Connect with us

News

Blue Origin rocket launch fails after engine catches fire

Blue Origin's 23rd New Shepard launch has ended in failure. (Blue Origin)

Published

on

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.

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.

Advertisement

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.

(SpaceX)
Completed on September 11th, Falcon 9’s latest mission was its 173rd successful orbital launch. (Richard Angle)

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla rolls out Steer-by-Wire improvements to Cybertruck

Published

on

Credit: Weibo (via YYDS on X)

Tesla is rolling out some improvements to the Steer-by-Wire system on Cybertruck, which is one of the features exclusive to the vehicle as it is not active on any other vehicle in the company’s all-electric lineup.

Steer-by-wire is a steering system that turns the direction of wheels mechanically. It differs from vehicles with typical electric power steering systems in the way that those rely on the steering wheel column to transfer steering torque to the wheels.

There are a handful of EVs that use steer-by-wire, including the Cybertruck, Hummer EV, and Silverado EV. The latter two use a traditional steering column and only have steer-by-wire on their rear wheels, so they differ from the system the Cybertruck uses.

Credit: Tesla

The system has made the massive Cybertruck have better steering, and although its size is large, it is one of the easier Tesla vehicles to steer through tight spaces — granted you have the room.

Tesla is making an improvement to the system, according to a new update that will roll out in the 2025.8.4 Software Update as the steering wheel is now going to give more realistic feedback by adapting to road surfaces, the company said (via Not a Tesla App):

“The steering wheel now gives you more realistic feedback, adapting to different road surfaces for a better driving experience.”

This feature will work alongside another improvement as the Cybertruck’s air suspension ride height is now adjustable through the Tesla App.

Tesla Cybertruck steer-by-wire system helps avoid potential collision

The changes from the update, in terms of the more realistic feedback, will improve the overall feel of the road for drivers, making for a better driving experience.

Continue Reading

News

Rivian startup spinoff raises $105M in funding for micro EV production

Meet Also, Rivian’s micro EV spinoff, now a full-fledged startup with $105M in funding. It’s adapting Rivian’s tech for compact EVs.

Published

on

(Credit: Rivian)

Rivian’s skunkworks program has turned into a full-blown startup called Also. The new startup, which is separate from Rivian, raised $105 million from Eclipse Ventures. Also will focus on micromobility or the development of micro electric vehicles.

Also started within Rivian, aiming to figure out if the electric vehicle company’s technology could be condensed to fit smaller EVs, including vans, trucks, and SUVs. Eventually, the skunkworks program discovered it could, indeed, fit Rivian’s technology in smaller, more compact electric vehicles, but the project was bigger than Rivian.

“We’ve been taking the Rivian technology stack and adapting it to much smaller form factors and then coming up with some incredibly exciting embodiments of that technology in these very small form factors,” Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe told Reuters.

Rivian will always be part of Also. It holds a minority stake in Also and Rivian’s VP of future programs, Chris Yu, will be the startup’s president.

According to Scaringe, Also plans to debut its first vehicle designs later this year. One of the designs seems to be a bike, as Scringe described it having a seat, two wheels, and a screen with a few computers and a battery.

Advertisement

Also aims to start producing its flagship product by 2026 for customers in the United States and Europe. In addition, it plans to launch consumer and commercial vehicles made for Asia and South America.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Financial Times retracts report on Tesla’s alleged shady accounting

“Turns out FT can’t do finance,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk quipped on X.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia/X

The Financial Times has issued a retraction for an article it recently published that accused the electric vehicle maker of shady accounting practices.

The FT’s retraction has been appreciated by the electric vehicle community in social media, though many highlighted the fact that the publication’s initial erroneous allegations have already been spread across numerous other media outlets.

The Allegations

In an article published on March 19, the Financial Times pointed out that if one were to compare “Tesla’s capital expenditure in the last six months of 2024 to its valuation of the assets that money was spent on,” “$1.4 billion appears to have gone astray.”

The FT article highlighted that Tesla reported spending $6.3 billion on “purchases of property and equipment excluding finance leases, net of sales” in the second half of 2024. However, in that period, the company’s property, plant, and equipment only rose by $4.9 billion. As noted by members of the r/Accounting subreddit, this appeared to be the basis of the FT‘s article, which seemed careless at best.

Unfortunately, the publication’s allegations were quickly echoed by other news outlets, many of which proceeded to accuse Tesla of implementing shady accounting practices.

Advertisement

The Retraction

In its retraction, the Financial Times explained that Tesla’s payments for assets already purchased and the possible disposal of depreciated property could help explain the alleged discrepancy in the company’s numbers. With these in consideration, the publication noted that the “crack we’re left with at Tesla is now small enough — just under half a billion dollars — to be filled with some combination of foreign exchange movements, non-material asset write-offs, or the sale of machinery or equipment close to its not-fully depreciated value.”

“As we sound the Alphaville bugle while lowering this particular red flag, one unavoidable conclusion is that at a certain point it’s necessary to trust the auditor’s judgment,” the publication noted.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has responded to the Financial Times‘ retraction, commenting, “Turns out FT can’t do finance” in a post on social media platform X.

Continue Reading

Trending