This is not a weirdly slow pace.
The reason Blue Origin is behind SpaceX is that SpaceX built their first serious rocket in 2006, 9 years before New Shepard. Blue Origin was founded a long time ago but they spent most of that as a low-budget think-tank style operation.
Timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueOrigin/comments/n6a1dd/sn15_nai...
Of New Shepard development, wikipedia tells me "Prototype engine and vehicle flights began in 2006, while full-scale engine development started in the early 2010s and was complete by 2015.[5] Uncrewed flight testing of the complete New Shepard vehicle (propulsion module and space capsule) began in 2015."
Well SpaceX was founded in 2002, giving them what, a 4 year head start on New Shepard? That 4 year gap has grown much wider since then.. SpaceX got to orbit 6 years after they were founded, while Blue Origin is at 21 years and counting.
Falcon 1 has a low payload (small satellite) with medium energy (LEO).
New Shepard has a medium payload (crew capsule) with low energy (suborbital).
As far as "similar to a large orbital launch vehicle", you can rank them as:
New Shepard < Falcon 1 < Falcon 9 < New Glenn
BO is definitely trying to "skip steps", but I think that the US space industry as a whole is certainly better off for Blue Origin existing.
As far as the BE-4, the single largest technical risk for a launch vehicle is the engine, and using an engine which will already be in use (for Vulcan) looks smart to me. Yes there are delays, but aren't there always?
If nothing else, "New Shepard" is appropriately named.
For anyone unaware: getting to orbit is 25 times harder than just getting to space.
These are important qualifiers. Realistically if you tightened up the mass fraction on New Shepard, abandoned reuse, and added a second stage, the technology could probably put a small payload into orbit just fine. I'm not sure what the point would be, since it would ruin all the useful things New Shepard is doing as a pathfinder.
Where does Falcon Heavy fit in that progression?
It's true that Blue Origin started early stage work around the time you say, but you should keep in mind the sort of projects they were. Charon was a few Rolls-Royce engines connected by a metal lattice. Goddard was a conical capsule that flew to 85m. This was not anything close to the levels of effort that SpaceX was putting in with Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.
I do like Space-X's test and manufacturing iteration process though, and think it gives them an edge. Not to mention the shear amount of experience they've gained with so many actual launches.
When New Glenn actually does exist though, it won’t be competing with F9 and SLS; it’ll be competing with Starship.
But the thing is that BlueOrigin has spend a gigantic amount of money compared to Falcon 9. Its not close.
They are not spending SLS money, but their budget is huge and they made very aggressive public targets and stuck to them for a long time. Then they blamed the military on them missing their target.
I think the main difference is that spacex had a do or die mentality I. the beginning. Elon had money, but not endless amounts like besos or like he has currently. they literally were going to close up shop due to money, and got a last minute one last attempt to make falcon 1 lunch work. blue origin has never had the need to test things, it's just a bunch of engineers gooing over cad files and no need to go to orbit because they will never go bust.
It's a popular saying but a lot of people don't seem to recall the parable. A slow and steady tortoise only wins the race if the rabbit sprints a little bit but then gets too cocky and decides to take a nap and rest for a while (or gets stuck for some other reason.) If the fast rabbit keeps moving forward unrelentingly, then the slow tortoise doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
So far, SpaceX has been a rabbit that doesn't stop to take breaks. In scenarios like this, "slow and steady" becomes little more than a lame excuse for moving slow, not a legitimate plan to get ahead.