---
type: source
title: "Without Blue Origin New Glenn launches, AST SpaceMobile cannot achieve usable direct-to-device service in 2026"
author: "Brian Wang, NextBigFuture"
url: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2026/02/without-blue-origin-launches-ast-spacemobile-will-not-have-usable-service-in-2026.html
date: 2026-02-01
domain: space-development
secondary_domains: []
format: thread
status: processed
priority: medium
tags: [new-glenn, blue-origin, AST-SpaceMobile, launch-cadence, direct-to-device, satellite-constellation, commercial-consequences]
---

## Content

AST SpaceMobile needs Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket to deliver its next-generation Block 2 BlueBird satellites. NG-3 (NET late February 2026) carries BlueBird 7 (Block 2 FM2).

**Service requirements:** Full continuous D2D service requires 45-60 satellites in orbit, targeting end-2026. Without timely New Glenn launches, AST SpaceMobile cannot provide full continuous coverage.

**Block 2 specifications:** 2,400 sq ft phased array antenna; up to 10x bandwidth improvement over Block 1; peak speeds up to 120 Mbps per cell; supports voice, video, texting, streaming; coverage across US, Europe, Japan.

**Analyst assessment (Tim Farrar):** Expects only 21-42 Block 2 satellites launched by end-2026 if delays continue. "Will be lucky to have 30 Block 2 satellites by the end of 2026."

**Stakes:** AST SpaceMobile has commercial contracts with major telecoms (AT&T, Verizon) for D2D broadband service. 2026 was the year the company was planning to transition from demonstration to commercial revenue. Blue Origin launch delays directly threaten this revenue timeline.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** This is the first case I've tracked where a launch vehicle cadence gap creates measurable downstream commercial consequences for a paying customer. NG-3 is not a test mission — it's a commercial service flight with a paying customer who has made commitments to end users. The delay is revealing the gap between "rocket can launch" and "launch vehicle program can serve customers reliably."

**What surprised me:** AST SpaceMobile's vulnerability to a single launch vehicle (New Glenn). They have no apparent backup option for Block 2 deployment. This mirrors the single-player dependency risk at a different level — not SpaceX dominance, but a customer's operational dependence on a second-tier launch vehicle.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any contingency plan from AST SpaceMobile (e.g., using Falcon 9 as backup). Block 2's 2,400 sq ft antenna may have form-factor constraints that limit launch vehicle options, but this isn't confirmed.

**KB connections:**
- single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility — AST SpaceMobile's Blue Origin dependency is a customer-level single-player dependency, distinct from the industry-level SpaceX dependency
- Launch cadence as independent bottleneck — Blue Origin has demonstrated orbital insertion but not commercial cadence

**Extraction hints:**
1. "Launch vehicle cadence — the ability to reliably serve paying customers on schedule — is a separate demonstrated capability from orbital insertion capability, and Blue Origin has not yet demonstrated commercial cadence" (confidence: likely — 5 sessions of NG-3 delay evidence this)
2. "Second-tier launch vehicles create customer concentration risk: AST SpaceMobile's 2026 commercial revenue is single-threaded through New Glenn's launch cadence" (confidence: experimental)

**Context:** AST SpaceMobile is a publicly traded company (ticker: ASTS) with disclosure obligations. Blue Origin is private with no equivalent transparency requirements. This creates an information asymmetry: we know AST SpaceMobile's needs from their filings, but not Blue Origin's internal NG-3 status.

## Curator Notes
PRIMARY CONNECTION: single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility (customer-level dependency variant)
WHY ARCHIVED: Concrete commercial consequences of launch cadence gap — the strongest quantified evidence that "launch vehicle operational readiness" is distinct from "launch vehicle technical capability"
EXTRACTION HINT: Extract the cadence vs. capability distinction as a claim — it's specific, arguable, and evidenced by observable behavior
