E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Blue Origin
Blue Origin's development vehicle is shown rising to 45,000 feet, just before the activation of its termination system.
Blue Origin's experimental rocket ship crashed last week when a high-altitude flight test went awry, says Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos, who founded the secretive rocket venture 11 years ago. The Aug. 24 mishap marks a setback for Blue Origin's efforts to develop a spaceship capable of carrying tourists on suborbital space rides.
The loss of the cylindrical unmanned vehicle first came to light today in an online report by The Wall Street Journal, and was confirmed by a posting to Blue Origin's website.
"Three months ago, we successfully flew our second test vehicle in a short hop mission, and then last week we lost the vehicle during a developmental test at Mach 1.2 and an altitude of 45,000 feet," Bezos wrote. "A flight instability drove an angle of attack that triggered our range safety system to terminate thrust on the vehicle. Not the outcome any of us wanted, but we're signed up for this to be hard, and the Blue Origin team is doing an outstanding job. We're already working on our next development vehicle."
The test flight unfolded at Bezos' private spaceport, about 25 miles north of Van Horn, Texas — the same site where Blue Origin's first experimental vehicle was tested in 2006.
Since then, NASA has awarded Blue Origin more than $25 million to develop its space vehicle as well as a "pusher" launch abort system. In documents filed with NASA, Blue Origin says it intends to build an orbital space vehicle capable of carrying astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station, to be launched initially on an expendable rocket such as United Launch Alliance's Atlas 5.
Plans for private passengers
Blue Origin also plans to offer suborbital spaceflights for private passengers, which would involve vertical trips powered by its own reusable propulsion module. Earlier this year, Blue Origin reported that the suborbital capsule was "undergoing final assembly."
The Aug. 24 test involved the suborbital spaceship, rather than the work covered by NASA's agreement with Blue Origin.
Bezos said the crew capsule was not mounted on the propulsion module for the test flight. "The development vehicle doesn't have a crew capsule — just a close-out fairing instead," he explained. "We're working on the suborbital crew capsule separately, as well as an orbital crew vehicle to support NASA's commercial crew program."
Blue Origin spokeswoman Gwen Griffin declined to comment on the test program, other than to point to Bezos' statement and previously released documents. The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed sources as saying that officials at NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration were told in advance about the launch and were aware of the failure. The Journal's Andy Pasztor quoted officials as saying that parts of the vehicle were recovered on the ground and are now being analyzed by Blue Origin.
Some reports suggested that the rocket ship was blown up in the air, in response to commands from the range safety system. "The talk around town is, people saw it in the air," Larry Simpson, the publisher of the Van Horn Advocate, told me. "I heard talk that people saw it from 25 miles away."
Simpson himself didn't witness the test flight. With the exception of Bezos' updates and government-required documents, Blue Origin has been extremely reticent about discussing past or future operations. Blue Origin is required to tell the FAA about upcoming flight tests so that the agency can issue advisory "notices to airmen," or NOTAMs. Such a notice was issued for the Aug. 24 test.
New questions about space commercialization
Although Bezos indicated that the venture's NASA-funded development project is unaffected, the crash could spark new questions about NASA's post-shuttle push to commercialize space station resupply operations. In addition to Blue Origin, which has its production facility and heaquarters in Kent, Wash., south of Seattle, three other companies are receiving shares of nearly $270 million from NASA: the Boeing Co., Sierra Nevada Corp. and SpaceX.
Last year, SpaceX conducted a successful orbital test flight of its Dragon space capsule, launched atop a Falcon 9 rocket. Another test is planned for as early as November, during which a cargo-carrying Dragon would link up with the space station. A second company, Orbital Sciences Corp., is gearing up for its first test flight. SpaceX and Orbital could split up to $3.5 billion in NASA cargo contracts if their tests are successful.
The next phase of NASA's commercial spaceship development program could involve awards totaling $800 million. All four of the companies currently receiving funds say that their spaceships could be ready to carry NASA astronauts to the space station by 2015 or 2016 if NASA provides enough money for development.
In addition to an image from last week's test flight, Blue Origin released these pictures from the successful "short hop" test three months ago:
Blue Origin
Blue Origin's test vehicle lifts off for a successful "short hop" test three months ago.
Blue Origin
The test vehicle hovers just before landing on its pad in West Texas.
Blue Origin
The test vehicle just after its "short-hop" landing.
Update for 9:10 p.m. ET: Where does Blue Origin stand in the commercial space race? Here's an assessment from NBC News space analyst James Oberg:
"Bezos is working on a 'dark horse' up-down space tourist vehicle with some downstream orbital capabilities. He's not in serious competition with Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, which will probably start powered flight tests into space early next year, nor the Elon Musk SpaceX orbital vehicles. But he was a 'long shot' trying some innovative designs.
"The coincidence with the explosion of the tried-and-true Russian Progress freighter last week is worth noting. Both occurred on Wednesday, August 24. The Russian ship took off at 1300 GMT (9 a.m. EDT), and the Blue Origin vehicle had reserved a time slot from 1200 to 1700 GMT (8 a.m. to 1 p.m. EDT) — the actual time has not been disclosed — but clearly, at most, a few hours apart.
"You expect unpleasant surprises at the ragged edge of flight testing, a la Bezos, but not after 30 years of routine orbital operations [Progress]. Implications of both failures remain to be evaluated."
The Russians quickly reported that the Progress problem originated in a third-stage gas generator, and the problem is expected to be resolved in time to keep International Space Station operations on an even keel. Blue Origin may need more time to get back on track. One of the time frames being bandied about is a year, but there's really no way of knowing at this point.
More about commercial spaceflight:
- Gallery: Ten players in the commercial space race
- Private spaceflight ready to take off in 2011
- Veil lifts slightly on Blue Origin rocket project
- Suborbital science goes public
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
It looks like a DC-X do over to me. I hope the refund Aries one or Liberty so we can get off the ground sooner and safer. My choice if it was my life on the line. USA needs leadership. Common sense is not so hard.
also looks like my grand pa's moon shine still
"It looks like a DC-X do over to me"
Look again. DC-X never reached those altitudes, or went supersonic.
"I hope the refund Aries one or Liberty so we can get off the ground sooner and safer."
Who is we? NASA astronauts, or a commercial crew and passengers? Neither of those rockets have any value as a commercial launcher. And they won't be soon, 'safe' is an unknown until they actually fly a few times, and they won't be cheap. Nothing's wrong with existing EELVs, if you're going that route. And initially, the Blue Origin capsule (like Boeing and Sierra Nevada's vehicle) will do exactly that. (specifically the Atlas V)
"My choice if it was my life on the line."
Really? Let's see you do 'thrust termination' while riding on an SRB, so it doesn't tend to chase you if you need to abort during first stage ascent. The good news that's missed here, is that we at least know that this vehicle stops accelerating when Range Safety tells it to...
Frank,
"We" is the (USA human space flight program) which is currently in disarray. If an astronaut is going to orbit the last thing they would want is a thrust termination. Lets be real, space flight is going to be risky business no matter what you ride. I am sure all that fly know this and would want the vehicle choice with the best record. If the tinker toys work, great! but untill then lets man our 150 billion dollar space station. The question comes down to leadership.
""We" is the (USA human space flight program) which is currently in disarray. If an astronaut is going to orbit the last thing they would want is a thrust termination."
Phil, if you know there's a serious problem and the crew has to 'get out of Dodge,' (if the opposite SRB on Challenger had failed, it would've been visible from the ground, and the crew could have been warned...unfortunately, they still had no abort options before SRB burnout) the normal procedure is to shut the booster's engines down, and hit whatever form of launch escape the spacecraft uses. (tractor/pusher rockets or ejection seats). Even on unmanned liquid rockets that are seriously deviating from the intended path, the typical procedure is for the Range Safety Officer to remotely shutdown the engines, then activate the self-destruct.
It's easier to accelerate away from a launcher that isn't still accelerating behind you. If you're riding a solid, you can't shut it down (and indeed, once you separate from it, the now-lighter solid rocket can accelerate yet more easily). This is why the escape rockets for Orion had to be bigger/heavier for Ares, compared to a liquid rocket that could be presumed to have shut down, and begin to fall away from the capsule.
That's why safety is different (not insurmountable, but harder) with solids vs. liquids. Ride it if you wish.
"Lets be real, space flight is going to be risky business no matter what you ride."
And risk can be reduced with time and testing. What Blue Origin was doing was a test.
"If the tinker toys work, great! but until then lets man our 150 billion dollar space station."
Neither Ares, nor Liberty would be ready to do this sooner than any of the CCDev designs, and likely later.
"The question comes down to leadership."
When our 'leaders' stop pushing an HLV that NASA neither wants nor needs, and concentrate on what will actually advance spaceflight capability (including its economics) using existing launchers of known history and performance (EELVs), and not simply what will benefit their districts/states whether it actually works/flies or not, I might be more inclined to believe that.
I knew there had to be an afterlife as it were to NASA and to space exploration. Welcome free enterprise...wait...it's not really free is it? If NASA is giving away free money so stay tuned for the first Amazon space craft which if you have an account you too can pay dearly...or just pay your taxes and you will be a big part of the future of space exploration via free enterprise
Food for thought;
If we spend 1% of the money and human resources we spend on firecrackers to find and understand the graviton, I bet we can get "there" faster.
It seems fighting against gravity is a brute-force method, just unnatural.
Thumbs up for the people working at Fermilab and LHC.
"If we spend 1% of the money and human resources we spend on firecrackers to find and understand the graviton, I bet we can get "there" faster."
'Understanding' it does not necessarily lead to using or controlling it in any way. Same for tachyons. If they don't exist, then it doesn't matter how much money you throw at searching for them. If they do (and my gut feeling is that they do, but the Universe is not required to be consistent with my intestines), it leads to some very interesting physics...but it still doesn't mean we can have an FTL drive a week later, if ever.
"Thumbs up for the people working at Fermilab and LHC."
Agreed. That's where that sort of speculative work belongs. We know Newton's Third Law works, and that's the physics behind rocketry. Until and unless something more exotic can be demonstrated, that's what we use to get into space.
Besides, even 'anti-gravity' or reactionless drives won't come for free. Energy will have to be expended, and until we know if something's even physically possible, we cannot know how efficiently it can be applied. It won't help you, if it turns out that it's possible, but it takes a star's worth of energy to do something useful...
The Billionars will tire of loosing money and go back to rapeing this planet. The mew masters, the Chinese will rule space and everyone below.
Yes, China. The country that never, ever hides its failures...
And so far (this may increase when they get into space station operations), they launch a mission about every two years. Sorry, I'm just not worried.
Actually I think that is more a flight every 3 years. They have pretty quickly realized that there is no point to space flight without a station to go to.
""Sorry, I'm just not worried""......ohh, but you will, you will be, indeed.....sorry frank, just could not resist a little yoda wisdom there.
Well, the aerodynamics really are there, I agree that it looks different, but, with out all the numbers detail needed to show ya, the design is fine from the high speed aerodynamics standpoint. Still not my preferential spaceship design, but at least it don't bounce. Ya a parachute might vee a goood ting vor dis vwocket...
Naw, no coincidence at all to the russian gas generator problem...after all we all know that gas generator installations are run of the mill and haphazard assemble is par<<<<SARCASM....yea man, my list of suspects is really narrowing now!!<<<<NOT SARCASM.
I think blue's unique designs coupled with some inflatable orbiting stations may be a longer term contender...I actually worry about that because people working on the non-brute force mechanisms of negating gravity (who me, naw, why would I wanna do that?) may find blue's evolution a very tough competitor indeed. I do balk at the amount of money nasa has given fudgedbazzillionaires whilst cutting real honest to goodness space programs....but that is the way it is, besides if I complain to much, they may not want to give me any should I ever demonstrate a viable design, the other side of that coin is maybe I don't want their money...there are plenty of individuals and groups out there making progress and some would seriously jest that the lack of control by the control freaks is what HAS lead to their success...besides, I don't know if the united federation of planets actually trusts the nasa leadership and the top level us government politicians at this point...one does not need to look far or hard to understand that position. I hope the pundits are wrong and the blue's get on with it, after all how cool is that?? before this country really allowed privateers to launch, about all the world really had was otrag....and they were not cool, I don't care if their icbm wanna be was under ten grand or not, they just were not cool....period. The private space race is still in the blocks, note that other companies in other countries are bucking in their stalls, there is a lot of money to be made and a lot of money to be lost....blue's willingness to admit that this is just one of the many chips in the game at least counts for good. I can understand them not parading their hand around the table. And from my perspective, they got plenty more blue chips in front of em....
I really need to work with the Jet Propulsion Labaratories... The most inefficient way to get into space is by pointing a rocket straight up in the air and firing it off.
Getting into space safely needs to be a multi-stage lift environment. I'm so tired of this ancient technology being used and threatenting those who fly. You're not supposed to put humans on a giant firecracker, and lighting it off.
The first stage is lift the space plane to the highest altitute possible using a heavy lift aircraft. Then, the plane needs to be released and acceleration rockets be used to boost the plane to about mach 3. Then, the ramjets will accellerate the plane to about mach 12 or 13. At this point, a third and final booster will fire and allow the plane exceed escape velocity. The plane will now be in space... safely... cheaply...
Where are your guys engineering skills at? .. This crap is stone age compare to what I'm thinking of. Where's Elon Musk at..? .. I need to clue him in on these designs cuz most of these that I'm seeing, suck.
Airbreathing most of the way to orbital (not escape) velocity is more trouble than it's worth. Skylon's designers understand this, and very deliberately don't plan to go beyond about Mach 4 with turbojets before going all-rocket. No ramjets, supersonic combustion or otherwise.
These engines weigh more than rockets of the same thrust, and are more efficient at a narrow range of cruise speeds, not acceleration. Structural materials that can handle the thermal environment at double-digit Mach numbers are barely in the state of the art. You're not saving money on oxidizer either, as LOX only costs about as much per gallon as milk.
'Thinking' of something, and actually implementing the engineering are rather different things...
Frank
Theoretically you are gaining mass efficiencies which would potentially make a SSTO viable, however, the other side is that we don't yet have the materials that can handle the thermal conditions that would be required.
I applaud these commercial efforts, but I have some concerns. First of all many of them seem to be relying on rockets as launch vehicles - I really wish they would try to think out of the box and research non-rocket alternatives.
Second concern is, how many of them will continue beyond Earth orbit once profitability has been achieved? Corporations tend to find profitability and then expand horizontally unltil they feel competitive pressure. How many decades of low orbit tourism are we going to have to endure before there's enough competition to push these corporations to the Moon and beyond?
You speak as if they can only do one or the other at a time. It's not either/or.
If there's a commercial reason to go beyond LEO (remember, the Russians are willing to fly someone around the Moon, if they can get at least two passengers to commit about $150 million USD first. They already have one...), it'll happen as soon as the business case is closed, and the hardware can be built. Earth orbital businesses will continue, if profitable, whether that happens, or not.
lol @ russia willing to fly people around the moon? They haven't even done it themselves.
if NASA could send us to the moon 45 years ago when we didn't even have computers, and has flown a great many missions to the international space station with the shuttles, then why can't these guys build a reliable vehicle to take us to space today in 2011? WTF?
Lean engineering, to make a profit, cannot produce reliable spaceflight hardware. This formula will never succeed. You just cannot ask private companies to create and worked to their own requirement and verification matrices. They will always try to minimize the effort to maximize profits.
And NASA is fully aware with this problem, how many companies went belly up during the shuttle and space station programs because their went in over their head?
ad'm
It can and will succeed once the 'volume' becomes high enough to allow for LEAN manufacturing processes to take hold.
The problem isn't LEAN, the problem is that we don't perform the activity enough to allow the advantages of LEAN to take hold.