---
type: source
title: "Blue Origin to refly New Glenn booster on NG-3 mission for AST SpaceMobile"
author: "Blue Origin"
url: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-3-to-launch-ast-spacemobile-bluebird-satellite
date: 2026-02-00
domain: space-development
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [blue-origin, new-glenn, booster-reuse, ast-spacemobile, competition, reusability]
---

## Content
New Glenn-3 (NG-3) mission scheduled for late February 2026 from Launch Complex 36, Cape Canaveral. Key milestones:

1. First reuse of a New Glenn booster — the "Never Tell Me The Odds" booster that landed during NG-2 in November 2025
2. Payload: AST SpaceMobile's first next-generation Block 2 BlueBird satellite (BlueBird 7) — massive 2,400 sq ft phased array, largest commercial phased array ever deployed in LEO
3. Demonstrates commercial viability of New Glenn reuse cycle

Timeline from landing to refly: approximately 3 months (Nov 2025 landing → late Feb 2026 refly).

Blue Origin also unveiled plans for New Glenn upgrades and new spacecraft at the end of 2025.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** Booster reuse validates economics, not just engineering. Landing a booster proves capability; reflying it proves cost reduction. If NG-3 succeeds, Blue Origin moves from "can land boosters" to "has a reusable launch vehicle."
**What surprised me:** The 3-month turnaround time. For a first reuse, this is aggressive. SpaceX's initial Falcon 9 reflight turnaround was much longer.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Details on refurbishment scope — what did they have to replace/repair? This determines whether it's true reuse or "reuse with extensive rebuild" (like Shuttle).
**KB connections:** [[SpaceX vertical integration across launch broadband and manufacturing creates compounding cost advantages that no competitor can replicate piecemeal]], [[reusability without rapid turnaround and minimal refurbishment does not reduce launch costs as the Space Shuttle proved over 30 years]]
**Extraction hints:** The turnaround time is key evidence. If New Glenn achieves commercial reuse in 3 months, the Shuttle counter-example (reuse without rapid turnaround) doesn't apply. Also: AST SpaceMobile as a customer shows commercial demand exists for non-SpaceX reusable launch.
**Context:** Blue Origin has been building toward this moment for over a decade. $14B+ in Bezos investment. NG-3 is the make-or-break mission for their commercial credibility.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[reusability without rapid turnaround and minimal refurbishment does not reduce launch costs as the Space Shuttle proved over 30 years]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Tests whether Blue Origin achieves the turnaround + minimal refurbishment that the Shuttle never could — if so, strengthens the reusability thesis while weakening single-player dependency
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on turnaround time and commercial customer (not government) as dual evidence of viable reuse economics
