News
Blue Origin rocket launch fails after engine catches fire
Blue Origin’s suborbital New Shepard rocket suffered a catastrophic engine failure during its 23rd launch attempt, ending a seven-year streak of 21 successes.
Following a handful of mostly weather-related delays that pushed New Shepard’s 23rd launch about two weeks past its original August 31st target, the single-stage vehicle lifted off from Blue Origin’s Van Horn, Texas launch site around 10:25 am CDT (14:25 UTC) on September 12th. Measuring about 15 meters (49 ft) tall, 3.7 meters (12.1 ft) wide, and capable of producing about 50 tons (~110,000 lbf) of thrust with its lone BE-3 engine at full throttle, New Shepard only made it about halfway through its nominal powered ascent before catastrophe struck.
The first signs of trouble appeared about 62 seconds after liftoff in the form of flickers and flashes in New Shepard’s exhaust, which is normally almost transparent. Less than two seconds after the first seemingly harmless flash, flames unintentionally burst from New Shepard’s engine section and quickly surrounded its BE-3PM engine. Less than a second after that, the rocket’s aft and began shedding pieces and stopped producing thrust, triggering a solid rocket motor stored inside its deployable capsule.
About a second after the incident began, the capsule’s abort motor ignited and carried the suborbital spacecraft safely away from the failing New Shepard booster. The capsule ultimately coasted to an apogee of 11.4 kilometers (7.1 miles) – almost ten times lower than nominal – before descending back to Earth, deploying its parachute system, and safely touching down in the Texas desert scrub. Thankfully, NS-23 was only carrying experiments, and no humans were at risk. Had a crew of suborbital tourists been aboard, they would have likely been a little battered but otherwise completely unharmed.
..there is room for a lot of speculation ?– i did a frame by frame Picture – on the bottom row you can see some parts falling away. maybe the nozzle fell apart?!? pic.twitter.com/OOzPkPiX6G— Flo (@FloSpacenerd) September 12, 2022
While any failure of a rocket is unfortunate, the failure of a rocket nominally designed to launch humans can have even worse repercussions. However, thanks to the seemingly flawless unplanned performance of New Shepard’s abort system, it’s safe to say that the day could have gone much worse for Blue Origin.
The failure is still not going to do the reputation of Blue Origin or New Shepard any favors. It also invites less than favorable comparisons with SpaceX, a different spaceflight startup also funded and founded by a tech tycoon in the early 2000s.
Founded a year and a half after Blue Origin, SpaceX, in comparison, reached orbit with Falcon 1 in 2008. In June 2010, it successfully debuted Falcon 9, an orbital-class rocket roughly 20 times larger. In 2012, Falcon 9 successfully launched an orbital Dragon spacecraft which became the first private vehicle to dock to the International Space Station. In January 2015, it attempted to recover a Falcon 9 booster for the first time. In December 2015, one month after Blue Origin’s first successful New Shepard landing, SpaceX aced its first Falcon 9 booster landing.
Nine months later, Falcon 9 suffered a catastrophic failure during prelaunch testing in September 2016 and didn’t return to flight until January 2017. That is where, for the most part, the paths of Blue Origin and SpaceX almost entirely diverged – but not in any obvious way. Instead, after a successful suborbital launch in October 2016, New Shepard didn’t fly again until December 2017. In the roughly six years between October 2016 and September 2022, New Shepard completed 10 uncrewed suborbital launches, 6 suborbital tourist launches, and suffered one failure during another uncrewed mission – 18 total launches.
Despite suffering a catastrophic failure that destroyed a customer’s multimillion-dollar satellite in September 2016, SpaceX returned to flight four months later, completed 150 orbital Falcon launches without fail in the same period; debuted the world’s largest operational rocket, Falcon Heavy, and completed two additional launches with it; debuted Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon 2 on Falcon 9; launched its first astronauts into orbit, launched its first operational astronaut transport mission for NASA, launched its first two Starlink internet satellite prototypes, launched another 60 refined Starlink prototypes, began operational Falcon 9 Starlink launches, built and launched more than 3000 Starlink satellites total; landed 130+ Falcon boosters, and reuse Falcon boosters 117 times.
The differences could not be more stark or strange, given that both companies have been operating more or less side by side and working towards similar goals for as long as they’ve existed. To Blue Origin’s credit, the company managed a record six New Shepard launches – three carrying tourists – in 2021. NS-23 was its fourth planned launch in 2022, suggesting that it could have achieved a similar cadence this year if the mission had had a different fate. Instead, the launch failure has triggered an anomaly investigation that will search for the root cause and try to uncover shortcomings that will then need to be rectified before New Shepard can return to flight. Given that Blue Origin once went 15 months between successful New Shepard launches, it’s impossible to say how long that process will take.
In the meantime, the apparent failure of New Shepard’s BE-3PM engine could trigger investigations into Blue Origin’s other engine programs. While substantially different, BE-3U, a variant optimized for the upper stage of New Glenn, Blue Origin’s first orbital rocket, likely shares the most in common with New Shepard’s BE-3PM. BE-7, a small engine meant to power a Moon lander, could also be impacted.
Most importantly, Blue Origin is also in the midst of finally preparing two much more powerful and far more complex BE-4 engines for customer United Launch Alliance (ULA). Years behind schedule, Blue Origin completed the first two theoretically flightworthy BE-4 engines and began putting them through qualification testing earlier this year. It wants to ship those engines to ULA as soon as possible to avoid delaying the debut of the customer’s new Vulcan Centaur rocket. BE-3PM and BE-4 probably don’t share a single part, but many Blue Origin employees have likely worked on both programs, and the same Blue Origin leadership has certainly overseen both. As long as there’s any form of commonality, no matter how abstract, there’s always a risk that the underlying cause of problems in one program could be present in others.
Ultimately, it’s unlikely that there will be any serious connection. The New Shepard booster that failed on NS-23 was almost five years old and was flying for a record-breaking ninth time. It’s possible that Blue Origin was privately worried about the possibility of failure while pushing the envelope, but it offered no qualifications while discussing the mission. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, in comparison, has almost always made it clear that failure is a possibility when the company attempts ‘firsts’ of any kind.
SpaceX recently launched and recovered the same Falcon 9 booster for the 14th time, setting its own internal record. As a result, that lone Falcon 9 booster, B1058, has flown as many times in the last 31 months as all New Shepard boosters combined have flown in the last 45 months.
Finally, while no company should be put in that position, Blue Origin deserves praise for its live coverage of the anomaly. Instead of immediately cutting the feeds, which would be what most providers would be expected to do during an operational launch, Blue Origin continued to broadcast views of the failure and provide live commentary until New Shepard’s capsule touched down well ahead of schedule.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk just upped his Tesla stake further fueling SpaceX merger conversation
Elon Musk just collected a $116 billion Tesla payday and the timing is eye-opening
Elon Musk quietly collected one of the largest single-transaction paydays in corporate history on Monday. A Form 4 filed with the SEC on June 17, 2026 disclosed that Musk exercised 303,960,630 Tesla stock options from his 2018 compensation package, with the transaction dated June 16. No shares were sold on the open market.
The numbers are straightforward but striking. Musk exercised the options at a split-adjusted strike price of $23.34, with Tesla closing at $404.66 that day, putting the spread at $381.32 per share and generating roughly $115.9 billion in paper gains in a single transaction. To cover the exercise cost, Tesla withheld 17,531,857 shares through a net share settlement, meaning Musk paid nothing out of pocket.
For perspective, in 2018, Elon Musk’s award was originally approved by Tesla shareholders on March 21, 2018, and structured entirely around performance milestones that many analysts at the time called unreachable. Every tranche eventually vested. The original grant covered 20,264,042 shares at $350.02, which after Tesla’s 5-for-1 split in 2020 and 3-for-1 split in 2022 adjusted to 303,960,630 shares at $23.34. A Delaware court rescinded the award in January 2024, ruling the board was conflicted. As Teslarati reported, Tesla shareholders voted to ratify the package anyway in June 2024 by a wide margin. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the decision in December 2025, finding full cancellation too extreme, and Tesla’s board signed an Implementation Agreement on April 21, 2026 to formally deliver the shares.
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
The timing and structure of the Form 4 filing carries more weight than a routine stock option exercise typically would. Musk exercised his 2018 Tesla award on June 16, a week into SpaceX completing its IPO and trading publicly, and giving SpaceX a public market valuation and share currency for the first time in the company’s history. A stock-for-stock merger between two companies requires the acquiring entity to have tradeable shares it can offer to the target’s shareholders, and SpaceX now has exactly that. At the same time, Musk just increased his direct Tesla voting power to approximately 20%, giving him greater influence over any shareholder vote that a merger would require. The restricted shares he received cannot be sold until 2033, which removes any near-term incentive to cash out and instead positions this stake as long-term structural collateral in a deal. Additionally, Musk’s two companies are already deeply intertwined through shared semiconductor fabrication at their joint TERAFAB facility in Austin, cross-company supply chain transactions, and Tesla’s $2 billion investment in xAI prior to the SpaceX-xAI merger.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has publicly placed the odds of a Tesla and SpaceX combination at 80% to 90% by early 2027. The Implementation Agreement that made Monday’s exercise possible was signed on April 21, 2026, roughly two months before the SpaceX IPO closed. That sequencing, building Musk’s Tesla ownership to its highest point ever immediately before SpaceX gains the public currency needed to acquire it, is either an extraordinary coincidence or a carefully staged foundation for the largest corporate merger in history.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is going to be getting a major parking upgrade. That’s according to CEO Elon Musk, who detailed a crafty new feature that will improve parking preferences, removing a layer of human input.
Musk said that upcoming releases of Full Self-Driving will “remember your parking preferences.” It will go to the location you prefer, based on where you’ve parked in the past, instead of taking the first spot available, which is where the suite is currently.
The CEO went on to explain that destination parking is “by far” the biggest reason for intervention during FSD operation. We’d have to believe this is true; many takeovers in my Model Y, which runs the latest version of FSD as it is in the Early Access Program, are due to parking because it chooses a spot I do not want to be in.
Many times, as soon as I enter a parking lot, I take over and park manually. I prefer to park away from the entrance of wherever I am, away from cars. Too many lessons learned over the years from people with free-swinging doors.
Upcoming releases of FSD will remember your parking preferences, so that the car goes to the right location at your home, office, school drop off, etc.
Destination parking is by far the biggest reason people now intervene with FSD. Critical safety interventions are extremely…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2026
We’d imagine these new updates will also solve things like parking orientation. Let’s say when you arrive at work, you always park in the third spot in the third row, and you prefer to back in. It seems as if Musk is implying that your car will now do this, learning from takeovers and aiming to eliminate the need to manually park whenever possible.
This is a major upgrade because parking is a major shortcoming of FSD currently. We’ve requested things like manual input of parking preferences, choosing to park far away, first available, or away from cars, for example.
This is a big reason Parking Preferences with Supervised FSD will be so valuable.
If possible, parking a little further away and being distant from people like this is worth it. https://t.co/1YqQLgnfTz pic.twitter.com/3Ac71KQiQ3
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 7, 2026
However, some have used the option of dropping a pin at the location you’d like to park at your destination. This has worked some of the time, but FSD will still choose to park in whatever it sees first.
Musk did not give a timetable for when the improvements would be released, but it is likely to come soon. Tesla has been releasing a new FSD version every few weeks, so we may not have to wait long to test it.
In a remarkable demonstration of how advanced vehicle technology can intersect with family care and rapid response, a Tesla Model Y equipped with Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised helped save a driver’s life during a severe heart attack. The incident, which occurred on November 15, 2025, highlights the life-saving potential of Tesla’s connected ecosystem.
John Brandt, 55, was driving his new 2026 Model Y Launch Edition on Interstate 20 from Atlanta toward Birmingham early that morning. He had recently received the FSD v14.1.3 update. Around 3:50 a.m., he began experiencing severe chest pain. Barely conscious and unable to safely control the vehicle, John managed to call his son, Jack Brandt.
FSD Supervised remained engaged, keeping the car steadily on course while John reached out for help.
As an authorized driver on his father’s Tesla account, Jack quickly sprang into action from his own phone. He located Tanner Medical Center in Carrollton, Georgia—a facility equipped for cardiac emergencies—via Google Maps and shared the destination directly through the Tesla app.
A Model Y driver started experiencing a medical emergency with chest pain mid-drive & called his son.
His son then remotely rerouted the car – which had FSD Supervised enabled – to the nearest hospital & let them know the vehicle was en route. ER staff were standing by on… pic.twitter.com/yi1tHISK9y
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) June 16, 2026
The Model Y responded immediately, rerouting: it took the next exit, turned around on I-20, navigated local roads, and pulled directly up to the emergency room entrance. Jack also alerted hospital staff that a heart attack patient was en route in a Tesla.
Doctors diagnosed John with a massive STEMI heart attack, requiring immediate intervention on three blocked arteries. They later confirmed that without the swift reroute, John likely would not have survived—whether he had pulled over to wait for an ambulance or attempted to continue driving. He received life-saving treatment and is now recovering fully.
Tesla shared the story on X, including an interview video featuring John and Jack reflecting on the event. John described the terrifying onset of symptoms, while Jack detailed the ease of remote intervention thanks to the app’s features. Only authorized users with vehicle access can change navigation destinations, adding a layer of security and family coordination.
This case underscores Tesla’s emphasis on connectivity and supervised autonomy. Features like remote navigation allow loved ones to assist in real-time emergencies, while FSD handles complex driving tasks reliably. Tesla notes that FSD Supervised requires active driver supervision and is not fully autonomous; this was a specific incident, not a general emergency protocol.
The story has resonated widely, with many praising Tesla’s technology for bridging gaps in critical moments. Jack previously shared details on social media in February 2026, and Tesla’s recent post has amplified its reach. As vehicles become smarter and more connected, such integrations could redefine personal safety on the road—turning cars into proactive partners in health crises.
For Tesla owners, the incident serves as a powerful reminder to add trusted family members as authorized drivers and explore FSD capabilities. While no technology replaces professional medical care, this blend of AI-assisted driving and seamless app control proved invaluable. John’s survival stands as a testament to innovation that prioritizes human life.
Elon Musk just upped his Tesla stake further fueling SpaceX merger conversation
Tesla Full Self-Driving is getting a major parking upgrade, Elon Musk says
