Ever since Blue Origin unveiled its plans for the New Glenn launch vehicle in September 2016, I had been unsure of what to do.
The original plan was to develop the M-III Heavy and do a lunar mission with a capsule (actually, the real original plan was to involve the RCV, but that would have had to involve being upside-down during re-entry and the risks [in-universe] that come along with it).
I was having doubts about the capsule because it would have to splash down and that's not "how a 21st-century spaceship should land." (but that propulsive landing feature for Dragon 2 was canceled just recently anyway)
But because of some posts on the NASASpaceflight forum regarding New Glenn's single-core simplicity in comparison to Falcon Heavy's three-core complexity, I also started having doubts about whether I should continue trying to make the M-III Heavy:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43099.msg1688087#msg1688087
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41160.msg1585586#msg1585586
Thus I feel like that instead of M-III Heavy, M-III should evolve into a fully reusable "M-IIIA" with stretched fuel tanks and an ITS-like second stage. It has room to stretch because of its wider diameter compared to Falcon 9. The ability to carry 60-tonne payloads to LEO would be sacrificed (for now) in exchange for the ability to send payloads (with help from ITS-style refueling tankers) for Lunar missions as well as Mars precursor missions with full reusability in a single core. The next generation after M-III will be something more like the ITS (but slightly smaller). The only issue?
The original plan was to develop the M-III Heavy and do a lunar mission with a capsule (actually, the real original plan was to involve the RCV, but that would have had to involve being upside-down during re-entry and the risks [in-universe] that come along with it).
I was having doubts about the capsule because it would have to splash down and that's not "how a 21st-century spaceship should land." (but that propulsive landing feature for Dragon 2 was canceled just recently anyway)
But because of some posts on the NASASpaceflight forum regarding New Glenn's single-core simplicity in comparison to Falcon Heavy's three-core complexity, I also started having doubts about whether I should continue trying to make the M-III Heavy:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43099.msg1688087#msg1688087
spacenut said:I am a SpaceX fan, but New Glenn might be cheaper to operate and refurbish than 3 FH cores in the long run.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41160.msg1585586#msg1585586
Robotbeat said:New Glenn is a generation "behind," but it's actually perfectly placed as a vehicle capable of giving Falcon Heavy, Proton, Ariane 5, Ariane 6, etc a run for their money since it's single-core and all-cryogenic with a reusable VTVL first stage and enough performance for an eventual reusable upper stage (if they so desire). In other words, it'd be very competitive in the commercial market.
Thus I feel like that instead of M-III Heavy, M-III should evolve into a fully reusable "M-IIIA" with stretched fuel tanks and an ITS-like second stage. It has room to stretch because of its wider diameter compared to Falcon 9. The ability to carry 60-tonne payloads to LEO would be sacrificed (for now) in exchange for the ability to send payloads (with help from ITS-style refueling tankers) for Lunar missions as well as Mars precursor missions with full reusability in a single core. The next generation after M-III will be something more like the ITS (but slightly smaller). The only issue?
Right, I forgot that I need also the landing autopilot and there's no library or tool for this. It's too much effort to code it myself, so I just hope that it will be available from other devs.
Last edited: