Military Review

American private company Blue Origin has outlined its plans to create a heavy-duty space rocket

In early September 2016, the founder of the Internet company Amazon, Jeff Bezos, made a statement about the beginning of work on a heavy-class space rocket. The rocket was named New Glenn. Its development will be engaged in the company Bezos Blue Origin, the size of the new booster must surpass all modern missiles. It is worth noting that Jeff Bezos, the founder and head of the Internet company Amazon, in the list of the richest people in the world, compiled by Forbes magazine, ranks fourth. His fortune is estimated at 66,2 billion dollars, from which it can already be concluded that his ambitious project will be supported at least from the financial side.

Blue Origin is an American private aerospace company located 40 kilometers north of the city of Van Horn, in Calberson, Texas. The company was created in 2000 year for the development of a new direction - space tourism. Its founder was the owner and creator of, Jeffrey Bezos. The company is located on the territory of his ranch. The plans to create a new, more powerful reusable rocket called the New Glenn began to talk back in September last year. It is planned to launch it from the launch complex No. XXUMX of the US Air Force located on Cape Canaveral. As of September 36, the Blue Origin aerospace company is building a launch pad and hangars on the territory of the Air Force base.

The privately owned American company Blue Origin is involved in designing and manufacturing rockets for the space tourism industry. Today, the company's engineers have only one successful project - a suborbital rocket called the New Shepard. This is a reusable rocket, it is designed to fly slightly above the Karman line (the Karman line is the height above sea level, which is conventionally accepted as the boundary between the earth's atmosphere and space), that is, at an altitude of about 100 kilometers above sea level. First in stories The New Shepard suborbital missile successfully landed in November 2015. Later, Blue Origin designers conducted repeated rocket tests, including in emergency mode. The New Shepard rocket is a rather “modest” project: the crew capsule, which forms its second module, is designed to accommodate three people.

New Shepard launch in November 2015, photo:

Although the modest tourist suborbital rocket New Shepard and the only successful space project implemented by Blue Origin, it was she who was the first in the world to demonstrate the possibility of a controlled landing on jet propulsion to the take-off site, according to The Washington Post. In October, 2016, the fifth and final test of the prototype of this suborbital rocket is scheduled - to work out the salvation of its crew members. In January, Blue Origin re-implemented the successful vertical landing of the first stage of the reusable New Shepard rocket, after it reached the altitude 2016 kilometer in flight. According to the founder of Blue Origin, the launches of the New Shepard suborbital complex with the participation of test pilots are scheduled to begin in 101,7. If these tests are successful, then in 2017, the company plans to move to sending the first tourists into space, the businessman said. Until recently, Jeff Bezos did not specify the starting date for commercial flights using New Shepard.

In September, the newspaper The Washington Post, which is owned by D. Bezos, published a comparative sketch of the new Glenn rocket. From the published images, it can be concluded that it is only slightly shorter than the Saturn V launch vehicle (carrier of the American lunar program), and it surpasses all modern missiles in diameter of the first stage (7 meters). The purpose of the creation of the rocket declared manned space program and delivery of goods into orbit, the period of testing the new heavy rocket marked the "end of the current decade." “Our main goal is millions of people working and living in space, and the New Glenn rocket is an important step in this direction,” Bezos said.

The new heavy rocket carrier called New Glenn, on which Blue Origin engineers are working, possibly already 4 of the year, was named after John Glenn, the first American to make an orbital flight around the Earth. The diameter of the first stage of the New Glenn rocket is 7 meters, while it is equipped with X-NUMX engines BE-7, which run on liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas. Rocket lift thrust reaches 4 million pounds of thrust (thrust thrust is the amount of thrust that is needed to keep an 3,85-pound object (1 kg) stationary relative to Earth’s gravity).


The rocket New Glenn will be presented in two configurations - with two and three stages, respectively. The height of the rocket in a two-stage version will be 82,2 meters. Its main purpose is to deliver a variety of cargo to near-earth orbits. The height of the three-stage version of the rocket is 95,4 meters, which is only slightly inferior to the carrier rocket Saturn-5, which was used to carry out the first man’s landing on the lunar surface. The three-stage version of the New Glenn rocket is designed for "important missions outside of near-earth orbits." In the second stage of the New Glenn launch vehicle, one more BE-4 engine will be additionally installed. And the third stage of the rocket will be equipped with a BE-3 engine, which operates on liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, it is noted that hydrogen will give the rocket a high specific impulse, which is important for its use outside the Earth's orbit.

In the first stage of the rocket, as already noted above, must be located 7 BE-4 engines developed by Blue Origin on cryogenic components (methane - oxygen). They are in the aerospace company called the best alternative to the Soviet rocket engines RD-180 (they are currently equipped with the American heavy Atlas V rocket). The BE-4 engines have not yet passed a series of flight tests, but Blue Origin engineers believe that with these rocket engines their New Glenn will immediately surpass the Atlas V rocket on the first stage at the ground (near 10 ton) by 1700. This is only two times less than the Saturn V rocket that brought American astronauts to the moon.

Currently, the main competitor of Blue Origin in the field of creating reusable rockets is considered to be another private American company, SpaceX, owned by Ilon Mask. Recently, her Falcon 9 rocket with an Israeli communications satellite, AMOS-6, exploded on board during tests at the launch site SLC-40 located on Cape Canaveral. The official Twitter of SpaceX said that the rocket explosion occurred due to an “anomaly” during a standard test burn. Falcon 9 was not injured during the explosion, but the rocket and cargo were completely destroyed as a result of the explosion.

Launch of Falcon 9

American billionaire Ilon Musk founded SpaceX as early as 2002. SpaceX engineers are engaged in the production of Falcon missiles. Previously, they successfully designed and launched into the space rocket Falcon 1, belonging to the light class, and the launch vehicle Falcon 9, belonging to the middle class. On account of the latter, there is already a successful flight to the ISS board, and also SpaceX has managed to land the first stage of this rocket on the ground, as well as on an offshore platform. SpaceX engineers are currently working on creating a heavy-class launch vehicle that will be able to launch cargoes up to 54,4 tons into near-earth orbit or deliver various tons of 13,6 cargoes to Mars.

Information sources:
Open source materials
51 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tomded
    Tomded 26 September 2016 07: 04 New
    A strange picture of rocket comparisons. Why are they comparing their heavy missile projects with Soyuz and not with Proton? In general, everything is as usual with the "superpower".
    Well, if there still put the dead "energy" next to the dead "Saturn" ...
    1. Rozmyssel
      Rozmyssel 26 September 2016 07: 38 New
      engines will do it, then we'll talk.
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 26 September 2016 08: 33 New
        So Falcon and Shepard have their own engines. From the plate, only Atlas-5 on RDshki.
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 26 September 2016 17: 30 New
        The "duck" of pure water! They are designing a rocket, but there are no engines - they are also being "designed." They RD-180 (owning the project documentation!) Could not establish their production, although they had been working hard for more than 10 years. UTOPIA.
        1. papik09
          papik09 28 September 2016 04: 41 New
          "To the skin mace, requiring a head tether" (c). It’s not enough to have technological documentation, you also need to “wash your hands, knock on the wheel” ... wassat
        2. CT-55_11-9009
          CT-55_11-9009 11 August 2017 16: 51 New
          No, just the Blue Origin’s engine is fine. BE-4 - the development of BE-3, a working engine, it’s just sharpening just for methane. The design is completed, the first model is built (I can lie here), and tests are planned for 2017. So there is every chance of creating New Glenn (maybe even on time).
  2. Professor
    Professor 26 September 2016 07: 16 New
    Well done billionaires. good Spend their money not only on yachts and other glamor.
    1. moscowp
      moscowp 28 September 2016 21: 03 New
      Spend money NASA, i.e., American tax payers, mainly, to be exact
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 11 August 2017 16: 52 New
        SpaceX - yes, but Blue Origin on the pasture. So here you are wrong.
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 20 October 2017 19: 54 New
      This is certainly not "our" thieves.
  3. ImPerts
    ImPerts 26 September 2016 07: 33 New
    To promise is not to marry.
    Or get married here and now.
    Maybe Bezos needs to unite with the Mask to speed up the process?
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 26 September 2016 08: 33 New
      Quote: ImPerts
      Maybe Bezos needs to unite with the Mask to speed up the process?

      Yeah, the two of them will explode rockets.
      Specialists from SpaceX, an American space technology company, discovered a hole in the helium feed system of the Falcon launch vehicle, which was the likely cause of the explosion at the launch pad.

      I always thought helium was not burning.
      1. igordok
        igordok 26 September 2016 08: 55 New
        Quote: Gray Brother
        I always thought helium was not burning.

        The cause of the Falcon 9 rocket accident in June was the malfunction of a steel rack, to which a container with compressed helium was attached to displace fuel components. This was announced on Monday by the head of the developing SpaceX rocket company, Elon Musk, reports Reuters.

        All possible reasons are considered, but the data collected so far indicate the occurrence of a crack in the system for supplying helium to the tank with liquid oxygen at the second stage of the rocket, the report says. Helium serves to maintain pressure in the tank.
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 26 September 2016 09: 04 New
          Quote: igordok
          All possible reasons are considered, but the data collected so far indicate the occurrence of a crack in the system for supplying helium to the tank with liquid oxygen at the second stage of the rocket, the report says. Helium serves to maintain pressure in the tank.

          Yeah, and no one recorded a drop in pressure, and prelaunch training was not stopped. It is not surprising that they are afraid of the astronauts launching at their kyrogas.
          Safety at the level of what.
          1. NordUral
            NordUral 20 October 2017 19: 56 New
            Strange, but on the Saturns, oh, how brave they were. Were there? I think that I will live to see the answer of the Chinese from the moon.

            Although ours should not persuade itself that not everything is as good with the Amers, as with everything it is far not so brilliant as Rogozin broadcasts.
  4. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 26 September 2016 08: 05 New
    Advertising ... well, BUT there is too much noise around modest enough "achievements" ... so far nothing new (well, if only working off landing on your engines is pointless from the point of view of energy) ... Let's wait for the results ...
  5. Taygerus
    Taygerus 26 September 2016 08: 50 New
    will they buy engines from us again? laughing
  6. Gray brother
    Gray brother 26 September 2016 08: 56 New
    the Karman line (the Karman line is the height above sea level, which is conventionally accepted as the boundary between the Earth’s atmosphere and space), that is, at an altitude of about 100 kilometers above sea level.

    The US State Department has decided that space begins at an altitude of 80 kilometers - this is a conditional border. This was done so that their "unfinished" could be called astronauts.
    And the Karman line, this border is quite real - at an altitude of 100 km., The density of the atmosphere is such that in order to give lift to the wing, it is necessary to accelerate the aircraft to the first cosmic speed and it will have to become an artificial Earth satellite by any means. This is the boundary between aeronautics and astronautics.
  7. JonnyT
    JonnyT 26 September 2016 09: 47 New
    in this regard, the Americans are well done. Blue Origin, though slowly but surely moves into space. I liked their first project - it flies and lands . So in fact, the company's successes are modest - the same short-term jump into space as 28 April 1961 g, but more technological. There are fears that more creation of a more powerful rocket will not happen as smoothly as they say in the company's brochures. In any case, the company's own unique developments are worthy of respect and will contribute to the development of space
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 26 September 2016 11: 01 New
      Here's how it goes? "Successes are modest," but well done anyway.
      It's like in football - they played well, but lost?
  8. Semenov
    Semenov 26 September 2016 09: 51 New
    And I like that they constantly climb somewhere, open something, put on stream. And here we have a Russian pioneer, the whole world enjoys the fruits of discovery, last but not least, at home.
  9. baudolino
    baudolino 26 September 2016 09: 58 New
    No private investor can pull such a long-term project. A couple of disasters, which, unfortunately, can not be avoided, any problems in the market, and the investor will stop halfway. Only the will of the state can implement such projects.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 September 2016 10: 42 New
      The Americans have a diametrically opposite approach.
      They say: never can a state compete with a private trader.
      Their aviation is private, the military-industrial complex is all private. Space was at first state
      due to the fierce competition of powers. Today, rocket production is a common business.
      Launching civilian satellites for money. What is the state to do here?
      1. spech
        spech 26 September 2016 16: 14 New
        Their aviation is private, the military-industrial complex is all private.

        And how much did the Pentagon spend on f-35?
        PS or the Pentagon is also private am
    2. Justme
      Justme 2 October 2016 20: 54 New
      Until relatively recently (until 2012) I worked in the space industry (in the amount of -17 years)
      And now - I work as a private company ..
      Comparison - the wildest ..
      In a private company - this is a bet on the "conveyor" of the developers of an extremely high class.
      They appreciate those who can solve a tough problem with one, maximum two attempts ...
      Do you want to apply "heavy" heavy theory and math? - All for!
      Everyone’s success is a common success (..and everyone is happy), .. and I need a common success (.. well, at least out of selfish interests).

      And in the space industry - everything was absolutely anecdotal there ..
      And frankly - the space industry was prostituted .. (now the situation seems to be somewhat corrected ..).
      My opinion - Worthlessness and Mediocrity took power in the space industry around the end of the 60s. But that first generation of “leaders” knew (at least initially) to what extent it was possible to greet and there was still room for bright and extraordinary ones.
      Now, the space industry (at least where I worked) is already the absolute estate of Gray
  10. Engineer
    Engineer 26 September 2016 10: 33 New
    Not a single device of this company has completed an orbital flight, but plans like Napoleon have! laughing
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 September 2016 11: 00 New
    In addition: Atlas family and comparison with Proton.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 27 September 2016 19: 54 New
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In addition: Atlas family and comparison with Proton.

      For the collection, what else was dreamed of:
  12. demiurg
    demiurg 26 September 2016 13: 39 New
    Orbital flights are almost 60 years old. Aviation during this time managed to change the drive from piston to jet. And they are still trying to increase the amount of payload being put into orbit by simply scaling the size of the rockets.
    What is the use of a large rocket if the cost of a kilogram even DOE is measured in tens of thousands of ye? Sense proud of a heavy Hangar or Falcon, if the cost of the cargo in orbit has not actually changed?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 September 2016 14: 25 New
      "if the cost of cargo in orbit has not actually changed?" ///

      That's right. And 80% of the cost of launching a rocket is the cost of the first stage.

      Therefore, both Blue Origin and SpaceX are trying to make it returnable.
      Savings - from 20% to 30% depending on the number of times the return.
      Accordingly, from the client they request an amount of 20-30% less.

      This is not an easy task, but they are already half way, purely engineering difficulties.
      As before, the landing gear of airplanes often broke until they debugged the structure,
      so break the "legs" at the return step
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 26 September 2016 15: 47 New
        Warrior, stop mocking me. Well, the current generation of Pepsi, they can also develop square wheels in torsion fields, it would be financing. But neither Korolev nor Brown sat a couple of nights with arithmometers and having counted, they didn’t even try to make return steps. For efficiency becomes absolutely nothing.
        And again I repeat. It makes sense to return a hefty jar if 90% of the cost and at the same time only 10-15% of the mass are engines? Maybe it makes sense to return only them?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 26 September 2016 16: 27 New
          "if 90% of the cost and at the same time only 10-15% of the mass are engines?
          Maybe it makes sense to return only them? "///

          Great idea! I am sure that Russia is already doing this.
          1. demiurg
            demiurg 26 September 2016 17: 40 New
            Are you kidding me?
            You might think that I’m at least the head of Lavochkin’s design bureau, and you are Elbit, and we are talking at some sort of congress to discuss the development of near space.
            Both two couch experts, I personally did not advance further from paper rockets and gunpowder from building cartridges.
            I just thought, why don't they really do that?
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 27 September 2016 11: 29 New
              "Just thought, why don't they really do that?" ///

              And I thought so, your idea is really good good : split
              engine block and “pipe” (1st stage fuel tank).
              And return only the engine block.
              Maybe they will do so?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 27 September 2016 20: 11 New
                So, after all, our Energia launch vehicle was planned with parachutes lowered by parachutes. I am sure that the tank after this cannot be restored (they have a zero margin of safety), but the engines would have been preserved. Otherwise, it makes no sense to parachute this whole farm.

                PS on the scheme "return means compartment"
              2. sa-ag
                sa-ag 19 October 2016 08: 17 New
                Quote: voyaka uh
                And return only the engine block.
                Maybe they will do so?

                In principle, this is exactly what they are trying to do, then they drag along a “pipe” with the rest of the fuel so that the engines can gently land
    2. rasteer
      rasteer 26 September 2016 14: 38 New
      And the main purpose of the superheavy class is not to reduce the cost, but to make it possible to put a large load into orbit once or to fly it into high or interplanetary orbit.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 26 September 2016 15: 49 New
        And who interferes with, instead of a 100-ton module, output 5 to 20? Or 4 to 25. Name the module that must be displayed in its entirety.
        1. rasteer
          rasteer 26 September 2016 19: 00 New
          for example, a telescope in high orbit or an interplanetary inhabited vehicle, or a module of an orbital station, any unit for which crushing into components is not advisable or not possible in principle. Weightlifters actually aren’t that often launched. highly specialized missile.
  13. Operator
    Operator 26 September 2016 13: 51 New
    The most valuable thing about Blue Origin products is its methane and oxygen rocket engines.

    But Blue Origin, like SpaceX, will tear its navel in an attempt to implement a dead end solution - the reusable first stage of the launch vehicle.
    1. rasteer
      rasteer 26 September 2016 14: 42 New
      The most valuable thing in these two companies is the PR they surrounded themselves with. And which makes the competitors move.
  14. Titsen
    Titsen 26 September 2016 15: 44 New
    Quote: Mestny
    American Uriapatriot?

    not american - look at the flag icon
  15. lexx2038
    lexx2038 26 September 2016 18: 04 New
    Judging by the way the cosmodrome was built, unfortunately we will not have new missiles soon, we are still flying from the Soviet springboard. If we do not have time to "grow" the wings, then the landing will be tragic. When the oil runs out - we will dig potatoes. Our most important thing would not hurt to re-read some of Stalin's works.
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag 19 October 2016 08: 19 New
      Quote: lexx2038
      When the oil runs out - we will dig potatoes.

      Then there will be hydrogen
  16. iouris
    iouris 29 September 2016 21: 28 New
    Companies that develop such systems are private only at first glance. The fact is that, according to the constitution, the US state cannot develop technologies and engage in other economic (entrepreneurial) activities (this is communism). By the way, the same thing can be said about Microsoft and Google.
  17. iz odessy
    iz odessy 19 November 2016 15: 31 New
    you can make fun of, mock, mock having a very "cherishing envious mentality" ... on the move. However, given the steady increase in rates "civilization loss / space exploration, those in their right mind and the understanding that" they should live after you too "- are related to such people with billions who are" not mastering "them on yachts and islands, AS a minimum respectful. On the technical side, parachutes and a descent piece of a “spaceship” in the middle of the 21st century or on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the exploration of “surface space” ... look already, and then more archaic, and will be humiliating even for “progress .. smartphones and networks "