Top
Best
New

Posted by enraged_camel 18 hours ago

Blue Origin's New Glenn blows up during static fire test(twitter.com)
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/20601649284728548...

https://xcancel.com/nasaspaceflight/status/20601649284728548...

https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2060174287563116696...

https://xcancel.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2060174287563116696...

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/blue-origins-new-glenn...

458 points | 499 commentspage 4
heohk 15 hours ago|
Static fire more like dynamic fire
weare138 16 hours ago||
Blew Origin
HerbManic 16 hours ago|
B.O.N.G goes up in smoke.

As an aside, that acronym is something you would expect out of Musk and yet Blue Origin sort of accidentally got it themselves.

busymom0 17 hours ago||
Looks even crazier in this angle:

https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2060174287563116696/video...

lorenzohess 16 hours ago|
https://xcancel.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2060174287563116696...
baq 14 hours ago||
On the scale of bad 1-10 where 10 is the absolutely worst case this is a 12 easily.

(Elon’s strategy of blowing up smaller versions of their rockets more or less deliberately doesn’t sound so insane in the light of this.)

perlgeek 14 hours ago||
I'd say on a scale of bad 1-10, 9 and 10 are reserved for incidents that cause loss of human life. YMMV.
AustinDev 14 hours ago|||
Loss of human life in a static fire is criminal. Why would anyone be that close?

There was no loss of life in this static fire failure.

kqr 14 hours ago|||
I can think of a few reasons:

- Test commences prematurely when people are still around

- Test is aborted partway through but then spontaneously resumes when people have started coming back

- Error in design or failure of hold-down structure turns static fire into dynamic fire, moving fire to where people are

These are unlikely, of course, but they are the things we have to seriously think about and try to design out of the system in order to create safe systems.

tmtvl 14 hours ago||||
No one should ever be that close, but it's a worst case scenario within the realm of possibility (people do get themselves into danger sometimes, for example by wandering onto a railroad track when there's a train approaching). I don't think it's unreasonable to reserve the 10 on the 1-10 scale for 'loss of human life'.
robocat 10 hours ago||

  The train driver saw a man on the track ahead holding a cell phone to one ear and cupping his hand to the other ear to block the noise.
https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2002-24.html
krisoft 13 hours ago||||
> Loss of human life in a static fire is criminal.

True. And yet it is not without precedent.

Scaled Composites had an explosion while performing a cold flow test of SpaceShipTwo’s engine which killed 3. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jul-27-me-explo...

russdill 12 hours ago|||
I mean, there was that one static fire recently where the rocket broken loose and started flying. This was not for from a populated area. Ok, maybe that was pretty criminally negligent.
dlcarrier 12 hours ago||||
The Plainly Difficult channel on YouTube reserves 1 and 2 for incidents that don't cause loss of human life.
logicallee 14 hours ago|||
yeah if you want to put it in the best light in terms of 9/11's this is zero 9/11's of casualties. Not how I'd judge it.
contactlight11 12 hours ago||
SpaceX had a very similar failure during a static fire test in 2016 that destroyed the rocket, payload, and a few key parts of SLC-40 that took them over a year to repair and return to service (September 2016 -> December 2017). The concrete flume trenches were literally melted.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-and-isra...

That was a full size rocket on a real mission with the $200M payload on board during the static fire, which is ostensibly worse. The payload was not integrated yet in Blue Origin’s case.

ebiederm 17 hours ago||
Hooray! A static test fire caught a problem.

Crap! There was a serious latent problem for the test fire to find.

trhway 13 hours ago||
It looks to me like the initial explosion was at the upper part of the rocket. Reminded the Starship explosion https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1935548909805601020 where on 0.25 speed also visible what the start of the catastrophe was at the upper part.

Interesting that just 2 days ago NASA picked Blue Origin instead of SpaceX for this year Moon flights.

On a sidenote, one can wonder how much, giving coming SpaceX IPO, it costs for Bezos to hire a Starship engineer :)

Laremere 12 hours ago|
Analysis video by Scott Manley notes that other comparable tests did not have visible fire at all, so it seems it started lower on the rocket and that the upper fire ball was either a secondary explosion or something coming up the transporter stand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaR6yEE-Myo
raverbashing 13 hours ago||
And if anyone is curious what is N1?

> It is possibly the most dramatic and powerful rocket explosion since the Soviet Union’s N1 rocket was destroyed during a launch attempt in 1969.

adrian_b 2 hours ago|
The failed competitor for Saturn V:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

panick21_ 14 hours ago||
Man they spent a huge amount on the launch infrastructure and it was ready long before the rocket. It was waiting for a long time. And now it reversed.
JumpCrisscross 16 hours ago||
Did they blow up a pad? Or just a test stand?

EDIT: Oh crap, they took out a launch complex.

SAI_Peregrinus 16 hours ago|
Pad. And one of the lightning protection towers. And the transporter-erector.
brcmthrowaway 16 hours ago|
There's got to be better way than burning a shittonne of fuel. Anyone else know?
GolfPopper 7 hours ago|
Nukes.[1] Lasers. [2] (Doesn't work, yet.) Balloons.[3] (Floating megastructures in the upper atmosphere is hard.) Giant cannon. [4] (Downside - huge g-forces on payload.) Extra fun with angular momentum.[5] (Even higher g-forces.) Exotic materials[6], with novel failure modes.[7]

Humanity has not been idle when it comes to imagining alternate ways to get to orbit. But so far, the only one that works in practice is rockets.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propu...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace#Airship_to_Orbit_...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpinLaunch

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

7. https://www.gassend.net/publications/FateOfABrokenSpaceEleva...

perilunar 3 hours ago||
Big magnets. [8]

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

More comments...