Blue Origin has set a very aggressive return-to-flight timeline - Ars Technica

Skip to content

AI

Biz & IT

Cars

Culture

Gaming

Health

Policy

Science

Security

Space

Tech

Forum

Subscribe

Story text

Size

Small<br>Standard<br>Large

Width

Standard<br>Wide

Links

Standard<br>Orange

* Subscribers only

Learn more

Pin to story

Theme

Search

Sign In

Sign in dialog...

Text<br>settings

Story text

Size

Small<br>Standard<br>Large

Width

Standard<br>Wide

Links

Standard<br>Orange

* Subscribers only

Learn more

Minimize to nav

The chief executive of Blue Origin, whose large New Glenn rocket exploded spectacularly less than a week ago at the company’s launch site in Florida, vowed Monday night that the company would launch again before the end of 2026.

Writing on the social media site X, Blue Origin’s Dave Limp said the company had been able to complete a preliminary survey of the LC-36A launch site.

“Now that we’ve had access to the pad and integration facility, we can share a bit of good news,” Limp said. “The propellant farm, oxygen, liquid hydrogen and LNG tanks are all in good shape. This is good luck because these are very long lead items. The water tower is also good.”

No need for new transporter

Limp also confirmed that the company would press ahead with a rebuild of the LC-36A site, which is designed for the 7×2 variant of the New Glenn rocket. One option had been to focus on building a larger pad next door, at LC-36B, capable of supporting the larger 9×4 variant of the rocket (the nine and four, respectively, refer to the number of engines in the first and second stage of the rocket).

Notably, Limp also said Blue Origin had a plan to replace the massive transporter-erector that moves the New Glenn rocket from its nearby integration hangar out to the launch pad. This was damaged beyond repair during the test failure on Thursday, May 28.

“We had already been working for some time on eliminating our transporter-erector in favor of an alternative vertical conop, and we’ll now go directly to that; so we don’t need a new transporter-erector,” Limp wrote. “We will fly again before the end of this year.”

With this update, Limp has answered some of the key questions Blue Origin faced in the aftermath of Thursday’s dramatic failure. Most significantly, the company intends to rebuild the damaged launch site and return to flight as rapidly as possible with the 7×2 variant of the New Glenn booster that had previously performed very well. With this aggressive timeline—about six months—the company may also be indicating a desire to limit discussion of launching its Blue Moon lander on the Falcon Heavy rocket built by its competitor, SpaceX.

Still, this is a risky move for Blue Origin, and especially for NASA. A six-month timeline to return to flight is very optimistic. The LC-36A site will need serious rework, from its concrete foundation on up. Some of these materials require fairly long lead times, and it’s not clear that the company has the personnel needed—particularly the touch-labor technicians, welders, and others who build this specialized launch hardware. Historically, Blue Origin has not operated in such a rushed manner, either.

What’s a realistic timeline?

Multiple sources said a more realistic timeline for Blue Origin to rebuild its pad and launch from there is 12 to 18 months. If this were to occur, it would significantly set back NASA and its Artemis Program, which is relying on the New Glenn rocket and Blue Moon lander for both cargo and eventually crewed missions to the lunar surface.

But Blue Origin does have some important advantages. During a visit to the company last Friday, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman told Limp and Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos that he is “all in” on supporting the company’s efforts. So, too, is the US Space Force, which manages the launch range at Cape Canaveral, Florida. It is likely that Blue Origin will receive expedited reviews and other federal support as needed. This is a big boon.

In his message, Limp did not specify the cause of the failure, but speculation has focused on one of the first stage’s main engines failing during a static fire test. This quickly ruptured the first and then second stage of the rocket.

This is perhaps the least interesting part of the story, though. New Glenn has already flown three times, and across that rocket and the Vulcan vehicle it also powers, the BE-4 engine has a fine track record. Blue Origin should be able to identify the cause of the failure and get the rocket flying safely again. The challenge is finding somewhere to launch it from.

Eric Berger

Senior Space Editor

Eric Berger

Senior Space Editor

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

15...