FAILURE: New Shepard - NS-23 - 12 Sep 2022 - 14:27 UTC

[meekGee]

Oh wow that just happened.

[Steve G]

BO gave an update two weeks ago.

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-continues-investigation-into-new-shepard-anomaly/

It's in their interest to get flying ASAP but it's not satellites, it's people. They need to be sure what it was and validate the fix.

[deadman1204]

They kind of are though. Just like ESA, they can and do launch commercial payloads as well. Its not solely government launch. This means they must make their current and potential customers happy and confident in their abilities.

No.  Arianespace manages and launches Arianes not ESA.

Ah yes, "technically right", the best kind, yet still missing the point.

Europe (arianespace, whatever acrynym is required) does launch commercial payloads, as does Japan. Hence they need to manage the marketplace.

You're the one missing the point.

The original argument was not whether JAXA *has* to release the information.  It was about how the disclosure makes the organization look.

The point was that an immediate information release, even if partial, instills confidence.  And conversely hiding the information while citing that "it's my right as a private company" does the exact opposite.  (Distills confidence? )  Same lesson BO seems uninterested in learning.

I'm unsure of what your point is, aside from disagreeing out of reflex.

JAXA wants to manage the market, which means being forthcoming with information. Its all quite logical.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1636089607736512513

Cornell: still closing out New Shepard investigation with FAA, going into "very deep detail" on that.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636089742298161158

Cornell: Blue Origin is "still closing up the investigation" into the NS-23 failure, and "working very closely with the FAA."

"Safety is our number one priority, and we'll certainly fly that vehicle when we're ready.”

[LouScheffer]

From the New Shepard update thread:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636097968246800384

Cornell: "I'm not sure if we're going to release the details" of the NS-23 investigation, "it's something that we have to coordinate with the FAA."

"We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

This seems very odd to me.   Why can't BO commit to releasing the results of the investigation?  Why would the FAA forbid it?  Do they even have the power to do that?

[mn]

From the New Shepard update thread:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636097968246800384

Cornell: "I'm not sure if we're going to release the details" of the NS-23 investigation, "it's something that we have to coordinate with the FAA."

"We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

This seems very odd to me.   Why can't BO commit to releasing the results of the investigation?  Why would the FAA forbid it?  Do they even have the power to do that?

How about "We'd rather not release anything, but the FAA might force us to".

Maybe ?

[LouScheffer]

From the New Shepard update thread:

Cornell: "I'm not sure if we're going to release the details" of the NS-23 investigation, "it's something that we have to coordinate with the FAA."

"We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

This seems very odd to me.   Why can't BO commit to releasing the results of the investigation?  Why would the FAA forbid it?  Do they even have the power to do that?

How about "We'd rather not release anything, but the FAA might force us to".

Now that you mention it, that makes a lot more sense.  Disappointing, but very much in line with BO's practices.

[deadman1204]

From the New Shepard update thread:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636097968246800384

Cornell: "I'm not sure if we're going to release the details" of the NS-23 investigation, "it's something that we have to coordinate with the FAA."

"We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

This seems very odd to me.   Why can't BO commit to releasing the results of the investigation?  Why would the FAA forbid it?  Do they even have the power to do that?

How about "We'd rather not release anything, but the FAA might force us to".

Maybe ?

Yea... that "we can't talk about it while there is an investigation" is usually bs. Nothing is stopping them from sharing. They just don't want to for reasons (some of which are good, like they maybe don''t have a defnitive cause yet). However, pretending they are "not allowed" to speak about it is silly.

[whitelancer64]

From the New Shepard update thread:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636097968246800384

Cornell: "I'm not sure if we're going to release the details" of the NS-23 investigation, "it's something that we have to coordinate with the FAA."

"We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

This seems very odd to me.   Why can't BO commit to releasing the results of the investigation?  Why would the FAA forbid it?  Do they even have the power to do that?

I think the key word in the tweet is "details"

We will almost certainly get a general explanation of the failure, but probably not the "details" like we all want.

[mn]

From the New Shepard update thread:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636097968246800384

Cornell: "I'm not sure if we're going to release the details" of the NS-23 investigation, "it's something that we have to coordinate with the FAA."

"We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

This seems very odd to me.   Why can't BO commit to releasing the results of the investigation?  Why would the FAA forbid it?  Do they even have the power to do that?

How about "We'd rather not release anything, but the FAA might force us to".

Maybe ?

Yea... that "we can't talk about it while there is an investigation" is usually bs. Nothing is stopping them from sharing. They just don't want to for reasons (some of which are good, like they maybe don''t have a defnitive cause yet). However, pretending they are "not allowed" to speak about it is silly.

In this particular case they are not even talking about releasing anything while the investigation is ongoing. They are talking about what they might release once they are done. (at least that's how I'm reading it).

[LouScheffer]

Cornell:  "We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

So they have a rough schedule, and it's fairly far out (9.5 months from now).   To me, that implies something needs a hardware re-design and requalification (not, for example, just more frequent inspections/servicing).   The design and fabrication should not take too long, starting from a model that basically works.

So most likely it's the qualification step that will take time.  This would make sense if it's some basic engine part, so the way to re-qualify it is to run a series of engine tests with the new component.  This is consistent with the ground video of the doomed flight, where it looked like some sort of engine failure.

So overall, based on nothing but tea leaves and the entrails of chickens, (a) some major engine component failed, (b) it was traced to insufficient margins or some unthought-of failure mode, (c) at least one part needs to be redesigned and requalified, and (d) requalification will involve some test-stand runs.  This, of course, is lots of speculation from very little evidence.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1636144875186843648

I asked the FAA for insight into what commercial companies can disclose following an anomaly. Here is what they said.

The FAA does not prohibit commercial space operators from publicly discussing information about open mishap investigations. The FAA requests that operators coordinate the release of factual information for awareness and to ensure any mention of the FAA's oversight role in the investigation is properly portrayed. The FAA does not consider the findings as final until the agency approves the mishap investigation report.

[ulm_atms]

From the New Shepard update thread:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1636097968246800384

Cornell: "I'm not sure if we're going to release the details" of the NS-23 investigation, "it's something that we have to coordinate with the FAA."

"We are looking to get back into flight with New Shepard by the end of this year."

This seems very odd to me.   Why can't BO commit to releasing the results of the investigation?  Why would the FAA forbid it?  Do they even have the power to do that?

I think the key word in the tweet is "details"

We will almost certainly get a general explanation of the failure, but probably not the "details" like we all want.

It's Blue....of course that is what will happen....  They have an aversion to the public knowing anything much about them for some strange reason.

[TrevorMonty]

Blue still signing up NS customers. Some even want to experience a LAS ride.

https://twitter.com/Yrouel86/status/1636115796597284866?t=2ppE28HaYSAyohh9o0SAQw&s=19

[Sotar]

"..there is room for a lot of speculation 🤔-- i did a frame by frame Picture - on the bottom row you can see some parts falling away. maybe the nozzle fell apart?!?"

Looking at what has been posted here previously.    I would guess that the nozzle had a hold burn through the side of it.  This then resulted in a lack of cooling for the bell and direct injection of fuel/O2 in the stream of thrust from that area of the nozzle.  That of course then caused the nozzle to partially disintegrate in flight.   I'm just guessing based on the photos and what others have posted here.

Any idea what engine this was? had it been flown previously? if so how many times?

I think it is easy to forget that this is all still "rocket science" and that we are still learning and improving.  I'm sure everyone at Blue was as shocked as anyone else watching the launch.

I don't know about rockets, but generally, I would expect a lot of work is going on to find the root cause, maybe trying to almost repeat it, and finding how to overcome it for continuous improvements is what everyone at Blue is doing. Regardless of what engine they are working on or which rocket.  I'm sure they will use this information to not only improve BE3 but also BE4 and future developments as well.

[Robert_the_Doll]

All the New Shepard Propulsion Module vehicles flown so far use BE-3 PM. As far as anyone knows, there is no exchange of engines between flights. For example, it is known that the NS2 PM BE-3 flew all five missions with the vehicle and was retired with it at the conclusion of NS-6.

As for debris shedding, it is just as possible that turbopump turbine blades failed and were ingested, and or debris got into the engine from somewhere up the line, perhaps from one of the two tanks in the PM and was again ingested into the engine machinery, causing a great deal of damage.

All is speculation at this point.

[GWH]

I think the key word in the tweet is "details"

We will almost certainly get a general explanation of the failure, but probably not the "details" like we all want.

In terms of "details" every single launch provider I can think of has released a general overview of what went wrong, and how they have a fix. The detail is always a specific part that failed and a cause. That's standard practice,  and if there are exceptions to the rule I can't think of them.

For Blue to state they aren't sure if they're releasing "details" can only make me think they won't say anything specific about what failed.  A statement like this seems pretty far outside of what I see as the normal practice in the industry,  as is their silence to date.

[litton4]

I think it's fantastic and troubling at the same time that we no more about the recent H3 failure and even the VO and Vega failures than this one.......

(Given that none of the latter carry people.....)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/ns-23-findings

Blue Origin NS-23 Findings

SUMMARY

The direct cause of the NS-23 mishap was a thermo-structural failure of the engine nozzle. The resulting thrust misalignment properly triggered the Crew Capsule escape system, which functioned as designed throughout the flight. 

The Crew Capsule and all payloads onboard landed safely and will be flown again. 

All systems designed to protect public safety functioned as planned. There were no injuries. There was no damage to ground-based systems, and all debris was recovered in the designated hazard area. 

Blue Origin expects to return to flight soon, with a re-flight of the NS-23 payloads.

TECHNICAL DETAILS

The NS-23 mishap resulted in the loss of NS Propulsion Module Tail 3. The Crew Capsule escape system worked as designed, bringing the capsule and its payloads to a safe landing at Launch Site One with no damage. As part of the response to the Crew Capsule escape, the Propulsion Module commanded shutdown of the BE-3PM engine and followed an unpowered trajectory to impact within the defined flight safety analysis prediction, resulting in no danger to human life or property. Public safety was unaffected by the mishap, and no changes to crew safety system designs were recommended as a result of the investigation. 

The white crew capsule descends under its three main blue and orange parachutes.

In accordance with the New Shepard Mishap Investigation Plan, Blue Origin formed a Mishap Investigation Team (MIT), led by members of Blue Origin’s Safety & Mission Assurance organization. The investigation was conducted with FAA oversight and included representatives of the National Transportation Safety Board and NASA’s Flight Opportunities Program and Commercial Crew Office. The MIT stood up debris search and recovery efforts at Launch Site One immediately following the mishap and recovered all critical flight hardware within days. 

Blue Origin also convened a Mishap Review Board (MRB), which included external non-advocate advisors. The MRB reviewed causal determinations made by the MIT and will continue to exercise oversight of the corrective action implementation. 

Aided by onboard video and telemetry, flight hardware recovered from the field, and the work of Blue Origin’s materials labs and test facilities, the MIT determined the direct cause of the mishap to be a structural fatigue failure of the BE-3PM engine nozzle during powered flight. The structural fatigue was caused by operational temperatures that exceeded the expected and analyzed values of the nozzle material. Testing of the BE-3PM engine began immediately following the mishap and established that the flight configuration of the nozzle operated at hotter temperatures than previous design configurations. Forensic evaluation of the recovered nozzle fragments also showed clear evidence of thermal damage and hot streaks resulting from increased operating temperatures. The fatigue location on the flight nozzle is aligned with a persistent hot streak identified during the investigation. 

The MIT determined that design changes made to the engine’s boundary layer cooling system accounted for an increase in nozzle heating and explained the hot streaks present. Blue Origin is implementing corrective actions, including design changes to the combustion chamber and operating parameters, which have reduced engine nozzle bulk and hot-streak temperatures. Additional design changes to the nozzle have improved structural performance under thermal and dynamic loads. 

Blue Origin expects to return to flight soon, with a re-flight of the NS-23 payloads.

Captions:

Photo of the safe landing of the NS-23 capsule, which functioned as designed throughout the flight. All payloads landed safely.

Photos of Launch Site One. Right: The recovered NS-23 nozzle fragment.

[Tywin]

The cause...

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/ns-23-findings/