Could Blue Origin offer it’s own rocket to the Moon?

 Copyright 2025 Robert Clark

 There is increasing concern within NASA that China could beat us back to the Moon. A big component of this concern derives from increasing delay in the development of the SpaceX Starship, tabbed to be the lunar lander for the Artemis lunar program.

 Surprisingly, it may turn out that Blue Origin’s New Glenn with some relatively small upgrades can operate as its own independent Moon rocket.

 One estimate of the Blue Origins first stage propellant mass has been in the range of 1,150 tons:

First Stage:
Fuel load: 1150 tonnes
How? BE-4 with 2,440kN of thrust, and an ISP ~310 should have a mass flow rate of ~803kg/s. We know from the payload users guide that the engines burn for 200 seconds. 200s x 7eng x ~803kg = 1,124,200kg. This number should have a pretty high fidelity, being off on ISP by 3 only changes the final number by ~10 tonnes. Subtract out some for a likely throttle down during Max-Q and during the end of the burn to limit Gs under 4 then add back in the landing fuel and you likely arrive at ~1,150 tonnes. 

Empty mass: ~100 tonnes
How? Falcon 9's first stage weighs about 27 tonnes vs. ~409 tonnes of fuel. Falcon 9 also has fuel that is 30% more dense, doesn't have large strakes, and the TWR for Merlin is probably about twice as high as BE-4.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41146.msg2120895#msg2120895

 This seems pretty robust, based on propellant burn rates and published length of the first stage burn time as indicated there. However, it could be this doesn’t take into account the propellant that needs to be kept on reserve for the reentry and landing burns.

 On the other hand, this estimates it as smaller by a factor of 2.6 than that of the SpaceX Superheavy booster:

{Credit: Ken Kirtland}

https://x.com/kenkirtland17/status/1761481624548511916?s=61

Apparently taken from this graphic available in the New Glenn Users Guide:

 The SuperHeavy has a capacity of 3,600 tons, this would put the New Glenn propellant capacity at 1,380 tons.

 Estimate its’s dry mass as in that forum.NasaSpaceflight.com post as ca. 100 tons. For the hydrolox upper stage, based on it’s size estimate propellant load as ca. 200 tons, and assume a Centaur-like 10 to 1 mass ratio, giving it a dry mass of ca. 20 tons.

  Then estimate the payload to LEO using the rocket equation:

340*9.81Ln(1 + 1,380/(100 + 220 + 100)) + 465*9.81Ln(1 + 200/(20 +100)) = 9,300 m/s, sufficient for 100 tons to LEO. 

 But the point of the matter is 100 tons to LEO has long been seen as the needed payload capacity for a rocket to serve as a single launch manned rocket to the Moon.

 However, this will need greater thrust than the 1,750 tons cited by Blue Origin to lift off with adequate thrust/weight ratio(TWR). Indeed, the gross mass in this estimate is already above the 1,750 ton sea level thrust quoted by New Glenn.

 During the first test launch of New Glenn it was much commented on how slow was the acceleration at lift-off. Even at that lower estimated first stage propellant load of 1,150 tons the lift-off TWR would still be quite low. It seems likely this low TWR is the cause of the payload being initially only 25 tons rather than the previously announced 45 tons.

 Given the low liftoff TWR and the reduced payload, Blue Origin probably intended from the beginning to upgrade the New Glenn thrust.

This graphic shows a thrust level of 4.51 million pounds for a three stage New Glenn, or 2,050 tons compared to the current 1,750 tons, a 17% upgrade.

SpaceX has upgraded the thrust of the Raptor more than once at higher than this level of increase so this is a feasible upgrade. 

 Additionally, Blue Origin in an employment announcement has mentioned an increase in the number of engines from 7 to 9:

 SpaceX has also shown increasing or decreasing number of engines on a stage is a relatively straightforward modification. Actually, given the competitiveness between New Glenn and SpaceX it may be that Blue Origin originally decided to go with 7 engines rather than 9 just so as not to be seen as copying SpaceX. It does seem mysterious why Blue Origin would field a rocket with such a low TWR from the beginning.

 So we’ll assume an upgrade of thrust level of the BE-4 by 17% to bring the 7 engine thrust to 2,050 tons and also an increase in the number of engines to 9, to bring the total thrust now to 2,635 tons. This results in a quite healthy liftoff TWR of 2,635/1,800 = 1.46.

 After their success in their first launch of reaching orbit with New Glenn, Blue Origin plans to top that with a launch of a lunar cargo lander in March with the Blue Moon Mk 1. This would be quite remarkable to advance so rapidly from an initial orbital launch to follow that in the next launch to a landing with a rather sizable 21 ton lander on the Moon. This larger than the Apollo lunar lander.

Note, a 100 ton LEO capacity of the upgraded New Glenn will allow a ca. 50 payload to trans-lunar injection(TLI). This is comparable to that of the Saturn V. 

 In a follow-up post we’ll show this New Glenn with an additional third stage and lander comparable to the Blue Moon Mk 1 can form a manned rocket to the Moon.

Towards return of Europe to dominance of the launch market, Page 2: ESA needs an independent oversight agency.

 Copyright 2023 Robert Clark

 Recent news reports are the Ariane 6 will not be able to compete with the SpaceX Falcon 9, requiring an increase in subsidies to ArianeSpace resulting in a total of €350 million($380 million) per year:

Oops—It looks like the Ariane 6 rocket may not offer Europe any launch savings
Europe is subsidizing the launch of Internet satellites for Jeff Bezos.
ERIC BERGER - 10/12/2023, 11:26 AM
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/

 At a launch cadence of 6 launches per year this is a subsidy of nearly €60 million per launch. This means European tax payers will be paying over a billion euros for the contracted 18 launches on the Ariane 6 of the commercial venture the Kuiper satellite system of Jeff Bezos. In effect, European tax payers will be paying a billion euro subsidy to Jeff Bezos, the 2nd richest man in the world.

European Space Agency mulls extra Ariane 6 cash.

BY CALEB LARSON

OCTOBER 20, 2023 7:00 AM CET

Strategic autonomy? Ariane 6 is in danger of turning into a fiasco for the ESA and France’s aerospace industry. Since being commissioned a decade ago, Ariane 6 has been surpassed by Elon Musk's SpaceX which has slashed the cost of launches with its partially reusable rocket technology. Because its predecessor Ariane 5, a super reliable commercial launcher, has already been retired, the European Commission is even having to look to SpaceX to get its satellites into orbit. That's exactly the kind of outsourcing Paris wants to avoid in its focus on building strategic autonomy.

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-space-agency-mulls-extra-ariane-6-rocket-cash-ask/

 The fiasco has come to pass as Europe was forced to ask SpaceX to launch its vaunted Galileo GPS system on the Falcon 9, when it was intended to be launched on the Ariane 6:

Europe Reluctantly Chooses SpaceX to Launch Its GPS Satellites.
Elon Musk's SpaceX is set to undertake its first launch of European satellites equipped with classified technology, specifically for the Galileo system.
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-space-agency-mulls-extra-ariane-6-rocket-cash-ask/

 Reports are the Vega-C is in a similar bad position with respect to the SpaceX Falcon 9 using rideshare for small payloads:

The Accidental Monopoly
How SpaceX became (just about) the only game in town
Jeff Foust
October 13, 2023
SpaceX came with these Transporter missions, which have been really disrupting,” said Marino Fragnito, senior vice president of the Vega business unit at Arianespace. They have been a boon for smallsat developers, he acknowledged, offering low-cost access to space. “But at the same time, they have created a big problem in terms of the business case for all of the other players.”
He accused SpaceX of, in effect, predatory pricing, willing to lose money on Transporter missions to drive out competition. He noted that past Vega smallsat rideshare missions sold payloads at $25,000 per kilogram, whereas SpaceX has sold Transporter launches for one-fifth that price. “It’s crazy.”
https://spacenews.com/the-accidental-monopoly/

 This has been warned about for several years now:

Europe is starting to freak out about the launch dominance of SpaceX
The Falcon 9 has come to dominate commercial satellite launches.
ERIC BERGER - 3/22/2021, 11:24 AM
However, there now appears to be increasing concern in Europe that the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets will not be competitive in the launch market of the near future. This is important, because while member states of the European Space Agency pay for development of the rockets, after reaching operational status, these launch programs are expected to become self-sufficient by attracting commercial satellite launches to help pay the bills.
Economic ministers in France and Italy have now concluded that the launch market has changed dramatically since 2014, when the Ariane 6 and Vega-C rockets were first designed. According to a report in Le Figaro newspaper, the ministers believe the ability of these new European rockets to compete for commercial launch contracts has significantly deteriorated since then.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/european-leaders-say-an-immediate-response-needed-to-the-rise-of-spacex/

 European tax payers have the right to ask where the great expense of the Ariane 6 launcher is deriving from.

 No one in European space community is willing to ask or answer the question, “How much just to add a second Vulcain to the Ariane 5/6 core?”

 Then can someone, anyone in the European space community at least ask the question, “Does a single P120 solid rocket used for the Ariane 6 SRB’s and the Vega-C first stage really cost €20 million?”
 “So that the two SRB’s on the Ariane 62 cost €40 million, and the four on the Ariane 64 cost €80 million?”

“So that out of the €115 recommended cost of the Ariane 64, €80 is just for the 4 solid side boosters?”

 It is important to recognize that the high price of the Ariane 6 and the Vega-C is coming solely from the large solid rockets they use.

 

 It is common to think of solid side boosters as only adding a small amount to the price of a launcher, like with the small solids used on the Delta IV or Atlas V. But it is quite important to realize these are for small side boosters that might be only ca. 1/10th the mass of the core. But for the Ariane 6 the large side boosters are the size of the core in mass, and for the Vega the large solid booster is the core.

 Then the concept of the low cost solid booster is no longer valid; indeed these solid rockets boosters are the cause of the high cost of these launchers. To give an illustrative example, imagine the size of the side boosters on the Delta IV and Atlas V were 10 times larger than they are. I think you can see that would mean their cost would be radically higher than they are now.

 So how bad is the pricing of the P120 solids used for the Ariane 6 solids and the Vega-C first stage? Three separate and independent arguments suggest the P120 solid booster costs ca. €20 million each.

 ArianeSpace suggested a price of €75 million for the Ariane 62 with two SRB's and €115 million for the Ariane 64 with four SRB's. The €40 million increase in price for the two additional SRB's on the Ariane 64 suggests that is the price for two, or €20 million each.

 A second argument for the high cost of the P120 solid rocket comes from comparing it to the cost of the GEM 63 SRB used on American launchers. The GEM 63 is estimated to cost in the range of $5 million to $7 million each. But the P120 is three times the size of the GEM 63. So based on that we expect the price to be in the range $15 million to $21 million each.

 A third argument comes from looking at the price of the Vega-C. It's in the range of €35 million. Elon Musk has estimated the first stage of the Falcon 9 is 60% of the price of the rocket, with the upper stage, fairing, and range costs making up the rest of the cost. 

 The Vega-C is a 4-stager instead of the 2-stage Falcon 9, but the salient point still remains: the much larger size of the first stage than the other stages means it makes up the largest proportion of the cost. 

 Using the 60% Elon Musk estimate for the cost of the first stage would give a €21 million cost for the P120 first stage of the Vega-C.

 So there is abundant evidence the large side boosters used on the ArianeSpace rockets are quite expensive. But is there an alternative? Yes! The price of a single Vulcain is only €10 million. So eliminate the Ariane 6 SRB's entirely and use two to three Vulcains on the core instead. Not using the SRB's results in a greatly reduced price.

 For a two Vulcain Ariane 6 sans SRB's, use a smaller upper stage of ca. 10 ton size so it would be loftable by the two Vulcains. Then it could get ca. 12 tons to LEO.

 For a three Vulcain version without SRB's, it could get ca. 20 tons to LEO if you use a larger 40 ton to 50 ton upper stage made possible by the higher take-off thrust of the three Vulcains

 And for the replacement of the Vega-C? Use an approx. half-size Ariane 6 core and again a small ca. 10 ton upper stage so as to be loftable on a single Vulcain. This could get ca. 5 tons to LEO. This compared to the 2 tons LEO payload of the Vega-C. And it would be much cheaper than the Vega-C in not using the large SRB's.

 These LEO payload numbers can be easily confirmed by a rocket equation calculation.

 See discussion here:

Towards return of Europe to dominance of the launch market.

https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/10/towards-return-of-europe-to-dominance.html

 In looking at how it is determined the path ESA will take in selecting it’s future launchers, what missing is an independent review authority tasked with reviewing the finances and architectures chosen.

 This is what is done with NASA. NASA has an Office of Inspector General independent of the NASA leadership tasked with reviewing the finances and architectures for the space programs NASA selects. It serves as an independent oversight agency:

NASA should consider commercial alternatives to SLS, inspector general says
"NASA’s aspirational goal to achieve a cost savings of 50 percent is highly unrealistic."
ERIC BERGER -  10/13/2023, 3:07 PM

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/inspector-general-on-nasas-plans-to-reduce-sls-costs-highly-unrealistic/

 Note the report breaks down the costs of the different components of the Artemis program. This is a necessity for analysing the cost effectiveness of the different parts of the program.

 But such is lacking at ESA. For instance in that article “European Space Agency mulls extra Ariane 6 cash”, it is ESA that is effectively providing oversight of itself.

 With this arrangement ESA won’t question whether the architectures it chooses to begin with are the right ones or cost effective ones. Thus THE major question that must be asked remains unasked: is use of large solid side boosters cost effective? Would a cheaper architecture be obtained by using all-liquid propulsion?

 

  Robert Clark

SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander.

 Copyright 2023 Robert Clark

 In the blog post, "SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb. UPDATED". I noted the thermal energy content of both stages is comparable to the explosive force of the Hiroshima bomb, ca. 15 kilotons of TNT. However, it is quite important to keep in mind that NASA uses estimates of the explosive force of a possible rocket explosion that is some fraction of what the total thermal energy might be. Based on this, I estimated the explosive force might actually be in the range of 3.4 to 5.4 kilotons. This is as much as 5 times higher than the explosive force attributed to the famous Soviet N-1 rocket failures at ca. 1.2 kilotons. 

 To get an idea of the enormity of 1.2 kilotons explosive force, and remembering also an SH/ST explosion might be as much as 5 times more powerful, look at the case of the Beirut explosion of 2020. This was not a rocket explosion but of ammonium nitrate but its estimated explosive force was about that of N-1 rocket at ca. 1.1 kilotons.

 

 In the explosion, homes as far away as 10 kilometers were damaged and the terminals at the Beirut airport 10 km away suffered moderate damage with some doors and windows blown out.

 Note now populated areas such as Port Isabel consisting of thousands of residents are within 10 km of the SH/ST launch site, and an explosion of this rocket might be 5 times more powerful than the Beirut explosion.

 In my blog post, I argued that not sufficient attention was being given to the possibility of an explosion by either the FAA or NASA. I wrote to one of NASA's safety offices and was told the safety of commercial launches is not the purview of NASA, but of the FAA. But when NASA is depending on that the commercial rocket to complete the planned flagship space program of NASA they have a responsibility to ensure that rocket is being developed safely as well.

 With the failure of the April 20th test flight of the Superheavy/Starship fortunately now both NASA and the FAA are giving closer scrutiny of the safety of the rocket as it should be.

The Superheavy/Starship actually is the N-1 rocket.

 The explosive force of the N-1 rocket, comparable to that of the devastating Beirut explosion, serves as a cautionary tale for those in the space industry. The comparison has been made of the SpaceX SuperHeavy/Starship approach to the Soviet multiple failed N-1 rocket in that they both wanted to test by actually flying the full rocket until it works, despite the number of failures. 

 This comparison was criticized on the grounds the N-1 engines were not tested individually. Instead, the engineers on the N-1 selected an engine at random from a batch to see if that worked. If it worked the entire batch was chosen. The engines could not be tested individually because the testing was destructive. That engine could not be used if it were first tested.

 The SpaceX Raptor engines on the other hand are tested individually. But here’s the major failing of the Raptor: even if the engine is tested successfully there is still a quite high chance the engine will still fail when used on a flight. That is a major flaw in a rocket engine. No rocket engine would be considered successfully developed with that flaw.

 Because of the numerous failures of the Raptor both on the test stand and in short test hops of the Starship landing methods prior to the April test flight, I estimated the chance of engine failures of the SuperHeavy/Starship test flight was 1 out of 3. SpaceX claimed prior to the April test flight their Raptor 2 was more reliable. The result? Only 1 in 4 of the engines failed. That is still a stunningly high percentage. As a point of comparison it would be like on every flight of the Falcon 9 the expectation would be at least two of the engines would fail during each flight.

 The upshot of this in a very real sense the Super/Starship is just like the failed Soviet N-1 in flying with engines with poor reliability.

 It is my contention the attempt of SpaceX trying to reach a 2025 deadline to have the SH/SS flying and with multiple successful test flights completed puts undue pressure on its normal safety procedures. For that reason my opinion is it should withdraw the Starship for consideration as a lander for the Artemis III lander mission.

   Robert Clark

ESA Needs to Save NASA's Moon Plans.

Copyright 2022 Robert Clark

 The SLS was planned to have a large upper stage called the Exploration Upper Stage(EUS). This would take the SLS Block 1 to the SLS Block 1B, needed for a single flight lunar architecture. However, the multi-billion dollar cost for development of a large upper stage from scratch means it’s unlikely to be funded.

 NASA is proposing a solution using the Starship making separate flights. But this plan takes 6 flights total or likely more of the Superheavy/Starship for the Starship to fly to the Moon to act as a lander. One look at this plan makes it apparent it’s unworkable:

 Actually, it’s likely to be more complex than portrayed in the figure, needing 8 to 16 refueling flights. This is what SpaceX submitted to NASA in proposing the plan, requiring 6 months to complete the Starship refueling:

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk details orbital refueling plans for Starship Moon lander. By Eric Ralph Posted on August 12, 2021
First, SpaceX will launch a custom variant of Starship that was redacted in the GAO decision document but confirmed by NASA to be a propellant storage (or depot) ship last year. Second, after the depot Starship is in a stable orbit, SpaceX’s NASA HLS proposal reportedly states that the company would begin a series of 14 tanker launches spread over almost six months – each of which would dock with the depot and gradually fill its tanks.
…
In response to GAO revealing that SpaceX proposed as many as 16 launches – including 14 refuelings – spaced ~12 days apart for every Starship Moon lander mission, Musk says that a need for “16 flights is extremely unlikely.” Instead, assuming each Starship tanker is able to deliver a full 150 tons of payload (propellant) into orbit after a few years of design maturation, Musk believes that it’s unlikely to take more than eight tanker launches to refuel the depot ship – or a total of ten launches including the depot and lander.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-orbital-refueling-details/

 Everyone, remember the Apollo missions where we could get to the Moon in a single flight? In fact, this would be doable with the SLS given a large upper stage. Then the suggestion is for the ESA to provide a Ariane 5 or 6 as the upper stage for the SLS. It would save on costs to NASA by ESA paying for the modifications needed for the Ariane core.  

 As it is now ESA is involved in a small role in the Artemis lunar program by providing the service module to the Orion capsule. But it would now be playing a major  role by providing the key upper stage for the SLS.  

 The argument might be made that the height of the Ariane 5/6 is beyond the limitations set forth by NASA for the EUS. However, if you look at the ca. 30 m height of Ariane 5 core compared to the 14 m height of the interim cryogenic upper stage now on the SLS, this would put the total vehicle height only a couple of meters beyond the height that had already been planned for the SLS Block 1B anyway:

 

 See discussion here:  

Budget Moon Flights: Ariane 5 as SLS upper stage, page 2.   

https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/09/budget-moon-flights-ariane-5-as-sls.html

 Coming up: ESA also could provide a low cost lander for the Artemis program.

Payload Estimates

 Here’s the Silverbird Astronautics estimates for the payload capacity using the Ariane 5 as the upper stage. The vacuum Isp used for the Ariane 5 is taken as 462 s since it it known by the example of the RL10 engine that a hydrogen engine can have its vacuum Isp raised to this level by a nozzle extension. Specifications shown below, with the 5-segment SRB data estimated by 25% scale up of the Space Shuttle SRB’s data.

 And the results for the LEO payload:

 The estimated payload for TLI is found by putting -1.0 in for the hyperbolic C3 value for “Escape trajectory” field. This is a number that indicates it’s just below escape velocity for a free return trajectory around the Moon in case the mission has to be aborted.

 So both the LEO payload of 150 tons and the TLI payload of 60 tons are above even the Block 2 payload capacity that would use advanced carbon fiber casing for the SRB’s.

 Input data taken from: 

 

 

   Robert Clark

SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 5: A 90+ metric ton first launch of the SLS.

Copyright 2013 Robert Clark

 Finally someone at NASA acknowledges that the Block 1, first version of the SLS to launch in 2017 will have a 90+ mT payload capacity not the 70 mT always cited by NASA:

SLS Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS).
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130013953_2013013757.pdf

 This is important since it means we will have the capability to do manned lunar landing missions by the 2017 first launch of the SLS.

 As discussed in the blog post SLS for Return to the Moon by the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, page 2: Orion + SEV design, a 90+ metric ton launcher means we can even use the Orion as the crew capsule. This is important for political reasons since the great expense spent on it means there would be a great desire among its supporters to see it be used. 

 There also is a preference at NASA for the departure stages from the lunar surface and from lunar orbit to use hypergolics, which have the surety of igniting on contact. Then another advantage of a 90+ mT SLS is that the heavier hypergolics can be used for these stages rather than the lightweight hydrogen-fueled stages I suggested in that blog post. In an upcoming post I'll show using existing hypergolic stages how we can get a lunar landing mission at less than 90 mT to LEO.

  For any of these methods it is important to use currently existing stages rather than developing them from scratch. A big reason that NASA ruled out a return to the Moon was because of the assumption that it required the development of new Altair-sized lander at a $10 billion development cost. But the need for a 45 mT Altair-sized lander is provably false as shown by the Apollo lander at one-third the size. And simply adapting already existing stages reduces the cost to a fraction of that needed for an Altair.

 So NASA is making expensive policy decisions such that we can't return to the Moon based on provably wrong assumptions. One is that the Block 1 would only have a 70 mT payload capability and so would require an expensive upper stage to increase the payload to do lunar missions, and another is that a lunar lander would require an additional $10 billion development.

 In fact, once you recognize the, obvious, fact that a lunar mission does not require an Altair-sized lander then so many possibilities become apparent. We did not have the great variety of existing launchers back in the Apollo days that we have now. If you allow your lander to be at or smaller than the Apollo lander then there are a variety of launchers that could be used for lunar missions, not just the SLS. And since they are already existing, or will be soon such as the Falcon Heavy, there would be no huge, multi-billion dollar development cost to use them. 

 So likewise also is the case for the in-space stages needed. They are already currently existing and would require relatively minor adaptations to be used for a lunar lander, for example.

 Indeed we could do manned lunar missions for what NASA is currently paying the Russians to send a crew of 3 to the ISS. The implications of that are jarring: we could have regular manned flights to the Moon for the same amount as what we are currently paying to send regular manned flights to the ISS.  And since the cargo flights to the Moon would be similarly low cost and using Bigelow style lightweight habs would allow a habitation module to be sent to the Moon on a single flight, we could have a manned lunar base for the same amount as what we are paying to sustain the ISS.

 All this comes from simply the mental reset that a lunar mission does not require the $10 billion Altair.

 Free your mind, the rest will follow.

    Bob Clark

Note: thanks to M. Moleman for discussing the NASA report "SLS Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS)" on his blog.