60 ms·

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

986 points by mariusz79 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dlgeek 10y ago
Here's a few photos capturing what appears to be a massive secondary explosion: https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428/photo/1 https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428/ph... (There was already an explosion or fire before this one given the smoke in the air).
MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
The rocket is currently in flames. Staffers at the facility are telling me. Plumes of smoke rising from Launch Complex.
scrumper 10y ago
Looks like this may have been the Falcon 9 getting ready to launch AMOS-6 on 9/3. Not a previously flown rocket.
- ygra 10y ago
  Static Fire for that launch was due today which is probably during which this happened.
mdrzn 10y ago
From the twitter feed: http://imgur.com/6b6MfNQ http://imgur.com/6b6MfNQ
- verytrivial 10y ago
  404 for me.
  - mzs 10y ago
    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY6bmYW5xXE/V8guijPQh7I/AAAAAAAAz-w/wZNUvOFD3og-gp7A2_45xqgt3UwsZXkhwCL0B/s4096/6b6MfNQr.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY6bmYW5xXE/V8guijPQh7I/A... http://i.imgur.com/6b6MfNQr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6b6MfNQr.jpg
    - wyldfire 10y ago
      The imgur link doesn't work but the other one does.
cstross 10y ago
Wild-ass speculation in the absence of more information than a tweet and a photo of a pad fire: SpaceX test-fire the first stage motors before each launch. If this was a test firing that went spectacularly wrong, it's embarrassing -- but there won't have been any human beings within blast range and it's better to fail in test than to fail in flight with a payload on top. (If it was a catastrophic failure during fueling/de-fueling ops, that's another matter entirely, and far more serious -- and an explosive test failure is serious enough as it is.)
- rst 10y ago
  Test fire for the launch of a commercial satellite (AMOS-6), which had been scheduled for a few days hence (and now presumably delayed, along with the rest of their launch schedule, pending further investigation). It might conceivably have been during fueling/de-fueling around the test. It's not yet clear from public reports whether the payload was attached at the time of the test-fire; sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. (Note that fueling operations for Falcon 9 got a whole lot trickier when they switched to use of super-cooled fuel and oxidizer, to increase density -- if that stuff gets warmer, its volume increases to more than that of the tank, but it's still liquid, so you can't just vent it off.)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ars 10y ago
    > of a commercial satellite (AMOS-6) According to wikipedia this is related to the AMOS-2 staelite leased by Facebook to provide internet coverage in part of Africa. An interesting clause in their contract is: "The parties have agreed to the right to terminate the contract if Amos-6 and the ground gateways in France, Italy and Israel are not ready for service by January 1, 2017" So this fire could have wider repercussions if SpaceX doesn't get a new launch ready in time. (Unless that same contract also has a clause about SpaceX failure vs IAI failure.) > but it's still liquid, so you can't just vent it off. You can vent off liquid to keep the pressure down, but since it's heavier than air it will just add to the fire. Unless maybe they have some sort of piping system connected to the vent to route the extra fuel elsewhere.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
palakz 10y ago
Here's some info on this from TC: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-just-exploded-at-cape-canaveral/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-j...
trothamel 10y ago
http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/705/web http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/705/web Has audio from the local police, who seem to be evacuating the various nearby beaches, due to the danger from the plume.
yread 10y ago
CNBC says that NBC says (I know...) that thankfully nobody was injured http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-cape-canaveral-hours-before-launch.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-cap... EDIT: apparently it happened at t:-3m so nobody was around
m12k 10y ago
Live thread over on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g
hydrogen18 10y ago
You can see the smoke plume on the radar image from Melbourne airport weather radar http://imgur.com/a/FQ4qx http://imgur.com/a/FQ4qx Live link: http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=mlb http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=mlb
- Symbiote 10y ago
  For those of us not familiar with Florida, Cape Canaveral is directly East of Orlando.
- _kyran 10y ago
  Melbourne, FL for those wondering.
  - pmyjavec 10y ago
    Melbourne, FL, United States :)
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  We sure that's a smoke plume? There's a lot of radar activity over Florida presently due to the "OMG first hurricane in 11 years!!!"[0] [0] I live in and am in the Big Bend area, so the news, tweets, emails, and texts about the storm are a bit ... much.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    It sure looked like a plume. I like the simple animated gif view of the radar: http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar_lite.php?rid=MLB&product=N0R&loop=yes http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar_lite.php?rid=MLB&produc... The first couple of images have cycled out now, but they showed that blob expanding from nothing right where it starts in the current sequence. (it starts at 1246 here: http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/RadarImg/N0R/MLB/ http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/RadarImg/N0R/MLB/ Not a great view without the map underneath.)
ldjb 10y ago
Live video stream from the Kennedy Space Center (you can paste the link into something like VLC): http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel4 http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel4 (Via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-704a-11e6-bb50-0e64be54f1eb https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-70...)
josh_carterPDX 10y ago
Just read no injuries. That's awesome. I mean, bad for the rocket, but hooray for no human loss of life.
blastofpast 10y ago
I am surprised that no one has mentioned whether or not this failure is related to SpaceX's first time reusing a rocket. If so, hopefully this isn't too much of a setback!
- throwawayReply 10y ago
  Because it would just be speculation at this point, less than hour after it's happened?
  - blastofpast 10y ago
    It was just yesterday we read about SpaceX launching their first reused rocket. However, after searching for the news article, it's now clear to me that this was scheduled to happen "late this year". source: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/27935/20160901/spacex-to-launch-their-first-reused-rocket.htm http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/27935/20160901/space...
- Dimitris 10y ago
  This is a brand new rocket. The reused rocket will be used for the SES-10 mission.
- wrigby 10y ago
  The reused rocket will be used to launch SES-10 later this year, not AMOS-6. Source: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-reused-falcon-9-by-years-end/ http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-re...
  - ygra 10y ago
    Question is whether they will have a launch pad at that time and how long investigations will last and until a fix is deployed. May well be that there are no more launches this year.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
corv 10y ago
"This rocket was scheduled to launch the Amos-6 communication satellite, which among other functions included the capabilities for Facebook to spot-beam broadband for Facebook’s Internet.org initiative" Bad karma
- walkingolof 10y ago
  No payload on rocket while hotfire test.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ohitsdom 10y ago
    Payload is sometimes mated, just depends. No word yet on this payload. https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/771342950798389248 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77134295079838924... UPDATE: payload lost. https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/771352111657385984 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/771352111657385984
    - krisoft 10y ago
      That confirmation is so strange. Why would you confirm something with the screenshot of notepad "officially" when you have a twitter account?
      - cosmotron 10y ago
        > Why would you confirm something with the screenshot of notepad "officially" when you have a twitter account? I figured it was because they didn't want to be constrained by a character limit. It allows them to use very specific language.
      - harshreality 10y ago
        He's a space news reporter at Ars Technica. It makes sense they'd be one of the first to get the SpaceX news release. It has too many characters to fit in a tweet, and even if it could fit, embedding an image of the text sets it apart from the tweeter's introduction and makes it more readable. It's standard practice on twitter to use images for blocks of text.
walkingolof 10y ago
According to sources (twitter), they where F-3 minutes so no-one should be out on pad, payload was not loaded either.
walkingolof 10y ago
According to sources (twitter), they where F-3 minutes so no-one should be out on pad, payload was not loaded either.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 10y ago
The smoke looks fairly white and uniform. That suggests it's coming from the rocket fuels, not a burning building or other facility. To me, that means the safety protocols held, limiting the spread/damage. Hopefully nobody was hurt.
BatFastard 10y ago
For all developers of anything. Repeat this mantra. This is why we test, this is why we test, this is why we test. It is especially important to repeat this mantra around management types who want last minute builds before going in front of important customers, because the light blue button looks SO much better then the dark blue button...
- nameless912 10y ago
  I mean, it's not like SpaceX doesn't test. They missed something, and unfortunately this time it caused a total loss that they're going to have to answer to. But yes, you're right; we recently implemented a two-week demo lockout policy at my office. No changes are allowed being committed closer than two weeks from a demo date, and two or three guys are dedicated to just testing and shaking down the system. They're the only ones allowed to call for a bug fix, and they're only allowed to call for a bug fix. It seems as though management has finally realized that missing one requirement during a demo is much, much better than having the whole enchilada crash spectacularly.
  - jakub_h 10y ago
    The problem is that software works the same every time, hardware doesn't have to (for example, if there was some kind of wear in the umbilical, for example).
- dr_zoidberg 10y ago
  The Antares explosion footage should accompany that mantra.
- sjnvdslvjsd 10y ago
  they do test. space rockets are hard.
- kirrent 10y ago
  This was a test which had followed previous testing.
artursapek 10y ago
My mind goes to the debugging stage after the dust has settled... how would a rocket scientist determine the cause of a RUD like this?
- ygra 10y ago
  About the same as you debug an issue from having just a tracelog. The rocket and pad equipment have quite a few sensors that record information, so you have quite a lot of data afterwards to spot anomalies (you could also compare to previous successful launches / static fires to spot them). Admittedly, that doesn't really explain how they figure out some stuff, e.g. with CRS-7 the problem was with a strut holding a high-pressure helium vessel in the second stage. They likely would have seen the overpressurization of the tank and there are not many sources for that pressure, but pinpointing it to a piece that doesn't even exist anymore ... beats me.
  - mikeknoop 10y ago
    I don't recall the source, but they identified the CRS-7 strut by using several mechanical vibration sensors placed on various parts of the rocket. The deflection / explosion reaches the sensors at different times, and with precision timing, it enables you to reverse pinpoint where it must have originated: the failing strut.
    - TrevorJ 10y ago
      they also have pressure sensors in the tanks so the timing of pressure differences allowed them to determine that the tank came loose before it burst.
  - rohit89 10y ago
    They probably brainstorm through all the possible scenarios that could have caused a particular condition and then see if the data matches and they can prove it as best they can.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  Not a rocket scientist; just an electrical engineer with plenty of failure analysis experience. Here is generally how I would translate my process to this case. As a sibling mentioned, there will be lots of telemetry about what was going on with various systems during the incident. That data may indicate a few specific points to start, but it will mostly be useful for putting other facts into context. In parallel would be an effort to comb over the pad, recover as much as possible of what remains of the rocket, and try to identify what parts are what. There may be some obvious forensic evidence of parts to concentrate on, but in all likelihood the analysis will be guided by a combination of analyzing the telemetry and the damage patterns on the remaining pieces. Hopefully the combination will narrow the probable causes down enough to concentrate analysis on a couple-three theories. Once plausible and probable theories are identified, teams will start to drill down into what event chains could cause them and look for evidence to confirm or reject those. Some of that will involve destructive analysis of the wreckage; you can glean a surprising amount of information from high-magnification images, x-rays, and sections of what otherwise looks like a twisted hunk of scrap metal. Some will involve modeling; no doubt the engineers who designed the engines have some sort of model they used to test it, and the parameters on that model can be varied to create various out-of-spec conditions. Some will be design analysis, to see if some previously-unseen corner case could have caused an otherwise-conformant system to fail catastrophically. Test data on the involved systems will be analyzed to look for any anomalies that might have been passed off at the time but that might be significant on hindsight. Assuming possibilities still exist and are not sufficiently firm, or even just to be extra thorough, a few possibilities may be tested in practical (and possibly destructive) tests. In other words, try to blow up (or simulate blowing up) another engine in a controlled manner. That may or may not be possible, depending on what the root cause is; a parts tolerance issue, for example, would be practically impossible to recreate unless it were possible to manually change affected parts to match the suspected tolerances that caused the failure. I'm sure an actual rocket scientist will come along and provide more detail. My work was limited to exploding caps and FETs.
artursapek 10y ago
Looks like they had a payload go with it. Sad. > "SpaceX confirm Amos-6 was aboard the Falcon 9 and was lost in the explosion." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/771353886238072832 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77135388623807283...
- tomjen3 10y ago
  There were no personal injuries, so I can't really be sad about a piece of electronics.
  - joshdotsmith 10y ago
    That's tons of work. Lots of heart and soul went into that. I can still be sad for people even if we didn't lose people.
    - artursapek 10y ago
      Not to mention money. $200MM investment into space, gone. https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/613f262a-7052-11e6-bdcb-0e8f1ac0db67 https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/613f262a-70...
      - db48x 10y ago
        The money didn't disappear, it paid the people working on the project all the way down to the miners who dug up the minerals and the fast-food workers who made the cheeseburger that engineer bought that one time. It did fail to earn a return, however.
        300bps 10y ago
        You're advocating the Broken Window Fallacy. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nameless912 10y ago
official word: Payload lost. No one injured. This was not the re-used rocket, but instead a brand new core. https://twitter.com/TroyLeeCampbell/status/771353677642760192 https://twitter.com/TroyLeeCampbell/status/77135367764276019...
Symmetry 10y ago
The payload was apparently on the rocket at the time[1]. A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. [1]https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352...
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. In fairness, when did the government last lose a bird? Doesn't the ULA have a '100%' success rate (where success is getting payload to space, though some payloads fail to make it to the planned orbit)
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I suspect the $2b custom government bird refers to the space shuttle. Of which we have, in fact, lost more than one.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      More like NSA/CIA/NRO spy satellites.
    - vkou 10y ago
      The shuttle was a vehicle with vastly different capabilities, and technical challenges to overcome, compared to a Falcon rocket. There have been 133 successful shuttle launches, and 2 failed ones. There have been 27 successful Falcon launches, and 2 failed ones.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        All that was intended by my comment was to shed light on what the parent comment probably was intending to say.
      - rlanday 10y ago
dlgeek 10y ago
The reddit live thread seems to be the best source of current informations and updates: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g
coldcode 10y ago
This type of hardware failure makes me glad to do software where the most damage that can happen is an unhappy customer, not a huge explosion. Also why I was glad to give up a chemistry career after nearly poisoning everyone in the building when the hood system failed.
- gcp 10y ago
  Don't tell firmware/embedded programmers :-/
- blackguardx 10y ago
  What makes you think this couldn't be a software bug? Studying about bugs like Therac-25 [1] were standard practice at my school to show what it takes to make software an engineering discipline. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
julianpye 10y ago
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/spacex-set-launch-amos-6-tropical-storm-hermine-looms/ http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-explor... This article has some information on the new characteristics: - Although considered to be an iterative upgrade from the Falcon 9 v1.1 that preceded it, the modifications to the Full Thrust version have increased the vehicle’s published liftoff capabilities by as much as 30 percent. - A key component of this performance increase is the use of “densified” propellant. By chilling the liquid oxygen to minus 340 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 207 degrees Celsius) and the RP-1, a highly-refined form of kerosene used as rocket fuel, to 20 degrees Fahrenheit ( minus 7 degrees Celsius), SpaceX has demonstrated the capability to store more oxidizer and fuel in a given volume, as well as increase the flow of propellant through the turbopumps on the first stage’s nine Merlin 1D powerplants and on the upper stage’s lone MVac.
- ww520 10y ago
  Interesting on the fuel. Oxygen's boiling point is at -297F (turned into liquid) and its freezing point is at -362F (turned into solid). Lowering the temperature to -340F would be solidifying the liquid oxygen but not quite yet. I guess at that point the volume has reduced, enabling the packing of more LO into the container. Having an additional phase change doubles the risk factor along the whole pipeline that it flows through, the container, the valves, the pipes, the chambers, whatever. Liquid to gas can be dissipated quickly. How bad can uncontrolled solid to liquid expansion be? Edit: uncontrolled liquid to gas venting is equally volatile and dangerous.
intrasight 10y ago
Watched the live feed. That "smoke test" failure definitely made some smoke.
yigitdemirag 10y ago
What happens when payload is lost at such an event due to SpaceX related failure? Obviously they have to reschedule but does SpaceX cover partial losses etc?
- 0xffff2 10y ago
  Launch insurance should cover the cost of the payload.
- Shanea93 10y ago
  Aon International Space Brokers (http://www.aon.com/singapore/risk-services/products-services/isb.jsp http://www.aon.com/singapore/risk-services/products-services...) covers liability for the payloads to be delivered, however, SpaceX shoulders the financial burden of losing the rocket itself, as only the contents are insured.
  - api 10y ago
    It will also likely increase the cost of insuring SpaceX launches. I'm sure it's like car insurance. Of course SpaceX is so much cheaper than their competition that it may not matter, and reuse is about to make them cheaper still. Short term setback, but probably not so awful long term. Also glad nobody got hurt. It's just money.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      > Of course SpaceX is so much cheaper than their competition that it may not matter, and reuse is about to make them cheaper still. They’re 2 million USD more expensive per launch for a mid-size satellite than the Ariane 5 is, so I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
      - xenadu02 10y ago
        No they aren't; SpaceX is charging around $62m and Arianespace charges $100-$130m for the same launch. The first few Falcon 9 launches were a lot cheaper, around $40m I think. I'm sure SpaceX would still be massively profitable at that price, but they're already over-booked so might as well raise prices to generate more capital since building rockets is an ahem <i>capital intensive</i> business. If SpaceX can re-use rocket engines for 10 launches that will change everything yet again. Let's be extremely generous and say $5 million for fuel, personnel, range rental, etc. Amortize the vehicle across 10 launches and you're talking $10m.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
One small loss for mankind, one giant win for Net Neutrality.
- rootlocus 10y ago
  You mean one small loss for Facebook maybe?
627467 10y ago
For those overthinking about the loss of the payload: Contact (1997): "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" I'd argue: at less than twice the price.
- 0xffff2 10y ago
  I don't understand what the quote has to do with this at all. It's neither a government payload, nor AFAIK do they have a second satellite. Maybe I'm overthinking your comment.
  - dpcx 10y ago
    You are. :) The comment was essentially stating that Facebook should have built two of the satellites, as a contingency plan. Rocket science is hard. Having a backup is easier.
merpnderp 10y ago
Have a friend who has family working there. Said the accident was caused by a static fire test and the rocket and payload were lost. Absolute huge bummer.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bunkydoo 10y ago
The environmentally friendly aspect of Tesla's cars is seemingly negated by SpaceX's black-smoke rocket fuel laden explosions.
DrNuke 10y ago
I would leave wild speculation out of this debate and wait for a SpaceX official release.
byebyetech 10y ago
Damn it. 0 Days since SpaceX Rocket exploded.
monocasa 10y ago
That was my immediate thought too. Israel is known for playing rough when it comes to sovereignty concerns, particularly of a technological nature.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  The Israeli government has approved the deal with China, if they didn't want it to go through they would have blocked it, their MOD has oversight on virtually all exports and international dealings. Israel needed AMOS-6 more than anyone else because communication satellites are important for national security and are used by military and national defense agencies. Even if somehow your crackpot theory had merit delaying the launch would have been an easier and cheaper way of tanking the deal than sabotaging a rocket. This wasn't an Iranian spy satellite, Israel has no interests in hurting it national security, economy, and reputation by blowing their own shit up, I don't even understand why people would think they blew it up.
  - rattray 10y ago
    > Even if somehow your crackpot theory had merit We try to avoid that kind of tone here, regardless of the merits of anyone's comments.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      However, the adjective is an accurate measure of the theory's merit.
      - npiazza83 10y ago
        Don't like it? Send an email to hn@ycombinator.com "Tone" policing on HN is getting a bit ridiculous.
        throwanem 10y ago
        God forfend anyone should try to maintain a quality of discourse that encourages thoughtful people to stick around.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
This comes at a uniquely bad time. I was reading about the cash squeeze (http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-faces-cash-squeeze-at-tesla-solarcity-1472687133 http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-faces-cash-squeeze-at-...) and it struck me that any interruption at SpaceX would put further pressure on what Elon is trying to pull off. I really hope they can root cause this failure and get the flight schedule back up and running quickly.
- manarth 10y ago
  I initially started this comment saying "I doubt that there's that much cash-flow between SpaceX and Tesla/Solar City", then thought I should at least google it first. What do you know? Turns out SpaceX invested $165M in Solar City last year [1]. [1] http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/this-is-why-elon-musks-spacex-has-been-buying-up-solarcitys-bonds/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/this-is-why-elon-musks-spacex-...
  - mhermher 10y ago
    Looks like it was in 2015 on a 1-year term. So it would already be paid off. However, the linked article is from Aug 2015, so they may have bought even more bonds after that point.
dtparr 10y ago
Looks like reports of it happening during the propellant load were accurate. Explosion originated in the area of the upper stage LOX tank. https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504/photo/1 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504/photo/1
microtherion 10y ago
Hmm… cash squeeze at Tesla and SolarCity. Next thing, a SpaceX rocket blows up. Maybe he did it for the insurance money? >:-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092
- 0xffff2 10y ago
  There is no insurance for SpaceX here. The payload is insured, but the loss of the launch vehicle and any damage to the launch facilities will be born SpaceX directly.
trothamel 10y ago
Here's good video of the test/failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  Anomaly at 1:10 in that clip, as a SpaceX fan its hard to watch.
  - karma_vaccum123 10y ago
    You can just say explosion, we're not at the Cape.
    - ChuckMcM 10y ago
      Which is a sub-class of anomaly :-) it is really hard to scrub Youtube videos, and I (like probably a zillion others) was looking for root cause indicators; things like where exactly on the fuselage does it start? What equipment is there? How energetic was the explosion (oxidizer only? mixed with propellant? Etc. There are at least 30 frames between 1:10 and 1:11 (maybe 60). There are many things to rule out, was it a leak in the LOX hose? Was it a rupture of an internal tank? did the equipment detach prematurely? etc etc.
      - ChristianBundy 10y ago
        Yes, but using "anomaly" when describing an explosion on HM is masturbatory at best. Don't even get me started on the rest of your comment.
      - flashman 10y ago
        > it is really hard to scrub Youtube videos pip install youtube-dl https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
- mhandley 10y ago
  The frame rate isn't high enough to tell for sure, but it looks like the initial explosion might be between the strongback and the second stage, followed less than 1/30 second later by the second stage exploding. Certainly the initial explosion spreads out vertically much more than horizontally in the first 1/30 second, perhaps implying that the explosion was in vapour outside the second stage.
hakanderyal 10y ago
Video of the explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ
Halienja 10y ago
It wasn't carrying it though, it was just a test.
CountSessine 10y ago
Does anyone know whether this was one of SpaceX's recovered/refurbished rockets that had previously flown a mission and landed?
- rohit89 10y ago
  No, it was a new one.
satyajeet23 10y ago
A Google self-driving car was seen leaving the scene at high speed!
flyinghorse 10y ago
From the live thread at reddit: >Elon Musk has stated that because the rocket didn't intentionally ignite for launch, the loss of payload is not covered by launch insurance. Very sad. I wonder how this will affect future launches from SpaceX.
- mathattack 10y ago
  Wow! So who picks up the bill in this case? I'm sure it was in the contract somewhere.
bitwize 10y ago
I'm glad no humans were hurt or lost. I'm not shedding many tears for Facebook's payload, as I think internet.org is fundamentally misguided.
johndubchak 10y ago
Was the launch rocket supposed to be one of their recovered/recycled rockets?
johndubchak 10y ago
Was the launch rocket supposed to be one of their recovered/recycled rockets?
camestyle 10y ago
Unique, latest, cute and quick hairstyles for short hairs, just take a look, will help you to find short hairstyles for women, gives you killing look: http://www.camestyle.com/classy-trendy-short-hairstyles-womens.html http://www.camestyle.com/classy-trendy-short-hairstyles-wome...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
remotelife 10y ago
This is crazy!
tempestn 10y ago
The music in the techcrunch video seemed a bit inappropriate.
perseusprime11 10y ago
How do you even extinguish that kind of fire? Is there any value in salvaging parts before they completely burn out? Anybody who can chime in the protocol for such fires?
smegel 10y ago
I'd almost be sad but Facebook.
lutorm 10y ago
This seems like a good place to point out that we are hiring! See the "Who's Hiring" thread. :-)
andrewwhartion 10y ago
Relative to the rest of the mission/rocket lifecycle, how risky is filling it with fuel generally considered?
astdb 10y ago
Shouldn't the static fire test have gone ahead without a live payload?
caycep 10y ago
Not to be paranoid or anything, but with the Russians in the news with hacking, could this be the equivalent of a Stuxnet industrial sabotage? It would seem to be in their foreign ministry's interest to reduce the one successful American domestic manufacturer of rocket motors...
horseshoe7 10y ago
In looking at failures, asking "What changed (was different)" in this case, is one generally useful approach... Based on previous comments, the most likely failure scenario seems to be related to the new use of super-cooled LOX - and I have to ask, was the temperature at the pad, at the time of the launch, significantly higher than during previous launches involving super-cooled LOX? If so, is there a possibility that the higher temperature differential could have been a contributing factor in the cause of the failure? (Kind of the exact opposite of the case of the Challenger, where low temperatures were a critical causal factor of the failure)
TheMagician0 10y ago
Is this going to change the launch window (in 2018) for Red Dragon to Mars?? I guess it all depends on the reason for the launch failure. People on Metaculus are discussing about this- http://www.metaculus.com/questions/224/will-spacex-launch-for-mars-in-the-2018-window/ http://www.metaculus.com/questions/224/will-spacex-launch-fo...
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Last accident, Falcon Heavy had a big delay. Apparently SpaceX pulled engineering resources off of FH to work on F9. Given that the 2018 launch window is narrow, it's quite likely that Red Dragon won't launch until the 2020 launch window. p.s. are you involved with Metaculus in some way? All of your recent postings appear to mention metaculus.com.

986 points by mariusz79 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Here's a few photos capturing what appears to be a massive secondary explosion: https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428/photo/1 https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428/ph... (There was already an explosion or fire before this one given the smoke in the air).

MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago

The rocket is currently in flames. Staffers at the facility are telling me. Plumes of smoke rising from Launch Complex.

scrumper 10y ago

Looks like this may have been the Falcon 9 getting ready to launch AMOS-6 on 9/3. Not a previously flown rocket.

ygra 10y ago
Static Fire for that launch was due today which is probably during which this happened.

mdrzn 10y ago

From the twitter feed: http://imgur.com/6b6MfNQ http://imgur.com/6b6MfNQ

verytrivial 10y ago
404 for me.
- mzs 10y ago
  https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY6bmYW5xXE/V8guijPQh7I/AAAAAAAAz-w/wZNUvOFD3og-gp7A2_45xqgt3UwsZXkhwCL0B/s4096/6b6MfNQr.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY6bmYW5xXE/V8guijPQh7I/A... http://i.imgur.com/6b6MfNQr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6b6MfNQr.jpg
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    The imgur link doesn't work but the other one does.

cstross 10y ago

Wild-ass speculation in the absence of more information than a tweet and a photo of a pad fire: SpaceX test-fire the first stage motors before each launch. If this was a test firing that went spectacularly wrong, it's embarrassing -- but there won't have been any human beings within blast range and it's better to fail in test than to fail in flight with a payload on top. (If it was a catastrophic failure during fueling/de-fueling ops, that's another matter entirely, and far more serious -- and an explosive test failure is serious enough as it is.)

rst 10y ago
Test fire for the launch of a commercial satellite (AMOS-6), which had been scheduled for a few days hence (and now presumably delayed, along with the rest of their launch schedule, pending further investigation). It might conceivably have been during fueling/de-fueling around the test. It's not yet clear from public reports whether the payload was attached at the time of the test-fire; sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. (Note that fueling operations for Falcon 9 got a whole lot trickier when they switched to use of super-cooled fuel and oxidizer, to increase density -- if that stuff gets warmer, its volume increases to more than that of the tank, but it's still liquid, so you can't just vent it off.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ars 10y ago
  > of a commercial satellite (AMOS-6) According to wikipedia this is related to the AMOS-2 staelite leased by Facebook to provide internet coverage in part of Africa. An interesting clause in their contract is: "The parties have agreed to the right to terminate the contract if Amos-6 and the ground gateways in France, Italy and Israel are not ready for service by January 1, 2017" So this fire could have wider repercussions if SpaceX doesn't get a new launch ready in time. (Unless that same contract also has a clause about SpaceX failure vs IAI failure.) > but it's still liquid, so you can't just vent it off. You can vent off liquid to keep the pressure down, but since it's heavier than air it will just add to the fire. Unless maybe they have some sort of piping system connected to the vent to route the extra fuel elsewhere.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

palakz 10y ago

Here's some info on this from TC: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-just-exploded-at-cape-canaveral/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-j...

trothamel 10y ago

http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/705/web http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/705/web Has audio from the local police, who seem to be evacuating the various nearby beaches, due to the danger from the plume.

yread 10y ago

CNBC says that NBC says (I know...) that thankfully nobody was injured http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-cape-canaveral-hours-before-launch.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-cap... EDIT: apparently it happened at t:-3m so nobody was around

m12k 10y ago

Live thread over on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g

hydrogen18 10y ago

You can see the smoke plume on the radar image from Melbourne airport weather radar http://imgur.com/a/FQ4qx http://imgur.com/a/FQ4qx Live link: http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=mlb http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=mlb

Symbiote 10y ago
For those of us not familiar with Florida, Cape Canaveral is directly East of Orlando.
_kyran 10y ago
Melbourne, FL for those wondering.
- pmyjavec 10y ago
  Melbourne, FL, United States :)
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
We sure that's a smoke plume? There's a lot of radar activity over Florida presently due to the "OMG first hurricane in 11 years!!!"[0] [0] I live in and am in the Big Bend area, so the news, tweets, emails, and texts about the storm are a bit ... much.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It sure looked like a plume. I like the simple animated gif view of the radar: http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar_lite.php?rid=MLB&product=N0R&loop=yes http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar_lite.php?rid=MLB&produc... The first couple of images have cycled out now, but they showed that blob expanding from nothing right where it starts in the current sequence. (it starts at 1246 here: http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/RadarImg/N0R/MLB/ http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/RadarImg/N0R/MLB/ Not a great view without the map underneath.)

ldjb 10y ago

Live video stream from the Kennedy Space Center (you can paste the link into something like VLC): http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel4 http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel4 (Via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-704a-11e6-bb50-0e64be54f1eb https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-70...)

josh_carterPDX 10y ago

Just read no injuries. That's awesome. I mean, bad for the rocket, but hooray for no human loss of life.

blastofpast 10y ago

I am surprised that no one has mentioned whether or not this failure is related to SpaceX's first time reusing a rocket. If so, hopefully this isn't too much of a setback!

throwawayReply 10y ago
Because it would just be speculation at this point, less than hour after it's happened?
- blastofpast 10y ago
  It was just yesterday we read about SpaceX launching their first reused rocket. However, after searching for the news article, it's now clear to me that this was scheduled to happen "late this year". source: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/27935/20160901/spacex-to-launch-their-first-reused-rocket.htm http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/27935/20160901/space...
Dimitris 10y ago
This is a brand new rocket. The reused rocket will be used for the SES-10 mission.
wrigby 10y ago
The reused rocket will be used to launch SES-10 later this year, not AMOS-6. Source: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-reused-falcon-9-by-years-end/ http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-re...
- ygra 10y ago
  Question is whether they will have a launch pad at that time and how long investigations will last and until a fix is deployed. May well be that there are no more launches this year.
  - Klathmon 10y ago

corv 10y ago

"This rocket was scheduled to launch the Amos-6 communication satellite, which among other functions included the capabilities for Facebook to spot-beam broadband for Facebook’s Internet.org initiative" Bad karma

walkingolof 10y ago
No payload on rocket while hotfire test.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ohitsdom 10y ago
  Payload is sometimes mated, just depends. No word yet on this payload. https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/771342950798389248 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77134295079838924... UPDATE: payload lost. https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/771352111657385984 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/771352111657385984
  - krisoft 10y ago
    That confirmation is so strange. Why would you confirm something with the screenshot of notepad "officially" when you have a twitter account?
    - cosmotron 10y ago
      > Why would you confirm something with the screenshot of notepad "officially" when you have a twitter account? I figured it was because they didn't want to be constrained by a character limit. It allows them to use very specific language.
    - harshreality 10y ago
      He's a space news reporter at Ars Technica. It makes sense they'd be one of the first to get the SpaceX news release. It has too many characters to fit in a tweet, and even if it could fit, embedding an image of the text sets it apart from the tweeter's introduction and makes it more readable. It's standard practice on twitter to use images for blocks of text.

walkingolof 10y ago

According to sources (twitter), they where F-3 minutes so no-one should be out on pad, payload was not loaded either.

walkingolof 10y ago

According to sources (twitter), they where F-3 minutes so no-one should be out on pad, payload was not loaded either.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sandworm101 10y ago

The smoke looks fairly white and uniform. That suggests it's coming from the rocket fuels, not a burning building or other facility. To me, that means the safety protocols held, limiting the spread/damage. Hopefully nobody was hurt.

BatFastard 10y ago

For all developers of anything. Repeat this mantra. This is why we test, this is why we test, this is why we test. It is especially important to repeat this mantra around management types who want last minute builds before going in front of important customers, because the light blue button looks SO much better then the dark blue button...

nameless912 10y ago
I mean, it's not like SpaceX doesn't test. They missed something, and unfortunately this time it caused a total loss that they're going to have to answer to. But yes, you're right; we recently implemented a two-week demo lockout policy at my office. No changes are allowed being committed closer than two weeks from a demo date, and two or three guys are dedicated to just testing and shaking down the system. They're the only ones allowed to call for a bug fix, and they're only allowed to call for a bug fix. It seems as though management has finally realized that missing one requirement during a demo is much, much better than having the whole enchilada crash spectacularly.
- jakub_h 10y ago
  The problem is that software works the same every time, hardware doesn't have to (for example, if there was some kind of wear in the umbilical, for example).
dr_zoidberg 10y ago
The Antares explosion footage should accompany that mantra.
sjnvdslvjsd 10y ago
they do test. space rockets are hard.
kirrent 10y ago
This was a test which had followed previous testing.

artursapek 10y ago

My mind goes to the debugging stage after the dust has settled... how would a rocket scientist determine the cause of a RUD like this?

ygra 10y ago
About the same as you debug an issue from having just a tracelog. The rocket and pad equipment have quite a few sensors that record information, so you have quite a lot of data afterwards to spot anomalies (you could also compare to previous successful launches / static fires to spot them). Admittedly, that doesn't really explain how they figure out some stuff, e.g. with CRS-7 the problem was with a strut holding a high-pressure helium vessel in the second stage. They likely would have seen the overpressurization of the tank and there are not many sources for that pressure, but pinpointing it to a piece that doesn't even exist anymore ... beats me.
- mikeknoop 10y ago
  I don't recall the source, but they identified the CRS-7 strut by using several mechanical vibration sensors placed on various parts of the rocket. The deflection / explosion reaches the sensors at different times, and with precision timing, it enables you to reverse pinpoint where it must have originated: the failing strut.
  - TrevorJ 10y ago
    they also have pressure sensors in the tanks so the timing of pressure differences allowed them to determine that the tank came loose before it burst.
- rohit89 10y ago
  They probably brainstorm through all the possible scenarios that could have caused a particular condition and then see if the data matches and they can prove it as best they can.
vonmoltke 10y ago
Not a rocket scientist; just an electrical engineer with plenty of failure analysis experience. Here is generally how I would translate my process to this case. As a sibling mentioned, there will be lots of telemetry about what was going on with various systems during the incident. That data may indicate a few specific points to start, but it will mostly be useful for putting other facts into context. In parallel would be an effort to comb over the pad, recover as much as possible of what remains of the rocket, and try to identify what parts are what. There may be some obvious forensic evidence of parts to concentrate on, but in all likelihood the analysis will be guided by a combination of analyzing the telemetry and the damage patterns on the remaining pieces. Hopefully the combination will narrow the probable causes down enough to concentrate analysis on a couple-three theories. Once plausible and probable theories are identified, teams will start to drill down into what event chains could cause them and look for evidence to confirm or reject those. Some of that will involve destructive analysis of the wreckage; you can glean a surprising amount of information from high-magnification images, x-rays, and sections of what otherwise looks like a twisted hunk of scrap metal. Some will involve modeling; no doubt the engineers who designed the engines have some sort of model they used to test it, and the parameters on that model can be varied to create various out-of-spec conditions. Some will be design analysis, to see if some previously-unseen corner case could have caused an otherwise-conformant system to fail catastrophically. Test data on the involved systems will be analyzed to look for any anomalies that might have been passed off at the time but that might be significant on hindsight. Assuming possibilities still exist and are not sufficiently firm, or even just to be extra thorough, a few possibilities may be tested in practical (and possibly destructive) tests. In other words, try to blow up (or simulate blowing up) another engine in a controlled manner. That may or may not be possible, depending on what the root cause is; a parts tolerance issue, for example, would be practically impossible to recreate unless it were possible to manually change affected parts to match the suspected tolerances that caused the failure. I'm sure an actual rocket scientist will come along and provide more detail. My work was limited to exploding caps and FETs.

artursapek 10y ago

Looks like they had a payload go with it. Sad. > "SpaceX confirm Amos-6 was aboard the Falcon 9 and was lost in the explosion." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/771353886238072832 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77135388623807283...

tomjen3 10y ago
There were no personal injuries, so I can't really be sad about a piece of electronics.
- joshdotsmith 10y ago
  That's tons of work. Lots of heart and soul went into that. I can still be sad for people even if we didn't lose people.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    Not to mention money. $200MM investment into space, gone. https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/613f262a-7052-11e6-bdcb-0e8f1ac0db67 https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/613f262a-70...
    - db48x 10y ago
      The money didn't disappear, it paid the people working on the project all the way down to the miners who dug up the minerals and the fast-food workers who made the cheeseburger that engineer bought that one time. It did fail to earn a return, however.
      - 300bps 10y ago
        You're advocating the Broken Window Fallacy. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nameless912 10y ago

official word: Payload lost. No one injured. This was not the re-used rocket, but instead a brand new core. https://twitter.com/TroyLeeCampbell/status/771353677642760192 https://twitter.com/TroyLeeCampbell/status/77135367764276019...

Symmetry 10y ago

The payload was apparently on the rocket at the time[1]. A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. [1]https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352...

sangnoir 10y ago
> A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. In fairness, when did the government last lose a bird? Doesn't the ULA have a '100%' success rate (where success is getting payload to space, though some payloads fail to make it to the planned orbit)
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I suspect the $2b custom government bird refers to the space shuttle. Of which we have, in fact, lost more than one.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    More like NSA/CIA/NRO spy satellites.
  - vkou 10y ago
    The shuttle was a vehicle with vastly different capabilities, and technical challenges to overcome, compared to a Falcon rocket. There have been 133 successful shuttle launches, and 2 failed ones. There have been 27 successful Falcon launches, and 2 failed ones.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      All that was intended by my comment was to shed light on what the parent comment probably was intending to say.
    - rlanday 10y ago

dlgeek 10y ago

The reddit live thread seems to be the best source of current informations and updates: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g

coldcode 10y ago

This type of hardware failure makes me glad to do software where the most damage that can happen is an unhappy customer, not a huge explosion. Also why I was glad to give up a chemistry career after nearly poisoning everyone in the building when the hood system failed.

gcp 10y ago
Don't tell firmware/embedded programmers :-/
blackguardx 10y ago
What makes you think this couldn't be a software bug? Studying about bugs like Therac-25 [1] were standard practice at my school to show what it takes to make software an engineering discipline. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

julianpye 10y ago

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/spacex-set-launch-amos-6-tropical-storm-hermine-looms/ http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-explor... This article has some information on the new characteristics: - Although considered to be an iterative upgrade from the Falcon 9 v1.1 that preceded it, the modifications to the Full Thrust version have increased the vehicle’s published liftoff capabilities by as much as 30 percent. - A key component of this performance increase is the use of “densified” propellant. By chilling the liquid oxygen to minus 340 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 207 degrees Celsius) and the RP-1, a highly-refined form of kerosene used as rocket fuel, to 20 degrees Fahrenheit ( minus 7 degrees Celsius), SpaceX has demonstrated the capability to store more oxidizer and fuel in a given volume, as well as increase the flow of propellant through the turbopumps on the first stage’s nine Merlin 1D powerplants and on the upper stage’s lone MVac.

ww520 10y ago
Interesting on the fuel. Oxygen's boiling point is at -297F (turned into liquid) and its freezing point is at -362F (turned into solid). Lowering the temperature to -340F would be solidifying the liquid oxygen but not quite yet. I guess at that point the volume has reduced, enabling the packing of more LO into the container. Having an additional phase change doubles the risk factor along the whole pipeline that it flows through, the container, the valves, the pipes, the chambers, whatever. Liquid to gas can be dissipated quickly. How bad can uncontrolled solid to liquid expansion be? Edit: uncontrolled liquid to gas venting is equally volatile and dangerous.

intrasight 10y ago

Watched the live feed. That "smoke test" failure definitely made some smoke.

yigitdemirag 10y ago

What happens when payload is lost at such an event due to SpaceX related failure? Obviously they have to reschedule but does SpaceX cover partial losses etc?

0xffff2 10y ago
Launch insurance should cover the cost of the payload.
Shanea93 10y ago
Aon International Space Brokers (http://www.aon.com/singapore/risk-services/products-services/isb.jsp http://www.aon.com/singapore/risk-services/products-services...) covers liability for the payloads to be delivered, however, SpaceX shoulders the financial burden of losing the rocket itself, as only the contents are insured.
- api 10y ago
  It will also likely increase the cost of insuring SpaceX launches. I'm sure it's like car insurance. Of course SpaceX is so much cheaper than their competition that it may not matter, and reuse is about to make them cheaper still. Short term setback, but probably not so awful long term. Also glad nobody got hurt. It's just money.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > Of course SpaceX is so much cheaper than their competition that it may not matter, and reuse is about to make them cheaper still. They’re 2 million USD more expensive per launch for a mid-size satellite than the Ariane 5 is, so I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
    - xenadu02 10y ago
      No they aren't; SpaceX is charging around $62m and Arianespace charges $100-$130m for the same launch. The first few Falcon 9 launches were a lot cheaper, around $40m I think. I'm sure SpaceX would still be massively profitable at that price, but they're already over-booked so might as well raise prices to generate more capital since building rockets is an ahem <i>capital intensive</i> business. If SpaceX can re-use rocket engines for 10 launches that will change everything yet again. Let's be extremely generous and say $5 million for fuel, personnel, range rental, etc. Amortize the vehicle across 10 launches and you're talking $10m.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

One small loss for mankind, one giant win for Net Neutrality.

rootlocus 10y ago
You mean one small loss for Facebook maybe?

627467 10y ago

For those overthinking about the loss of the payload: Contact (1997): "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" I'd argue: at less than twice the price.

0xffff2 10y ago
I don't understand what the quote has to do with this at all. It's neither a government payload, nor AFAIK do they have a second satellite. Maybe I'm overthinking your comment.
- dpcx 10y ago
  You are. :) The comment was essentially stating that Facebook should have built two of the satellites, as a contingency plan. Rocket science is hard. Having a backup is easier.

merpnderp 10y ago

Have a friend who has family working there. Said the accident was caused by a static fire test and the rocket and payload were lost. Absolute huge bummer.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bunkydoo 10y ago

The environmentally friendly aspect of Tesla's cars is seemingly negated by SpaceX's black-smoke rocket fuel laden explosions.

DrNuke 10y ago

I would leave wild speculation out of this debate and wait for a SpaceX official release.

byebyetech 10y ago

Damn it. 0 Days since SpaceX Rocket exploded.

monocasa 10y ago

That was my immediate thought too. Israel is known for playing rough when it comes to sovereignty concerns, particularly of a technological nature.

dogma1138 10y ago
The Israeli government has approved the deal with China, if they didn't want it to go through they would have blocked it, their MOD has oversight on virtually all exports and international dealings. Israel needed AMOS-6 more than anyone else because communication satellites are important for national security and are used by military and national defense agencies. Even if somehow your crackpot theory had merit delaying the launch would have been an easier and cheaper way of tanking the deal than sabotaging a rocket. This wasn't an Iranian spy satellite, Israel has no interests in hurting it national security, economy, and reputation by blowing their own shit up, I don't even understand why people would think they blew it up.
- rattray 10y ago
  > Even if somehow your crackpot theory had merit We try to avoid that kind of tone here, regardless of the merits of anyone's comments.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    However, the adjective is an accurate measure of the theory's merit.
    - npiazza83 10y ago
      Don't like it? Send an email to hn@ycombinator.com "Tone" policing on HN is getting a bit ridiculous.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        God forfend anyone should try to maintain a quality of discourse that encourages thoughtful people to stick around.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

This comes at a uniquely bad time. I was reading about the cash squeeze (http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-faces-cash-squeeze-at-tesla-solarcity-1472687133 http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-faces-cash-squeeze-at-...) and it struck me that any interruption at SpaceX would put further pressure on what Elon is trying to pull off. I really hope they can root cause this failure and get the flight schedule back up and running quickly.

manarth 10y ago
I initially started this comment saying "I doubt that there's that much cash-flow between SpaceX and Tesla/Solar City", then thought I should at least google it first. What do you know? Turns out SpaceX invested $165M in Solar City last year [1]. [1] http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/this-is-why-elon-musks-spacex-has-been-buying-up-solarcitys-bonds/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/this-is-why-elon-musks-spacex-...
- mhermher 10y ago
  Looks like it was in 2015 on a 1-year term. So it would already be paid off. However, the linked article is from Aug 2015, so they may have bought even more bonds after that point.

dtparr 10y ago

Looks like reports of it happening during the propellant load were accurate. Explosion originated in the area of the upper stage LOX tank. https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504/photo/1 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504/photo/1

microtherion 10y ago

Hmm… cash squeeze at Tesla and SolarCity. Next thing, a SpaceX rocket blows up. Maybe he did it for the insurance money? >:-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092

0xffff2 10y ago
There is no insurance for SpaceX here. The payload is insured, but the loss of the launch vehicle and any damage to the launch facilities will be born SpaceX directly.

trothamel 10y ago

Here's good video of the test/failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s

ChuckMcM 10y ago
Anomaly at 1:10 in that clip, as a SpaceX fan its hard to watch.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  You can just say explosion, we're not at the Cape.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    Which is a sub-class of anomaly :-) it is really hard to scrub Youtube videos, and I (like probably a zillion others) was looking for root cause indicators; things like where exactly on the fuselage does it start? What equipment is there? How energetic was the explosion (oxidizer only? mixed with propellant? Etc. There are at least 30 frames between 1:10 and 1:11 (maybe 60). There are many things to rule out, was it a leak in the LOX hose? Was it a rupture of an internal tank? did the equipment detach prematurely? etc etc.
    - ChristianBundy 10y ago
      Yes, but using "anomaly" when describing an explosion on HM is masturbatory at best. Don't even get me started on the rest of your comment.
    - flashman 10y ago
      > it is really hard to scrub Youtube videos pip install youtube-dl https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
mhandley 10y ago
The frame rate isn't high enough to tell for sure, but it looks like the initial explosion might be between the strongback and the second stage, followed less than 1/30 second later by the second stage exploding. Certainly the initial explosion spreads out vertically much more than horizontally in the first 1/30 second, perhaps implying that the explosion was in vapour outside the second stage.

hakanderyal 10y ago

Video of the explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ

Halienja 10y ago

It wasn't carrying it though, it was just a test.

CountSessine 10y ago

Does anyone know whether this was one of SpaceX's recovered/refurbished rockets that had previously flown a mission and landed?

rohit89 10y ago
No, it was a new one.

satyajeet23 10y ago

A Google self-driving car was seen leaving the scene at high speed!

flyinghorse 10y ago

From the live thread at reddit: >Elon Musk has stated that because the rocket didn't intentionally ignite for launch, the loss of payload is not covered by launch insurance. Very sad. I wonder how this will affect future launches from SpaceX.

mathattack 10y ago
Wow! So who picks up the bill in this case? I'm sure it was in the contract somewhere.

bitwize 10y ago

I'm glad no humans were hurt or lost. I'm not shedding many tears for Facebook's payload, as I think internet.org is fundamentally misguided.

johndubchak 10y ago

Was the launch rocket supposed to be one of their recovered/recycled rockets?

johndubchak 10y ago

Was the launch rocket supposed to be one of their recovered/recycled rockets?

camestyle 10y ago

Unique, latest, cute and quick hairstyles for short hairs, just take a look, will help you to find short hairstyles for women, gives you killing look: http://www.camestyle.com/classy-trendy-short-hairstyles-womens.html http://www.camestyle.com/classy-trendy-short-hairstyles-wome...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

remotelife 10y ago

This is crazy!

tempestn 10y ago

The music in the techcrunch video seemed a bit inappropriate.

perseusprime11 10y ago

How do you even extinguish that kind of fire? Is there any value in salvaging parts before they completely burn out? Anybody who can chime in the protocol for such fires?

smegel 10y ago

I'd almost be sad but Facebook.

lutorm 10y ago

This seems like a good place to point out that we are hiring! See the "Who's Hiring" thread. :-)

andrewwhartion 10y ago

Relative to the rest of the mission/rocket lifecycle, how risky is filling it with fuel generally considered?

astdb 10y ago

Shouldn't the static fire test have gone ahead without a live payload?

caycep 10y ago

Not to be paranoid or anything, but with the Russians in the news with hacking, could this be the equivalent of a Stuxnet industrial sabotage? It would seem to be in their foreign ministry's interest to reduce the one successful American domestic manufacturer of rocket motors...

horseshoe7 10y ago

In looking at failures, asking "What changed (was different)" in this case, is one generally useful approach... Based on previous comments, the most likely failure scenario seems to be related to the new use of super-cooled LOX - and I have to ask, was the temperature at the pad, at the time of the launch, significantly higher than during previous launches involving super-cooled LOX? If so, is there a possibility that the higher temperature differential could have been a contributing factor in the cause of the failure? (Kind of the exact opposite of the case of the Challenger, where low temperatures were a critical causal factor of the failure)

TheMagician0 10y ago

Is this going to change the launch window (in 2018) for Red Dragon to Mars?? I guess it all depends on the reason for the launch failure. People on Metaculus are discussing about this- http://www.metaculus.com/questions/224/will-spacex-launch-for-mars-in-the-2018-window/ http://www.metaculus.com/questions/224/will-spacex-launch-fo...

greglindahl 10y ago
Last accident, Falcon Heavy had a big delay. Apparently SpaceX pulled engineering resources off of FH to work on F9. Given that the 2018 launch window is narrow, it's quite likely that Red Dragon won't launch until the 2020 launch window. p.s. are you involved with Metaculus in some way? All of your recent postings appear to mention metaculus.com.