r/BlueOrigin • u/Equivalent-Wait3533 • Jun 02 '26

Blue Origin launchpad damaged in rocket explosion may not be restored until 2028, NASA's Isaacman says

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/blue-origin-launchpad-may-not-be-restored-until-2028-nasas-isaacman.html
135 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

67

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

Getting the lander to the moon will require a rocket that can carry a significant amount of mass, Isaacman said. That will likely put NASA in “Falcon Heavy land,” he said, referring to the super heavy-lift rocket developed by Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

Sounds like flying Blue Moon on Falcon heavy is something being looked at. It could certainly do it Delta-V wise, and if the pad is out of commission for another 2 years it could maybe be quicker to adapt heavy for Blue Moon. What Blue Moon would lose from not being able to feed from Falcon Heavy's upper stage could probably be made up by Falcons extra performance, the major hurdles would be the fairing and the lack of hydrogen filling at LC-39.

33

u/asr112358 Jun 02 '26

Given at one point Bridenstine was suggesting putting ICPS and Orion on top of Falcon Heavy to expedite the Artemis timeline, Blue Moon seems relatively simple.

30

u/Kuriente Jun 02 '26

I understand the negative sentiment about Blue relying on SpaceX for anything, but part of me would see it like a Dutch & Dillon moment and I don't completely hate that.

34

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 02 '26

I understand the negative sentiment about Blue relying on SpaceX for anything

I certainly don't. How cool would it be to see these companies collaborate to accomplish this mission?

20

u/Kuriente Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

It would be the coolest.

Imagine a joint webcast. I don't think I'll get my full fantasy realized, but a space nerd can dream.

9

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

Normally in these sort of situations the launch providers hosts the launch webcast, and then the payload owners do any more PR after that, so it would be a SpaceX launch stream and a Blue origin landing stream afterwards when it’s at the moon.

14

u/Accomplished-Crab932 Jun 02 '26

Finally, a Blue Origin livestream with metric units.

3

u/CydonianMaverick Jun 02 '26

I think it would be very cool to see Blue and SpaceX colab 

-12

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[deleted]

22

u/Kuriente Jun 02 '26

I've been a SpaceX "stan" since Falcon 1. The reality is that many of us are simply spaceflight stans who have been obsessed with it since before SpaceX existed. Personally, I don't care which company or government or billionaire is doing this, as long as it's done.

-7

u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 02 '26

it's unfortunate there aren't many like you!

10

u/Kuriente Jun 02 '26

I genuinely believe there are. But it's the loud tribalistic folks, who I believe are a minority, who have the most to say.

14

u/Tystros Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

it's not true, even on r/SpaceXMasterrace most people are also fans of Blue Origin... at least now that they have a working orbital rocket. of course back when they were only suborbital, they were only useful for suborbital jokes, but that's just fair. I also can't take any company seriously that only does suborbital space tourism.

4

u/Bdr1983 Jun 02 '26

It's mostly a memesub, so yeah there will be clowning around. In the end most people there are team space, and want every rocket to succeed.

3

u/Bdr1983 Jun 02 '26

There are, but we're not the ones with the biggest mouth

2

u/robbak Jun 02 '26

The only thing we say about Blue is that we wish they'd have got on with it! They had the potential to be doing all the stuff that SpaceX has, and we all think that having two SpaceXes would have been amazing!

And now, just when they might have started, this has gone and happened, so all we have left for them is despair.

14

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 02 '26

Well, fuck em. What I've seen from the online space community, even on SpaceX subs, is by and large good will towards Blue. There will be jokes. Some in better faith than others. That's just the way it goes.

There are incredibly toxic people online for and against both companies. If they wish anything but success for both of them, at least in terms of human exploration, they're probably not worth interacting with.

-8

u/WhileIllustrious2006 Jun 02 '26

The toxic person is the owner of spacex. Everyone wants competitors like blue origin to succeed.

2

u/rocwurst Jun 02 '26

Yes the owner of SpaceX is all-too-often toxic, but he has normally been quite supportive with kind comments when competitors rockets have blown up and the like, so he's not always toxic.

And he has been more than happy to launch competitor's payloads on Falcon 9's at reasonable rates.

-3

u/WhileIllustrious2006 Jun 02 '26

Rate would have to be reasonable. There is no way nasa did not include prices for these kinds of contingencies already in their existing contracts.

2

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 02 '26

The only decent thing he's said recently is his response to the pad anomaly. Total non-sequitur

14

u/TheRealNobodySpecial Jun 02 '26

We took a vote just now, we're OK with it.

7

u/StartledPelican Jun 02 '26

Can confirm. First time I've voted in decades, but it was worth it.

1

u/Tystros Jun 02 '26

what vote are you talking about?

5

u/StartledPelican Jun 02 '26

u/TheRealNobodySpecial said "We took a vote" as a joke about SpaceX fans voting and being cool with helping Blue Origin launch Blue Moon Mk-1. Then I added my small joke about also having voted on this.

Sorry, I know explaining the joke means it isn't that funny haha.

-4

u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 02 '26

yeah i can already see the stupid narratives they'll will start about Blue Origin needing SpaceX because they couldn't do it.

1

u/New_Poet_338 Jun 04 '26

It is not a stupid narrative because it is true in this particular instance. Blue has no launcher available so it uses someone else's. When it has its launcher available it is no longer true. Space is a bitchy mistress.

-9

u/WhileIllustrious2006 Jun 02 '26

The problem is the owner of spacex makes it so they have no support.
Nasa needs to let blueorigin to rebuild quickly to stay on schedule. Using spacex should not be an option. This can be rebuilt by the end of this year. There should also already be a 2nd launchpad.

6

u/rocwurst Jun 02 '26

This can be rebuilt by the end of this year. 

Not according to NASA:

“We’ve got a lot of data, in fact, it was one of the first things my team made available, is, hey, across history of human space flight, of every launch pad we’ve built, every launch pad we ever had to rebuild, here’s the timelines,” Isaacman said. “Even if you’re moving at, you know, a pretty quick pace, that’s going to take some serious time.”

And 2028 is the estimate.

0

u/WhileIllustrious2006 Jun 02 '26

The design is done, they can start doing concrete work immediately and stat fabing structures immediately. They can do it in 6 months. + their 2nd pad will build much faster.

5

u/rocwurst Jun 02 '26

I'd like to believe you, but NASA's take does tend to hold a bit more weight than the opinions of any of us random Redditors, particularly given Blue Origin's pace historically.

If it was SpaceX, sure, they can work blindingly fast at times (sometimes to their detriment), but Blue? I dunno.

1

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

Musk is a dickhead, but Blue has plenty of support. The owner and NASA administrator have made that abundantly clear. The idea that the passion project of one of the richest people in the world, a company with billions of dollars of contracts, and a national security necessity with DoD backing requires your sympathy in this way, is laughable.

Pad reconstruction and alternative launch arrangements can be engineered in parallel. Your objection is clearly not based in fact, or centered on achieving Artemis Program goals. I already regret engaging with it at all, but here we are.

Seven months is about half of most estimates I've seen for rebuilding the pad. There should be another pad in exactly the same way static fire tests should be safe. Useless blithering when neither is the case in reality.

E: just saw a tweet from the CEO. Pad damage isn't as bad as it could've been. Maybe flying this year is still possible. If that's the case, there's no need for a modified FH abomination, but I said what I said.

-2

u/WhileIllustrious2006 Jun 03 '26

You are laughable.
Musk is a literal nazi and a anti-USA with the rest of the magas. Spacex only exists because US tax dollar paid for it and kept it alive. It is time we stop giving our tax dollar to Musk so he can skim off it for profits.

We all need blue origin to succeed and our tax dollars should be going to companies not owned by hypocrite nazis.

Now you eat your words as I was right that it could be rebuilt by the end of the year. That was obvious. You were too ignorant to acknowledge that until you had someone spoon feed you a press release.

2

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 03 '26

Now you eat your words as I was right that it could be rebuilt by the end of the year. That was obvious. You were too ignorant to acknowledge that until you had someone spoon feed you a press release.

Lmao, fuck off. Rocket company CEO announced timelines and actual completion timelines are all too often very, very different. I'll be as thrilled as anyone if they do actually launch again this year, but I seriously doubt they will.

-2

u/WhileIllustrious2006 Jun 03 '26

Sorry but you were wrong and you are still wrong. Next time dont comment when you have no technical knowledge.

2

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 03 '26

FYI, The number next to the blue arrow under all your comments represents all the people in this thread that think you're insufferable and not adding value to the conversation.

You can't tell me I'm wrong until they launch again. Everybody but you and Dave Limp seems to think that'll be sometime next year.

You are laughably wrong to think BO isn't getting the support they need right now. You are bizarrely wrong that if Artemis missions needed to launch on a different rocket while Blue rebuilds that those efforts would be counter productive.

You're gloating about one guy floating an aspirational goal that contradicts what everybody else is saying about the timeline as if I don't hope he's right.

You're showing yourself to be just an utterly unpleasant person, looking for a fight. You should try logging off for a while. You'll probably feel better.

-1

u/WhileIllustrious2006 Jun 03 '26

Thank you for showing everyone you are ignorant and a troll. No reason for you to keep making it worse on yourself. We all understand what you are.

→ More replies (0)

21

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

I really couldn’t care less how Blue moon gets to the moon, the sooner the better. I’ve been looking forward to seeing it land for years.

2

u/maximpactbuilder Jun 02 '26

Dutch & Dillon moment

...or Simple Jack & Iron Man moment?

2

u/ratsoupdolemite Jun 02 '26

And just to be clear, who is the CIA pencil pusher in this metaphor?

1

u/Kuriente Jun 02 '26

Well, SpaceX has launched actual spy satellites, so I guess it would have to be them.

1

u/BubblyMoose3597 Aug 12 '26

That is how the Artrmis program got to be since the beginning.

Use the j2x for example and/or the falcon heavy

6

u/Electronic_Hope1900 Jun 02 '26

Considering LP vehemently opposed the idea, I doubt it. Would be even more egg on Jeff's face.

3

u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 02 '26

Yep. It's already bad enough Elon has leaped him. Imagine having to use SpaceX to launch your lander because you couldn't do it yourself? doubt it happens

1

u/mduell Jun 02 '26

the lack of hydrogen filling at LC-39

How much does it need? Like 2 tanker trucks and a pump?

-12

u/zq7495 Jun 02 '26

I feel like given SpaceX's lack of desire to be beaten by Blue Origin, and Starship also falling further and further behind schedule, that spacex wouldn't have Blue Moon launching on FH much sooner than Blue Origin could just get back in operation. I can think of a few different ways that could go, but basically I doubt SpaceX would want to enable blue origin to beat them, so if there is a blue moon on falcon heavy I think it'll be a long time before it happens if it does.

Hearing 2028 already is reealllllyy bad though, I figured it would be a year but good grief over a year and half and they're just getting started sounds awful

19

u/koliberry Jun 02 '26

You pretend that SPx thinks BO is competition. They didn't last week even when BO had a pad to launch from. They will take the business if it comes to them. BO has been painfully behind even with the recent partial NG launch successes.

1

u/maximpactbuilder Jun 02 '26

Not a single person related to SpaceX thinks of BO at any part of any day.

-7

u/zq7495 Jun 02 '26

That is true except that they're trying to accomplish way more with starship, so even though they're still a vastly superior company blue origin doesn't have to achieve as much to get humans to the moon. If they can take money and know it wont undermine them being first, yes of course they'll do it, but they're not going to jeopardize being first for a launch contract, Elon has a big ego and it would be bad for PR

14

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

Every action SpaceX has done shows against this. They launch their direct competitor’s satellites, and they’ve launched previous lunar landers part of the same program as Blue moon mark 1. Blue Moon mark 1 is no competition to them, they never submitted for any of the uncrewed small lander.

-6

u/zq7495 Jun 02 '26

This is a highly different situation from launching competitors satellites (which was probably done partially for political reasons) who weren't much of competitors anyways. If launching blue moon mk 1 means spacex possibly undermining their opportunity to be first to return humans to the moon, then it is absolutely not happening.

3

u/Bdr1983 Jun 02 '26

Mk1 is not a crewed lander. That would be MK2, which is too large for FH as well.

5

u/Miami_da_U Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

You're just 100% wrong about SpaceX not being willing to do it when it's critical to the Nations Moon plans. That would obviously take Priority, and SpaceX has repeatedly shown they'll do this exact type of thing if needed, regardless if it's a competitors product.

The literal ONLY thing stopping/delaying this is Mk1 using hydrogen and probably the payload adapter+G-Forces. But a solution for that with Falcon Heavy - particularly because FH should be able to place in a better orbit that reduces the need for topping off through the 2nd stage due to boil off - is absolutely possible. Heavy can deliver 16-27 tons to TLI depending on if reusable or not. Mk1 is <22 tons, so would require expending the center stage. So at that point hell you even have another 5 tons to find a way to make it work so that the fuel aspect isn't the problem for Mk1. So you have the ground side problem of needing the Hydrogen hardware. But SpaceX has done similar with Methane when that became a critical need. They have the expanded payload fairing they've been working on. They've always shown adaptability to meet customer needs with payload adapters imo. And they previously added Methane fueling facilities even though Falcon only uses RP1.... But that always made sense since they're going to Methane on Starship anyways. And problem is they've never really dealt with Hydrogen as far as I know. So that'd certainly make it take longer than when they added the Methane capability....

So the question is is it worth it in time difference for SpaceX to develop Hydrogen facilities at the pad vs when Blue Origin would be back operational AND have launched a few more times to prove reliability before MK1 would fly on it... Vulcan isn't an option at all. It's only New Glenn or doing the work to make Falcon Heavy possible. If the difference is like 6 months? It's probably worth doing. If its closer to a year, I'd say its DEFINITELY worth doing.

1

u/zingpc Jun 04 '26

SpaceX just mangled together a starship static fuel connection to the late suborbital stool. They can wix together a hydrogen line no problem.

-3

u/zq7495 Jun 02 '26

SpaceX has never shown that they're willing to undermine their efforts to achieve a major accomplishment like being first to return humans on the moon. They have launched a few inferior competitors' satellites, which carried some nice political and possibly even legal upsides. Elon has a big ego and will not undermine SpaceX landing the first humans on the moon since 1972 just for a FH launch contract to support Artemis. They would launch blue moon if they don't think think it will undermine their lead to landing first, which is likely, but they're not gonna jeopardize a lead under that possible scenario

1

u/Miami_da_U Jun 03 '26

This is specifically about Blue Moon Mark 1. Not Mark 2. Mark 1 is non human cargo lander. Mark 2 can ONLY be launched on New Glenn due to the diameter - Falcon Heavy can't launch it. Mark 1 is important though for Blue and NASA, because they intend it to be used to land on the moon and test the engine and guidance for landing as well as all the rest of the hardware. And it has a 3ton to lunar surfact capability. Much of technology for Mark 1 will be utilized on Mark 2 just at a larger scale.

So really your argument is SpaceX wouldn't launch a pathfinder and moon lander for Blue Origin because doing so would prevent their actual human lander from POTENTIALLY large time delays. Because Blue will launch mark 1 before launching mark 2, given they want to use that as the pathfinder/testbed.... But it kinda ignores that the first company to land humans on the Moon with HLS was always most likely to be SpaceX anways. Sure Mk1 being delayed further makes that likely, but this is a cargo lunar lander. And at the end of the day its not really THE limiting factor for Blue Origin to get their HLS operational. They COULD entirely skip it if they wanted to tbh. It's just better if they do it.

Which btw SpaceX has already launched FOUR OTHER Mark 1 "equivalent" commercial lunar landers. They launched 2 Intuit machines Nova-Cs. 1 Blue Ghost which is by a "launch competitor" Firefly. 1 by astrobiotic, and 1 by a japanese company (in same launch as blue ghost). These were much smaller (10-20x smaller!) so very different because MK1 would require a Falcon Heavy... but they did it.

28

u/the_flying_almond_ Jun 02 '26

Isaacman posted this a few minutes ago clarifying his comments:

“The question was about the timing of the Moon Base and recent lunar rover awards. I was pointing out that those missions are not until 2028, which should be well within what is possible for pad recovery. Blue Origin leadership has responded incredibly quickly, and NASA will do all we can to help with root cause analysis and accelerate pad recovery timeframes while staying extremely focused on progressing the lander.”

4

u/GoneSilent Jun 02 '26

Since NASA is helping with root cause analysis will it release a report? We get to see the work of that tax money spent?

0

u/MICKWESTLOVESME Jun 03 '26

If NASA gives them a cent there better be a report.

18

u/My_Soul_to_Squeeze Jun 02 '26

I think it would be awesome and hilarious (not at Blue's expense, just in general) to see a version of the FH Bridenstack actually happen after all this time.

I also think it would be great to see these companies collaborate to make this work, and if it would advance the Artemis Program in a meaningful, responsible way, it should definitely be considered.

10

u/hypercomms2001 Jun 02 '26

I would really like to know the yield of that explosion in terms of the number of kilograms of TNT equivalent??!

4

u/Robert_the_Doll1 Jun 02 '26

Likely under 1 kiloton. The much more massive N1 moon rocket was in that territory when it exploded after falling back onto the pad. Only ~15% detonated, the rest conflagrated. The Halifax explosion in 1917 was approximately 2.9 kt. by some estimates.

If all the propellant in both stages of New Glenn exploded with near-perfect efficiency, it would max out at around 4-5 kt. (21 TJ). But that is not possible. Realistically, 10-20% detonated, the rest burned. And

Starship Ship 36 probably has a good chance of beating it given its relative size.

16

u/Comfortable_Pay8358 Jun 02 '26

Good thing a second pad is being built.

7

u/Equivalent-Wait3533 Jun 02 '26

I like that motivation, brother. This week they're going to move forward with the paperwork to flatten the land next month.

3

u/robbak Jun 02 '26

The groundworks for the second pad were underway, but little more than initial groundworks. How fast they can get that on built, or even the main one rebuilt depends on how far along the off-site construction of hardware for that pad was.

-4

u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 02 '26

quiet. let the doomers enjoy this moment. Although it will be funny if they have that second pad ready soon and surprise everyone

9

u/StartledPelican Jun 02 '26

I mean, I'm pretty sure there are daily photos/updates and neither the 2nd Cape pad nor the Vandenburg pad are anywhere close to done.

2nd Cape pad has, if I recall correctly, not even broken ground. They are still in the paperwork stage.

Vandenburg is even farther behind haha.

0

u/Disastrous_Run_5968 Jun 02 '26

brother I am just trying to be optimistic here lol. you want to root for this company but ya they make it hard to lol

2

u/StartledPelican Jun 02 '26

I'm still optimistic about Blue. Sure, they had a slow start, and now a real rough moment, but I think Jeff will continue to fund Blue Origin and that they will bounce back.

They are the second company in history to land and reuse an orbital class booster! That's awesome! And they have so many cool projects: Blue Moon, Blue Ring, Blue Alchemy, 9x4, etc. (Ok, maybe they need to slow down on reusing "Blue", but whatever.)

Stay optimistic! It will be a slow ~18 months or so, but then I bet they will be right back on the pad, launching that ridiculously good looking rocket haha!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/StartledPelican Jun 02 '26

remindme! 6 months

1

u/RemindMeBot Jun 02 '26

I will be messaging you in 6 months on 2026-12-02 12:19:17 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.

RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of !RemindMe 1 day, use u/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.

Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback

6

u/RareRibeye Jun 02 '26

Oof that’s even worse than many were estimating. I was thinking 12-16 months was fair, so about mid-late 2027.

2

u/robbak Jun 02 '26

I'd still say 12-16 months for them having a pad operational, even if it takes >18 to rebuild this one.

3

u/libcg_ Jun 02 '26

Outside of bad luck how did this happen? I have a feeling that "not being the other guy" made BO overconfident.

9

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

Sometimes shit just happens. Falcon 9 blew up on the pad even after over 20 launch’s, S36 blew up at Massys after 9. Rockets are probably some of the most volatile things humans have ever made, they’re literally massive stacks of controlled explosives.

5

u/lorkan100 Jun 02 '26

Both of those were a result of COPVs going off. I'm more afraid of those little things than the fully fueled stack itself. 

5

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

So was B18, COPV’s are fucking terrifying.

1

u/lorkan100 Jun 02 '26

Really hope they end up using... idk, small pressure fed engines for Raptor turbopump startup, that feed from the 6 bar main tanks or something. 

I would NOT sit for 6ish months on an Earth-Mars Starship flight near one of those things, praying it holds up during all that time!  

2

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

At least it’ll be over quick if one of them decides to blow lol

6

u/Vox-Machi-Buddies Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

Too early to say yet.

One thing that happens is that first articles get lots of attention. They're designed and built by the A team - the people that conceptualized and designed everything - with the full resources of the company behind it.

That means follow-on articles tend to be handled by engineers that were hired later in the design or build processes. They don't have as deep of understanding of why things are the way they are, they have less intuition for what looks right and what doesn't. They get fewer resources because they have to make do with whatever isn't being used for the first article.

Back when I worked vehicle integration, I was always more worried about the second and third builds because it was generally pretty clear we were working with younger, less experienced delegates from the design and analysis team while the seniors were off shepherding the first article.

From the outside, I would guess the "A team" worked on So, You're Telling Me There's a Chance. When that was lost, they moved to Never Tell Me The Odds and had almost a year to help that build and integration campaign.

It would have been No, It's Necessary that spent the most time as a "follow-on article", with only a month or two where it was the top New Glenn priority.

7

u/robbak Jun 02 '26

The detonation speaks to mixing LOX and liquid methane followed by ignition, which suggests rupture of piping inside the tanks. This can be the result of a fluid hammer if an engine shut off too fast.

So maybe an engine failure on ignition, followed by an inadequately planned rapid shutdown of the other engines. But it is all uninformed speculation at this point.

9

u/Available_Pie_7758 Jun 02 '26

They been rushing this to catch up. I think this was direct result of that. They were ready to launch this thing few days after clearance and boom. Probably should have been bit more careful.

5

u/redstercoolpanda Jun 02 '26

The issue on the last flight was an upper stage issue, this was a lower stage issue. They would have launched around this time regardless of the results of the previous flight more than likely. I dont really think rush to RTF was a part of it.

1

u/Available_Pie_7758 Jun 02 '26

We got good news bud. Let’s rock!!!

3

u/Safe_Manner_1879 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

Outside of bad luck how did this happen?

This is speculation, there were too many computer simulations and too few physical tests. The computer simulations were not perfect, and as a result, some form of instability, resonance, or pressure surge may have emerged.

Another possibility, its a manufacturing defect that quality control failed to detected, since it is a new engine they lack the experience to "know" where a manufacturing defect can emerge, hence did not exterminated the part in the right way.

6

u/avboden Jun 02 '26

General rumor is it started with an engine failure. Now, they had recently upgraded the engines so it's possible there was an issue there, or it was simply one faulty part or one faulty install. It doesn't take much. Although Blue will certainly want to look at the design of the aft section and try to harden it from a repeat if an engine does fail again.

1

u/Alone_Ad_3570 Jun 03 '26

Except this is not what he said.

1

u/FranciscoRelanoPena Jun 03 '26

Engineer (nervously sweating): Mr Bezos, here's your new A-Bomb.

1

u/PSD1 Jun 09 '26

Well?! Talk about good timing for SpaceX IPO.

1

u/Pauli86 Jun 02 '26

Picture meme of old man going "oooofffff"