The second launch of Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket wasn't just a test flight; it was a statement. A 321-foot-tall, methane-fueled statement, to be precise. The mission: to sling two small NASA satellites, ESCAPADE's Blue and Gold probes, toward Mars. But the real story isn't about reaching the Red Planet, it's about Blue Origin reaching viability.
The launch, delayed by a few days thanks to both terrestrial and solar weather (a powerful solar storm, no less), finally occurred at 3:55 p.m. ET. The seven BE-4 engines churned out 3.8 million pounds of thrust, according to reports. That's a lot of thrust, but thrust alone doesn't pay the bills.
The first New Glenn flight last January reached orbit, but the reusable first stage missed its landing target. This time, the "Never Tell Me The Odds" booster (a bit of hubris, perhaps?) nailed the landing. Blue Origin employees cheered. Investors probably breathed a sigh of relief.
But let's be clear: successful booster landings are no longer novel. SpaceX has been doing this for years. Blue Origin is playing catch-up. The successful landing does validate the upgrades made to the first stage. (What those upgrades were remains somewhat vague in the reporting, but their impact is undeniable.)
The plan is to haul the booster back to Port Canaveral for inspection and, hopefully, reuse. Reusability is the key to driving down launch costs. But here's the question: how many times can they actually reuse these boosters? SpaceX's Falcon 9 has flown some boosters over a dozen times. Can New Glenn match that? The data isn't there yet.
The ESCAPADE satellites aren't taking a direct route to Mars. Instead, they're embarking on a convoluted, 2-year journey involving a "loiter orbit" a million miles out, past the moon, and a gravity assist flyby of Earth. They won't arrive at Mars until September 2027.
Robert Lillis, the principal investigator, calls it a "flexible approach" that could "queue up spacecraft" without waiting for launch windows. But is it really more flexible, or just a workaround necessitated by New Glenn's delays and the missed 2024 Mars launch window?
The ESCAPADE mission cost $107.4 million. That's cheap for a planetary mission (some cost over a billion), but how much of that savings is eaten up by the extra two years of mission control and the added complexity of the trajectory? I suspect the final tally will be higher than anticipated.
The probes themselves, Blue and Gold, are designed to study the solar wind's interaction with the Martian atmosphere. Mars lost its global magnetic field billions of years ago, leaving its atmosphere vulnerable. These probes will provide a "stereo view" of the atmospheric stripping process, measuring conditions both upstream and close to the planet.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. While the ESCAPADE mission is laudable, it feels like a consolation prize. NASA originally intended for these probes to hitch a ride on the Psyche mission. Why the change? Was it technical issues with Psyche, or was it a vote of no confidence in New Glenn's ability to deliver on time? The official explanation is "a variety of reasons," which is analyst-speak for "we're not telling you the whole story."
It's worth noting that Denisse Aranda, a Blue Origin engineer, is a "subject matter expert" in contamination control. She leads the team ensuring the rocket and its cargo are clean, worrying about microscopic debris that could affect engine performance or contaminate other planets. This attention to detail is commendable. I've looked at hundreds of these filings, and this level of emphasis on planetary protection is unusual, but welcome.
The successful launch and landing are undeniably positive for Blue Origin. But the long, circuitous route to Mars, the missed launch window, and the lack of transparency surrounding the mission's origins raise questions. Is New Glenn truly a reliable, cost-effective launch platform, or is it still a work in progress, perpetually two steps behind SpaceX? The data, as always, will tell the tale.
Chief: What Does It Even Mean Anymore?
2025-11-17