/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12510394
yeah, I feel like SpaceX is going to retain their #1 position regardless of what New Glenn does. Unless Bezos subsidizes the shit out of it, but even then it's immature tech compared to F9's proven track record. It could maybe take some contracts away from Falcon Heavy but it's not like there are a lot of those to begin with. And even if things go perfectly (they won't) for NG it's still going to have cadence issues for a while.

It would more likely compete with Vulcan as the "not spacex" option, which they obviously don't want as then it's BE-4 vs BE-4. But, again, Vulcan is much more of a known quantity than New Glenn's giant, unproven ass. At least Starship will have numerous test flights under its belt before it ever carriers a payload. And it'll probably do Starlink for a while before the first true commercial flights.

And I still don't get how they're going to propulsively land a giant booster on a retrofitted ferry that has PEOPLE in it when they have very little experience doing so. New Shepard means jack shit. It doesn't even land efficiently because they can't code a hoverslam.

I struggle to find a place for New Glenn. The SpaceX + Vulcan dynamic covers most bases I feel until Starship potentially changes everything. 5+ years out. What do you guys think?

>>12387775