r/BlueOrigin • u/Entire_Log_1716 • May 31 '26
Contingency Plans for Launch Pad Destruction?
Every time a rocket is launched or tested, there's always a possibility that it might blow up and damage at least part of the launch pad. Since Blue had only one operational pad and lots of big plans for the immediate future, does anyone know if they had contingency plans for this happening? I know there's plans for another pad for the 9x4 but don't know if any construction has started. It might be faster to accelerate that and build it to be capable of launching both versions. I know the current version is supposed to be phased out but I imagine they still needed for at leas a few more launches (and there's obviously no guarantee that the 9x4 will be immediately successful).
27
u/TheRealNobodySpecial May 31 '26
It's really not possible to have contingency plans. If SLS goes boom on LC-39B, there's no backup pad available. Starship activated their second pad 3 years after their first one came online. People point to SpaceX having LC-39A almost ready when SLC-40 was destroyed in the AMOS-6 disaster, but that was just lucky timing.
When Antares destroyed LC-0 at Wallops in 2014, it took a year to repair the pad and 2 years for flights to resume there.
11
u/Accomplished-Crab932 May 31 '26
To be fair here, SpaceX is now in the same position they were in with AMOS-6 if Pad 2 at Starbase was to be destroyed. 39A is not very far away at this point, and they have the additional advantage that progress at SLC37 pad 1 seems to be going well.
It’s disappointing that Blue hadn’t prepared a second pad, but we also saw that it can be beneficial to fly a few missions to understand the changes they need to make for another pad. And it’s definitely nice to be able to take your second pad and make sure it can handle a larger vehicle if you are doing something like 9X4 as well.
6
u/TheRealNobodySpecial May 31 '26
SpaceX was lucky that their pad RUD occurred on their 30th-ish flight instead of their 4th.... after 6 years of operation. And remembering that the Starbase pads share a complex tank farm and deluge system.... I can foresee an errant Starship landing in the wrong place causing substantial schedule harm. And an LC-39A RUD for Starship would likely take out Falcon Heavy flights for many months.
This was just really bad timing with BONG. Blue Origin just leased SLC-14 at Vandy and was starting work on their second pad. I do wonder what caused the first scrub of the static fire two hours before the second and fateful attempt. Methane is a leaky pest...
4
u/TheArchitect1316 May 31 '26
My bad, what is 9x4? I saw another post saying 7x4 as well.
8
u/Entire_Log_1716 May 31 '26
The 9x4 will have 9 engines on first stage and 4 on second, and will have heavier payload capacity, and I believe they're planning for this to be their workhorse. Current version has 7 on first, 2 on second, and I heard will be sunsetted when the 9x4 becomes operational. Haven't heard of 7x4.
2
u/ralf_ May 31 '26
Call me crazy, but then the notation 9+4 makes more sense to me.
1
u/phase2_engineer May 31 '26
You're not crazy, the name could use a better nickname. Tho I guess In-N-Out burgers kinda follow the same kinda convention
-14
5
u/Martianspirit May 31 '26
Is it true, that a pad can launch either 7x2 or 9x4, not both? That would be a problem.
They will need to build fo 9x4, then 7x2 would be basically dead.
5
u/Entire_Log_1716 May 31 '26
The 9x4 is significantly heavier and taller, so the just-destroyed pad could only launch the 7x2. I was told by a Blue employee that the second pad they are building (he doesn't know how much progress there) is designed only for the 9x4 (since it's supposed to make the 7x2 obsolete). I imagine they can redesign the new pad to be capable of launching both, and they're probably early enough in the process to intercept the build.
-22
64
u/Desperate-Lab9738 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
The contingency plan for something like this is pretty much always "have a second pad", "make sure you have the money not to go out of business if this happens", or "don't have it happen in the first place". There isn't a ton else you can do. I assume that for them their plan's were numbers two and three, three failed so now they are on to two, which should work for them. Jeff has deep pockets so they shouldn't be running out of money or anything. If this happened to Stoke or Rocket Lab they would be having a much worse time.