MaxQ ABORT! - Blue Origin's New Shepard Has Fiery Engine Failure In Flight
2022 ж. 11 Қыр.
1 132 144 Рет қаралды
A quick update on Blue Origin's NS23 Failure this morning.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley
Let us all be very clear: it is the most phallicly-shaped rocket ever designed, and it suffered a premature ejection lol
Premature Ejectulation
in other words.. Bezos BFR lost it's head. The FR is no more..
aw, you were faster than me
🤣🤣🤣
@@christianvitroler5289 BFR popped off faster.
That looked brutal.
Bet you a coke it's less brutal than what the booster looks like at the moment ;-)
verdade
tambem pensei
@@zyeborm The capsule reached 15 Gs. For context, trained fighter pilots wearing G suits are liable to pass out around 9-10 Gs. 15 Gs is beyond brutal for a civilian passenger.
Wow
On the plus side for Blue Origin, having an unplanned in-flight abort shows that their abort system works properly in a non-test scenario. It's clearly not good that the system was needed and used, but bravo Blue Origin!
I wouldn't want to be on that capsule during the ejection.
@@pacmanlp8876 Better than to be on a space shuttle, which didn't have one. 😳
@@TheEDFLegacy indeed. why they thought that was a good idea i dont know.
@@majorphysics3669 $300+ million for developing an escape rocket was in the original $5.5 billion budget approved by Congress. That was shifted into the contingency budget by the program manager early on.
ok
Another good phrase like that is "parts recovery turbine" for the "power recovery turbines" on the super fortress that would get killed by engine chunks coming out the exhaust.
THANK YOU! It seems that Napier also had an engine using a "Parts Recovery Turbine." steve
"Engine rich exhaust", a phrase that fits perfectly alongside "Rapid Unplanned Disassembly" and "Lithobraking". 😂 Though in seriousness, I'm not sure I'd want to be William Shatner if that had happend during his ride on this rollercoaster. (EDIT: originally spelt lithobraking as lithobreaking)
Coined when spacex had some green exhaust
He would've shat himself.
When I worked with fighter jet engines, "Rapid oxidation" is the phrase Pratt and Whitney used to make "burning" sound less bad.
Rocket exhaust with chunky bits. 😁
"Shatner". Good description of disaster experience.
Like an ejection seat, you never want to exercise it. But it is impressive to see it actually work. As a next step, I’d like to see the time series velocity data to estimate the acceleration experienced. I think you’re right - it won’t be pretty.
Considering it had a hard landing with the retro thrusters not firing too it likely would have seen some nasty injuries to the crew on board. They'd have lived, but it would hurt like a mother.
I think the math should be pretty easy to get an approximate number given the telemetry on the screen. You can start with whatever it's acceleration is before, during, and after the escape system activation.
on the frame the timer jumps from T+01:07 to T+01:08 the velocity is 566 MPH and on the frame the timer jumps from T+01:10 to T+01:11 the velocity is 401 MPH. doing some math gives an avarage acceleration of roughly 2.5 g. very rough calculation because of low framerate and update rate of the velocity indicatior so its probably a bit different than that. 2.5 g isnt that bad if you are pushed down into the seat but upward into the belt that secures you to the seat is a lot less optimal.
Good news: the billionaire space tourist is safely back on the ground. Bad news: the billionaire space tourist had most of his organs liquefied in the process
@@MinerBat I've pulled just over 3g in a acrobatic aircraft (positive g). That level is fun, but bordering on the not fun regime. (ie. starting to get like work) Getting pushed into the 5 pt harness at that kind of g would have been in the not fun category. I'd guess the deceleration due to drag and the hard landing would've been the worst of it had their been crew aboard.
Thank you for reporting so quickly and so thoroughly on this event. Great job! 🙂
I came right to your channel after getting word of this happening and watching the replay, thank you for taking the time for a quick explanation!
It would be interesting to know how many G's the crew would have experienced. That looked brutal.
8 GS
Nice to be alive to complain about things, though.
on the frame the timer jumps from T+01:07 to T+01:08 the velocity is 566 MPH and on the frame the timer jumps from T+01:10 to T+01:11 the velocity is 401 MPH. doing some math gives an avarage acceleration of roughly 2.5 g. very rough calculation because of low framerate and update rate of the velocity indicatior so its probably a bit different than that. 2.5 g isnt that bad if you are pushed down into the seat but upward into the belt that secures you to the seat is a lot less optimal.
@@MinerBat Noice. Thank you
Eyeball Mk I - more than 10 G, less than 15 G...
This is what I call a "successful failure". While the booster fail it was a real world test even if unplanned of the abort eject system and it worked perfectly.
_Task Failed Successfully_
Verifies the type of "pusher rocket" escape system on both SpaceX Crew Dragon and Boeing Starliner does work.
Functional failure, safety success. That's how the best failures go.
It's like saying a car the drove through the wall by itself is a great car just because the air bag was successfully deployed.
@@haroldcruz8550 It’s definitely not ideal - but it’s a fail-safe, not fail-deadly. So it’s a valid confirmation of the abort system even if the booster failed.
Thanks for your quick assessment of the situation.
That was a very rapid yeet of the capsule. Glad it worked, but wow it looks like that would have been unpleasant, just blasting way ahead of a booster at Max-q
Looks like the "Zero-G" notification on the UI is just tied to capsule separation event, because it shows up right as "Separation / Zero-G" step activates on the left. At least the separation step is triggered by actual telemetry data as it looks. The progress bar is not jumping up there though, probably because the MECO step was missed.
i thought the Sensor was oversaturated, and returned null/void as indication the value is outside of design range, and this got interpreted as Zero-G
It properly identifies the Apogee moment and switches to Landing mode as well, both are clearly driven by actual telemetry and not scripted. I'm not sure why Meco is missed, perhaps because the flight computer never commanded to shut down the engine, which would trigger the event on the timeline?
@@baksatibi it is driven by real telemetry, but the error handling pretty much ignores unexpected readings and doesn't show you errors, real errors with the rocket or just glitches with the sensors or comms.
Even though the main engine did indeed "cut off".
The sensor would probably have some noise during actual zero G, so they have put some logic in there to display the text instead. Obviously logic does not work during emergency abort or they chose to simply hide the real value during an abort because they didn’t want to make it publicly available.
It appears the abort went well. You can see the rocket yaw a bit out of parameters and it immediately initiated abort.
Out of parameter engine readings also probably triggered the abort
@fhweuenh but you'd survive. Its definitely something they need to address, but from what I saw, that seemed survivable.
@@VyarkX the "engine rich exhaust" lights were lit
@fhweuenh from the dust cloud, they seem to have very much fired
@@ckellingc certainly, the engines could use a more sturdy case to prevent fallapart.
Nice seeing that lifeboat work as intended. That little thing boogies when it separates from the booster
thanks Scott, for keeping us in the loop
A firey but mostly peaceful mission.
Love it!
ha!
Hahahaha!!! Good One!! 🤣🤣🤣
Checked and directed to Based Department.
I see what you did there. FBI will be visiting, soon.
The emergency abort seems like a more exciting ride than the regular one. This may drive demand up rather than down.
Yeah, but when you factor in the cost of replacing the booster, the ticket prices would be sky high.
hahaha !
@@CraigTrader Well assuming the booster doesn't suffer a failure, it is still possible to recover the booster like Blue has tested (with the same booster in-fact) before
@@nodinawe When your single engine fails you aren't likely getting the booster back.
@@Scanner9631 yes you do, it did fell tumbling to the ground , didn't you hear ?
Nice timely response. Many thanks for the channel!
Dear Scott, thanks for your great channel. An episode about the historical development and recent state of the art optical tracking systems would be highly interesting, since the optical tracking and picture quality are quite impressive to me.
Wow that capsule peaced out with the upmost quickness! Impressive to see this system in action.
IOW it did it's job, exactly as it was designed.
Utmost*
but that acceleration can kill.
@@jessepollard7132 of course it *can* kill, but it wouldn't have long lasting effects on a *healthy* passenger - and the short term effects are preferable to being part of the booster's failure in most cases.
@@bbies1973 I'm sure those people dying in collisions of only 50 mph would be alive if that were true. It doesn't take long to break bones at 100G accelleration. milliseconds I think is all it takes.
Scott I have never sent you a note before but I just want to tell you that you are such a fantastic source of great info. You speak so the everyday man can understand you. I cant say enough nice things about your videos. You set a standard that others can only dream off. Never stop my friend.
Thanks for getting this video out this fast!
“Engine rich exhaust” is as clever and subtly funny as it is dark.
The acceleration of the escape system is unreal. Nice analysis and video, Scott.
And would probably turn you into an undead for a few seconds 🤣
Thanks for the update,Scott!
I was thinking that you would share that story. Thank you Scott Manley
In my radial engine days that was described as a:"parts in the oil screen" moments.
We called it Chunky oil
Usually preceded by the milkshake of doom.
"Engine-rich exhaust", what a perfect decription. "Bob, I think you might have something wrong with your car, that smoke don't look right." "Hmm, small chunks of the stuff inside has come lose and is now part of the combustion." "I see, so you're running a bit engine-rich then?" "Yeah."
For that matter, I understand there are quite a lot of videos of American diesel locomotives with engine-rich exhausts. Tip: flames aren't supposed to come out of that exhaust, at least not apart from starting the motor. It's an *internal* combustion engine. None of the combustion is supposed to take place externally.
That was "rich"!
@@KaiHenningsen That is typically turbo oil rich exaust.
@@KaiHenningsen Diesel locomotives also have electric heater blowers to vent excess energy from braking so it's not always exhaust from the engines as the electric blowers can also send heater elements and electric sparks flying. They did try recharging molten sodium batteries with the excess energy but the batteries couldn't take enough energy fast enough without problems.
"You know, Bob. I think the engine didn't like the change of oxidizer from NOX to LOX..."
Indeed Scott, fly safe!
Thanks for the quick analysis.
I experienced an ejection in a MB J5A seat and my back still hasn't fully recovered 38 years later. Granted the reclined positions the crew here would have been better but that's still a of G's to come from out of nowhere. At least I got a 3 or 4 second warning it was coming, that crew would have swallowed their bubble gum for sure.
I feel like there is a great story behind that
@@Pupil0fGod October 1984, Oregon Army National Guard OV-1D and a catastrophic loss of hydraulic pressure. Not all that great of a story, they don't tell you that you generally shit your pants when you eject through a canopy. But you do get a nice tie afterward.
At least they have the benefit of still being in the capsule. Ejections at (near-)supersonic speeds can be lethal, and even if they don't kill you, they will mess you up something awful.
@@whytebearconcepts note to self: if I ever take a ride to space, make sure my colon is empty! Lol. I helped validate the design of the Ares launch abort system which appears to be used on the Artemis, but I definitely would not want to experience the G forces.
@@whytebearconcepts that's a cool aircraft we should be bringing aircraft like that back for insurgency imo. They stay in the air longer and are cheaper to operate. We should bring back the big brother the bronco too.
Thanks for the quick video on the anomaly. Would've been a wild ride for any passengers!
If I were in the ride queue, I would feel reassured by seeing the abort system work correctly. I think it may be quite a while before riding a bomb is as uneventful as most car rides. Until then, I don't think we can hope for more than a potentially bone snapping ride away from the bomb when needed.
How do you feel about it slamming into the ground at Mach 3 tho?
Not too smart, are you?
@@PunkIAm I can't find any reason to believe your claim that the capsule impacted at Mach 3. The booster may have impacted at high speed, but no one would have been in that had this been a crewed flight.
@@karlharvymarx2650 Hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. exaggeration for effect.
@@PunkIAm So what was your point?
Thanks for UR work. Got me since KSP! Keep em coming.
It's good to see the abort system actually function in an emergency --- as every engineer knows, there's a big difference between how a system behaves in a simulated emergency and how it behaves in a real one... but that looks like a really rough ride. The capsule's slewing from side to side and at one point seems to be accelerating sideways. Is that _after_ the main acceleration and we're just seeing residual flame coming out of the solid rocket motor, or did something actually go wrong?
yeah when solid rocket motors are burned out the thrust force becomes irregular but it doesn't really matter here, the job is done
Solid boosters don't have a hard cutoff. They "tail off" over a few seconds as the last vestiges of propellant are consumed. Even after they're completely burned out they're still HOT inside, and will continue to out gas for several seconds.
Not in Texas...
Chaos monkeys- nothing like testing in production.
There was probably a lot of cheering from the guys who designed the abort system while the guys who did the booster are banging their heads into the wall.
That the abort systems functioned flawlessly would make me more inclined to take a ride, not less ..... but I am an engineer, so maybe 'normal' people would see it differently.
I agree, seeing the backup running flawlessly makes me trust it a bit more.
I'm sure normal people would prefer to see the whole rocket blow up with capsule because screw that minor inconvenience of massive acceleration to save their life, it's a smooth ride or death
Except for the part where the retros didn't fire and it hit the ground at several Gs.
@@marcogenovesi8570 As someone who had to walk away from a conversation at one point when someone said MRAPs shouldn't exist and that it would be better to let soldiers die from IEDs than suffer from a broken back that they could probably mostly heal from, I agree. Some people really would just rather have people die than possibly have to recover from injuries.
@@MichaelClark-uw7ex dust cloud seems pretty much in family with all other landings
Thanks for the quick upload. I had heard only rumors at work.
Imagine being pinned to your seat during a rocket launch, and then getting pinned *even harder* by your crew-pod ejecting from potential doom
Good to see that the safety system worked, even if the crew capsule was empty.
It was a bit slow to respond, about a full second after catastrophic engine failure is a second too long IMO
We can hope that their were crash-test dummies on-board to record the stresses, but probably not.
@@moldoveanu8 the engine failure was not catastrophic, critical engine failure would be a better term. the imbalance of the engine probably caused the craft to pitch (or yaw) out of the acceptable direction, and then the flight computer chose to activate the launch escape. in the event of a catastrophic explosion of the engine, the flight abort would launch sooner.
My only question is, why was capsule empty? They had to be testing something new I guess?
@@Kowalski301 was not empty, it was full of scientific equipment to run tests in orbit. This was an unmanned payload but still a payload
Really interesting to see the emergency escape system in action!
While I get people being hesitant to board this thing after watching that happen, I still am pleased to see companies exploring safety options in spaceflight. Heck, I’m pleased to see them seriously exploring manned spaceflight at all, let alone in a manner that isn’t cordoned off for a few highly-trained pilots doing super-precise government operations. The desire to open spaceflight up to the public is going to make huge leaps in the industry as a whole because it forces more of the problems that were once either laid upon the crew, or simply hand-waved as “acceptable risks” into being engineered out of the system entirely. I’m seriously hoping to see interplanetary travel before I die, is all I’m saying.
yea that escape pod ride does not look fun at all. I wonder do they have anytime at all to prepare for that emergency launch i'm thinking about ur neck! That boost could make a hell of a "whip-lash" if not seated in the correct location
Maybe I think in an overly logical manner, but honestly this would actually make me feel better if I was considering taking a flight. Knowing that the abort system clearly works in a non test environment would make me feel more safe, not less.
I wonder how well the dragon will handle an unplanned abort. I assume just as well, but just curious all the same.
It would be interesting to see if anyone has video of the booster doing its abrupt deceleration at the end of its flight, especially as it probably had a fair amount of hydrogen fuel onboard when that happened.
ok
These 'Fly Safe!' words of farewell just took on a whole new meaning😮
If there had been crew, their underwear would have definitely sustained injury when the launch abort system fired.
brown pants for everyone
Although short video, best one I've seen yet. Manley is on it!
Looking at the progress line on the far left the failure happened after MaxQ when the engine was throttling up again. Add the extra acceleration of the abort engine and that would have been a brutal G load for a few seconds. It would be interesting to see any sensor data from inside the escape capsule.
Thank you for being so quick to put out a video...
that tumble it does makes my whole body hurt just seeing it. thats rough rough ride. in my view the big single booster if its gets even slightly off axes trust its going to feel really bad in there. unless your head is very well supported its going to hurt for a long time
Thanks Scott! Very good analysis for a quick response. I believe the booster went "kablooey" and until I see video or photo evidence otherwise that's what I maintain. It's hard not to have a catastrophic failure of a rocket still heavy with lots of explosive fuel. Wish we had video of the booster too. But I hope the B.O. team learns, recovers, and presses onward from this.
As always, great video on current events in this field. I was wondering if you, @Scott Manley, would be doing a video on the two Firefly launch attempts these last two days?
Looks like the furthest one could get from zero G. I would love to see the positive and then negative G's that a passenger would have experienced.
the interesting thing is this tells us that system is activated by capsule separation, not by the actual measured G forces.
scott will you please make a series of videos teaching your viewers astrodynamics going from the basics to advanced?
Excellent breaking news video. Forever grateful to your channel - Eamon, real Dublin
Manned launches use a different booster, so that's still around. This one was used on unmanned launches only, such as this one, and this was it's 9th flight.
Good info Scott! I wonder how hot the Launch abort engine makes the cabin while in use.
And what does it sound like?
@@terryboyer1342 Exactly my thoughts also - that rocket engine beast is literally one hood under 10 cm away from you
Blue Origin's PR department could advertise it as "sauna mode (additional charge)".
@@maurice_walker as a Finnish citizen/customer, Sauna should be already casually included - just open that rocket engine hood and throw some water on those hot surfaces, let that steam fill the cabin, have some fresh branches from summer trees with leafs and start whipping yourself, repeat as wish, enjoy the magnificient view of Earth
@@terryboyer1342 Good gosh that sounds terrifying I would imagine you would hear that roar coming from every surface due to vibration. Between that and the hard G's, I would probably assume I was about to be RIP as opposed to thinking that my life had just be saved.
Now they have, uh, ZERO flight-ready engines.
Thanks for the update Scott. I'd like to invite you to the Reno Air Races. I'm with Team Stihl Race 30 and we hope to do very well this year. Races are just beginning and end this Sunday. Come join the fun.
I saw this launch on streaming, this was interesting. For a split-second I thought the whole thing had completely exploded including the crew cabin, glad that didn't happen. It turned out to be an inadvertent test of the escape system. I'd be curious to see some numbers on what kind of accelerations were experienced, I hope they were in tolerance. The did look like a rough ride but I'm sure it's better than hitting the desert floor at 300 MPH.
Still good to see the abort system worked!
If you look in the video of the capsule landing you can just barely see what looks like a fire on the left side - could be the wreck of the booster
This is a stunningly good outcome. Not a massive fan of BO but this is actually confidence-inspiring.
This was Booster 3.0. The one used for crewed suborbital missions is Booster 4.0, a slightly advanced version that is licensed to carry people up
Thanks Scott for keeping us informed when so little is really known.
Imagine the forces on your chest heart and lungs when that abort engine kicked in. Holy cow. Older people would have not survived that!!! If they were on onboard like the first couple of flights...
Not a bad way to go out though. Glorious!
Similar to the g forces on the driver of a top fuel dragster.
That booster must've watched Jeff's woke-puke "Rings of Depravity" and was still feeling quite ill. 🤢🤮🤣
it was around 8.7g forces lmao
I wrote a song called "Engine Rich Exhaust" after hearing you use the term. Into the lexicon it goes.
Thank you, Sir!
The "zero g" text on the screen might show up when the capsule separates from the booster. ... And that's normally really the zero-g phase, because there would not be any forces acting on the capsule. But not so here... But they had zero-g around the top of their flight, after the engine was out and before the air drag was too high due to the high speed down in their not so high altitude. At least after the drogue chutes deployed, there was no zero-g any more. Maybe that's the time when the message "zero-g" would automatically be turned off, maybe.
I don't think looking by the actual video from count down to landing, the retro thrust system worked on the crew capsule? I didn't see any jet of thrust before it hit the ground and it hit hard!
That dust is not from the capsule hitting ground. It's from the retro rockets. They only fire a fraction of a second before impact, but greatly reduce the impact speed.
Great (and super fast video). One thing I was curios about. Isn't there a flight termination system on the booster? From the description, it doesn't seem like one activated.
I didn't get to see the main ship get blown up or whatever they do with it...just the capsule escaping. I thought someone would show both...but you make it all very interesting! Cheers to you.
The Blue Origin broadcast focused on the capsule. Blue has footage of the NS3.9 booster's lithobraking, but hasn't released it yet that I have seen. They may not, as they are pretty secretive.
@@steveaustin2686 Thanks! I just wanted to know how far apart they were when they obviously destroyed it and how thorough it was. I appreciate your reply
@@defan2105 You're welcome. Unless Blue Origin releases the video or specifies it in a press statement, we likely won't find out. Normally, the booster lands less than 4 ground miles from the launch pad and the capsule doesn't go much further. Everything has to stay on the 165,000 acre Corn Ranch in west Texas that the launch site is on..
Someone was ready with their finger on the spacebar
Apparently Lorena Bobbitt was the lead flight engineer for this mission.
I was trying to think of what would cause pieces of stuff to enter the exhaust stream while allowing the engine to function for a few more seconds. Best I can come up with is a turbine blade or turbopump blade in the last stage of the turbine or compressor (respectively) broke off -- the resulting horrific imbalance would destroy the turbopump pretty quickly, but depending upon how overengineered it was, you might get a few more seconds out of it before it completely self-destructed.
It's wild they let him launch from there ....... It may be desert but this isn't White Sands Missile Range. There is a city just 15 miles away. Guadalupe Mountains National Park is 30 miles away which is just a few miles from Carlsbad NM. It's not uninhabited by any means. .... There is family farms just a few miles south
These comments are so much more wholesome than the comments on the official webcast. Most of them are hating on it, saying that it'll get spun as a success that the abort system worked, and stuff. As someone with a passing knowledge of engineering, I'm quite happy that the abort system worked.
well normies think you can achieve perfect reliability. Chad Engineers know it's not the case
@@marcogenovesi8570 When was the last time a Merlin engine suffered catastrophic failure in flight?
@@bosshog8844 March 2022….
@@marcogenovesi8570 Point to who is claiming that they expect perfect reliability. I think you're using an exaggerated claim as an attempted shield against justified criticism. The rocket failed. This is not a success in any way. The objective of the launch was not to test the abort system. Luckily this was an unmanned flight.
We all know if its not SpaceX the Elon fanboys must fly down to the comments and attack everything.
I wonder what that roughness of the abort system would imply to the health of the occupants. Just a scary moment? Broken ribs? Concussions? But still, it's always good to see a rocket abort system working as advertised.
During the abort of Soyuz T-10a, they experienced between 14 and 17 g's of acceleration and were badly bruised, but otherwise unharmed. I would assume that this would produce something similar.
You'd definitely feel it when waking up the next morning, and the next several mornings after.
depend from how old and frail they are. If they are less than 60-ish and don't have pre-existing conditions it's just some concussions at worst. If they are older or have other problems, anything can happen
Beats blowing up in the sky or on impact.
Bad bruises and possibly herniated spinal discs (mega ouch)
It would be really interesting to see the real G inside that thing. 😬 Anyway, thanks, Scott! Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
The company I work for makes a lot of really important hardware for the be-3 engine. These failures always make me nervous.
I thought it was kind of odd that they were flying a non-passenger manifest. Seems like the research value of that sort of flight would be minimal. Now I'm wondering if they had hardware that was end of life but they wanted to continue to push it to test the durability? Much less risky to do that without souls on board. Was this a calculated move or just a heck of a coincidence?
This is exactly what I was wondering...
I don't think so, because this event, while validating the escape system,, will freeze their launches until sussed out. If they were like SpaceX and announced it was a launch that will likely fail it'd be different.
@@scottstewart5784 blue are alot more secretive they may have announced exactly that to the FCC. (Edit FAA)
I'm not an expert but I guess they are competing with zero-G flights. If your experiment needs more time in zero-G, you don't want to expose your experiment to repeated cycles of vertical acceleration, if you want to recover your experiment at the end, or your experiment is a bit too dangerous to have people around this may be the better choice than any of the alternatives.
Yes, it's so weird they sent up an empty capsule if they didn't test something new (or old)
A question came up under the video of the failure. Did the breakboostersystem work properly on touchdown? Its hard to tell for me as an amateur (and a lot of people). The landingspeed looked at least not that slow. Anyways, thanks for the video and have a nice day :)
landing system breaker rocket worked perfectly
Looked the same as other landings of that system to my untrained eye.
the landing rockets kick up dust much sooner than actual tuchdown and they are a bit rough but not as rough as coming down hard as it's going. This landing looked like any other landing of this capsule
The landing definitely always looks kind of weird/hard which is why they always talk about expecting the big puff of dust before it happens. That's in the normal script. There's no way to know if it worked "perfectly" but there wasn't anything concerning about it either.
@@FleshGolem420 Its basically a 15mph crash into a concrete wall
I must say “engine rich exhaust” is the best new terminology I’ve learned in a long while!
The automatic capsule ejection worked perfectly!
After watching the landing, and then a couple of landings from other flights, it did look a bit harder than normal. I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of the final three seconds of every landing, side-by-side.
That landing looked back-breakingly brutal to me. Don't know why this aspect isn't getting more attention. Failure of retro propulsion?
@@milesshigh this fruit didn't even show the landing
@@milesshigh Its not bad that's why. The boosters just blow up dust at the last second and that makes it look like a massive hit. But it's gentle.
@@truthbetold1855 No they don't. Look carefully at the capsule hitting the desert floor. There are not any retros firing before the capsule impacted the ground! If there had been people on board, they would have very likely been injured if not killed!
@@milesshigh The retros didn't appear to fire at all. The dust was from the capsule slamming into the desert floor!
Also, the retro-booster firing didn't appear to happen just before hitting the ground. That dust cloud very much appears to have been from hitting HARD
It looked like any other nominal BONS capsule landing. Go watch all the other prior landings and prove it to yourself.
@@BKD70 I'd like to see the telemetry to back that up. It doesn't take much to snap your spine.
@@bobtenwick Snap my spine? If you want to believe that something didn't happen when it clearly did, go right ahead. The only people that are saying the retros didn't fire are keyboard warriors like you that clearly don't know anything about what they were watching.
@@BKD70 Snap an occupant's spine, not your spine snapperhead. It looks like the boosters fired late resulting in a hard landing. Period.
@@bobtenwick OK, you're the expert. Obviously.
Excellent update thank you. How many of those boosters has BE made?
Excellent informative video
Good to see the abort system working as intended!
You are not sure it was safely done
@@dertythegrower Definitely safer than going kaboom with the rocket, I assume...
It looked like it hit the ground under the chutes harder than in other missions. A rough ride all around for sure. I'm wondering what's left of the booster also, I will look forward to your next video on the topic.
Landed normally
That's what people have said every single landing. It's the retro rockets that kick up dust before the actual capsule hits the ground that make it look like a hard impact.
If anything it would have hit with less force because of the expended abort propellant.
It looked like any other nominal BONS capsule landing. Go watch all the other prior landings and prove it to yourself.
That abort disconnect looked rough! Sloshing around but at least they survived
A video of that popped up in my feed a few hours ago. I thought it was an older video, from a couple of years ago or something. I had no idea it just happened. 😶
A few bumps and bruises maybe, but nobody would have died. This is encouraging. Well done B.O.
That depends on the passenger age
@@christianvanderstap6257 lol - yeah, 80-year-old billionaires might not do well... still, no harm - no foul.
This should give confidence to current and potential customers as well as regulators that their system works and would have saved the lives of anybody on board.
Right, but at the same time if you could pick *any* moment during a launch to have an abort, I guarantee nobody would pick a Max-Q abort even without seeing this particular incident.
depends on the G-load that was experienced and the health of the rider considering the number of Old As Fuck people that are riding on that thing.
New Shephard is unsafe. They can't build reliable engines. Blue Origin is a joke.
Hmmm, not sure today gave more confidence than a nominal flight. Do we know that the thrusters fired upon touchdown even?
That had already been ensured to the regulators by the test of the escape system but it is good to see a real life example. Had the escape system not been triggered then regulator interest would certainly peak.
Looking at the telemetry (which appears to be a couple of seconds behind the video), the capsule at abort engine ignition almost immediately accelerates from about 590mph to about 704mph, but then begins to decelerate, even with the rocket still burning behind it, due to the increased aero drag in the trans-sonic range. That negative acceleration may be what's setting off the ZERO-G indicator, even while still in a very dynamic stage of flight.
A payload I worked on was on this rocket. Glad it is retrievable. Going to get some useful data from it, even though things didn't go as planned.
That sounds so scary, glad it made it back safe! putting payloads on these recent rockets is scary, I had one on astra a while back 😭 luckily it wasn't the one that failed lol
@@haydenr7528 oh wow, yea. Luckily we have backups if needed, but best to not need them.
this is why i had my skepticism on reusability limitations for rocket engines. what SpaceX achieved with f9 is truly remarkable
that happens when you have good engineering.
@@jessepollard7132 often the task itself puts ceiling of physical limitations that can't be overcome. and it's kind of still have been done only once with Merlin. Raptor is still a struggle even with full redesign
@@mrpicky1868 Not much of a struggle - the Raptor is far better tested.
@@jessepollard7132 you clearly not following how the things are going
@@mrpicky1868 you are clearly going in the wrong direction.
I know the Blue Origin folks didn't want this to go bad...but it's an awesome learning experience for the entire team.
Hey at least they inflated all the chutes to the contrary of Boeing's Starliner
I didnt even think they would actually manage to get something up
What I find interesting is the altitude reported of the booster after "touchdown" of the booster. If there is an underflow or similar? It also updates as if the sensor still reads and transmits increasing values.
Have a great day Scotty:-) just got back from school
Here’s my completely unprofessional opinion, my guess is that something failed in the “tap-off” section of the engine, that ended up shooting hot exhaust at the turbo pump, and incoming fuel (the jet of flames to the left).