Somewhere along the line of developing a launch vehicle, it seems like every company developing a launch vehicle goes through an explosion on the launch pad like Blue went through last week. SpaceX had one in the early September of 2016 as they were getting started with the Falcon rocket. I don't think it's a surprise to say there were a lot more explosions like this in the early days of the 1950s and '60s.
A former NASA engineer named John Muratore sat on console as launch director in early September 2016 as propellant flowed onto a Falcon 9 rocket in Florida. Ahead of a planned launch two days later, SpaceX was preparing for a static fire test of the vehicle.
Then, all of a sudden, the rocket exploded. “It came out of nowhere, and it was really violent,” Muratore said. This fireball resulted in the destruction of the rocket, much of its launch site, and the AMOS-6 satellite already attached to the vehicle.
While looking for a good, general look at the situation, a good overview, I came across this video. There are aspects I don't like about it, mostly being at a low level, but that just means the video is a bit longer than it could be.
The video, by someone or some group that calls themselves Dark Ledger converges on how both the 2016 SpaceX and this Blue Origin explosion have ties to Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels or COPVs. Perhaps the bigger point is that we've also talked about as COPV failures in other explosions, like June '25's Starship 36 explosion or November '25's SuperHeavy 18's RUD on the launch pad.
Clearly, we don't know if the explosion was caused by the COPV or if the COPV was even damaged by the explosion, but it's a good thing to try to find and a good starting point.
The narrator then rushes to say the problem with this disaster isn't just the explosion. The problem is actually that Blue Origin only has one functional launch pad. He doesn't mention that Blue Origin has started work on a second pad. It's far enough from ready that what I've read doesn't make it look like the new pad can make a big difference in how quickly BO can get flying again.
Launch pads are among the most complex pieces of infrastructure involved in sending a rocket into space. They require a lot of brawn, as evidenced by the need for tall and strong steel launch towers. Then there’s the large amount of concrete used for the foundation, flame trench, and surrounding areas.
...
But launch sites are about much more than concrete and steel. There is an incredible amount of electrical wiring that almost certainly got fried by the fireball. And then there is the intricate tubing that provides gas and liquids to fill not just the rocket’s propellant tanks but also smaller pressurized vessels throughout the vehicle for various purposes.
“I’m worried about the tubing,” Harriss said, noting that every launch site has bespoke plumbing and electrical elements, with lots of tasks that must be done by hand; pulling and splicing wire, delicate welding, and so much more. “It takes a lot of time and effort to put that into place.”
As virtually ever visitor here has said either directly or indirectly, the source article on Ars Technica talks about CEO Limp's statement that they'll be back flying before the end of the year.
None of the former SpaceX employees I spoke with for this article—some on the record, some off—believe this timeline is realistic. Twelve months was generally viewed as the best-case scenario. Eighteen months was seen as most likely.
Much like what the comments here are saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment