Blue Origin’s New Glenn Crash: A $2.5B Lesson for Your Portfolio

The booster hit the Atlantic like a slab of concrete. No soft landing, no triumphant drone ship footage — just a fireball and a splash. Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket nailed its first launch on January 16, 2025: upper stage reached orbit, prototype payload deployed flawlessly. But the reusable first stage? Crashed and sank. Jeff Bezos’ 25-year dream hit a very expensive speed bump. Development costs for New Glenn are pegged around $2.5 billion. That booster alone probably ran north of $30 million, based on industry chatter and loose comparisons to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 first stage (which costs about $28–35M a pop).

We may earn a commission when you click on links in this article. Learn more.

And I know what some of you are thinking. You saw Rocket Lab’s stock surge 350% in 2024. You watched Virgin Galactic moon and then crater. You heard that the space economy might double by 2033, and you’re wondering: should I put real money into space companies right now? That’s what I want to talk about — not the rocket, but your wallet. Because this failed landing isn’t just a PR headache for Blue Origin. It’s a neon warning about how we retail investors treat “revolutionary” companies.

Let me back up a bit.

New Glenn isn’t some firecracker. It stands 320 feet tall, a heavy-lift beast meant to haul up to 45 metric tons to low Earth orbit. The first mission, NG-1, lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 2:03 a.m. Eastern. Upper stage: perfect. Payload deployment: spotless. But the booster — christened “So You’re Telling Me There’s a Chance” — couldn’t relight its engines properly during reentry. Telemetry cut out, and later Blue Origin admitted the landing failed. The company had plans for up to six to eight New Glenn flights in 2025; now each of those could be delayed months while they untangle what went wrong. That’s not a love tap to exploration. It’s a capital-heavy business smacking into a wall.

Now, I know what you’re thinking.

Now, for context: about a third of SpaceX’s early Falcon 9 landing attempts also failed. Let me be more precise. From 2013 to 2016, Falcon 9 first stages tried to land 24 times and succeeded on 14 — a 58% success rate. In 2024, Falcon 9 landed its booster for the 300th time or something ridiculous. The tech can work. But it takes time, and time eats money. Lots of it.

The bigger risk isn’t the physics, though. It’s the narrative. The “space is the next trillion-dollar industry” hype train can derail your portfolio faster than a booster with jammed grid fins. (Grid fins, by the way, are those waffle-shaped things that steer the rocket — part of why this stuff isn’t easy. More on that in a sec.)

Here’s the uncomfortable fact: the same traits that make a space startup thrilling — huge R&D spend, unproven tech, binary outcomes — are what make it a lousy core holding. If you’ve been eyeing individual space stocks, the numbers sober you up fast.

Take Virgin Galactic (SPCE). After its first fully crewed flight on June 25, 2021, the stock closed at $55.91. As I write this in early 2025, it’s hovering around $4.80.

That’s a 91% drop. If you’d tossed in $10,000 at the peak, you’d be sitting on about $860. Ouch.

Even Rocket Lab (RKLB), the 2024 darling, had a brutal stretch before its recent sprint: from its SPAC merger high of $21.34 in late 2021 down to $3.62 in October 2023 — an 83% wipeout in under two years. To break even from that trough, you’d need a gain of almost 490%. Not impossible, but that’s casino math.

Let’s line up a few, because you need to see this:

\* ASTS isn’t down as far, but it still had a 43% hair-raising plunge from its August peak in less than six weeks. The thing is. Volatility is the cover charge.

Look at that bottom row. The S&P 500 just hummed along to a 24% gain in 2024 — no drama, no exploding boosters. The problem with space bets isn’t that they can’t pay off. Obviously, a startup that cracks reusability could become the next SpaceX. The problem is that for every SpaceX, there are fifty companies that vanish. I don’t have exact survival-rate stats for space startups, but the rule of thumb for venture-backed hardware companies is that fewer than 10% ever return meaningful capital. Your portfolio isn’t a venture fund.

I learned this the expensive way. In my twenties, I was sure I could pick the next big thing. I threw $2,500 into a tiny 3D printing company right before an earnings call because the CEO said “revolutionary” three times in ten minutes.

The stock dropped 38% overnight after they missed revenue by a mile. I lost about a grand in twelve hours. The takeaway wasn’t “avoid disruptive tech.” It was that conviction without guardrails is just gambling.

So when I see a rocket eat it, I don’t obsess over the engineering. I think about the person who put $15K into a space ETF right after a launch announcement, expecting a “Bezos premium” to kick in. With new space companies, a failed test flight can torch 20–40% of market cap in a day. If that money was meant for your down payment or your kid’s tuition, you’ve just lit the fuse on your own stability.

Let me be blunt: for most of us — the 25–45 crowd trying to max out IRAs and stare down daycare bills — individual space stocks are lottery tickets. That doesn’t make them immoral. I’m not some pearl-clutching killjoy. I’ve got a tiny “fun money” account myself, maybe 5% of my net worth, where I can make bets without losing sleep. The rest sits in index funds that won’t vaporize if a hydrolox engine burps at hypersonic speeds.

Ever notice how the cult of the founder messes with your head? Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos — we start thinking their net worth somehow insulates the stock. Actually, that’s not quite right. Their past wins create a halo, so we underestimate the chance of failure. Blue Origin has Bezos liquidating about $1 billion of Amazon stock a year to feed it. The company’s not public, so you can’t directly invest, but the narrative slops over. Amazon (AMZN) itself dipped about 1.8% the day after the New Glenn landing failure — a barely noticeable twitch, because AWS still prints money. That’s the beauty of a diversified giant: one rocket doesn’t blow up your retirement.

But the moment you concentrate in a pure-play launch provider, you’re betting on a single event. I once read a financial research paper (Schroders, I think) that found 90% of stock returns since 1926 came from just 4% of stocks. The rest either barely kept up with inflation or lost money. So when you pick one rocket company and hope, you’re effectively betting it’s in that top 4%. History says no.

Timing matters, too. Say you’d put $10,000 in Rocket Lab on January 1, 2024, and held all year — nice, you’d have about $45,000. But if you bought at the 2021 peak and held, you only just now break even after three gut-churning years. Most people don’t have the stomach for that. They sell at the bottom.

This is why I keep hammering the same point: treat space as entertainment money, not wealth-building money. If Blue Origin ever goes public via an IPO, we’ll revisit. But until then, the lesson stands.

So what should you actually do? You’ve read 1,500 words about rockets. Let’s get practical.

First, ringfence your “speculation account” at 5% or less of your net worth. And I mean net worth, not just your brokerage balance. Add up your 401(k), emergency fund, home equity. If your total net worth is $150,000, then your fun money pot is $7,500, max. If you can’t lose it without flinching, it’s too much. Second, remind yourself that most of the space headlines you see are designed to sell ads, not build retirement income. That’s okay — just know which game you’re playing.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.