Blue Origin Rockets Crumple And Explode in Two Incidents

by

Two Upper stages of Rockets at the Blue Origin New Glenn Factory were damaged in the last few weeks. These incidents are only now being reported.

The upper portion of one rocket crumpled into itself, in part due to worker error, while it was being moved to a storage hangar. It was moved from hot and humid conditions outdoors an into an air-conditioned storage hangar. It then collapsed like a crushed coke can.

In a separate incident, another upper rocket portion failed during stress testing and exploded.

New Glenn is designed to compete with SpaceX Falcon Heavy and is four years late.

Blue Origin is trying to launch NASA Escapade mission to Mars. It needs to launch in October, 2024 when the Mars launch window is open. Mars and Earth get aligned every two years.

The two mishaps involved hardware for the second and third flights of the New Glenn rocket, which are supposed to happen after the October debut.

NASA Escapade will send twin spacecraft that will study the Mars magnetic field.

35 thoughts on “Blue Origin Rockets Crumple And Explode in Two Incidents”

  1. It is shocking that NASA selected Blue Origin for this launch. Considering the problems they are having with SLS, Starliner, and other contractors, this seems like a bad idea.

    I agree with the previous comment that they should have been in orbit by now. There is definitely not the sense of urgency or drive that Musk gives to SpaceX. I think the difference is the guy pushing is also the guy coming up with a lot of the ideas and pushing his people to take risks and don’t worry about the cost.

    Being a gazillionaire helps with that.

  2. So when it leaves the warm Earth atmosphere & is hot by the cold of space, it’ll crumple like a tin can?
    That’s gonna leave quite a mark on the payload.
    Or at least, on whatever bits survive survive being crushed, anyways.

    • It wouldn’t have to deal with external pressure in space. Spacecraft are designed to contain atmosphere, not prevent it from coming in.

  3. Based on the article and some of the comments, looks like a few people on here may have a financial interest in SpaceX…

    • Based on the article? The article doesn´t even have opinon. It’s just facts. It seems you have a chip on your shoulder regarding SpaceX.

      • I am a fan of SpaceX, and have been since testing of F1, so your complaint is unwarranted. My point about the article is that it uses photographs of an unrelated RUD on Shetland to make the story more dramatic. In some of the comments, there is more than a little anti-BO sentiment, which is a shame when most of us just want to see cheap, reliable access to space, which healthy competition Fosters.

    • Nobody has a financial interest in SpaceX. It’s not a publicly traded company. We just know bad rocketry when we see it. We root for BO, but they make it difficult.

      • So what is “bad rocketry” then, as you’re such an expert?

        Oh, and for the record, there are plenty of people who hold Tesla stock who naturally favour SpaceX, and other Musk companies, because of Musk. Hell, Musk has even selected a judge for one of his cases because of his Tesla holdings.

        • “Bad rocketry” is building lab and test stand rockets, instead of launching, seeing what breaks, and then fixing it. As the old saying goes, “In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they’re different.”

          Until you’re launching, you’re just playing around.

          You can’t get around the fact that BO started before SpaceX, and STILL hasn’t launched one gram into orbit. Literally because they haven’t even tried to.

          • Well, as we know, a large part of building reliable rockets, are engines and their control systems. By my reckoning , BO designed and built engines have reached orbit.

            As for your general assertion about “bad rocketry”, as I said in post, I don’t think Bezos is a hobbyist rocket builder. Unlike Musk when he started SpaceX, Bezos is more than rich enough to bankroll a full fat rocket company for decades while they (in the lab) optimise their vehicle and engines. Musk had to make orbit to secure the contracts and backing to keep SpaceX (and Tesla) afloat. It’s all laid out in his biography. If SpaceX hadn’t made orbit, they would be another failed rocket company like Rotary, et al. It’s too early to make that call on BO.

            • Fourteen years in business without launching anything to orbit, receiving how much in government contracts to go to mars and the moon. Perhaps we would not be so upset IF Jeff Bozo would stop suing SpaceX for receiving contracts as well as suing for patent infringement for landing rockets on a barge.

      • Just because it doesn’t have a stock exchange symbol doesn’t mean the average Joe cannot invest in it. What do you think all these funding rounds are for?? Do you not know that if you showed up and participated that you two could own a part of SpaceX? Originally spaceX was started with just 10 Angel investors… But that has significantly increased since the last two funding rounds. It’s a private company so they don’t have to reveal anything to the public but it’s a win-win in the investment world.

        • Well Akshually, you need to be an accredited investor (having $1M+ in assets) just to be eligible to invest in SpaceX. On top of that, you need to have the right contacts in the industry to even purchase its stock. SpaceX has no interest in receiving small time investments, as once they reach a certain number of investors, certain regulations are triggered. It’s much better for them to stay in with a few, big investors who are more than happy to throw money at them.

      • Lots of people have a financial interest in SpaceX, that has nothing to do with being publicly traded.
        In an article about the failures of BO,they put a picture of the test stand of the German company in flames.

  5. Many rockets use balloon tank construction. These tanks are strong but lighter than other designs. These tanks must be kept pressurized at all times to stay rigid. If pressure is lost the tank could crumple or collapse. In the 60s nasa had an Atlas Agena rocket on the launch pad. pressure was lost in the first stage and second stage and the rocket collapsed all the way to the ground. The atlas V fist stage is reinforced so that it doesn’t need to be pressurized but it probably iskept pressurized as a precaution However the second stage must stay pressurized because it uses balloon tanks.

    • This is not a balloon skin rocket.
      It can sustain its own weight at ambient temperature.

      It is clear it isn’t designed for any significant amount of negative pressure, which is what happenes when you go from 100+ degrees (who know how hot it got from the sun when transferred)
      & 95% humidity…
      … to 60-70 degrees where all the water vapor inside condensed, which was probably the biggest factor.

    • Their first launch is a NASA mission to Mars. YOLO I guess.

      I’ve previously predicted that their first launch explodes. Kind of hoping I am wrong as I don’t want to lose Mars probes.

  7. Blue Origin is a joke compared to SpaceX. Bezos is great at logistics but sucks at rockets. Better for him to sell it to someone who can make it work. There is no dishonor in calling it quits.

    • That won’t happen, because blue origin is Jeff bezos’s pet project. He’s not in it to make money, he’s in it because he’s into space. To be fair, though, blue origin has fared pretty favorably when compared to the rest of the industry. Not just Boeing, but even the rest of the traditional space industry has problems with delays and massive cost overtime overruns.

      • What are you talking about? How much has BO spent so far? How many years have they been at it? How much mass have they put into orbit? They’re literally, at this moment, the worst rocket company to ever exist in terms of results.

        • “…They’re literally, at this moment, the worst rocket company to ever exist in terms of result…”

          Boeing is far, far, far worse. They spent something over $40 billion cumulatively on SLS and launched, one rocket. Barely.

        • They are closer to a traditional aerospace developer in their approach than SpaceX, who have based their success on rapid prototyping and testing. That doesn’t make them the “worst rocket company in history”. Which is a frankly dumb and ignorant statement.

        • But those Carmen line free falls weren’t in vien! They sure were profitable and termed “space tours”.

      • He’s into space, but in a weird way. I’ve met rocket hobbyists. I’ve helped launch hobby rockets. No rocket hobbyist I’ve ever known would have failed to have made orbit by now with even a tiny fraction of the money Bezos has spent. They would have made orbit as soon as they could, and then started improving.

        He’s approaching it as though he were immortal, or something. No urgency at ALL.

        • NBF previously had a life extension segment.
          Mr. Bezos can likely afford a little rapamycin and adrenochrome.

        • He’s not a rocket hobbyist though is he? Some wealthy people just want to prove they can build something to reach orbit, or win a bet against one of their peer competitors. He doesn’t strike me like that at all. He seems to be interested in creating a rocket company, and is willing to invest significant time and money in building that capability. Musk was nowhere near as wealthy when he founded SpaceX, and he desperately needed to make orbit to secure funding for the company. Different people, different drivers.

        • Since the end of the Cold War and until SpaceX, there never was any urgency in rocketry. The traditional space industry had the “no expense spared – work the first time” attitude, which is the exact opposite of the Silicon Valley “Fail fast, fail cheaply” mantra. Bezos is just funding a traditional space company circa SpaceX. Of course, as he’s completely ignoring the outside market environment, he hasn’t made a cent of profit. Blue origin isn’t a competitor to SpaceX, and likely never will be. But it’s a decent traditional space company that would probably be the best in the biz if not for SpaceX. They manufacturer and sell a high performance rocket engine, and are on the cusp of launching a large reusable rocket. No other traditional company can claim both those things.

  8. Yep. Space launchers, still hard to make and validate.

    And they better hurry, because the competition is about to get intense.

    • Yeah. I honestly kind of feel that the whole space industry right now is just “Let’s see how much money we can make before Starship becomes viable.” No one can even fantasize about competing with an $8M dollar launch for 200 tons to orbit.

Comments are closed.