Dave Limp, CEO of Blue Origin, provided this view of yesterday’s second-stage static fire. Photo: Blue Origin / Dave Limp via X.com
Blue Origin has achieved another milestone yesterday in their ramp-up to the maiden launch of their first orbital rocket when they static-fired the second stage of New Glenn for around fifteen seconds at SLC-36 at Cape Canaveral on September 23rd.
Note: Blue Origin refers to the second-stage of the vehicle as GS2.
According to Dave Limp, CEO of Blue Origin, “GS2 is one of the largest and most capable upper stages ever developed with a propellant load comparable to a Delta IV booster. The two BE-3Us have a maximum thrust of up to 346,000 lbf (173,000 lbf per engine), which is the equivalent thrust of a dozen F-16 jets.”
That’s a lot of power, but it is only the launch vehicle’s second stage. The first stage of New Glenn produces 3,850,000 lbf of thrust, roughly half of a Saturn V. Whether there will be a full static fire of the booster has not been announced.
According to Blue Origin, New Glenn is slated to fly in November from Cape Canaveral.
Artist’s rendering of New Glenn in flight. Graphic: Blue Origin
NASA has decided to forego an attempt to launch the twin ESCAPADE in October aboard Blue Origin’s New Glenn on its maiden flight:
NASA announced Friday it will not fuel the two ESCAPADE (Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers) spacecraft at this time, foregoing the mission’s upcoming October launch window. While future launch opportunities are under review, the next possible earliest launch date is spring 2025.
The agency’s decision to stand down was based on a review of launch preparations and discussions with Blue Origin, the Federal Aviation Administration, and Space Launch Delta 45 Range Safety Organization, as well as NASA’s Launch Services Program and Science Mission Directorate.
In their press release announcing the delay, NASA also stated that they are exploring opportunities to launch the ESCAPADE satellites “no earlier than the Spring of 2025.”
Illustration of ESCAPADE twin spacecraft entering Mars’ orbit. Credits: James Rattray/Rocket Lab USA
“This is an important mission for NASA, and it’s critical we have sufficient margin in our prelaunch work to ensure we are ready to fly a tight planetary window,” said Bradley Smith, NASA’s Launch Services Office director at NASA Headquarters.
New Glenn Maiden Launch Shifts Right to NET November
Blue Origin stated on X.com today that New Glenn’s first launch will now be in November and will carry their Blue Ring satellite.
We’re supportive of NASA’s decision to target the ESCAPADE mission for no earlier than spring 2025 and look forward to the flight. We plan to move up New Glenn’s second flight, originally scheduled for December, into November. New Glenn will carry Blue Ring technology and mark…
Rocket Lab, who built the two ESCAPADE probes, said this after the announcement:
Today NASA announced their decision to postpone the launch of the ESCAPADE mission this year, citing logistical and schedule considerations with the launch service operated by Blue Origin. Although we are disappointed by this delay, we fully support NASA's decision and remain… https://t.co/XNsh0H8LP6
For some time, Blue had been pointing to September 29th was their target date, so this is a slight push to the right on the calendar. However, that September date was soft, as the company never formally announced September 29 and their targeted launch date.
A Brief New Glenn Overview
Blue Origin: New Glenn
Height
98 m (322 ft)
Diameter
7 m (23 ft)
Stages
2
Payload to Low Earth Orbit
45,000 kg (99,000 lb
Payload to Geostationary Transfer Orbit
13,600 kg (30,000 lb)
Payload to Cislunar Space
7 t (15,000 lb)
New Glenn is a big rocket. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is 22 stories in height at 70 meters (229 feet) and New Glenn stands nearly 100 feet taller than that. SLS stands 322 feet tall — the same height of New Glenn.
According to Blue Origin, “New Glenn is named after John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth. The rocket is engineered with the safety and redundancy required to fly humans.”
In other words, New Glenn was built to be crew-rated from the start. Currently, Blue Origin has not announced any plans to build crew capsules for New Glenn, but that may well be coming at some point in the future. Alternatively, a crewed version of Sierra Space’s Dream Chaser or even Boeing’s Starliner could be adapted to fit on top of a New Glenn.
New Glenn at LC-36 at Cape Canaveral Photo: Blue Origin
As it is with SpaceX’s Falcon family and also its Starship family of rockets still under development, New Glenn was built from the start to be largely reusable: like the Falcon rockets, the first stage is planned to land on a barge offshore. Currently, unlike Falcon rockets, Blue Origin does not plan to return to the launch site with any missions.
The first stage of New Glenn uses a combination of methane and liquid oxygen as its propellants, like United Launch Alliance’s new Vulcan rocket, and SpaceX’s Starship. New Glenn also uses the same engines as Vulcan’s first stage, the BE-4. Unlike Vulcan, solid rocket boosters are not planned for use with New Glenn. Instead, it will have seven BE-4’s compared to ULA’s two.
The New Glenn second stage is powered by a more traditional propellant mix of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, the same combo that powers Centaur, the second stage in use for Atlas V and Vulcan by ULA. Hydrolox, as it is called, also powers the first and second stage of SLS. It was also used in Saturn V upper stages as well as the Space Shuttle’s main engines.
Payload For The First Mission
Blue Origin is planning to get right to business with New Glenn on the first launch. It will be carrying two small probes to Mars to study the Red Planet’s magnetosphere for NASA’s Escapade mission.
Those probes were built by Rocket Lab, and have been shipped to Cape Canaveral for final processing.
The ESCAPADE pair of spacecraft that will be aboard New Glenn on its inaugural launch. Photo: Rocket Lab
Cape Canaveral, Florida as seen from STS-66 Atlantis Photo: NASA
Public Comment Period Ended June 24th
Interesting comments from other launch providers as well as the general public regarding the potential of Launch Complex 39A being used as a launch pad and landing zone for SpaceX’s Starship have been published online by the FAA: Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Notably, United Launch Alliance and Blue Origin have weighed in with their thoughts, and their statements on the EISZ echo many of the general public’s concerns.
Blue Origin
Blue Origin, who has manufacturing, launch and refurbishment facilities at Kennedy Space Center and also Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, weighed in strongly.
They propose capping Starship Heavy launch and landing activities to a certain number in a given time period, limiting launches to a certain time period on any given day, government-built infrastructure to de-conflict other launch facilities from Starship activities, mandatory penalties for SpaceX violating launch licenses or environmental agreements, and also for SpaceX to indemnify (compensate for harm or loss) from any Starship activities at LC-39A:
• Capping the rate of Ss-SH launch, landing, and other operations, including but not limited to test firings, transport operations, and fueling, to a number that has a minimal impact on the local environment, locally operating personnel, and the local community, in consideration of all risks and impacts, including but not limited to anomaly risks, air toxin and hazardous materials dispersion, road closures, and heat and noise generation.
• Government investment in additional launch infrastructure that would make more launchpads available to other entities in a manner that deconflicts Ss-SH operations from other launch providers at KSC and CCSFS to preserve the health and safety of their personnel and Assets.
• Government investment in additional infrastructure for KSC and CCSFS that would reduce the risk to other launch providers at KSC and CCSFS in order to preserve the health and safety of their personnel and Assets by diverting traffic from the Proposed Action area, including but not limited to improving the Roy D. Bridges Bridge to accommodate transport of large Assets.
• Limiting Ss-SH operations to particular, limited times to minimize and make predictable their impact on the local community, and allotting other launch providers the right-of-firstrefusal or schedule priority for certain conflicting launch or other operational opportunities.
• Mitigating the effects of Ss-SH that would require evacuation or other operational pauses at other launch providers’ launch sites through infrastructure improvements or other operational changes.
• Require SpaceX and/or the Government to indemnify third parties for any losses caused by or related to Ss-SH operations, including commercial disruption incurred due to the operation of Ss-SH.
• Institute independent mandatory penalties for SpaceX for conducting operations not included in an active EIS or other environmental restriction, violating a launch license, or any other laws, regulations, or other rules for operating.
Blue Origin also calls for the FAA to study effects of noise on workers at or near LC-39A, roadway capacity, infrastructure maintenance and other effects.
If interested, you can read Blue Origin’s comments in full:
ULA, which launches the Atlas V and Vulcan rockets for commercial and federal government customers from Space Launch Complex 41, made the following statements:
EIS Must Address Evolving Starship Heavy Design
“SpaceX intends to launch a larger model at LC-39A than it is currently testing in Boca Chica. In April 2024, SpaceX revealed plans to, at minimum, quadruple payload capability to make up for shortfalls in predicted performance. Starship will eventually be 492 feet tall, “roughly 20% higher than the massive system aboard the Super Heavy rocket right now.”21 The Super Heavy booster is expected to hold up to 4100 metric tons of propellant, and Starship up to 2,600 metric tons.22 The maximum lift-off thrust is anticipated at 103 meganewtons.23 The resulting launch impacts would far exceed current impacts seen during current Boca Chica launches. Additional growth of the Starship launch vehicle may be planned if performance continues to fall below expectations.
Given these changes, the EIS must perform a comparative analysis between current usage impacts and the proposed operations, with a rocket proposed to be more than double the size of any currently licensed launch vehicle and with increased frequency of launches.”
ULA also notes that returning booster and Starship vehicles locates the risk associated with these activities locally, rather than at sea:
Landing a booster at LC-39A, rather than in the ocean, shifts the risks of a system failure onto the communities, businesses, and environment that surround KSC.
They state that the EIS should also include impacts on other launch service providers:
“The FAA’s EIS should evaluate SpaceX’s proposed operations at LC-39A in conjunction with SpaceX’s proposed operations at SLC-37. This should further include an assessment of national security space capabilities and the associated vulnerabilities presented by the consolidation of these operations at adjacent launch complexes within a six-mile area. This also potentially increases the threat to other national security space launch providers located in the same six-mile area. SpaceX seeks to frequently launch the largest rocket ever from two launch sites within a six-mile area. Just one Starship launch site is likely to disrupt other launch operations in the area and cause significant environmental impacts”
ULA also states that the EIS should consider potential harms to local businesses and properties.
LC-39A sits in a bustling center for space operations. That center is surrounded by communities, including Cape Canaveral and Titusville, and important ecosystems, including the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Canaveral National Seashore.
The EIS must consider any disruptions to the health and safety of local communities and ecosystems, from both normal operations and any potential accidents. This includes impacts on traffic, economic and property harms to local businesses and individuals, and concerns about environmental justice. Impacts to public safety must also be addressed, including but not limited to nearby schools, hospitals and other key public support infrastructure and services.
These are just a few highlights from the ULA document. If interested, you can read their entire statement below, or download it and read using Acrobat Reader or another PDF compliant viewer.
You must be logged in to post a comment.