(While sitting and watching the second orbital launch of the day from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. this one a group of Amazon Leo satellites on an Atlas V... The first orbital launch of the day was a load of Starlink satellites on a Falcon 9 at about 8AM)
Pretty much all of the talk in the space press is about last night's major disaster with the loss of the next New Glenn rocket. After I posted last night's piece that the next New Glenn launch being No Earlier Than next Thursday I wasted some time watching some videos on YouTube and needed to turn in for the night. As I started to shut down, YouTube offered me a video from Ellie in Space that was saying something terrible had just happened. I looked at a couple of descriptions and thought "this is so bad we'll know nothing tonight that won't be changed by tomorrow" and went to bed.
That was only a slight overstatement.
As we've chatted about in the comments to the coming launch that were posted Thursday night, there are two big issues in the aftermath of this disaster and both of them come down to the impact on Artemis. On Tuesday, NASA contracted with Blue to deliver two rovers to the Moon using the Blue Moon Mark I lander, presumably on separate flights. That seems pretty iffy right now. If the New Glenn can't launch, I don't know if the Falcon Heavy could handle the rovers, but the rovers are being designed to fit the Blue Moon Mark I and some modification may be necessary.
An artist’s rendering of a Blue Origin Blue Moon Mark 1 lunar lander deploying
Astrolab’s Crewed Lunar Vehicle (CLV-1) on the surface of the Moon.
You'll note the wheels of the rover aren't touching the lunar regolith, and
that large bar is holding the rover just above the surface after taking the
rover off the top of the lunar lander. Graphic: Astrolab
While the amount of information has barely changed as the day has gone by, I hope more comes out in the next few days. Yes, including the weekend. Meanwhile, Scott Manley's video "Blue Origin's Rocket Explosion - How Bad Is It?" is good, and better than that Ellie in Space video mentioned and linked to above. I'm afraid there's very little more I can add now.
It's very bad. Going at BO's pace, it will be 2-3 years before the final reconstruction is done.
ReplyDeleteMight be easier to just build a new facility at a different SLC, if one is available.
The devastation is epic. On the scale of what happened to Roscosmos' launch site a while back.
The launch stand is toast. Both lightning towers are toast. The launcher is toast. The flame diverter is toast. Half the buildings are toast, along with tent structures, all toast.
This is why you should have two launch complexes. Two is one, one is none.
One sure is none now...
DeleteHow much has NASA insisted on commonality across multiple vendors?
ReplyDeleteExample: could BO's lander launch on a Starship?
Of course, it isn't only about lunar landers.
I think it important, how important will come to a head sometime in the next several years.
Especially with multiple crews working in multiple projects.
It would be shitty if a part in dire need up there couldn't launch because it won't mate with the only rocket ready to go right now!
Perhaps I read too much sci fi and am ignorant of reality.
With Starship, well, anything current will fit in a cargo-only version of either the regular or HLS version.
DeleteWill it fit on a Falcon Heavy, well, that's the question. Falcon Heavy exists now. Starship is still in the future.
Adapters can be built, faster than replacing launch facilities and rockets. The military and Nasa can define standards in their contracts.
ReplyDeleteFor Blue Origin, this is an existential crisis. Does Bazos want to spend all that money to restart or would he prefer to go play with his yachts?
I would guess that Blue Origin is now in breach of their Artemis contracts. Nasa can steer some contracts to some of the other providers (Rocket Lab, Relativity, Stoke are working on larger rockets) and SpaceX. If Blue Origin rebuilds and proves flight worthy, the US government will likely insure Blue Origin has contracts sufficient to guarantee viability. In the near term, Artemis is now SpaceX. This accelerates Artemis.
"For Blue Origin, this is an existential crisis. Does Bazos want to spend all that money to restart or would he prefer to go play with his yachts? "
DeleteFWIW, he says they're going to rebuild and adds, "it's worth it." Chances are someone else would pay more for a "fully built and functioning" Blue Origin than for the wreckage of LC-36 and rockets that lost their FAA certification to fly. Would a buyer pay enough to make it worth rebuilding? Heck if I know.
I am IMPRESSED by what Elon Musk has done. Any electric car you see on the road today is because of what Musk did, reusable rockets are here today because Musk had the dream.
DeleteSpaceX can do it!
This. Everyone has known from the start that rockets could be reusable - there was a NASA program called Delta Clipper or DC-X in the early '90s that succeeded in getting the booster to land but never turned into what was dreamed. (My favorite nickname for the Clipper was "Flying Traffic Cone.")
DeleteWhat made Musk succeed was the combination of hiring the right designers, a wicked-smart way to do it, and the balls to make it happen. They did all their development on boosters that were literally just declared garbage and being thrown away to litter the Atlantic - like every other used rocket. It's like taking something out of the garbage can and making something Earth-shattering out of it.