Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket just exploded during a static fire test
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Oof, that's painful to watch. I have the urge to make a snarky comment like "I guess it wasn't necessary after all" but my heart's not really in it.
Upvote
114
(118
/
-4)
Upvote
89
(143
/
-54)
Anyone have a longer clip that continues past the fireball? I know we'll need to wait till morning for enough light to see clearly but I'd like to know if both lightning arrestor towers are still standing. I think I saw the left one briefly as the fireball started to dissipate at the end.
Upvote
38
(39
/
-1)
Answering my own question, the NSF streams higher quality video shows the right tower swaying badly as its engulfed in the fireball and gone when it's dissipated.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8wRjD3xVA
@ 9PM
Upvote
119
(121
/
-2)
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #13
One silver lining is that the Space Force has very little data about methane-fueled rocket exclusion zones. It's a serious problem (i.e. how much of the Cape do you shutdown during Blue Origin or ULA or SpaceX launches with their heavy lift rockets. Now ... they have data.
Upvote
463
(464
/
-1)
Trying to calculate the blast yield, but way out of my league; not a rocket scientist..
Still, it must be among some of the largest (non-nuclear) explosions to take place - it's no wonder the site is rekt.
Sad - but I hope they got some useful telemetry and can build off of it.
It's still an experimental craft and so mishaps are to be expected, but it's extra painful when said mishaps also takes a bite out of infrastructure.
Still, it must be among some of the largest (non-nuclear) explosions to take place - it's no wonder the site is rekt.
Sad - but I hope they got some useful telemetry and can build off of it.
It's still an experimental craft and so mishaps are to be expected, but it's extra painful when said mishaps also takes a bite out of infrastructure.
Upvote
51
(52
/
-1)
I know you're not trying to be funny, but that's some proper gallows humor right there.
IDK, it was quite bright for a few brief seconds.
Upvote
226
(226
/
0)
NSF's commentators have spotted damage to the HIF building: there is light coming through wall junctions that used to be seamless. Given the massive shockwave that made even the heavily reinforced tower next to the pad sway, it's possible just about everything within less than a mile's radius is damaged to some extent.
Upvote
137
(137
/
0)
Bigger rockets are going to have bigger booms. It is going to be a fact of operations going forward, so very important data indeed.
Upvote
88
(89
/
-1)
Well, crap. I was wondering if the payload was already on board, good to know it wasn't.
Thanks for the quick report Eric, much appreciated.
Thanks for the quick report Eric, much appreciated.
Upvote
72
(72
/
0)
Upvote
71
(72
/
-1)
The commentators are saying the feed will continue indefinitely, for those who wish to check back on the burning rubble over time.
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
Local news reports the blast was heard as far as 45 miles away.
My son just came in from being at the beach and reports that the glow of the explosion was visible here (100+ miles). That's not surprising as we can see launches quite clearly.
My son just came in from being at the beach and reports that the glow of the explosion was visible here (100+ miles). That's not surprising as we can see launches quite clearly.
Upvote
179
(179
/
0)
For those wondering, yes this was a detonation, not just a deflagration.
In the source video just after the sensor is oversaturated there is an obviously, spherical condensation cloud which is a clear sign of a shock wave.
Upvote
229
(230
/
-1)
Judging by the trajectory of some of the ejecta, they are going to be picking up pieces of data for quite some time.
Upvote
171
(172
/
-1)
Humans prefer to find agency in unexplained events, it’s a product of evolution. Assuming the rustle in the bushes is a tiger instead of the wind may save a life.
But in this case it’s not warranted. BO having a successful launch or not will have no effect on the IPO. Did you also think that BO sabotaged the starship booster in last weeks test for same reason? If not your bias isn’t finding agency, it’s attributing it to individuals you already want to believe would do it.
Upvote
91
(94
/
-3)
NSF just showed a snippet from another source much further away, and you can really see the spherical condensation cloud from the wider view.
Upvote
87
(87
/
0)
Oh yeah, there was another (blurry cellphone) video from out on the water and the spherical shockwave was pretty obvious in that one.
Is it a WWE if it's not Artemis?
Upvote
44
(45
/
-1)
This really sucks, New Glenn is already coming off a failed launch and now has maybe a years delay till next one.
Losing the best non-SpaceX heavy launcher and setting it back before it can achieve higher cadence loses a very attractive option for deep space missions, and not just Artemis.
Upvote
98
(99
/
-1)
Using the Sedov-Taylor-Rayleigh blast equation, and estimating from the video footage (towers 180 m tall, shockwave takes about 0.2 s to get there), it seems that the Blue Origin New Glenn explosion had a yield of a bit over 1 kT. The pad should be a mess - the energy release is roughly equivalent to detonating a low-yield tactical nuclear warhead.
Upvote
246
(246
/
0)
It's not a WWE, as unlike the case with the SLS, nobody was hoping that New Glenn would die in the crib before it could go fully operational.
Upvote
84
(86
/
-2)
NSF also points out that ULA and SpaceX both have launch complex fully stacked pads planning for launch in the next 24 hours. That's a lot of stuff to potentially need to inspect depending on proximity. Plus potential impacts to shared utilities across the Space Coast.
Upvote
124
(124
/
0)
And yet, a tiny fraction of the 1:1 TNT equivalent the Space Force uses as its design point for standoff distance. SpaceX has been arguing that should be 1:4 which would still be much higher than we're seeing here - but this isn't the worst case explosion by far.
Edit: No, my numbers were off - that's about 1/2 of the propellant equivalent. That seems excessively high given that we saw quite a bit of deflagration at the start.
Upvote
49
(51
/
-2)
BO is older than SpaceX and has done 2 successful launches. They claimed, wrongly, that their methodical approach would somehow be safer in the end. Its not. They are 2 for four and a hell of a long way from being safe and reliable. Meanwhile Vulcan isn't doing so well either. Only SLS has managed any success with that approach, and that's only because it has more money than God.
Rapid iteration is clearly the correct approach.
Rapid iteration is clearly the correct approach.
Upvote
64
(91
/
-27)
Upvote
115
(116
/
-1)