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
SpaceX’s Starship FL launch site will witness scenes once reserved for sci-fi films
A Starship that launches from the Florida site could touch down on the same site years later.
The Department of the Air Force (DAF) has released its Final Environmental Impact Statement for SpaceX’s efforts to launch and land Starship and its Super Heavy booster at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station’s SLC-37.
According to the Impact Statement, Starship could launch up to 76 times per year on the site, with Super Heavy boosters returning within minutes of liftoff and Starship upper stages landing back on the same pad in a timeframe that was once only possible in sci-fi movies.
Booster in Minutes, Ship in (possibly) years
The EIS explicitly referenced a never-before-seen operational concept: Super Heavy boosters will launch, reach orbit, and be caught by the tower chopsticks roughly seven minutes after liftoff. Meanwhile, the Starship upper stage will complete its mission, whether a short orbital test, lunar landing, or a multi-year Mars cargo run, and return to the exact same SLC-37 pad upon mission completion.
“The Super Heavy booster landings would occur within a few minutes of launch, while the Starship landings would occur upon completion of the Starship missions, which could last hours or years,” the EIS read.
This means a Starship that departs the Florida site in, say, 2027, could touch down on the same site in 2030 or later, right beside a brand-new stack preparing for its own journey, as noted in a Talk Of Titusville report. The 214-page document treats these multi-year round trips as standard procedure, effectively turning the location into one of the world’s first true interplanetary spaceports.
Noise and emissions flagged but deemed manageable
While the project received a clean bill of health overall, the EIS identified two areas requiring ongoing mitigation. Sonic booms from Super Heavy booster and Starship returns will cause significant community annoyance” particularly during nighttime operations, though structural damage is not expected. Nitrogen oxide emissions during launches will also exceed federal de minimis thresholds, prompting an adaptive management plan with real-time monitoring.
Other impacts, such as traffic, wildlife (including southeastern beach mouse and Florida scrub-jay), wetlands, and historic sites, were deemed manageable under existing permits and mitigation strategies. The Air Force is expected to issue its Record of Decision within weeks, followed by FAA concurrence, setting the stage for rapid redevelopment of the former site into a dual-tower Starship complex.
SpaceX Starship Environmental Impact Statement by Simon Alvarez
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) testing gains major ground in Spain
Based on information posted by the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT), it appears that Tesla is already busy testing FSD in the country.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) program is accelerating across Europe, with Spain emerging as a key testing hub under the country’s new ES-AV framework program.
Based on information posted by the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT), it appears that Tesla is already busy testing FSD in the country.
Spain’s ES-AV framework
Spain’s DGT launched the ES-AV Program in July 2025 to standardize testing for automated vehicles from prototypes to pre-homologation stages. The DGT described the purpose of the program on its official website.
“The program is designed to complement and enhance oversight, regulation, research, and transparency efforts, as well as to support innovation and advancements in automotive technology and industry. This framework also aims to capitalize on the opportunity to position Spain as a pioneer and leader in automated vehicle technology, seeking to provide solutions that help overcome or alleviate certain shortcomings or negative externalities of the current transportation system,” the DGT wrote.
The program identifies three testing phases based on technological maturity and the scope of a company’s operations. Each phase has a set of minimum eligibility requirements, and applicants must indicate which phase they wish to participate in, at least based on their specific technological development.

Tesla FSD tests
As noted by Tesla watcher Kees Roelandschap on X, the DGT’s new framework effectively gives the green flight for nationwide FSD testing. So far, Tesla Spain has a total of 19 vehicles authorized to test FSD on the country’s roads, though it would not be surprising if this fleet grows in the coming months.
The start date for the program is listed at November 27, 2025 to November 26, 2027. The DGT also noted that unlimited FSD tests could be done across Spain on any national route. And since Tesla is already in Phase 3 of the ES-AV Program, onboard safety operators are optional. Remote monitoring would also be allowed.
Tesla’s FSD tests in Spain could help the company gain a lot of real-world data on the country’s roads. Considering the scope of tests that are allowed for the electric vehicle maker, it seems like Spain would be one of the European countries that would be friendly to FSD’s operations. So far, Tesla’s FSD push in Europe is notable, with the company holding FSD demonstrations in Germany, France, and Italy. Tesla is also pushing for national approval in the Netherlands in early 2026.
News
Tesla FSD V14.2.1 is earning rave reviews from users in diverse conditions
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software continues its rapid evolution, with the latest V14.2.1 update drawing widespread praise.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software continues its rapid evolution, with the latest V14.2.1 update drawing widespread praise for its smoother performance and smarter decision-making.
Videos and firsthand accounts from Tesla owners highlight V14.2.1 as an update that improves navigation responsiveness, sign recognition, and overall fluidity, among other things. Some drivers have even described it as “more alive than ever,” hinting at the system eventually feeling “sentient,” as Elon Musk has predicted.
FSD V14.2.1 first impressions
Early adopters are buzzing about how V14.2.1 feels less intrusive while staying vigilant. In a post shared on X, Tesla owner @LactoseLunatic described the update as a “huge leap forward,” adding that the system remains “incredibly assertive but still safe.”
Another Tesla driver, Devin Olsenn, who logged ~600 km on V14.2.1, reported no safety disengagements, with the car feeling “more alive than ever.” The Tesla owner noted that his wife now defaults to using FSD V14, as the system is already very smooth and refined.
Adverse weather and regulatory zones are testing grounds where V14.2.1 shines, at least according to testers in snow areas. Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt shared a video of his first snowy drive on unplowed rural roads in New Hampshire, where FSD did great and erred on the side of caution. As per Merritt, FSD V14.2.1 was “extra cautious” but it performed well overall.
Sign recognition and freeway prowess
Sign recognition also seemed to show improvements with FSD V14.2.1. Longtime FSD tester Chuck Cook highlighted a clip from his upcoming first-impressions video, showcasing improved school zone behavior. “I think it read the signs better,” he observed, though in standard mode, it didn’t fully drop to 15 mph within the short timeframe. This nuance points to V14.2.1’s growing awareness of temporal rules, a step toward fewer false positives in dynamic environments.
FSD V14.2.1 also seems to excel in high-stress highway scenarios. Fellow FSD tester @BLKMDL3 posted a video of FSD V14.2.1 managing a multi-lane freeway closure due to a police chase-related accident. “Perfectly handles all lanes of the freeway merging into one,” the Tesla owner noted in his post on X.
FSD V14.2.1 was released on Thanksgiving, much to the pleasant surprise of Tesla owners. The update’s release notes are almost identical to the system’s previous iteration, save for one line item read, “Camera visibility can lead to increased attention monitoring sensitivity.”
