directly to GEO though. The Merlin engines powering F9 and FH are kerosene while the BE-4 will be liquid methane. Once they are perfected, I don't think there is any question that the BFR's Raptor methane engine will be a more significant engine than the BE-4 though. However, comparing the Merlin to the BE-4 is the subject of this thread and it could have an effect on a customer's choice between New Glenn and Falcon Heavy.

 

[ggr]

Some might then point out that the BO New Glenn will offer more payload capability at a competitive price and take launches from FH. My response would be that New Glenn is at least two years away from the first test launch and doesn’t even exist yet. During that time SpaceX will continue to refine their manufacturing and launch processes and reducing costs and improving their already massive competitive edge. BO has a long way to go to catch up; it still has not lifted anything to orbit!

But New Glenn, even in 3-stage configuration, takes a lot less payload to orbit than Falcon Heavy (approx 100klbs, versus 140klbs, according to wikipedia).

 

[jkn]

New Glenn has a larger fairing that has already got them a few payloads. You can just look at the two rockets (FH and New Glenn) specifications and see that FH is the more well designed rocket. It has more capacity to LEO and GTO and it is a smaller sized rocket. New Glenn can have three stages and its third stage can get more mass directly to GEO though. The Merlin engines powering F9 and FH are kerosene while the BE-4 will be liquid methane. Once they are perfected, I don't think there is any question that the BFR's Raptor methane engine will be a more significant engine than the BE-4 though. However, comparing the Merlin to the BE-4 is the subject of this thread and it could have an effect on a customer's choice between New Glenn and Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX has more experience, so they can design more efficient rocket. New Glenn is comparable to first version of F9. But I don't think difference between engines is large. Raptor has higher pressure, so it is smaller. I don't know if it is lighter. Higher pressure gives better efficiency in atmosphere, but not in vacuum.

But New Glenn, even in 3-stage configuration, takes a lot less payload to orbit than Falcon Heavy (approx 100klbs, versus 140klbs, according to wikipedia).

Wikipedia gives only one payload mass to GTO for New Glenn. I guess it is for two stage version. With 3. stage it should do better.

 

[bxr140]

Can BO/ anyone ever be cheaper enough than SpaceX to offset the risk of the unknown? ...what is the incentive to use anyone else?

Regulatory. You’ll be hard pressed to find an ESA launch on Spacex in the future.

Launch window. If you need to launch ASAP, spacex isn’t the right choice. They’re backed up, and slipping is inevitable.

Processing facility throughput. There are missions that require months and months of processing at the launch facility. Spacex is quite unwilling to grant exceptions to a basically stock ~L-30 day processing window. While the industry is certainly trying to shave processing time off their launch campaigns, there is a disconnect between spacex’s proposed launch cadence, their available processing space, and the payload’s time at the facility. In other words, this really manifests as availability of processing space being a constraint on spacex’s launch cadence. Obviously fixable, but that’s another conversation.

Spacex failure. Any vehicle failure is going to affect the manifest and insurance rates.

 

[mongo]

Regulatory. You’ll be hard pressed to find an ESA launch on Spacex in the future.

That lines up with the government aspect. Plus geographic limitations.

Launch window. If you need to launch ASAP, spacex isn’t the right choice. They’re backed up, and slipping is inevitable

Can anyone launch ASAP (as in now)? Or are you saying someone might have capacity sooner than SpaceX?

Processing facility throughput. There are missions that require months and months of processing at the launch facility.

Wow, did not know that. Gonna need a bigger hanger.

Spacex failure. Any vehicle failure is going to affect the manifest and insurance rates.

Sure, that would shift all the numbers.

So there are some reason why groups couldn't use SpaceX. Given the option, would they go with someone else?

 

[bxr140]

Plus geographic limitations.

Not so much limitations, but an interesting tangent is homeland content. When we build a commercial geocomm for an European customer, for instance, there is a certain amount of European content required on the spacecraft. I could see a future where European regulations require a certain number/percentage/whatever metric of European spacecraft to be launched on European vehicles.

Other than that, launch bases are all about the same logistically [unless your a US manufacturer launching in the US, of course], so there’s not a huge geographical advantage there.

Can anyone launch ASAP (as in now)? Or are you saying someone might have capacity sooner than SpaceX?

ASAP may be a poor way to describe it. What I mean is that when you sign up for a Spacex
launch, you a) know it’s going to be way out, and b) it is going to slip. Another launcher may be able to get you on orbit sooner, or give you manifest priority, or some other schedule enhancement you can’t get from Spacex.

All that said, space production schedules are historically terrible (I was hoping that would be an old space trait Elon would buck...) so it all usually ends up working out anyway. For instance, I don’t think we’ve had any falcon launched spacecraft waiting a long time on the ground for a ride.

So there are some reason why groups couldn't use SpaceX. Given the option, would they go with someone else?

Yes. Another big factor to consider is the desire to not put your suppliers out of business. Nobody in the industry wants to see Krunichev go away, people are excited that Mitsubishi is getting in the [and sort of back in the] game, etc. It would be awesome if the sea launch drama would just go away and someone could figure out how to launch profitably...

 

[Grendal]

New Glenn just put out their Payload User's Guide which prompted The Everyday Astronaut to put out a video: