Talk:List of New Glenn launches

Source of launch dates and time

What's the source for the launch time particularly for the first launch? 2604:2D80:6305:600:E19C:7F37:7B1E:6DA7 (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

List of boosters

Shouldn't this now add a list of boosters, and which flights they went ont, such as the list at New Sheperd § Boosters Destroyed, Retired and Active -- ~2025-32349-50 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This would be a good change, because then that allows us to use the short-hand ("GS1-1", "GS1-2") in the list of launches rather than the very long serial number and its given name, which is long and verbose. DescribeInWords (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn't there already such an article? Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

7×2 and 9×4

This might be too early for even mentioning it, but how should we denote which launches are for 7×2 and which are for 9×4? If we were to do it, I'd assume it'd be best to copy what the Falcon 9 article does and include it in the booster column? One idea I had for how such a thing would look goes like:

Version and booster
New Glenn 7×2 GS1-SN002-1 (Never Tell Me The Odds)

So, what are the thoughts? Ngpiii (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. See the list of Starship launches article. I do think we need to abbreviate the names (GS1-2, GS1-3) as including all of that on every launch is quite verbose and does not leave much horizontal space for the actual payload and customer.

Either way, I would defer until 9x4 actually is nearing flight. DescribeInWords (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

NG-3 Launch outcome

I see theres some back and forth edits about how the launch outcome of NG-3 should be recorded. My opinion is that it should be recorded as a total failure (as it is currently of time of writing) as the customer has put out a statement that the satellite is unable to accomplish its mission and will be removed from orbit https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260419512905/en/AST-SpaceMobile-Addresses-Todays-Orbital-Launch-of-BlueBird-7-on-the-New-Glenn-Launch-Vehicle Datuser01 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Now that we have this info, this is a full Failure. DescribeInWords (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the above announcement is precisely why I changed it to a full Failure. DescribeInWords (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

NG-3 description

"After the launch, Blue Origin indicated that the payload was deployed to a "off-nominal orbit" after the second stage failed to relight "

@FossilDS The bolded text above has not been said publicly. It could be true, but we really need a source for that. DescribeInWords (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, the bolded text was added by @RickyCourtney, I just added a source for Blue's statement about a "Off-nominal orbit.". Feel free to add a source if you can find it FossilDS (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The use of “off-nominal orbit” feels like corporate speak. That’s why I changed it to “an orbit too low to sustain operations”. However I should not have put the other part. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

NG-4 description

Why is the reference for the NG-4 launch date, a nearly year old article about NG-2? ~2026-31863-25 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was running low on time when I made the previous edit. It should be updated (and with the specific booster flying) now. Ngpiii (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

NG-4 payload mass

We currently have the payload mass as Unknown. I'm thinking about updating the payload mass for NG-4 based on the the approximate per-satellite mass of 571 kg known from Atlas V launches, times the known 48 satellites on LN-01. That would be an approximation and not an exact value, however, as the payload dispenser itself varies between the two vehicles, and the actual per-satellites mass is not publicly known. What do you all think? DescribeInWords (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea. I know other lists like for 2020s Atlas V use tildes for approximate masses, as can be seen with OTV-6. Ngpiii (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, I used the tilde convention and rounded to the nearest 1k to avoid giving a false sense of precision DescribeInWords (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hot fire anomaly

Thank you @RickyCourtney for fixing this properly. NG-4 still exists. LN-01 still exists. A testing anomaly isn't its own flight. DescribeInWords (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Stage 1? Gone

Stage 2? Gone

LC-36A? Gone

HIF (Horizontal Integration Facility)? Last time I checked, it was ON FIRE. Which could easily mean they lost multiple launch vehicles.

The only thing that didn't get obliterated was the payload. But it no longer has a vehicle to launch on or a pad to launch from. Redacted II (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If the payload wasn’t on site, the launch wasn’t precluded. I think the early editing efforts were attempting to mirror the AMOS-6 pre-launch failure, but in that case, the payload was destroyed too. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This is far more catastrophic than AMOS-6

Yes, the payload survived.

But everything else didn't. Redacted II (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a specific edit? This talk page is for discussing how the article is to be edited, it is not a general discussion forum. DescribeInWords (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a complete rollback to showing NG-4 as precluded. Redacted II (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This does not make sense to me. I concur with @RickyCourtney edits. If New Glenn flies again, NG-4 will fly again, and LN-01 will fly again. If you want to talk about the anomaly, you should do so on the New Glenn page, not the list of New Glenn launches page, because a launch simply never happened.

A good analogy is Starship launches. Ship 36 blew up, but the list of Starship launches does not have a dedicated row for it, it was rolled into the eventually successful Flight 10 row.

This edit is correct. The status of NG-4 / LN-01 is TBD with a date unknown. It appropriately mentions the testing anomaly that occurred before the flight even happened. DescribeInWords (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It was the entire vehicle and the only launch/testing site for New Glenn.

Also, saying NG-4 or LN-01 fly again is WP:OR

The next flight could be called NG-5. And it may fly something other than LN-01.

We do not know, and until we hear otherwise we can't assume it will happen in that exact manner. Redacted II (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the Starship launches are a perfect analogy. We don't list the explosions of the Super Heavy boosters as a precluded launch. Blue Origin has already said that the damage will be repaired and New Glenn will fly again, so there will be a NG-4 (New Glenn flight 4). One of those flights will carry Amazon LEO satellites, so there will be a LN-01 (Amazon LEO New Glenn flight 1). RickyCourtney (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It may be called NG-5

We don't know.

And the next flight wih Kuipers/Amazon LEO satellites (Kuiper is quicker to type, so I recommend using that) may be called LN-02.

Hell, we have Eric Berger (who is a WP:RS) saying that "it is possible that Blue Origin decides to go directly to the larger 9x4 variant of New Glenn after this failure"

That's a potential entire version cancellation. Redacted II (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, we agree. We don't know what the next mission will be called. So listing NG-4 as as a precluded launch would be incorrect because we don't know if the next launch might be called NG-4 or NG-5. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Saying it'll be NG-4 would be WP:OR

Saying it will be NG-5 is also WP:OR

Saying the current launch is precluded is not WP:OR.

The launch pad no longer exists and the (current version of) launch vehicle may be cancelled per a reliable source. Redacted II (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The payload still exists, so how could the launch of it be precluded? RickyCourtney (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the entire launch vehicle no longer exists, the launch pad no longer exists, and sources are saying the launch vehicle version may soon no longer exist. Redacted II (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A new rocket can be built, the launch pad can be rebuilt, and even if it’s a new version it’ll still be a New Glenn… making its fourth flight. Just like when that Super Heavy exploded, it doesn’t mean the next flight was precluded. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between B18/S36 and NG-4.

Now, had SpaceX moved on from Version 2 after S36, I'd have been pushing for Flight 10 to be precluded a year ago. Redacted II (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if SpaceX had decided to skip the number 10, it still would have been the tenth flight. As you’ve been alluding to, the numbering isn’t our decision to make, no matter what, we can’t list it as NG-4. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If SpaceX had skipped flight test 10 because of S36, then Flight test 10 would be precluded.

Saying NG-4 isn't precluded would be original research. Redacted II (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

So is saying it was. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Except we have sources saying Blue might end 7x2 Redacted II (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s not reported reliably yet (as entertaining as Berger’s tweets can be). Also 7x2 or 9x4 is still NG. Furthermore, it doesn’t prove the point you’re trying to make. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a complete loss of vehicle and pad, and we do have a reliable source (Berger) saying it might be loss of version.

Yeah, 9x4 is still New Glenn, but its basically a completely new vehicle.

And most importantly: this is, for Blue Origin, vastly more catastrophic than Amos-6 was for SpaceX.

Not listing it here is, IMO, absurd Redacted II (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, from what I can see, neither of us can convince the other.

So, lets wait for a third opinion Redacted II (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Report of 7×2‘s death was an exaggeration: https://x.com/davill/status/2061655383610114124?s=46 RickyCourtney (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Either way, I suggest that we get some more opinions in this Talk page before doing anything. @Ngpiii @Tigerdude9 DescribeInWords (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Integrated launch vehicle

@RickyCourtney Satellites being on board does not matter. This is correct Blue Origin terminology, the hot fire is called an "integrated launch vehicle" hot fire: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-completes-integrated-launch-vehicle-hotfire DescribeInWords (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

In that specific case, it was an "integrated launch vehicle". It had a payload (a test article) and fairings. The images I've seen show that the rocket did not have fairings and we know the payload (the satellites) were not onboard. So, no, this was not an "integrated launch vehicle". RickyCourtney (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)