Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin Rocket Engine Explodes During Testing (cnbc.com) 79

Posted by BeauHD from the destructive-setbacks dept.
Blue Origin's BE-4 rocket engine exploded during testing, causing significant damage and potential delays to the company's rocket launches, including those for its customer United Launch Alliance (ULA). CNBC reports: During a firing on June 30 at a West Texas facility of Jeff Bezos' space company, a BE-4 engine detonated about 10 seconds into the test, according to several people familiar with the matter. Those people described having seen video of a dramatic explosion that destroyed the engine and heavily damaged the test stand infrastructure. The engine that exploded was expected to finish testing in July. It was then scheduled to ship to Blue Origin's customer United Launch Alliance for use on ULA's second Vulcan rocket launch, those people said.

A Blue Origin spokesperson, in a statement to CNBC on Tuesday, confirmed the company "ran into an issue while testing Vulcan's Flight Engine 3." "No personnel were injured and we are currently assessing root cause," Blue Origin said, adding "we already have proximate cause and are working on remedial actions." The company noted it "immediately" made its customer ULA aware of the incident. ULA is the rocket-building joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which competes primarily with Elon Musk's SpaceX, especially going head-to-head over the most lucrative military launch contracts. Blue Origin also said it will be able to "continue testing" engines in West Texas. The company previously built two stands for the tests. "We will be able to meet our engine delivery commitments this year and stay ahead of our customer's launch needs," Blue Origin added.

BE-4âs test failure threatens to further push back the already-delayed first Vulcan launch -- which was recently rescheduled to the fourth quarter of this year -- while Blue Origin examines the cause of the problem. Each Vulcan rocket uses a pair of BE-4 engines to launch. ULA waited anxiously for years to receive delivery of the first set. A month ago, ULA completed a key milestone in preparation for the first Vulcan launch, known as Cert-1, with a short static fire test of the rocket using the first pair of BE-4 flight engines. [...] At the same time that Blue Origin needs to get BE-4 working well and humming off the production line for its main customer, the company also needs the engines for its own reusable New Glenn rocket that's in development. While Vulcan uses two BE-4 engines, each New Glenn rocket requires seven BE-4 engines, meaning Blue Origin needs to produce dozens a year to support both rockets.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin Rocket Engine Explodes During Testing More

Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin Rocket Engine Explodes During Testing

Comments Filter:

  • I hope it wasn't from one of the parts I made for them.

  • Sabotaged (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lije Baley ( 88936 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @03:08AM (#63679073)

    By Elon. I saw it on Tik Tok.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dvice ( 6309704 )

      In an old interview he made it pretty clear how he feels about the competition:

      Interviewer: You're obviously a very competitive person. You're competing with the likes of Jeff Bezos...
      Musk: Jeff who?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • Is this how he feels about Zuck too?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Is this how he feels about Zuck too?

          It's how he feels about the every sentient life form in the entire universe.

          • So far he only asked to fondle Zuck's dick. [snopes.com]

            For measuring purposes. Or so we're told.

          • In regard to explosions, the FAA is running a test of LOX/LNG at Dugway proving ground.

            https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.... [faa.gov]

            Mixed LNG/LOX is a sensitive, high-energy explosive, about twice the energy of TNT, so the maximum for the big booster if the bulkhead failed would be about 4500 tons time two or around 9 kT of TNT.

            There is a solution that will keep mixing from happening. It takes an open container of tryethylaluminum in the top of the LNG tank (which has to be under the LOX tank). If the bulkhead failed

      • Interviewer: You're obviously a very competitive person. You're competing with the likes of Jeff Bezos...
        Musk: Jeff who?

        He's got a point. Jeff is so far behind that calling him "competition" is silly.

        • Interviewer: You're obviously a very competitive person. You're competing with the likes of Jeff Bezos...
          Musk: Jeff who?

          He's got a point. Jeff is so far behind that calling him "competition" is silly.

          Except this isn't dramatically new tech, this is chemical rocketry and digital guidance systems we are talking about. So unless Elon leaps a generation of launch tech ahead by singlehandedly designing a game changing new single stage to orbit launch technology in his secret lab at Starship HQ, Jeff Bezos and anybody else able to throw enough money and engineering at the problem of designing a modern chemical rocket powered launch vehicle has a real chance to catch up. It doesn't hurt Beszos' chances of catc

    • Re:Sabotaged (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:58AM (#63679245)

      By Elon. I saw it on Tik Tok.

      No, unfortunately Elon is far too busy sabotaging Twitter to have time to spare for sabotaging Jeff Bezos' rocket engine.

    • Back to the ULA sniper rumours!

  • Film at 11

    • Re:Test finds bug (Score:5, Interesting)

      by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:27AM (#63679185)

      This was production qualification testing, not R&D testing. For it to explode at this point there is either a manufacturing fault, or a previously un-encountered design fault.

      If it's the former, then the best case is that it's a quite obvious oversight and they can just tighten their component qualification processes, but it could also mean there are weaknesses in their overall quality assurance system. That could take some time to review and figure out. If it's the latter then it's a bit troubling, but it does depend on the details of the failure.

      Another option is that it was a fault of the test process (e.g. something broke on the test stand). In that case, the main delay is just going to be repairing the test stand.

      For a product like this where you're testing and controlling the parts so carefully, you really don't want to see failures on the test stand. However, SpaceX went a different route with Raptor, where they just put their design into production and then found a lot of issues in the test process which they fed back into their manufacturing process. It sort-off seems to have worked for them, though Raptor failures still seem to be their main problem with all their test flights so far. Personally, I'd be a bit suspicious of the SpaceX approach, but they seem to be making it work very well with Falcon 9.

      • Youâ(TM)re right that raptor still doesnâ(TM)t seem to be mature, but thatâ(TM)s fine - itâ(TM)s not meant to be going through acceptance testing. Itâ(TM)s meant to be going through integration testing, with the knowledge that the ones theyâ(TM)re flying are not the most up to date ones with all the fixes.

        For blue to have a failure of this magnitude during acceptance testing is really bad. This is the same kind of magnitude of failure IMO as Boeingâ(TM)s various failures

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Jesus Christ, sort your apostrophes out, man!

      • oh hey, they found that washer I dropped.
      • ...or a bug in the test equipment,

        Which ( they just announced ) is what it was ( a hydrogen leak ).

  • I hope ULA signed up for Prime (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They get free delivery if it's late, right?

  • Better While Testing Than On The Pad. (Score:3)

    by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @03:52AM (#63679125)

    Rocket science is hard. I don't give a damn who is doing it. And I don't care. The progress made will far outlive the original owners. Welcome to compounded knowledge.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. That is why you run these tests and you run them not only on the model, but on the specific engine instance. Hard as it will be for many people to understand, this is actually a success of the testing step: There was a flaw, the test found it. It is not a success of the engine design though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by znrt ( 2424692 )

        this is actually a success of the testing step: There was a flaw, the test found it.

        that's a really comical stretch. a catastrophic failure 10 seconds into a firing that completely destroys a product intended for delivery along with the whole test installation can't possibly be among the expected findings of an acceptance test.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Why not?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by znrt ( 2424692 )

            because if the actual test site were expected to get destroyed you would have and built it differently, or even devised a different test approach.

            also, because acceptance tests are very late checks that ensure that a product meets required criteria before delivery. you cannot deliver a product that has just blown up, such an eventuality should have been tested in a much earlier step in the process.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gweihir ( 88907 )

              You do tests because you do not really know what to expect. That is just standard. And I have seen enough things were the acceptance test found some show-stopper. It happens. It is the purpose of an acceptance test to make sure something is fit. This one showed it is not and hence it is a success.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by znrt ( 2424692 )

                You do tests because you do not really know what to expect. That is just standard

                all tests aren't equal. an acceptance test is precisely about asserting expectations.

                the rocket can blow up a zillion times in rd, stress, test flights, etc, that is completely fine and expected. but an acceptance test expects an already viable product and merely aims to certify that very specific performance and design parameters and requirements are met.

                not blowing up is indeed a requirement. but if that happens at such a late stage not only the rocket but also the whole development process has failed, be

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by gweihir ( 88907 )

                  But if that happens at such a late stage not only the rocket but also the whole development process has failed, because some condition hasn't been tested properly or at all.

                  Sure. The test is still a success even if everything else is apparently in a really bad state.

                  this is nearly equivalent to the rocket blowing up in a maiden flight.

                  Not at all. An acceptance test is not a meaningless ritual.

      • Re: Better While Testing Than On The Pad. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @07:16AM (#63679373)

        Yes and no - this was an acceptance test. The expected outcome of an acceptance test is success. A hardware failure here means that some earlier testing, engineering, or process failed. Thatâ(TM)s a much bigger problem than a single engine going boom. Further, it seems like there are *multiple* big problems. First, the engine failed. Thatâ(TM)s obviously uncovered an earlier failure. Second, it failed catastrophically, that means that thereâ(TM)s been failures of the design of the systems meant to contain failures to only one engine. Third, the software systems didnâ(TM)t detect the failure early enough to shut it down. Fourth, they had already tested the engine, had an anomaly, inspected it, and re-tested. That means they have gaps in their inspection process that can allow faulty engines through.

        Thatâ(TM)s four separate major issues with the design, and engineering of this thing that they need to chase down at a stage where they thought they were ready to ship it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Sure. But _this_ test was still a success. It is the laste gate and it did its job. Of course, this type of failure during the acceptance test is a catastrophe for the whole rest of the venture.

    • Rocket science is hard. I don't give a damn who is doing it. And I don't care. The progress made will far outlive the original owners.

      Will it? We already had to reinvent a bunch of rocket technology because we lost the data.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thoper ( 838719 )
      "Rocket science is hard", well, its not brain surgery!.

  • It happens in testing sometimes. Hardware fails the test sometimes. Navy base, big guns, testing. We complained because they closed the road beside the guns when testing. It got explained, "The gun could fail the test, and you could get a 4,500 lb gun breach land on your car." We go, "Oh..." End of discussion.

  • And some people (Score:3)

    by DollyTheSheep ( 576243 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @04:48AM (#63679213)

    And some people deemed SpaceX' recent Starship launch as failure. Compared to BO that launch was a monumental success.

  • Any rocket launch that gets off the ground is a success...compared to blowing up on the pad...or BLOWING UP THE PAD.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Entrope ( 68843 )

      How is that optimistic at all? This rocket didn't leave the ground in any significant way -- it blew up the test stand. The delays caused by repairing that are a big part of the concern over this.

  • One who lied about their product? Lot of that going around with solid state drives.

  • Just Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly
  • I'm with Bernie Sanders on this one. Bezos, Musk, other billionaires should be paying their fair share of taxes and NASA should be building rockets.

    • I'm with Bernie Sanders on this one. Bezos, Musk, other billionaires should be paying their fair share of taxes and NASA should be building rockets.

      I have never seen the math, nor worked it out myself... but I am curious whether it is better for the USA to have Musk employ a bunch of people with the money that some folks believe should go to taxes.
      On one hand, the folks doing cool things get paid and in turn pay their taxes on income, purchases, and we get cool things.
      On the other hand, taxes go toward other things that are necessary, but less cool.

    • Like this?

      https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20... [cnn.com]

      Bernie is a moron either way.

  • This particular engine did, in fact finish its testing. Before July! Great job!

  • The proper time to explode is on the launchpad with billionaires on top.

  • Come on Bezos, say the CEO catchphrase
  • the laws of physics. Named defendants include the Bernoulli equation, the Rayleigh number, Young's modulus, and the ideal gas law.

  • Bezos needs to challenge Musk to a cage fight. Only then will we know whose spaceship is better.

  • Wait a sec, you mean the BE in the name doesn't stand for Big Explosion?
  • What is the probability of an explosion of a test rocket? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a 50% chance
  • It is weird they chose the same name as Ariane first stage rocket engine [wikipedia.org] (Vulcain is the french for Vulcan).

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Close