11 ms·

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.
anigbrowl 10y ago
That's quite a lens, assuming the sound is correctly synchronized with the image.
- daeken 10y ago
  That's my thought. I counted about 12 seconds between initial explosion and the sound hitting the camera, which puts it at roughly 2.88km away. Edit: Helps if I multiply properly. 12 seconds * 340m/s == 4080m.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    15, 5k
  - lucretian 10y ago
    i think you mean 4.1 km?
    - daeken 10y ago
      Yeah, I typoed the math -- used 240m/s rather than 340m/s for the speed of sound.
  - jychang 10y ago
    Ok, the Falcon 9 1.2 [1] is 70m tall [2], and the rocket fills up about 80% of the vertical frame [3]. Using the "Image = FL * Obj / distance" equation, we get: .8 * 24mm = x * 70m/4080m Where x is the focal length of the lens assuming a full frame camera. This comes out to a x = 1119mm equivalent focal length. If you have a crop sensor, this isn't too hard to obtain. I'd be amused if the video was taken with a Canon EF 1200mm lens or something, but the probability of that is 0. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s
    - tobz 10y ago
erelde 10y ago
Is there a bird just flying above the explosion just seconds after the sounds comes through ?
TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago
There is something flying just above when the explosion starts, probably a bird, but how hard will it be to just fly a drone there with some kind of projectile? [Edit] Pre and Post explosion: http://imgur.com/a/IIzg2 http://imgur.com/a/IIzg2
- zzleeper 10y ago
  Looks way too fast and round for a bird.. but yeah it's clearly there
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    It's probably a bug in the foreground of the camera. You can see the same thing at around 1:06 in the bottom half of the frame before it explodes.
- giarc 10y ago
  Given the distance between the camera and the rocket, it still could be a bird.
- samwillis 10y ago
  The camera is over 4km away, I think its something flying past much closer to the camera.
- pavelrub 10y ago
  An insect flying in front of the camera lens. You can see this multiple times throughout the video: 0:54, 4:28, 4:41...
- objclxt 10y ago
  > but how hard will it be to just fly a drone there with some kind of projectile? It's a massive long metal tube full of extremely flammable things...what seems more likely: drone with projectile entering a highly restricted piece of airspace, or as rockets are want to do, it blew up by itself.
  - 10y ago
Arjuna 10y ago
Updates... Elon tweeted: "Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon." [1] SpaceX tweeted: "At approximately 9:07 am ET, during a standard pre-launch static fire test for the AMOS-6 mission, there was an anomaly at SpaceX's Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 resulting in loss of the vehicle. The anomaly originated around the upper stage oxygen tank and occurred during propellant loading of the vehicle. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries. We are continuing to review the data to identify the root cause. Additional updates will be provided as they become available." [2] [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336 [2] https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504
- rbanffy 10y ago
  Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.
  - krastanov 10y ago
    The first stage for this launch was brand new. They have not launched a reused stage yet (they just announced a contract with SES about such a launch).
  - GarrisonPrime 10y ago
    As unforgiving as brain surgery. :)
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      On brain surgery, the worst case scenario is one dead person. Rockets tend to inflate the body count prodigiously.
      - tmptmp 10y ago
        On a slightly light-but-not-so-light note: A brain surgery can result in worse still: like, surgeon performs a surgery, makes some mistake, the patient is alive and gets up and goes home, but due to the surgical damage caused becomes a serial killer. So, strictly speaking a brain surgery can also result in a body count that is greater than 1. Respectfully submitted.
Animats 10y ago
No sign of a fire extinguishing or pad deluge system, such as NASA had for the shuttle. Maybe Space-X needs that. Fire crews can't approach until the fire burns itself out - too toxic.
- rst 10y ago
  The point of those systems was to limit damage from vibration and rocket exhaust on a normal launch, not to allow the pad to withstand an explosion. (And SpaceX does have them as well; the pad deluge system is more visible than usual in this video of the Dragon pad-abort test, which was conducted at the same launch pad they use for Falcon 9s, though without the rocket itself or any of its mobile support equipment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 -- the large streams of water kick in a few seconds before the Dragon abort thrusters kick off.)
  - jhayward 10y ago
    > The point of those systems was to limit damage from vibration and rocket exhaust It is important to note that the deluge functioned to protect the launch vehicle from sound vibrational damage, not the pad.
- exDM69 10y ago
  > Fire crews can't approach until the fire burns itself out - too toxic. You're thinking of hypergolic propellants like hydrazine and nitric acid. This is kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen. Not particularly toxic, just hot as hell. The deluge system in shuttle launches was for the flame trench and sound dampening to avoid the air pressure from the noise damaging the vehicle, not fire extinguishing. You can see the launch tower get charred black, that's the fire protective paint. It's not really possible to fight rocket fuel fires, just mitigate the damage.
  - Animats 10y ago
    Oh, right; the Falcon second stage is just a smaller version of the first stage.
zodPod 10y ago
THANK YOU. The TC video has a giant stupid banner over it that blocks and distracts from the video. This video is also insanely high quality. Thanks!
rsp1984 10y ago
Can somebody properly explain the different stages of the explosion? Obviously there's the first explosion but then after about 3.5 seconds there's a second, bigger one. What's exploding in the first boom and what in the second? Then, about 12 seconds in, the "nose" is falling down and causing a 3rd explosion. Why hasn't the nose "co-exploded" already with the 1st or 2nd explosion?
- TenOhms 10y ago
  Just some wild guesses: First explosion related to second stage (upper). Second explosion related to first stage's fuel igniting (I was expecting some much bigger, but likely there was already little oxygen left in that area and why it burned for so long. Third Explosion was the satellite's internal fuel (Hydrazine or something like it) detonating due to the fall damage and contact with the rest of the flame.
- hoorayimhelping 10y ago
  The first explosion is the smaller second stage igniting. The second, bigger explosion is the first stage exploding. The first stage has most of the mass of the rocket in the form of propellant and is what SpaceX lands on the barge after it separates from the second stage. The second stage is smaller and lighter, and puts the satellite into low earth orbit, or into its transfer orbit in the case of higher orbits (eg geostationary orbit). The 'nose' falling is payload and its protective fairing. The idea of a fairing is to protect the the satellite from aerodynamic, heat and acoustic stress. It explodes because the satellite has propellant in it - certainly for its rcs system for attitude adjustment and station keeping, and it might have a main engine to help it reach orbit. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/12/fairing http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/12/fairing
claar 10y ago
Frame-by-frame: http://rowvid.com/?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ&t=71.75&s=0.25 http://rowvid.com/?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ&t=71.75&s=0.25
- stock_toaster 10y ago
  Was that a bird flying in the background right as the explosion occurred? If so, it must have really scared the crap out of it!
  - superman_ 10y ago
    That was me. Sorry I couldn't save it in time, I was held up trying to find a phone booth.
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      Honestly? Such tremendous superpowers, and out of all the good you could be doing for the planet, you're wasting your time playing dress-up and trying to save a rocket? Check your privilege, Superman. Here's some ideas for you http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305
    - sctb 10y ago
      Please don't create such novelty accounts to post jokes with—we ban them, and then the main account if it continues. Comments on HN should be civil and substantive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dnautics 10y ago
interesting highlights: 1:23 you can see the sat fairing fall from the stack, and then a secondary explosion when it hits the ground (presumably sat propellant) 3:24 second explosion with a fairly fast projectile coming out the top. Any clue as to what that is?
diggernet 10y ago
Nice to see that the payload didn't start to topple until around 6s after the blast. Gives hope of the launch abort system having time to do its job had this been a manned launch.
thewisenerd 10y ago
What exactly happened at 1m14s - 1m15s where the _big ball of fire_ seemingly exploded again ? p.s. skip forward to 1m21s to see AMOS-6 burn (in case you dislike facebook _very_ much).

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.

anigbrowl 10y ago

That's quite a lens, assuming the sound is correctly synchronized with the image.

daeken 10y ago
That's my thought. I counted about 12 seconds between initial explosion and the sound hitting the camera, which puts it at roughly 2.88km away. Edit: Helps if I multiply properly. 12 seconds * 340m/s == 4080m.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  15, 5k
- lucretian 10y ago
  i think you mean 4.1 km?
  - daeken 10y ago
    Yeah, I typoed the math -- used 240m/s rather than 340m/s for the speed of sound.
- jychang 10y ago
  Ok, the Falcon 9 1.2 [1] is 70m tall [2], and the rocket fills up about 80% of the vertical frame [3]. Using the "Image = FL * Obj / distance" equation, we get: .8 * 24mm = x * 70m/4080m Where x is the focal length of the lens assuming a full frame camera. This comes out to a x = 1119mm equivalent focal length. If you have a crop sensor, this isn't too hard to obtain. I'd be amused if the video was taken with a Canon EF 1200mm lens or something, but the probability of that is 0. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s
  - tobz 10y ago

erelde 10y ago

Is there a bird just flying above the explosion just seconds after the sounds comes through ?

TheGuyWhoCodes 10y ago

There is something flying just above when the explosion starts, probably a bird, but how hard will it be to just fly a drone there with some kind of projectile? [Edit] Pre and Post explosion: http://imgur.com/a/IIzg2 http://imgur.com/a/IIzg2

zzleeper 10y ago
Looks way too fast and round for a bird.. but yeah it's clearly there
- nkrisc 10y ago
  It's probably a bug in the foreground of the camera. You can see the same thing at around 1:06 in the bottom half of the frame before it explodes.
giarc 10y ago
Given the distance between the camera and the rocket, it still could be a bird.
samwillis 10y ago
The camera is over 4km away, I think its something flying past much closer to the camera.
pavelrub 10y ago
An insect flying in front of the camera lens. You can see this multiple times throughout the video: 0:54, 4:28, 4:41...
objclxt 10y ago
> but how hard will it be to just fly a drone there with some kind of projectile? It's a massive long metal tube full of extremely flammable things...what seems more likely: drone with projectile entering a highly restricted piece of airspace, or as rockets are want to do, it blew up by itself.
- 10y ago

Arjuna 10y ago

Updates... Elon tweeted: "Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon." [1] SpaceX tweeted: "At approximately 9:07 am ET, during a standard pre-launch static fire test for the AMOS-6 mission, there was an anomaly at SpaceX's Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 resulting in loss of the vehicle. The anomaly originated around the upper stage oxygen tank and occurred during propellant loading of the vehicle. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries. We are continuing to review the data to identify the root cause. Additional updates will be provided as they become available." [2] [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336 [2] https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504

rbanffy 10y ago
Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.
- krastanov 10y ago
  The first stage for this launch was brand new. They have not launched a reused stage yet (they just announced a contract with SES about such a launch).
- GarrisonPrime 10y ago
  As unforgiving as brain surgery. :)
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    On brain surgery, the worst case scenario is one dead person. Rockets tend to inflate the body count prodigiously.
    - tmptmp 10y ago
      On a slightly light-but-not-so-light note: A brain surgery can result in worse still: like, surgeon performs a surgery, makes some mistake, the patient is alive and gets up and goes home, but due to the surgical damage caused becomes a serial killer. So, strictly speaking a brain surgery can also result in a body count that is greater than 1. Respectfully submitted.

Animats 10y ago

No sign of a fire extinguishing or pad deluge system, such as NASA had for the shuttle. Maybe Space-X needs that. Fire crews can't approach until the fire burns itself out - too toxic.

rst 10y ago
The point of those systems was to limit damage from vibration and rocket exhaust on a normal launch, not to allow the pad to withstand an explosion. (And SpaceX does have them as well; the pad deluge system is more visible than usual in this video of the Dragon pad-abort test, which was conducted at the same launch pad they use for Falcon 9s, though without the rocket itself or any of its mobile support equipment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 -- the large streams of water kick in a few seconds before the Dragon abort thrusters kick off.)
- jhayward 10y ago
  > The point of those systems was to limit damage from vibration and rocket exhaust It is important to note that the deluge functioned to protect the launch vehicle from sound vibrational damage, not the pad.
exDM69 10y ago
> Fire crews can't approach until the fire burns itself out - too toxic. You're thinking of hypergolic propellants like hydrazine and nitric acid. This is kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen. Not particularly toxic, just hot as hell. The deluge system in shuttle launches was for the flame trench and sound dampening to avoid the air pressure from the noise damaging the vehicle, not fire extinguishing. You can see the launch tower get charred black, that's the fire protective paint. It's not really possible to fight rocket fuel fires, just mitigate the damage.
- Animats 10y ago
  Oh, right; the Falcon second stage is just a smaller version of the first stage.

zodPod 10y ago

THANK YOU. The TC video has a giant stupid banner over it that blocks and distracts from the video. This video is also insanely high quality. Thanks!

rsp1984 10y ago

Can somebody properly explain the different stages of the explosion? Obviously there's the first explosion but then after about 3.5 seconds there's a second, bigger one. What's exploding in the first boom and what in the second? Then, about 12 seconds in, the "nose" is falling down and causing a 3rd explosion. Why hasn't the nose "co-exploded" already with the 1st or 2nd explosion?

TenOhms 10y ago
Just some wild guesses: First explosion related to second stage (upper). Second explosion related to first stage's fuel igniting (I was expecting some much bigger, but likely there was already little oxygen left in that area and why it burned for so long. Third Explosion was the satellite's internal fuel (Hydrazine or something like it) detonating due to the fall damage and contact with the rest of the flame.
hoorayimhelping 10y ago
The first explosion is the smaller second stage igniting. The second, bigger explosion is the first stage exploding. The first stage has most of the mass of the rocket in the form of propellant and is what SpaceX lands on the barge after it separates from the second stage. The second stage is smaller and lighter, and puts the satellite into low earth orbit, or into its transfer orbit in the case of higher orbits (eg geostationary orbit). The 'nose' falling is payload and its protective fairing. The idea of a fairing is to protect the the satellite from aerodynamic, heat and acoustic stress. It explodes because the satellite has propellant in it - certainly for its rcs system for attitude adjustment and station keeping, and it might have a main engine to help it reach orbit. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/12/fairing http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/12/fairing

claar 10y ago

Frame-by-frame: http://rowvid.com/?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ&t=71.75&s=0.25 http://rowvid.com/?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ&t=71.75&s=0.25

stock_toaster 10y ago
Was that a bird flying in the background right as the explosion occurred? If so, it must have really scared the crap out of it!
- superman_ 10y ago
  That was me. Sorry I couldn't save it in time, I was held up trying to find a phone booth.
  - tripzilch 10y ago
    Honestly? Such tremendous superpowers, and out of all the good you could be doing for the planet, you're wasting your time playing dress-up and trying to save a rocket? Check your privilege, Superman. Here's some ideas for you http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305
  - sctb 10y ago
    Please don't create such novelty accounts to post jokes with—we ban them, and then the main account if it continues. Comments on HN should be civil and substantive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dnautics 10y ago

interesting highlights: 1:23 you can see the sat fairing fall from the stack, and then a secondary explosion when it hits the ground (presumably sat propellant) 3:24 second explosion with a fairly fast projectile coming out the top. Any clue as to what that is?

diggernet 10y ago

Nice to see that the payload didn't start to topple until around 6s after the blast. Gives hope of the launch abort system having time to do its job had this been a manned launch.

thewisenerd 10y ago

What exactly happened at 1m14s - 1m15s where the _big ball of fire_ seemingly exploded again ? p.s. skip forward to 1m21s to see AMOS-6 burn (in case you dislike facebook _very_ much).