20 ms·

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/NASASpacef

• 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...
          • jonknee 10y ago
            No, in this field sometimes stuff blows up unexpectedly and it's part of the cost of doing business. It's like feeling bad for a life insurance company when someone dies.
            • deleted 10y ago
              [deleted]
          • snowwrestler 10y ago
            Not really, since he did note that the money will fail to earn a return.
          • intopieces 10y ago
            Not quite. The Broken Window Fallacy hinges on the fact that the son breaks the window for a reason that doesn't further any other economic cause. That is, he didn't break the window for research, so nothing new was gained from it. Resources were merely shifted from the shopkeeper to the glazier. When it comes to innovation, however, failure is often the impetus to more efficient design. Not only was that $200m shifted from Musk/Investors to SpaceX, et al, but it also went to informing the process and improvements for the entire project, and future projects by other companies. We wish we could learn these things more cheaply, sure. But that doesn't mean the world or company would have been better off in the long run had the incident not occurred -- it's too soon to tell, and we might never know.
            • tamana 10y ago
              You can't say that all mistakes are worthwhile just because they reach us that we shouldn't make those mistakes... We already knew that. That wasn't research, it was a prelaunch test, and it failed.
              • incongruity 10y ago
                That's not what we're learning. We're learning how not to make those mistakes. That yields: 1) Lower risk launches in the future through better process and better design 2) Possibly cheaper/better hardware redesigned due to the issues uncovered today. Yes, it is probably lower ROI than that payload getting into space, but it does mean it's not a total loss and not simply a broken window fallacy. It's more akin to if the window maker also tried to learn/test harder to break windows with each one she installed. Then, each broken window would be an experimental outcome instead of just a lost window.
      • Symbiote 10y ago
        Is that the manufacturing cost, or does it include the development cost? Making another should be cheaper than making the first one; and this is Amos-6 -- how different is it from Amos-5?
        • AdrianoKF 10y ago
          Judging by the Wikipedia articles, Amos-5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-5) and Amos-6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6) use entirely different satellite buses. Amos-5 uses the Russian-built Ekspress 1000H, while Amos-6 is only the second satellite to use the Israeli AMOS 4000.
      • thegranderson 10y ago
        I would guess they lost a lot less than the $200m initial investment, which included design & development of both the satelite and ground control systems. My assumption would be that only the satellite itself was destroyed in this explosion. From the quote below, they reference $85 to cover launch, insurance, and 1 year of operating costs. Presumably that insurance would cover some of the costs of an event like this? Quote from an article on this (http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-1000759794 http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-1000759794) Spacecom Satellite Communications' (TASE:SCC) board of director has authorized management to sign a contract with Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd. (IAI) (TASE: ARSP.B1) to build and buy the Amos 6 communications satellite for $200 million. IAI will build the satellite and its ground control systems, and will provide operating services. The company plans to launch the Amo6 in the first quarter of 2015, and its operating life will be at least 16 years. Spacecom estimates that the cost of launching, insuring and one year's operation of the Amos 6 will be $85 million. The company has to pick a launch company. Spacecom said that it will seek financing for the Amos 6 from IAI and foreign sources.
      • falcolas 10y ago
        I would be quite surprised if the payload was not insured. Doesn't make it any easier on the people who poured their lives into the effort, but the owner will not be out any substantial investment capitol; just potential earnings until its replacement can be pushed up.
    • tomjen3 10y ago
      The actual chips may have to be made again, but code that has been written once should be fine to just load on again. Yeah it sucks, but it could have been a lot worse.
    • Bud 10y ago
      One could also feel sad for the (possibly millions) of people in Africa who were depending on this satellite launch to give them internet service. The difference between having internet, and not having it, is huge, especially in the developing world. This has real human consequences.
  • ars 10y ago
    Tell that to the people in Africa who will soon have no internet access once AMOS-2 fails. This payload, AMOS-6, was a replacement for the soon to fail AMOS-2 which among other things is part of a Facebook initiative to provide internet access in parts of Africa. I am not aware of any replacement in the works for it, so that service may just shut down, and who knows if it will ever start back up. So while this might be "nothing" to you, it has actual repercussions for people. Not to mention the effects on the Israeli company that made the payload. Insurance may or may not pay for the satellite itself (I don't know), but even if they do, they were also relying on income generated from running it. Actual humans working for that company may now be impacted.
    • tankenmate 10y ago
      It's a real bummer, also don't forget that now that SpaceX has had two payload losses in two years will mean that their insurance is very likely to go up.
    • tarsinge 10y ago
      > provide internet access in parts of Africa If you mean internet.org wheter it's a loss or not is debatable
      • dandelany 10y ago
        Internet.org was only a part of AMOS-6's planned internet bandwidth. Per Wikipedia "36 regional spotbeams with a throughput of about 18 Gbit/s — on Amos-6 to provide service for Facebook’s Internet.org and a new Eutelsat subsidiary focusing on African businesses. Costs would be divided in approximately equal shares between Eutelsat and Facebook."
  • gist 10y ago
    Agree. "Sad" is the PC thing to say when something like that happens. In most people's lives it's a big "who cares". [1] The fact that you were downvoted (at least when I saw your comment) indicates people don't agree with what you are saying and is an example of trying to enforce a particular type of thinking on someone else as far as what they should think or feel. [1] Of course I wouldn't say "who cares" directly to someone involved in the project in some way then you extend your condolences.
    • d0ugie 10y ago
      Why the need to comment on perceived downvoting injustice? Is it that big a deal? Is there a downvoted support group somewhere? :P Anyway, here's the scanner feed of Kennedy Space Center Communicationshttp://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/705 http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/705
    • ars 10y ago
      He was downvoted for only looking at first-order effects: People harmed during the fire. And ignoring second-order effects: People harmed because of the results of the fire. The second group of people is not less important than the first.
      • gist 10y ago
        Why is it necessary to feel sad and to even consider all of that? That is my point. What bothers you bothers you and what doesn't is fine, less to think about. You can't go around being bothered by everything 'bad' that happens in the world to someone else. I don't think that is healthy in any way. By "bothered" I don't mean indicating in words that something is sad. I mean actual concern as if it impacts you or someone you know personally. Sorry but I can't relate to this type of tragedy at all. I can relate to someone getting hacked and losing their business or customer information though. That pain I can imagine. And to hear someone say to me "that's sad" about the latter when knowing they don't have any idea what it is really like to me is just lip service and almost patronizing.
        • 10y ago
  • mtkd 10y ago
    On any project like that many engineers involved will have invested more than regular hours and pushed their work life balance - losing it all a couple of days from launch into space - that's harsh dude
    • joering2 10y ago
      Can you prove any of this? Knowing how smart and methodological Musk is, I wouldn't be surprised if the rule at the office is actually to leave your desk and go home at 5pm sharp. You are prone to make more mistakes when you tired and overworked and I cannot imagine more important place not to make mistakes, than building a rocket.
      • skadamat 10y ago
        It's pretty well documented that people at SpaceX work 80+ hours a week consistently: https://www.quora.com/How-many-hours-a-week-does-a-typical-SpaceX-engineer-work https://www.quora.com/How-many-hours-a-week-does-a-typical-S... http://spacenews.com/op-ed-3-things-to-know-if-you-want-to-work-for-spacex/ http://spacenews.com/op-ed-3-things-to-know-if-you-want-to-w... https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/25ixxq/is_spacex_working_environment_toxic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/25ixxq/is_spacex_wo...
        • antisthenes 10y ago
          Wouldn't be surprised if some overworked engineer made a mistake.
          • woodchuck64 10y ago
            We're just past the anniversary of the last mishap: http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-update http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/07/20/crs-7-investigation-up... I also get the feeling that extra sleep and recovery time encourages the kind of creative thinking that recognizes unusual ways for things to go wrong and corrects for them in advance.
          • 10y ago
  • FiatLuxDave 10y ago
    I think it's unfair that you are getting downvotes for this statement. All you said was that it is good to have some perspective. Yes, it sucks to lose the rocket and the satellite. But to put it into perspective, the husband of the lady sitting next to me as I type this (and a friend of mine) is currently sitting in the shelter at the launchpad. He texted her to let her know he was alive. He can't give out any more details. Have some perspective people.
    • noobermin 10y ago
      I agree. You could argue it could always be worse (2 deaths vs 1, a death of a loved one vs. a stranger) but I'm sure the level of badness has a steep curve before human loss is considered.
    • daave 10y ago
      How close is the shelter to the tower? That's gotta be terrifying. I'd have thought people would need to be pretty far away just to avoid permanent hearing damage in an event like this.
    • tomjen3 10y ago
      I could have formulated that better.
• nateberkopec 10y ago
  I know nothing about space - why are they doing tests, where the rocket could possibly explode or fail, with the payload on board?
  • TylerE 10y ago
    The payload is probably loaded in a clean-room type environment.
  • yawz 10y ago
    That was my first reaction. I thought they could create a dummy payload with the same dimensions and weight. But, then... unless the weight distribution of the payload is important.
    • Klathmon 10y ago
      Loading the payload isn't a quick thing, it takes time and a lot of careful work to do. So doing it before the tests can save a lot of time and I'm guessing money.
      • martindevans 10y ago
        Loading the payload also requires a load of work moving the vehicle about etc. If you want to be certain you didn't damage the vehicle in any way during all of that then you need to test again once the payload is attached. Of course normally a failure during a test would be something like minor thrust fluctuations - not a complete loss of vehicle and payload!
      • fnj 10y ago
        Understood that mating the payload is a lot of work, but it is one hell of a lot less work than building a complete new payload.
  • robryan 10y ago
    I think this kind of test is generally just looking at the performance of the engines. Certainly highly unusual for the rocket to explode as part of this kind of test.
• nxzero 10y ago
  Per @SpaceX, the issue was not with the rocket itself, but a pad anomaly and the Amos-6 payload was to be Facebook's first-ever satellite.
• apeace 10y ago
  Testing in production. Tisk tisk.
  • 0xffff2 10y ago
    Every rocket is test fired before launch. SpaceX does do many things that might be considered "testing in production", but this isn't one of them.
• Patrick_Devine 10y ago
  This disaster may have bigger implications for Spacecom. They were in the middle of being acquired by Beijing Xinwei and the successful launch of Amos 6 was supposed to be a factor in closing the deal[1]. I have no idea what blowing up on the pad means for the merger. 1. http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2016/08/24/spacecom-bought-285-million/ http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2016/08/24/spacecom...
  • dogma1138 10y ago
    It's a deal breaker most likely, the terms of the deal were based on AMOS-6 becoming operational by march 2017. There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage theories. But yeah it's not great for spacecom in general, Facebook also will now withdraw from their contract with them for supplying internet to Africa as AMOS-6 was supposed to replace AMOS-2 and enhance the coverage over Africa and the Middle East. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-Ka-band-coverage.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-K... Israel is one of the few countries that is pushing satellite coverage in the area, AMOS-6 was supposed to grant up to 20gbps of bandwidth to Africa over the leased Ka band which was desperately needed.
    • wyager 10y ago
      Won't they just relaunch in a few months? Not sure what the rebuild timeline is.
      • keyme 10y ago
        No, they don't have redundancies for satellites. It's 2 to 3 years.
      • dogma1138 10y ago
        It takes years to build a satellite, the bus, and every component is purposely built each component and the satellite itself goes through months of testing and even if they could build one within 6 months all of the contracts would expire by then which will require Spacecom to open the bids again. All of the contracts were based on AMOS-6 being operational by a given date, AMOS-6 has been "under construction" for probably 4-5 years, SpaceX was selected as the launch contractor in late 2012 originally for a mid 2015 launch but the launch was delayed for various reasons.
• garyclarke27 10y ago
  How stupid, to test with satalite on-board?? esp considering how expensive they are, they should use a dummy the same size and weight. You can't test satalite functionality on the ground so a completly pointless risk to include it.
  • krschultz 10y ago
    There are actually things to test in the integration between the rocket and satellite. It's not like the satellite is a dump piece of steel sitting on top of the rocket. The payload has its own computer, power systems, and propulsion. The interactions between that and the launching rocket / ground systems matter. Also mating the two is non-trivial, so you can push the static fire back closer to the launch if you are doing it with the payload on board. A static fire without the payload on the rocket was already done in Texas several weeks ago. This is the final dress rehearsal before launch. I always thought of these tests as low risk, but I guess nothing in rocketry is low risk.
    • garyclarke27 10y ago
      Would they do so if human cargo?
      • scjody 10y ago
        Note that a human doesn't "plug in" to the rest of the launch vehicle the way a satellite does. I imagine they _would_ do these tests with the crew compartment attached and dummy human loads strapped in to the crew seats.
      • gvb 10y ago
        That is how Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger B. Chaffee died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
      • rory096 10y ago
        Actually they specifically plan to load astronauts before fueling begins. If they're in the capsule the launch escape system (LES)[1] can propel them away from any on-pad disaster; not so if they're still walking across the gantry. That said, NASA has raised concerns about loading crew pre-fueling as part of the NASA-SpaceX Commercial Crew development contract (CCDev). [1] Here's a video of the LES test for Dragon 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8
• anigbrowl 10y ago
  What's sad about it? They have insurance, it's just hardware. Nobody died or was even injured, so it's merely an invoncenience.
  • MicroBerto 10y ago
    There are engineers out there who actually care about their work, and put years into it. It's really most sad for them.
    • iamgopal 10y ago
      For the some of those engineers, its a loss of an Olympic gold...
  • fudged71 10y ago
    Apparently one of the satellites was meant for internet connectivity in the developing world. Zuckerburg is very mad right now. Lost time is lost opportunity.
    • espadrine 10y ago
      Everything about Internet.org went in a way contrary to what Mr Zuckerberg wanted. The bourgeoisie of the developing world he wanted to help protested, the political class looked into constraining it by law, the first world hated it for misrepresenting the ideals of the Internet and going against hard-earned net neutrality laws, local Internet service providers backed off because of the negative publicity... And the satellites he wanted to use to circumvent that went up in flames.
  • yread 10y ago
    > They have insurance Nope. >Elon Musk has stated that because the rocket didn't intentionally ignite for launch, the loss of payload is not covered by launch insurance.
  • DickingAround 10y ago
    Lives were lost, just incrementally; person-hours in building things that will never add value.