Author Topic: How long will it take to rebuild Blue Origin’s launch pad? We asked some SpaceX vets.  (Read 45 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,169
ars TECHNICA by Eric Berger 6/3/2026

“Everyone is in a place where it’s no fun to be there.”

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.

Nearly a decade later, on May 28, Blue Origin conducted a static fire test of a new rocket, with its larger New Glenn vehicle a few miles down the Florida coast. The company had gotten further into its test, reaching engine ignition, before its rocket also exploded.

For longtime space coast observers, some of the parallels between these two spectacular explosions were uncanny. Both the Falcon 9 and New Glenn programs were on the cusp of taking off toward a higher launch cadence. At the time, NASA was counting on the Falcon 9 to return its capability to launch humans, and today, NASA is counting on New Glenn as a key element of its lunar ambitions. And both explosions catastrophically damaged their launch sites.

To better understand the challenges Blue Origin now faces, Ars spoke with several SpaceX veterans who experienced the AMOS-6 failure and worked the long days afterward to get the Falcon 9 rocket flying and rebuild the shattered facility at Space Launch Complex-40.

Difficult memories return

“My AMOS-6 scar started itching when I saw the video of New Glenn,” said Hans Koenigsmann, the SpaceX engineer who led the failure investigation in the fall of 2016. “It’s really terrible.”

This involved a weekslong search of the wetlands surrounding the launch site at Cape Canaveral for pieces of the booster. The idea was that the components farthest from the pad were nearest the most energetic part of the explosion. Ultimately, the investigative team narrowed in on the complex failure of the lining of a pressure vessel in the upper stage.

For its investigation, Koenigsmann urges Blue Origin to be as transparent as possible with NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration and to study and take apart the physical evidence as soon as possible to identify the causes of failure. Every anomaly, he cautioned, is different.

More: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/06/how-long-will-it-take-to-rebuild-blue-origins-launch-pad-we-asked-some-spacex-vets/

Offline BobfromWB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,253
  • Gender: Male
  • Fishing the line, Bristol Bay, AK. Memories ...
ars TECHNICA by Eric Berger 6/3/2026

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 ...

Nearly a decade later, on May 28, Blue Origin conducted a static fire test of a new rocket, with its larger New Glenn vehicle a few miles down the Florida coast. The company had gotten further into its test, reaching engine ignition, before its rocket also exploded ...

To better understand the challenges Blue Origin now faces, Ars spoke with several SpaceX veterans who experienced the AMOS-6 failure and worked the long days afterward to get the Falcon 9 rocket flying and rebuild the shattered facility at Space Launch Complex-40 ...

“My AMOS-6 scar started itching when I saw the video of New Glenn,” said Hans Koenigsmann, the SpaceX engineer who led the failure investigation in the fall of 2016. “It’s really terrible” ...

For its investigation, Koenigsmann urges Blue Origin [ BO ] to be as transparent as possible with NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration and to study and take apart the physical evidence as soon as possible to identify the causes of failure. Every anomaly, he cautioned, is different.

More: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/06/how-long-will-it-take-to-rebuild-blue-origins-launch-pad-we-asked-some-spacex-vets/


SpaceX Falcon 9 AMOS-6 failure:

Quote
Because the damage was so severe, SpaceX could not simply repair the existing structures; they had to rebuild significant portions of the complex.

Timeline: The pad was out of service for roughly 15 months ...

Interim Operations: During the reconstruction, SpaceX shifted its Florida launch operations to Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center, which had been leased from NASA and was nearing completion at the time of the accident.

Unlike the AMOS-6 failure, BO has no other pad to use, as that one was specially built for the NG. BO has no experience in rapid pad rebuilds, no work force trained in rebuilding, and no supply chain to draw from.

NASA's JI has said he goes not think BO will launch before 2028 at the earliest. Since BO does not own the site, every decision must be approved by NASA, and the paperwork signed off on by bureaucrats.

Quote
[ from the article ]: When it began rebuilding SLC-40, SpaceX had some advantages, Muratore said. The company had great teams coming from its pads at Kennedy Space Center and Vandenberg - not just the engineers, but also welders and other laborers who work directly on the infrastructure. This allowed SpaceX - a company already known for moving rapidly - to power through the SLC-40 rebuild.

BO has none of those assets. It will have to start from scratch.

Quote
[ from the article ]: SpaceX went from the AMOS-6 failure to a new launch in 15.5 months. The actual construction part, following remediation and design, required 11 months.

On Monday night, Blue Origin’s chief executive, Dave Limp, said the company would launch from its damaged pad before the end of this year, less than 7 months from now.

None of the former SpaceX employees I spoke with for this article - some on the record, some off - believe this timeline is realistic. 12 months was generally viewed as the best-case scenario. 18 months was seen as most likely.

BO was contracted to set up the lunar site for Artemis IV, but now that likely will not happen in time for 2028-2030.
 
This is the problem NASA created by not selecting platform agnostic Dynetics ALPACA which had already passed its PDR in 2022.  https://www.leidos.com/insights/dynetics-completes-critical-hardware-demonstrations-sustainable-human-landing-system
Democrats would rather rule over ashes than govern a functioning Republic