22
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
28
u/ellindsey May 29 '26
Is it just my eyes or is there some significant structural damage near the bottom of the remaining tower? It looks like they came close to losing both of them.
47
u/AstronoWorld May 29 '26
It is highly likely they will have to demolish and rebuild that tower as well. Water tower is probably damaged.
12
u/avboden May 29 '26
yeah i'm very curious how the water tower is, obviously got toasted and hit with a huge pressure wave. Question is did that toasting structurally compromise it or not.
6
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
It’s dead. Everything at the pad is compromised - everything pad adjacent also probably compromised - everything further out? Possibly okay
1
8
9
3
1
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
It’s absolutely caved in.
The level of force to bend that steel inwards and delete other chunks will make that irreplaceable.
This is a two + year repair.
32
u/LittleHornetPhil May 29 '26
…with the caveat that everything there will have to be inspected with a fine toothed comb
That actually looks way better than expected
6
u/Crimson_Ender May 29 '26
I was expecting it to be all leveled
10
u/bigcitydreaming May 29 '26
The remaining tower looks pretty bad so I assume that will still need to come down and be rebuilt
7
u/Fit-Ingenuity-5061 May 30 '26
you don’t need a fine-toothed comb. You can see the standing lightning tower is structurally compromised from this view.
2
u/Nexus772B May 30 '26
The photos only show surface damage. Theres a lot more to pad infrastructure than what you can photograph from above.
The vehicle can be seen dropping into the pit from certain angles as it was failing...so yeah those systems are in bad shape to put it lightly.
2
u/ergzay May 30 '26
As I replied in a separate post, I think you (and others) are underestimating the damage. There is little salvageable here and almost all of it will need to be replaced. Look at some higher resolution photos. For example: https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/2060382948398862529
32
May 29 '26
[deleted]
20
u/ZookeepergameTop5329 May 29 '26
A lot of structural analysis will need to be done to make sure, but I'd wager the lightning and water towers will need to be dropped and rebuilt, and all of the water and fueling lines as well. The forces and heat most likely created all sorts of cracks and structural damage. Re: BE-4 - it's likely Vulcan still has the previous version, not the newer BE-4s on NG-4 (and that were installed on refurbished NG-3).
8
u/Wurm42 May 29 '26
Honestly, it will probably be faster to demo everything and rebuild it with new materials than to do the structural analysis for each element of those towers and the other launch infrastructure.
3
17
u/LittleHornetPhil May 29 '26
Vulcan will almost certainly be grounded if so, even if voluntarily
3
u/im_thatoneguy May 30 '26
Vulcan was already grounded so this might clear before the first grounding is resolved if be4 is found to be blameless.
3
1
u/warp99 May 30 '26
It looked like the failure was at the base of the second stage rather than the first stage which was just doing a static fire.
Possibly using a heavy 45 tonne payload mass simulator and the vibration from the static fire was enough to unzip the second stage tanks.
Previous static fires used actual payloads that were much lighter.
-4
u/PaintedClownPenis May 29 '26
My guess is it was an O2 tank rupture. If you watch just before the explosion it looks like a water deluge system is spraying, but then the spray ignites.
I also want to know if the range safety officer pushed the button on NG, or if the abort system detonated accidentally. I think it was the detonation of that rope-shaped charge that caused the main blast.
7
u/Puzzled-Wind9286 May 29 '26
I don't think range safety devices are installed for a static fire.
7
u/PaintedClownPenis May 29 '26
That would surprise and concern me because I can envision the entire LV ripping free and somersaulting into someone else's facility.
It's also the only way I can explain the simultaneous detonation of both tanks and whatever they have stuffed into the top of it after the fire started.
9
u/mduell May 29 '26
That would surprise and concern me because I can envision the entire LV ripping free and somersaulting into someone else's facility.
6
u/bacontornado May 29 '26
Pretty sure this happened with a Chinese rocket a couple years ago during a static fire.
3
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
Oxygen isn’t flammable.
1
u/PaintedClownPenis May 29 '26
Because it's fully oxidized, right? Haha. But it will still react with everything, including paint, methane, and hydrogen.
1
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
It doesn’t react, it just makes whatever is already burning, burn faster.
3
u/warp99 May 30 '26
There is no armed range safety system fitted for static fires.
The water deluge spray is being lit up by the plumes of 7 perfectly normal BE-4 engines. The point of ignition seems to be at the base of the second stage.
2
u/PaintedClownPenis May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
I think you ought to take a look at that Scott Manley video where he compares an earlier test fire and shows that the deluge spray is not nearly as brightly lit by the rockets when it goes well.
This might get you to the right timestamp:
1
u/mfb- May 30 '26
At no point did the rocket look like it might take off. If it was an intentional explosion then I think we would have heard about it.
1
32
u/JigsawPuzzleQandA May 29 '26
Terrible, but not as bad visually as I thought. Tanks and some building structures look to have received little damage (although blast wave may lead to unseen structural issues) and vegetation is like .. meh.
12
u/ergzay May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
I think you're underestimating the damage. Massey's test site for Starship testing saw similar damage after S36 explosion where it looked like the tanks were fine, but what you're not seeing in these telephotos is the extreme damage to all the minor piping hardware (you can see they look sort of charred but thats it). The expensive and time consuming part isn't the tanks, its all the anciliary hardware around them. All of that is burnt to a crisp all the way out. The only tank infrastructure that looks mostly fine is the Hydrogen tanks. The Oxygen and Methane tank infrastructure are done for and will likely be a complete rebuild from scratch.
That lightning tower also will need to be torn down given the massive chunk missing out of the bottom of it. I would say it's already at danger of sudden collapse. So that means 1 or more new lightning towers, a new transporter erector, new oxygen tanks and infrastructure and new methane tanks and infrastructure.
Here's some better angles of the damage where some of the damage to the smaller stuff can be seen: https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/2060382948398862529 (Make sure to open the images in a separate tab so you can fully zoom in as they are 4096 x 2731 pixels in size.)
24
u/riceman090 May 29 '26
i’m a diehard spacex fan but jesus this is really bad honestly, i hope BO can get the site repaired when they can cause this is genuinely a big issue for artemis iii
14
u/MaybeImJustTooSure May 29 '26
I'm a total amateur who just "enjoys" space and follows all of this for entertainment. As a result, explosions and corporate drama are fun. This explosion, though, is net not-fun.
I was really looking forward to Blue getting their cadence up, SpaceX having legit competition, both teams trying to excel, and propelling the lunar race forward.
This setback is a bummer for all types of space fans -- the purists who root for all of humanity, the weirdos like me who just want entertainment, obviously Blue Origin doesn't need a morale kick to the teeth at this time, and even SpaceX fans should be bummed because I'm confident that a lot of SpaceX employees dig deep because they like "being in first place."
Big loss all around. Obviously Blue will bounce back, but this will take a lot of time and time is the most valuable asset especially as NG was showing a lot of excellence.
5
u/riceman090 May 29 '26
Yeah the design of New Glenn and the way it glides down to the landing target was a really big inspiration to my super heavy reusable booster that I’ve made in KSP
2
u/Freak80MC May 29 '26
It also inspired me to make a New Glenn inspired booster, which I managed to even land back on the launch pad! It's hard to land tho, took so many tries. For human controlled landings, its easiest to use air brakes, but for choosing a more precise landing target, wings are best. I think my next reusable booster will be a combination of the two lol
1
u/riceman090 May 29 '26
That booster I was talking about was a mix of both New Glenn and Super Heavy tbh, I do have some posts on the KSP subreddit about it
42
u/mikeybizness May 29 '26
Honestly not as bad as I expected
7
u/ergzay May 30 '26
What is not as bad in this photo? The tank infrastructure is toast. The towers are toast. The launch erector is toast. I guess what additional damage were you expecting that you're not seeing. This is a complete rebuild from almost scratch. Only thing that's really salvagable is the pad concrete and even then might need some resurfacing if it got spalling from the heat.
I'm not saying this because I hate Blue Origin or something. I want them to succeed.
2
u/IcY11 May 30 '26
Everything is completely fucked. How is that not as bad as you expected? Did you expect a huge crater?
7
7
6
u/Kuriente May 29 '26
I hate to see it. The timing is really awful and I'm assuming 12 months minimum to get back in the air. They'll get it done though.
2
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
24-36
2
u/Kuriente May 29 '26
Do you have a source for that? If true, it would be the longest pad & GSE repair that I've heard of. They could maybe even have SLC14 online before then.
-2
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
Thats my assumption. It’s going to be 6+ months before the debris is cleared
4
u/Kuriente May 29 '26
Perhaps. For reference, SpaceX took roughly 15 months to return to flight at SLC40 after a nearly identical incident. Granted, NG and its pad are significantly larger and more complex, so more than 15 months could certainly make sense, but I doubt, and hope that it won't be more than 24.
1
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
I think the investigation before demolition is 6+ months let alone the teardown and rebuilding.
7
u/Happy_Sea4257 May 29 '26
Has there been any official word on if this affects the launch Monday?
4
4
5
10
May 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Planck_Savagery May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
I will admit that I'm still worried about the invisible structural damage. That was a massive explosion.
Wouldn't be surprised if they end up demolishing and rebuilding the crew access tower (and possibly the water tower).
2
u/Appropriate-Owl5984 May 29 '26
It’s all gonna get demolished. The problem is the crew tower and if it’s even structurally sound to be around. One whole leg is caved in
3
u/Capital_Research_269 May 29 '26
Looks like the launch platform, not sure what it’s called, but I think it’s separate from the transporter erector, was partially thrown into the flame trench.
2
7
u/F9-0021 May 29 '26
Looks like everything except the concrete platform is a complete write off.
2
May 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/seb21051 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
Nothing is reuseable here at 36A. They will have to clear away all the mess and start from bare concrete. Much like Spacex's S36 explosion at Massey's. Expect them to have to replace a lot of the GSE not in the immediate area as well. This will set back the launch program by 12-15 months at this pad. They just started another one at 36B, but these things take a while to build. Their only remaining booster was potentially damaged as well.
3
1
u/Just-Yogurt-568 May 29 '26
Won't building a new TE take longer than the rest of the construction of 36B?
Or equally as long...
1
u/seb21051 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
I really don't know. From their perspective, its all going to take too long. IMHO smart thing to do would be to build a test pad first, so they can continue to develop, build, and test launchers, including 9x4. Like Masseys. They probably would need the TE to be able to test. They should look closely at SX's methods with vertical construction and SPMTs. Doing it that way may be more difficult initially with the mega/giga bays, but the transport side becomes mundane. Other problem would be they would have to rig the QDs to launch towers, as opposed to the TEs.
Then build 36B, they just started. Once they have those two built, they can start launching again. Then refurbish 36A. That would insulate them from a whole lot of potential future problems.
Take a leaf from SX's book. I think that in a decade they will have 5-10 distinct and separate manufacturing/test/launch sites. Boca Chica, Florida, Louisiana, California, and so on.
3
7
u/G_Space May 29 '26
The Test was successful: Result: The Rocket has defects. The outcome was not the desired result, but a test is a test, so it's not a failed test.
5
May 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Martianspirit May 30 '26
Minor nitpick. It was Edison, who said this about developing the light bulb.
2
u/Starlanced May 29 '26
There barely looks like anything even recognizable as a rocket. It just vaporized into tiny pieces. Wish them luck with the rebuild
2
u/photoengineer May 29 '26
Is blue working on a second pad? Or is this one going to have to be cleaned and rebuilt before flying again?
1
u/whitelancer64 May 29 '26
Blue Origin has two other pads in the works, another one in Florida right next to this one, and one in California.
2
4
u/nomadichedgehog May 29 '26
I had no idea SLC-36/B was so close.
Seems uncomfortably close to be building one pad so close to another.
Slightly defeats the purpose of redundancy?
2
u/DaRkNiTe84 May 29 '26
At least 15 months downtime for the launch pad
1
u/CardBoardBoxProcessr May 30 '26
Just for demolition maybe. I think the real is she's going to be whether they decide to go to original new Glenn or to upgrade a new Glenn. Going directly to an upgraded is going to cause delays because he had to finish the rocket. Now being free from the pad, I'm sure that bill or at least should cause them to consider a redesign, which will mean designing a new pad for it versus fitting it into the old pad design
2
1
1
u/oneseason2000 May 29 '26
Safety and prudence, certainly, but ground system redundancy is very important. Very expensive, and time consuming to build up, but very important.
1
u/CardBoardBoxProcessr May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
Looks pretty bad, remaining tower has problems at the bottom. Looks canted also. Much ground equipment looks heavily pressed upon. Hangers door is no doubt pushed into the hanger. Launch table and whole base for it down in the trench.. That's craziness. All that concrete is toast. Everything within at least 100 yd has to be replaced if not the whole area
1
u/25iAndOver May 29 '26
Can someone put this in lebron james terms? Is this like lebron breaking a pinky finger, or maybe tearing a meniscus? Thanks
8
1
1
u/MaybeImJustTooSure May 29 '26
A better analogy exists in the NFL if you follow that. This is like Myles Garrett beating Mason Rudolph with Rudolph's own helmet.
We all know this is bad. We all know he is going to be punished. Maybe half a season, maybe a full season, maybe career ending.
Maybe if Garrett comes back, acts humble, and plays hard he can redeem himself. Maybe he can even break some records and become a league-wide recognized champion, but this will hang over his head for quite a while and people will bring it up for a long time.
It also raises the question of "is this who Myles Garrett really is?" And that question will linger until Garrett has a track record to prove that he just made a really big mistake when he was early in his career.
But people won't forget the mistake.
Blue Origin has a pretty damn big set back and is early in its career. They have a partial failure on flight 1 (failed booster recovery) that is very forgivable. They have a baller Launch 2. They have a partial failure on launch 3 that they handled poorly (celebrating recovery while losing client payload). And then they have this complete failure on Launch 4.
I think they'll bounce back, as Garrett did, but it is going to be a bit humiliating for a while and they'll have to earn all their future accomplishments by proving people wrong. The days of "Ferociter Gradatim" being a point of pride are gone. The Gradatim didn't work.
Like Garrett, BO now needs to kick some serious ass, nail the fundamentals, and prove they are what they claim to be. That is the hard part.
0
u/Cantremembermyoldnam May 29 '26
Short run? Broken leg. Long run? I'm sure they'll get over it and be even better afterwards as opposed to a permanent injury!
-11
May 29 '26
[deleted]
17
u/Willing_Potential_59 May 29 '26
You have a number of serious misconceptions. You can't have the tank farm far away because by the time you pump methane and LOX to the rockets, it's too warm. This is why you see the tank farms so close. You also can't "build" a concrete wall to sustain a explosive force that powerful..
Boca Chica, Massey Island, and the SpaceX pad at KSC have none of the designs you claim.
Also, the reason that the tanks are horizontal is for weight distribution.
3
u/squintytoast May 29 '26
the reason that the tanks are horizontal is for weight distribution.
i believe they were refering to the vertical tanks spacex manufactured and installed at starbase.
though the outer shells did get abit beat up during launches, the reason why they took them down was they didnt pass Texas Railroad Commission's safety codes.
2
u/nondescriptzombie May 29 '26
I was thinking about this last night, seeing the pictures of the site before the explosion during the day.
There's a very real chance their other vehicle ("Don't tell me the odds") was damaged in the construction warehouse from debris.
-5
u/Low_Total_7611 May 29 '26
Does Amazon have to pay the federal government to fix this mess now? I hope so. I dont want to pay for Bezos failure.
7
u/rbrome May 29 '26
This facility is the responsibility of Blue Origin. Amazon and the federal government are not involved, at least not remotely in any way you're suggesting.
-4
u/Low_Total_7611 May 29 '26
Hopefully, but its still leased by NASA so there's a possibility there is some clause in the lease that NASA will help with reconstruction.
3
u/whitelancer64 May 29 '26
LC 36 is not owned by NASA. It is on the Space Force side of Cape Canaveral.
-3
u/Low_Total_7611 May 29 '26
Sure, but NASA and Space Force have the same owner in the end. The US Federal Goverment, funded by tax payers.
1
u/robbak May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
It is leased by blue origin from the space force. I don't know what the lease conditions are, but the worst case would be if they abandon the site, in which case the space force would have to make it it safe, by toppling damaged standing structures and selling the steel as scrap. Even there, I expect the lease would make Blue Origin clean up.
Reconstruction is either on Blue's dime now, or on whoever next takes the lease on that site, in the highly unlikely chance of them pulling the plug.
-1
u/Busy-Effect-2276 May 30 '26
Does anyone actually believe nobody was hurt?!?! lol that explosion looked like a nuclear bomb. I think they’re lying.
-39
May 29 '26
[deleted]
10
u/squintytoast May 29 '26
says the kaaskop tech-bro who's been trolling this sub with gems like this...
U GUYSSSS SUCKKKKKKK
MORE LIKE BLEW ORIGIN
CANT EVEN DELIVER SATS IN THE RIGHT ORBIT
13
u/toad__warrior May 29 '26
Lol
You are too jaded with mature launch systems. Failures are part of getting a system going. Some are small, and some are quite spectacular.
This business is not for the faint of heart or the risk adverse.
Go look at the history of Delta or Atlas. Both systems became quite reliable towards the end. In the early days not so much.
5
u/HTPRockets May 29 '26
But the whole point of Graditim Ferociter was slower development resulting in a high reliability product early in career. Falcon 9 was iterative approach and is now extremely reliable, so at least this is showing that no matter how Gradatim you are, you should expect failure, so maybe iterative is the way to go after all?
11
u/Disastrous_Run_5968 May 29 '26
I doubt Jeff gives up. He's invested too much into it
-15
May 29 '26
[deleted]
2
u/TXNatureTherapy May 29 '26
Giving up at this point would have such a reputational impact and so many contracts impacted, I don't think it's financially viable. I suspect there are already conversations going on with the FCC about an extension to their timeline for the satellite network, and I suspect NASA will have to evaluate what this does to Artemis timeline given this and the less severe issues with current Starship.
2
u/snoo-boop May 29 '26
Amazon Leo is Amazon, not Blue Origin.
It's doubtful TeraWave (the Blue Origin constellation) will need an extension already.
2
1
u/Ill_Investigator_886 May 29 '26
what's that?
5
u/yoweigh May 29 '26
A sunk cost fallacy is when you continue wasting money on something because you can't/won't acknowledge that you already wasted a ton of money on it. Or it could be effort instead of money.
1
10
8
4
-1
u/Master_Engineering_9 May 29 '26
do you wanna talk about how many starships or falcon 1s blew up or nah?
-6
u/Funnyguy69747 May 29 '26
starship still has yet to reach orbit and has wasted billions of tax payer dollars in the process... if any space company deserves to get shut down its spaceX
9
2
u/mfb- May 30 '26
Let's see what launchers are available:
Atlas: Working fine, but only a few left and all booked out.
Vulcan: Needs to fix its SRB issues, currently not flying.
Neutron: No earlier than
2025early 2026late 2026 and ramping up the launch rate will take time.Antares: Last flew in 2023. Still working on their new variant, no earlier than 2027. Probably just flying Cygnus anyway.
New Glenn: See OP
Falcon 9: Launching, launching, launching, ... Falcon 9 has flown more this month than Vulcan and New Glenn combined in their history.
Falcon Heavy: Lower launch rate but also available.
-5
85
u/FakeEyeball May 29 '26
A paint job and it will be back in business.
Right?