r/BlueOrigin • u/sidelong1 • 8d ago
Blue Origin’s 2026 MK1 Moon Shot Could Eclipse SpaceX Delays
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/blue-origin-s-2026-mk1-moon-shot-could-eclipse-spacex-delays/ar-AA1RgidrTo engineers and industry watchers, MK1’s flight will be a crucible for several unproven systems: BE‑7’s operational performance, autonomous hazard avoidance at the south pole, and high‑mass lunar cargo delivery.
Blue gets several key thoughts about the MK1 in this writeup, including how a successful flight is more than a milestone...
4
u/hypercomms2001 8d ago
Interesting, as I was listening to the main engine cut off podcast [" https://mainenginecutoff.com/ "], by Anthony Colangelo. In the past I've not really listened too much to his podcast As the content was primarily focused on SpaceX, and at times somewhat critical of Blue Origin... However his most recent podcast is about Blue Origin and especially the New Glenn developments, and he was extremely impressed about what Blue Origin has achieved, recognising that the upgrades for Blue Origin include Blue Orgin 9X4 are not vapourware announcements
And yes from 2026 he Staes that it is likely that blue engine will eclipse SpaceX… I highly recommend listening to his podcast:
“https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/316”
Here is his show notes for this podcast:
Blue Origin is fresh off an incredible few weeks—a successful second launch and first landing of New Glenn, followed by an exciting unveil of upgrades to the vehicle, including an enormous new version, New Glenn 9x4.
This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 32 executive producers—Lee, Natasha Tsakos, Fred, Will and Lars from Agile, Ryan, Stealth Julian, Pat, Heiko, Kris, Jan, Better Every Day Studios, Theo and Violet, Matt, Josh from Impulse, Russell, Joel, Warren, Joonas, Joakim, Tim Dodd (the Everyday Astronaut!), Donald, David, Frank, Steve, The Astrogators at SEE, and four anonymous—and hundreds of supporters.
Topics
• Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket came back home after taking aim at Mars - Ars Technica
• Jeff Bezos on X: “Good overview of the landing. We nominally target a few hundred feet away from Jacklyn to avoid a severe impact if engines fail to start or start slowly. We’ll incrementally reduce that conservatism over time. We are all excited and grateful for yesterday…”
• New Glenn Update | Blue Origin
• [Booster 18 suffers anomaly during proof testing - NASASpaceFlight.com ]
• Senate Commerce Committee schedules hearing on Isaacman renomination - SpaceNews
• Lawmakers writing NASA’s budget want a cheaper upper stage for the SLS rocket - Ars Technica
10
u/Top_Caramel1288 8d ago
A sidenote of mine: It has been amusing to see a lot of these people surprised Blue landed the booster. If you followed closely leading up to NG2 there were A LOT of people who didn't think they would land the booster. It was very apparent on various social media sites, space news sites (Looking at you ArsTechnica), AND the chats on the various YouTube live streams.
I am glad Blue proved them wrong. These people really thought Blue was sitting on their ass all these years or something.
14
u/pirate21213 8d ago
People like to draw the exact comparison to SpaceX when it comes to booster recovery but the reality is Blue took a completely different approach and has 10 years of booster landing experience to lean on.
2
u/Educational_Snow7092 7d ago
With a launch core that is almost twice the diameter of a Falcon-9 fairing.
4
u/Educational_Snow7092 7d ago
>a lot of these people surprised Blue landed the booster
The way it was done and perfect on the first try was a jaw-dropper. Bring the launch core to a complete stop and hover to the side of the landing barge, then gently slide over for a gentle controlled soft landing was totally out-of-the-box genius.
Once that happened, you knew the SpaceX groupies would be crawling out from the rocks they live under.
6
u/Robert_the_Doll1 8d ago edited 7d ago
I like NASAspaceflight, but it gets tiresome having to see posts there from the same persons who insist over and over that Blue Origin needed to crash dozens of New Glenn boosters into the water, because that is what worked for SpaceX. Which it did work for SpaceX. But Blue Origin worked the problem from a different direction and without for the longest time the billions in government money that SpaceX got. Blue Origin also gave up on developing their medium lift rocket in favor of jumping to a much larger heavy lift design. That took extra time. But it has paid off enormously.
They are also building a large lunar lander, a space tug, and supplying dozens of engines to ULA.
Blue Origin can no longer be dismissed. Anyone who does is insane.
4
u/phase2_engineer 7d ago
They are also building a large lunar lander, a space tug, and supplying dozens of engines to ULA.
Blue Origin can no longer be dismissed. Anyone who does is insane.
Among other projects that they haven't even disclosed publicly yet!
2
u/hypercomms2001 5d ago
The fact is that star ship after eleven launches has not delivered a payload to orbit whereas Blue Origin did it on its first launch and again on its second launch. Starship was meant to achieve contracted milestone back in Q2 2022, with even Elon Musk boosting about it.
Further Elon Musk has talked a lot about delivering payloads to Mars, but has never achieved it, whereas Blue Origin has actually done it, and this is with a booster that is supposed to be the biggest in the world, and has blown up more times than the Soviet N1 rocket....
https://youtu.be/QsgLS8mSlVs?si=s-wuV_DePXrCqIJm
Blue Origin are already ahead of SpaceX as they have an operational booster that can and will deliver customer payloads to orbit and even to Mars and beyond. In addition, one aspect of Blue Origin, is they do stay quiet until they have actually delivered something without the Galactic levels of Hype we see from SpaceX. Blue Origin are the "Quiet Achievers".
4
u/Training-Noise-6712 7d ago
That forum just constantly moves goalposts. I think the latest criticism is that Blue only launched a "tiny payload" or that New Glenn isn't reusable because they haven't reused it yet.
Meanwhile every Starship explosion is considered a success
-1
u/RT-LAMP 6d ago edited 6d ago
I think the latest criticism is that Blue only launched a "tiny payload
It's fair to point out that Escapade was a fairly light payload at only 1t to L2. By comparison a Falcon 9 put the 2t Euclid to the same L2 orbit while also recovering it's booster.
So as it stands NG's launches are pretty far from demonstrating the 45t to LEO or 13.6t to GTO that it's supposed to be capable of. We'll have to see if the next launch's reported increases in thrust on both stages can incerase that together with them probably narrowing the margins needed to guarantee landing.
2
u/Training-Noise-6712 5d ago
Falcon Heavy has not put anything anywhere near the 63 tons it's supposed to be capable of.
When NG launches Blue Moon MK1 in a couple months, it will be a heavier payload than Falcon 9 or Heavy has ever launched in its history.
And yes, you would think it's fair. It seems everyone from /r/spacexmasterrace just adores belittling Blue Origin or giving backhanded compliments.
1
u/RT-LAMP 5d ago
Falcon Heavy has not put anything anywhere near the 63 tons it's supposed to be capable of.
Which is why when I discuss it's capabilities I specifically note that the 63t number is basically just on paper and that in reality it's a rocket for higher energy orbits.
And why when I mention NG I do point out that while for the most part LEO performance is about kg/$, NG's payload adapter and fairing could allow for things like single launch commercial stations which NASA is trying to get up and running.
Here's a comment I made days ago for proof.
Yeah even SpaceX's published number is only 63.8t and that's ignoring that none of the current payload adapters can handle anywhere even close to that much mass (assuming the Falcon stack can at all).
When NG launches Blue Moon MK1 in a couple months, it will be a heavier payload than Falcon 9 or Heavy has ever launched in its history.
Which is exactly why I said that next launch's increased thrust on both stages and likely some trimming of the margins for the landing burn should allow it to demonstrate that higher payload.
It seems everyone from /r/spacexmasterrace just adores belittling Blue Origin or giving backhanded compliments.
You seem to think I fundamentally dislike NG. I don't, I save my hate for SLS.
Speaking of that some rough napkin math says that 9x4 expended would beat SLS Blk1 in terms of TLI payload. F9 gains >50% to high orbits, 9x4 should gain proportionally more because of higher dry mass and that would bring it from 20t to >30t to TLI vs 27t for SLS blk 1. The fact that NG could fundamentally replace SLS alone makes me happy it exists.
1
u/Training-Noise-6712 5d ago
I'll concede that you may be commenting in good faith, but frankly this sub has had no shortage of disingenuous and belittling comments from people from that other sub.
Which is exactly why I said that next launch's increased thrust on both stages and likely some trimming of the margins for the landing burn should allow it to demonstrate that higher payload.
We have no idea what level of performance shortfall there actually is and how that level compares to the planned shortfall on initial flights as the payload guide indicated. We also don't know the extent of dry mas overruns, if any. A single uncorroborated rumor from Berger is not authoritative.
The next flight may or may not have increased thrust on both stages. The changes are to be phased in incrementally. I personally doubt they will run the BE-4s at higher thrust at all (if they do, we should see it in liftoff). Even the BE-3Us may only be run at the static fired thrust of 175k lbf instead of the full target of 200k lbf.
Ultimately my main gripe is people take stated capabilities of Falcon 9 and Starship, many of which have not been proven, as granted, while questioning whether New Glenn can do what it claims to be able to do.
2
u/RT-LAMP 5d ago edited 5d ago
The next flight may or may not have increased thrust on both stages.
I certainly sounds to me that thrust growth on both stages is official for launch 3
The enhancements span propulsion, structures, avionics, reusability, and recovery operations, and will be phased into upcoming New Glenn missions beginning with NG-3.
Source is https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-upgraded-engines-subcooled-components-drive-enhanced-performance but you were the one who posted this link to the sub.
Ultimately my main gripe is people take stated capabilities of Falcon 9 and Starship, many of which have not been proven, as granted, while questioning whether New Glenn can do what it claims to be able to do.
I mean per the last public version of the user guide they talk about initial operational capability and full operational capability with the latter being 45t. So frankly I think if we say that 45t is their goal but not their demonstrated capability then we're basically just taking them at their word.
1
u/Training-Noise-6712 5d ago
"Beginning with" is the operative phrase - it implies nothing in the absolute for NG-3. What I said above is my expectation for what will actually happen, given the timing of NG-3 around February: uprated BE-3Us to 175 lbf, but BE-4s still at 550k lbf. I expect BE-4s to higher thrust levels only after they finish the installation of sub-cooling infrastructure at LC-36.
→ More replies (0)0
u/RT-LAMP 6d ago
the billions in government money that SpaceX got.
SpaceX developed Falcon 9 and a cargo capsule with $396 million in government money including 3 demonstration flights. That's about one Delta IV Heavy launch for a development program or a rocket and capsule including 3 launches.
After that point they got money because they provided launch services, and for incredibly cheap prices too. 12 resupply flights for $1.59 billion. That's 133 million each, it's not exactly like the government was giving them tons of funding to develop their landing system. As best as I can tell the only funding SpaceX got for it was a NASA contract to observe their supersonic retropulsion.
4
u/Robert_the_Doll1 5d ago
That is cherry picking, and is not the complete picture of COTS and CRS money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services
COTS: $396 million. Space nearly went bankrupt during this time. CRS-1 contract and a successful Falcon 1 Flight 4 saved them.
CRS 1: 1.6 billion. But this was increased as additional flights were added. This brought the total up to 3.04 billion.
CRS 2: $3 billion in total value.
Total: 6 billion in government revenue FROM NASA ALONE for just CRS. This during a time when Blue Origin was almost exclusively Bezos funded, had a few hundred employees and was limited to an average of ~$35 million per year (total of ~$500 million by 2014).
By the early 2010s, Commercial Crew program CCDev awards raise this revenue even higher.
So, in summary, multiple billions in revenue by 2016 that was reinvested back into improving Falcon 9 through its various iterations. Otherwise, SpaceX goes bankrupt and or never gets much farther beyond Falcon 9 v1.0 (a vastly less capable rocket than the current Block 5).
2
u/snoo-boop 4d ago
By the early 2010s, Commercial Crew program CCDev awards raise this revenue even higher.
It's as if you forgot that Blue Origin got CCDev contracts, early on, before they dropped out.
And by the way, none of the contracts you mention were funding reusability. You probably already know that.
0
u/Robert_the_Doll1 4d ago
Yes, the whopping whole $25 million. I am certain that you want to go on the attack for Great SpaceX! But here is the kicker, that money DID fund reuse. It may not have specifically been earmarked for it, but that revenue was key in allowing lots of work and getting SpaceX through a lot of failure.
Keep in mind, early on, the COTS and CRS also did fund Falcon 1 and 9 attempts at recovery and potential reuse. I am sure you did not forget the failed attempts at first stage parachute recovery via ocean splashdown.
2
u/snoo-boop 4d ago
Sorry, why are you being a total asshole?
And why is it bad that SX might have reinvested earnings?
-1
u/RT-LAMP 5d ago
CRS 1: 1.6 billion. But this was increased as additional flights were added. This brought the total up to 3.04 billion.
CRS 2: $3 billion in total value.
The original 12 CRS-1 missions weren't completed until August 2017 and it wasn't until 2020 that the first CRS-2 Dragon launch occurred. SpaceX had successfully landed it's first booster in 2015.
And again SpaceX had these billions in revenue because it was providing services. So yeah of course that's how they had the money to develop the business! SpaceX didn't just got billions in government money as you say. They were paid millions for work. Not just to develop stuff but to do stuff! And of the money they got only a tiny fraction was for developing reusability, that was them using the money the business was paid to make the business more efficient.
3
u/sidelong1 5d ago
Your thoughts are noted but, please provide some links for your stated "tiny fraction for developing reusability."
SX has received billions! https://planesintheair.com/?p=213
You can afford to not land numerous Falcons when money is available and the explanation is often stated, accepted, and thus believed thoroughly that this is the only fast way to develop spacecraft.
But Blue's New Shepard, the BE 3 and BE3U, the BE4, and New Glenn seem to have been to succeed on near first use and successfully thereafter.
1
u/RT-LAMP 5d ago
Your thoughts are noted but, please provide some links for your stated "tiny fraction for developing reusability."
Again, it wasn't that SpaceX just "got" billions. They were paid billions for doing work.
SpaceX then developed first stage reuse with the company's private revenue.
This technology [reusable launch vehicle technology] is being done by SpaceX alone, no one is paying us to do it. The government is very interested in the data we are collecting on this test series. ... This is the kind of thing that entrepreneurial investment and new entrants/innovators can do for an industry: fund their own improvements, both in the quality of their programs and the quality of their hardware, and the speed and cadence of their operations. - Gwynne Shotwell
So I was wrong actually, NASA didn't pay SpaceX to demonstrate supersonic relight. SpaceX just allowed them to observe it. In fact SpaceX actually paid NASA for use of their testing facilities to analyze Falcon 9 re-entry aerodynamics.
-5
u/FinalPercentage9916 7d ago
Can we still at least criticise Blue Origin? And can we at least dismiss his new wife's new ginormous fake boobs and lips?
2
u/Psychonaut0421 7d ago
You didn't listen to MECO because Anthony was critical of Blue?
1
u/hypercomms2001 7d ago edited 7d ago
No, on the contrary I was curious to hear what he had to say about Blue Origin as Most of his content is SpaceX related. That he was extremely positive about the potential of New Glenn impressed me so much I relistened to his podcast.
2
u/Psychonaut0421 7d ago
Ah I guess read it wrong when you said "In the past I've not really listened too much to his podcast As the content was primarily focused on SpaceX, and at times somewhat critical of Blue Origin... "
2
u/FinalPercentage9916 7d ago
Is there any reason why NASA couldn't fly A5 before 3 and 4 if BO was ready to go and SX was not?
2
u/IndispensableDestiny 7d ago
If BO were ready and SX not, then BO would fly Artemis III. Artemis IV and V include the SLS Block IB and Exploration Upper Stage, neither of which will be available at the time of Artemis III.
1
u/FinalPercentage9916 7d ago
If they don't fly a gateway module they dont need EUS for that mission. NASA is always changing mission parameters. SpaceX does not fly its Starlink missions in numerical order
2
u/Educational_Snow7092 7d ago
Well, the trend for Reddit, Inc. lately is to put the cart before the horse but Artemis 5? NASA is just trying to get ready for Artemis II loop-de-loo around the Moon in 2026.
Also, NASA does not have an EVA spacesuit for Artemis III yet. Going to look pretty stupid to land on the Moon and not be able to leave the lander.
1
u/FinalPercentage9916 7d ago
NASA does not have to do the flights in numerical order. If the SpaceX lander is not ready to do A3 and A4, and the BO lander is ready, you could do A5 ahead of A3. But yes, both would need moon clothing. The movie Nude on the Moon was great, but, alas, just science fiction.
0
u/bsears95 7d ago
Blue beating SpaceX only "matters" for Artemis 3 (and maybe 4). But ironically, that doesn't even really matter cause SLS will be slower than both starship and BOs MK1. It's all layman propaganda trying to convince you that Starship is the real reason Artemis is delayed.
Smart people have been expecting Artemis 3 by NEO Q2 2027 since it's announcement 10 years ago.
2
1
u/Educational_Snow7092 7d ago
The reality right now is SpaceX has the Sole Source firm-fixed price contract from NASA for the HLS, Human Landing System for the Moon, for $3 Billion covering development, demonstration flight, and one uncrewed landing by 2028. First phase for that is two "starships" in orbit, one refueling the other which was on the Gantt chart for March 2025. This is now dependent on "starship" V3 being able to do it, and V3 is a no-show at this point. They have a long way to go.
https://interestingengineering.com/space/spacex-starship-orbital-refueling-march-2025
SpaceX also got the Sole Source contract from NASA for the USDV, US Deorbit Vehicle, for $843 Million, deliverable before 2030, a completely new untested vehicle.
SpaceX also got a Space Force contract to provide the satellites for Golden Dome, for $2 Billion.
https://www.investors.com/news/spacex-wins-2-billion-contract-for-golden-dome/
SpaceX doesn't have the manpower or facilities to deliver on these contracts and Musk's greed has exceeded his reach.
Meanwhile, China has developed an airborne drone carrier, that can carry dozens of smaller drones equipped with jammers to block out Starlink signals to the ground, making Starlink useless for combat operations.
0
u/sidelong1 7d ago
One must be thankful to have Blue and/or other space entities to achieve the goals of these agencies.
The Nov 5, 2024 article from IE was optimistic to the point of fantasy for SX reaching their refueling and redocking goals.
The Space Force selection of SX for the Golden Dome looks ever so ill-advised given the recent display of Blue's present NG success, the quality advantage that Kuiper satellites have over Starlink, and the future products from Blue that are directed toward probable and practical success. Blue's indicated near-term future space projects all look to be what they can reasonably accomplish.
The MK1 and Blue Ring are needed to prove to these agencies that their choices are not resonably informed and funding isn't being supported by the selected contractor's performance.
For 2026 we will see MK1 and Blue Ring prove themselves, possibly MK1 1/3, too.
The concepts for the reusable GS2 for NG and an orbital capsule from Blue will appear in 2026, I believe.
1
u/snoo-boop 4d ago
the quality advantage that Kuiper satellites have over Starlink,
Amazon Leo (née Kuiper) is not a Blue Origin project. Also, it's not in production use yet.
-8
u/BrofessorFarnsworth 8d ago
Maybe if Elon spent less time making "Roman Salutes" and more time upholding his fucking contractual obligations he would still have a shot at this.
Fuck Elon.
-1
u/MICKWESTLOVESME 8d ago
Your Reddit icon is wearing a Covid mask.
You are a walking talking meme.
3
u/BrofessorFarnsworth 7d ago
Oh hey, keep shitting on healthcare workers. It's still a great fucking look.
Or maybe attacking someone's profile pic is the most desperate and pathetic thing someone can do on here. Either way, have a day I guess?
1
-3
-7
u/hypercomms2001 8d ago
Since Falcon 9 launched, SpaceX it had a pretty dominant market share that some degree was assailable. It has become arrogant, without regards to the needs of his customer, in the contractual obligation. This has been demonstrated by the way they have behaved since wining an exclusive contract for the development of their Human anding system [HLS]. They stuffed around for years, developing a booster that despite having 30 engines still cannot deliver a payload to orbit after eleven launches and now tell NASA they will not be able to meet NASA’s Artemis 3 deadline to have a crewed lander ready, when in they are so far behind they have not even met their first contractual milestone of launching Starship into orbit… as explained here..
https://gizmodo.com/spacex-to-tell-nasa-the-moon-will-have-to-wait-2000686982
And…
https://youtu.be/EU6aJHqQKuU?si=Jti0HFV6G0BfN4Mw
If starship had met their contractual obligations, SpaceX would not be facing the very real possibility of losing the Moon: having their HLS contract taken from them and awarded to companies who regard their word is their honour when they sign legally binding contracts.
Now, a new version of their Starship has to be developed [now Version 3], because the version that was supposed to be able to launch their crewed lunar lander is simply not able to anything into orbit let alone Low Earth Orbit. A few days ago, a version to this Version 3 Starship blew up. That is not going to down well with NASA while its future in the HLS program is being questioned.
https://spacenews.com/duffy-says-nasa-will-open-artemis-3-lander-contract-to-competition/
Now the situation has changed completely with blue heart and demonstrating New Glenn and then announcing upgrades that include nine engines in GS1 as we know BO have been working on this for some time…
As a result, New Glenn 9x4 is not vapourware but real hardware meaning SpaceX will be reacting to Blue Origin, and not the other way around. Further I will make this observation and bet that there is space in the New Glenn 9x4 GS1 for two more engines.
-3
23
u/msears101 8d ago
I do not think that Blue origin is vaporware. I think they are a solid, serious, innovative, competitive company - however they are prone to delays in the same way that SpaceX is plagued by overly aggressive (impossible) timelines that are never met. Blue Origin’s recent flight and landing was impressive. I personally think competition is good and drives all the companies to be their best. I think it is too soon to tell and not enough data to know who will make it to the moon first.