Oopsie at Cape Canaveral (Blue Origin explosion)

As my former boss and the smartest person I know wisely said once, "stuff" happens in rocket testing.

I do not miss the anxious wait for the root cause, always afraid it would be something I had worked on.
 
Billionaire space games jokes aside, this sucks on multiple levels. Both Artemis and Blue Origin’s HLS system for the moon hinge on New Glenn’s success. And…even Southern Jet’s new WiFi plans.

Blue Origin doesn’t test to failure like SpaceX does and this was their only pad I believe at Kennedy with assumed ground damage to the tank farm and other buildings. This could be a major setback for Artemis as the MK1 moon lander apparently can’t work with any other rocket currently.
 
1780057006946.png
 
“So there was an incident today.”

“There was an anomaly, yes.”

“An anomaly.”

“That’s what we’re calling it.”

“Is that normal?”

“No, I want to be very clear about that. This is not a normal anomaly.”

“What’s a normal anomaly?”

“Well it’s not this.”

“The rocket exploded.”

“There was an unscheduled disassembly event, yes.”

“On the launch pad.”

“In the vicinity of the launch pad, correct.”

“It’s still on fire.”

“There’s some residual thermal activity, yes.”

“That’s a large fire.”

“It’s not a typical fire.”

“How is it not typical?”

“Well it’s got rocket fuel in it.”

“Is that bad?”

“We anticipated some energetic material release in an anomaly scenario.”

“Did you anticipate this much energetic material release?”

“We’re reviewing the parameters, yes.”

“The launch tower is gone.”

“The launch tower experienced some structural simplification.”

“Was it designed for that?”

“It was designed to very high specifications.”

“Clearly not high enough.”

“It met every specification right up until the anomaly. It wasn’t built from cardboard or anything such as that”

“So what happens now?”

“We’ll assess the data, implement corrective actions, and return to flight.”

“From that pad?”

“From a pad, yes.”

“That pad specifically?”

“…We’re assessing the pad situation as well.”

“So everything is fine.”

“We’re very encouraged by the data we were able to collect prior to the anomaly.”

“How much data was that?”

“Some data, yes.”
 
“So there was an incident today.”

“There was an anomaly, yes.”

“An anomaly.”

“That’s what we’re calling it.”

“Is that normal?”

“No, I want to be very clear about that. This is not a normal anomaly.”

“What’s a normal anomaly?”

“Well it’s not this.”

“The rocket exploded.”

“There was an unscheduled disassembly event, yes.”

“On the launch pad.”

“In the vicinity of the launch pad, correct.”

“It’s still on fire.”

“There’s some residual thermal activity, yes.”

“That’s a large fire.”

“It’s not a typical fire.”

“How is it not typical?”

“Well it’s got rocket fuel in it.”

“Is that bad?”

“We anticipated some energetic material release in an anomaly scenario.”

“Did you anticipate this much energetic material release?”

“We’re reviewing the parameters, yes.”

“The launch tower is gone.”

“The launch tower experienced some structural simplification.”

“Was it designed for that?”

“It was designed to very high specifications.”

“Clearly not high enough.”

“It met every specification right up until the anomaly. It wasn’t built from cardboard or anything such as that”

“So what happens now?”

“We’ll assess the data, implement corrective actions, and return to flight.”

“From that pad?”

“From a pad, yes.”

“That pad specifically?”

“…We’re assessing the pad situation as well.”

“So everything is fine.”

“We’re very encouraged by the data we were able to collect prior to the anomaly.”

“How much data was that?”

“Some data, yes.”
“ so much data that people five miles away from the launch pad have some of it “

🙂
 
Back
Top