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/77135388623807283...
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...
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.)
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.
You can see the smoke plume on the radar image from Melbourne airport weather radar
Live link:
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-...) 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.
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/77135367764276019...
Just read no injuries. That's awesome. I mean, bad for the rocket, but hooray for no human loss of life.
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.
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.
Live thread over on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g
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
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?
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!
"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
Video of the explosion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ
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.
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...
Here's some info on this from TC: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-j...
Looks like this may have been the Falcon 9 getting ready to launch AMOS-6 on 9/3. Not a previously flown rocket.
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?
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-fo...
CNBC says that NBC says (I know...) that thankfully nobody was injured
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-cap...
EDIT: apparently it happened at t:-3m so nobody was around
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...
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)
I'd almost be sad but Facebook.
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.
A Google self-driving car was seen leaving the scene at high speed!
Live video stream from the Kennedy Space Center (you can paste the link into something like VLC): http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel4
(Via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-70...)
Here's a few photos capturing what appears to be a massive secondary explosion: https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428/ph...
(There was already an explosion or fire before this one given the smoke in the air).
Does anyone know whether this was one of SpaceX's recovered/refurbished rockets that had previously flown a mission and landed?
The rocket is currently in flames. Staffers at the facility are telling me. Plumes of smoke rising from Launch Complex.
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.
The reddit live thread seems to be the best source of current informations and updates: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g
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?
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.
Relative to the rest of the mission/rocket lifecycle, how risky is filling it with fuel generally considered?
This seems like a good place to point out that we are hiring! See the "Who's Hiring" thread. :-)
I would leave wild speculation out of this debate and wait for a SpaceX official release.
Watched the live feed. That "smoke test" failure definitely made some smoke.
Was the launch rocket supposed to be one of their recovered/recycled rockets?
Shouldn't the static fire test have gone ahead without a live payload?
The music in the techcrunch video seemed a bit inappropriate.
It wasn't carrying it though, it was just a test.
From the twitter feed: http://imgur.com/6b6MfNQ
One small loss for mankind, one giant win for Net Neutrality.
That was my immediate thought too. Israel is known for playing rough when it comes to sovereignty concerns, particularly of a technological nature.
This is crazy!
Was the launch rocket supposed to be one of their recovered/recycled rockets?
According to sources (twitter), they where F-3 minutes so no-one should be out on pad, payload was not loaded either.
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-wome...
Damn it. 0 Days since SpaceX Rocket exploded.
According to sources (twitter), they where F-3 minutes so no-one should be out on pad, payload was not loaded either.
The environmentally friendly aspect of Tesla's cars is seemingly negated by SpaceX's black-smoke rocket fuel laden explosions.
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.
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
Here's good video of the test/failure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s