The failure of Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket has catastrophic consequences for NASA's Artemis program, delaying lunar lander development and increasing reliance on SpaceX's Starship.
<p>Thursday night's <a href="https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/blue-origins-new-glenn-rocket-just-exploded-during-a-static-fire-test/">detonation of Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket</a> during a static-fire test produced a spectacular fireball over Florida, sending shards of the rocket flying far and wide, into the sea and across the coastal scrubland nearby.</p>
<p>With sunrise on Friday teams from Blue Origin, the US Space Force, and NASA will be able to begin more thoroughly assessing the damage to Blue Origin's facilities and begin picking up pieces of the rocket.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
<p dir="ltr" lang="zxx"><a href="https://t.co/EfYn4QWW9M">pic.twitter.com/EfYn4QWW9M</a></p>
<p>— Nick Johnson (@NickJohnson315) <a href="https://x.com/NickJohnson315/status/2060200612000657777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2026</a></p></blockquote>
<p><script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p><p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/heres-why-the-failure-of-blue-origins-new-glenn-rocket-is-so-catastrophic/">Read full article</a></p>
<p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/heres-why-the-failure-of-blue-origins-new-glenn-rocket-is-so-catastrophic/#comments">Comments</a></p>
# Here's why the failure of Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket is so catastrophic
Source: [https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/heres-why-the-failure-of-blue-origins-new-glenn-rocket-is-so-catastrophic/](https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/heres-why-the-failure-of-blue-origins-new-glenn-rocket-is-so-catastrophic/)
Could Blue Moon Mark 1 launch on other rockets? SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy and United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan vehicles both likely have the lift capacity to push the vehicle to the Moon\. But Vulcan is also sidelined at present and has a long line of Space Force payloads in the queue\. So what of Falcon Heavy?
The Mark 1 lander is powered by the BE\-7 engine, which runs on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen\. There may be compatibility issues related to the Falcon rocket’s kerosene\-powered upper stage, although this has not been confirmed\. Also, it is unlikely that Blue Origin would partner with a direct rival, SpaceX, in this manner\.
## Artemis program
Due to the Mark 1 issues outlined above, there will either be significant delays to, or the need to restructure the early phases of, the Moon Base program\. The lunar rovers under development by Astrolab and Lunar Outpost, for example, have a mass of about 1 ton\. Only Mark 1 and SpaceX’s Starship have that kind of delivery capacity\.
There are also major implications for the main Artemis crewed missions\.
NASA recently changed Artemis III to become a mission that will see the Orion spacecraft rendezvous with one or both of the Human Landing Systems under development by Blue Origin \(Blue Moon\) and SpaceX \(Starship\) in low\-Earth orbit\.[NASA appears determined](https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/nasa-provides-some-details-about-artemis-iii-but-hard-decisions-remain/)to launch this mission in 2027 and plans to announce its four crew members in a couple of weeks\.
But it’s now all but certain that a Blue Moon lander will not be ready for such a mission within the next 18 months\. NASA will need to decide whether to wait on Blue Origin or press ahead solely with a Starship mission\.
As for Artemis IV, the lunar landing mission, this failure further complicates that plan\. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a crew\-rated Blue Moon lander is ready at any point in 2028 now\. Even if the hardware is far along, Blue Origin still needs to fly test missions with Blue Moon Mark 1, which are on hold indefinitely\.
A number of senior NASA officials had come to view Blue Origin’s plan to use a slimmed down version of the Mark 2 lander,[which would not require in\-space refueling](https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/nasa-has-shuffled-its-artemis-rockets-but-what-of-the-lunar-landers/), as the prime option for Artemis IV\. Now,[like much of the US space industry](https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/05/the-us-space-enterprise-is-desperately-waiting-for-starship-will-it-finally-deliver/), NASA finds itself highly dependent on SpaceX’s ability to deliver with Starship\.
*Note: This article has been edited to clarify interoperability issues between the Blue Moon Mark 1 lander and the Falcon Heavy rocket\.*
Nearly a month after the New Glenn rocket exploded on its launch pad, the article examines the implications for Blue Origin's future launches and NASA's Artemis program, including skepticism over a return-to-flight timeline.
A Blue Origin New Glenn rocket exploded during a static fire test, damaging the launchpad and causing major delays for NASA's Moon base plans and Amazon's Project Kuiper satellite internet constellation.
NASA chief Jared Isaacman praises Blue Origin's progress after a launch failure, noting plan A is still to launch New Glenn by year's end, while NASA considers alternative launch vehicles for the Artemis III mission.
Ars Technica recaps a live discussion on the aftermath of Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket explosion, focusing on the implications for NASA's Artemis IV mission and the timeline for new rocket variants.
Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket exploded during a static fire test in Florida, severely damaging launch infrastructure and likely delaying future launches. NASA, which relies on Blue Origin for lunar landers, will be impacted.