Falcon 9 Explodes On Pad (npr.org) 338
Reader Mysticalfruit writes: NPR is reporting that a Falcon9 carrying the AMOS-6 satellite that was supposed to launch on Sat exploded during it's scheduled static fire. No injuries are reported. They're reporting that this was going to be the first reflown first stage.
The Verge adds:SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, meant to launch a satellite this weekend, exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida this morning. The explosion occurred during the preparation for the static fire test of the rocket's engines, NASA told the Associated Press. The blast reportedly shook buildings "several miles away." The company confirmed to The Verge the loss of the Falcon 9 an hour later: "SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries."
The Verge adds:SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, meant to launch a satellite this weekend, exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida this morning. The explosion occurred during the preparation for the static fire test of the rocket's engines, NASA told the Associated Press. The blast reportedly shook buildings "several miles away." The company confirmed to The Verge the loss of the Falcon 9 an hour later: "SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries."
FaceTrace's Trace satellite destroyed (Score:3, Funny)
awesome work, spaceX! You rock guys. Please send your next rocket to north korea. Thanks in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like it wasn't a rocket issue, but something on the launch pad. Still sucks for this mission, but probably not as much of a setback for future launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FaceTrace's Trace satellite destroyed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FaceTrace's Trace satellite destroyed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
An anomaly on the pad at T-3 minutes when the rocket isn't even turned on would suggest that it just might have been something else.
If you look at the explosion videos in slow motion, it starts near the middle or closer to the top of the rocket, not near the engines. My guess is a static discharge during fueling, which could still be underway at T-3.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I read this, and I have to ask; does it hurt to be this stupid?
It blew up Facebook's $200M satellite with it (Score:5, Funny)
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09... [techcrunch.com]
Re:It blew up Facebook's $200M satellite with it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It blew up Facebook's $200M satellite with it (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't Facebooks satellite - they were just leasing a portion of the satellites broadband capability (36 Ka-band spot beams). This was still owned and operated by Spacecom, they and a lot of customers just lost out because of this failure.
This was the first AMOS satellite to be launched by SpaceX, up until now they had been launched by mainly Russian (AMOS-2 and AMOS-5) or Ukranian (AMOS-3 and AMOS-4) launchers, with AMOS-1 being launched by the Ariane 4 as the only exception.
Re:It blew up Facebook's $200M satellite with it (Score:5, Interesting)
It was supposed to replace AMOS-2 which was set to retire later this year. I'm curious whether its life will be extended until another replacement can be delivered.
AMOS-6 did not belong to Facebook (Score:2)
The AMOS-6 satellite belonged to Spacecom, an Israeli telecommunications company. Facebook was to lease a transponder on the satellite, which had many transponders and would have served a lot of other customers.
It's not yet known what exploded first. It could be AMOS itself, part of the Falcon 9, or something on the pad. It will probably take some time to isolate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It blew up Facebook's $200M satellite with it (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with laughing and gloating at someone else's misfortune, when that other person or party was evil. Do you criticize people who cheer about the Death Star being blown up in Star Wars too? Or the people who back in 1945 cheered when Nazi Germany fell?
Now that said, from what I've read about this satellite, it actually was meant to replace a failing communications satellite for providing Internet service to Africa, so it had some noble and useful intentions, so I'm not laughing about this, despite its association with Facebook (not everything they do is evil), as it may result in a lot of Africans losing their internet access soon.
Re:It blew up Facebook's $200M satellite with it (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I guess Fuckerberg was right after all, Facebook isn't a media company...not with their $200 million toy blown to pieces scattered across Cape Canaveral anyway!
I guess we'll just have to wait on internet.org, it isn't as if there's an alternative available already after all.
Or they'll just collect the insurance, get another one built and try again later.
Some pics and videos (Score:5, Informative)
I couldn't find a video of the actual explosion, but the Mirror has some footage and pics [mirror.co.uk] of the aftermath:
Re:Some pics and videos (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry... Not a reused booster... (Score:4, Informative)
It sucks they lost the vehicle and the payload, but more so that the pad is likely heavily damaged.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Slashdot Editors !
Your story is wrong !
CHANGE IT !
EDIT !
Re: (Score:2)
Well, glad I decided to read to end of thread before I told you that you were full of it. The "previously used" launcher is going to be putting up SES-10, not AMOS-9.
In any case, if NPR is saying it's the "previously used" Falcon 9, you can be forgiven for saying that. If you were just confused, than OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!1!!
Seriously, not sure why anyone thought this was the "previously used" Falcon. It was only announced that they'd found a customer a few days ago, and launches aren't worked up that qui
That's nothing... (Score:4, Interesting)
I read an interesting rocket story in "Computing in the Middle Ages: A View From the Trenches 1955-1983" by Severo Ornstein. The author had to jiggle a tracking antenna connected to a computer during a rocket launch at Cape Canaveral. When the rocket launched, the top and middle stages went in opposite directions while the bottom stage sat unlit on the launch pad. When the self destruct signal got sent out, the bottom stage blew up because the explosives were located only in that stage, and the launch pad got destroyed. The other two stages crash landed downrange.
https://www.amazon.com/Computing-Middle-Ages-Trenches-1955-1983/dp/1403315175/ [amazon.com]
"...the first reflown 1st stage" (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there independent confirmation of this, because I'm not hearing that?
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a previously used stage - although I am hearing that it may be the first stage that will be reused later this year, which might be where the mix up comes in.
Re:"...the first reflown 1st stage" (Score:4, Informative)
Is there independent confirmation of this, because I'm not hearing that?
Here [twitter.com].
What was blown up: AMOS-6
What's being launched on a reused rocket: SES-10
Like they say... (Score:5, Funny)
Privatization - better, cheaper, faster... more bang for the buck.
Re: (Score:2)
So to speak ......
And there goes the FH and reuse schedule - again (Score:4, Interesting)
Next up another long investigation probably rest of 2016, expect the next new Falcon 9 in early 2017 and the first Falcon Heavy and reused booster probably not before mid-2017. I'm guessing they took another big step back from being man-rated too. I bet Musk is not a happy camper right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Astronaut rating, unfortunately, has historically been something like "we will only lose one crew in 90". Rockets blow up (although we don't yet know that this started with the Falcon rather than pad infrastructure or AMOS) and astronauts know that better than anyone else. Early reports are that this started at the top of the rocket, not the part that was firing, and it will take some time to determine what actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Now he's having tough times: both (Tesla and SC) companies are in cash crunch, plus this...
Test Static Fire (Score:2)
Isn't this pretty much WHY they do static fires in the first place?
I'm sure they didn't expect the whole damn thing to explode though. Either way, the data they got from this is incredibly valuable. Whatever happened I'm willing to be won't happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened I'm willing to be won't happen again.
...not with this rocket at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a reflown first stage (Score:5, Informative)
The first stage which is meant to be reflown, F9-023, is waiting for launch later this year. This first stage was brand new, and given the reports that the rocket was still standing with the top bent after the explosion, it doesn't really look like the first stage exploded. The explosion could have been part of the Falcon, the AMOS satellite, or the pad facilities for fueling the rocket. We'll find out which eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
TIL... (Score:2)
TIL "anomaly on the pad" is what "major malfunction" was in 1986.
Video of explosion (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
After watching, a serious question? How do you first respond to that? That's like, way more than a single fire truck could handle I think.
It is, so you wait it out. There's a reason America's major eastern launch complex is in the middle of a swamp, and a reason launch pads are made of steel-reinforced concrete and not much else. What you see burning is the fuel load. All the burning that should have put a satellite in orbit is happening in one place, but once the fuel is gone, there's precious little left that can burn. Hoses and wiring and cameras in and around the pad are toast, and they may have to replace the strongback hydraulics, b
Re:Half expected (Score:5, Informative)
It's very likely the used rockets will have micro fractures everywhere that are nearly impossible to find.
This was not the reused booster stage. That was scheduled to launch later this year [latimes.com].
Re:Half expected (Score:4, Funny)
If it didn't have micro-fractures before, it sure does now... and they're definitely going to be hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
FaceBook (Score:3)
LOL!
A Facebook Satellite burns with it.
So...a Silver Lining.
Re: (Score:3)
Wernher von Braun went through all this. I saw a documentary on German television where an ex-colleague said that after a V2 crash on the launchpad, von Braun quipped, "Diese Scheise ist nicht einfach!" In English, "This shit is not easy!"
I think that sizes it up for me.
But hats off to Falcon engineers! And good luck at you next attempt! Don't let the bastards grind you down!
Re:Predictable (Score:5, Informative)
This rocket was brand new it was the first that would have been SCHEDULED TO REUSE later after this launch.
Re:Predictable (Score:5, Funny)
This rocket was brand new it was the first that would have been SCHEDULED TO REUSE later after this launch.
So, it's looking good then?
Re:Predictable (Score:5, Funny)
Some re-assembly required.
Re:Predictable (Score:5, Informative)
This rocket was brand new it was the first that would have been SCHEDULED TO REUSE later after this launch.
Wrong.
--quote-- For SpaceX, the private space company owned by Elon Musk, it was the "first launch of [a] flight-proven first stage," the company says. The mission was using the same rocket booster that sent the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station earlier this year. --end quote--
Sorry, but that quote is wrong. The first reused booster is (was?) scheduled to launch SES-10 later this year.
Re:Predictable (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but that quote is wrong. The first reused booster is (was?) scheduled to launch SES-10 later this year.
Correct [twitter.com].
Re:Failure on the *pad* not the rocket (Score:5, Funny)
But it's unfortunate that this is being reported as a failure of the SpaceX Rocket, while the malfunction was apparently in the pad.
You're kidding, right? When SpaceX reported "an anomaly on the pad", they just meant the rocket had an issue leading to its explosion while it was standing on the pad waiting to fire.
Of course Musk may choose to describe this as a "rapid unscheduled prelaunch disassembly" rather than an explosion - we'll have to see.
Re:Failure on the *pad* not the rocket (Score:4, Interesting)
It blew during or shortly after a static firing - that is, a test run of the engine with the rocket restrained. That's a *very* unusual procedure in the modern world, but they used to do it all the time. The reason they don't do it any more is that it tends to reduce overall reliability, and the rocket was designed to work in flight, not necessarily with the back-pressure, or acoustic and thermal reflection from the pad/blast deflector/ground.
In this case, I expect, that SpaceX brobdingagian hubris figured that they could get away with it, and it was "designed" for reuse, so it will encounter those effects anyway, and in any case, they have lots of fast computers so they know better than those dinosaur idiots back in the late 50's.early 60's.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It blew during or shortly after a static firing - that is, a test run of the engine with the rocket restrained. That's a *very* unusual procedure in the modern world, but they used to do it all the time. The reason they don't do it any more is that it tends to reduce overall reliability, and the rocket was designed to work in flight, not necessarily with the back-pressure, or acoustic and thermal reflection from the pad/blast deflector/ground.
Yer, I don't get that, nor with the payload attached. If it's going to fail then it'll fail in flight anyway. I don't know what it would prove, and then a bit Schrodinger the test firing might well cause issues with the actual flight itself. That's the problem we have with rockets in general, and I don't see them as being a viable vehicle to reuse. We need something better.
In this case, I expect, that SpaceX brobdingagian hubris figured that they could get away with it, and it was "designed" for reuse, so it will encounter those effects anyway, and in any case, they have lots of fast computers so they know better than those dinosaur idiots back in the late 50's.early 60's.
Heh. People have been launching crap into space for decades. It amuses me when people think SpaceX are doing something new or incredibly
Re: (Score:2)
There are two crucial differences betweeen 1960's rockets and the Falcon 9:
1. The Falcon has thousands of on-board sensors and a high-bandwidth digital data stream of their data during the entire flight. So, it is possible to see a lot more go wrong while you can still do something about it. Thus, testing the rocket at full fire before launch makes sense. The Space Shuttle didn't have this sort of sensor coverage.
2. The Falcon engines can be fired many times, and some of them can re-light in flight. 1960's
Re: (Score:2)
The Falcon has thousands of on-board sensors and a high-bandwidth digital data stream of their data during the entire flight. So, it is possible to see a lot more go wrong while you can still do something about it.
Obviously worked very well ;-).
They're still rockets I'm afraid (large, incredibly explosive and unstable objects), and when something does go wrong, even if you can see something on the telemetry it's generally already too late to do something about it. You can certainly simulate a lot more then you could decades ago, and test firing like this is still a little unusual.
The Falcon engines can be fired many times...
I think this one has fired for the last time.
....and some of them can re-light in flight. 1960's rockets could not do that.
SpaceX didn't invent the concept of refiring a rocket I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
The Falcon engines can be fired many times...
I think this one has fired for the last time.
Dude, I just about spit coffee all over my laptop - that was the first Slashdot comment in quite a while to make me laugh out loud! Thanks for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The Space Shuttle didn't have this sort of sensor coverage.
You sure about this? I could swear I read a document about the diagnostic systems for the STS once and I don't see how it could have worked without a lot of automated diagnostics that implied that the sensor coverage was very extensive.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX has been doing static fire tests before every launch for years. This is the first time one blew up. Better for it to blow up during testing than on actual launch, at any rate, if you're planning to eventually launch humans with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX states that it blew up in preparation for the static fire test.
Looks like an inherent problem with the rocket or the procedures leading up to the static test, which I assume are basically the same as those leading up to launch.
I'm afraid that this will set SpaceX back by months while they figure out what's wrong with their systems and procedures. Well, unexpected setbacks are to be expected in the space industry.
Re:Failure on the *pad* not the rocket (Score:4, Informative)
It blew during or shortly after a static firing...
Eyewitnesses said the explosion happened at T-3 minutes. If that is true, the explosion would have occurred during the fuel load and not the firing of the engines. I'm sure we'll learn more as the day goes on. I'm also sure the SpaceX engineers have very valid reasons for conducting a test firing. They are well-trained professionals, and not teenagers given to thinking like "get away with it" and the previous generation is full of "dinosaur idiots". If nothing else, this will provide a vector for making pre-launch procedures safer. Better to figure it out with a $200M satellite on board than human lives.
Re: (Score:3)
It blew during or shortly after a static firing - that is, a test run of the engine with the rocket restrained. That's a *very* unusual procedure in the modern world, but they used to do it all the time. The reason they don't do it any more is that it tends to reduce overall reliability, and the rocket was designed to work in flight, not necessarily with the back-pressure, or acoustic and thermal reflection from the pad/blast deflector/ground.
In this case, I expect, that SpaceX brobdingagian hubris figured that they could get away with it, and it was "designed" for reuse, so it will encounter those effects anyway, and in any case, they have lots of fast computers so they know better than those dinosaur idiots back in the late 50's.early 60's.
You know, you could just watch the video [youtu.be] and see that the explosion originated in the upper section of the second stage, which isn't firing during a test fire, or particularly affected by a test fire, and that in fact the first stage wasn't firing at the time.
SpaceX performs static firing because, statistically, the primary cause of historical launch failures has been engine-out during flight. That's also why Falcon 9 has 9 engines. The purpose is to improve reliability and reduce hazard to bystanders dur
Re: (Score:2)
But it's unfortunate that this is being reported as a failure of the SpaceX Rocket, while the malfunction was apparently in the pad.
You're kidding, right? When SpaceX reported "an anomaly on the pad", they just meant the rocket had an issue leading to its explosion while it was standing on the pad waiting to fire.
The anomaly probably was the explosion.
Re: (Score:2)
The anomaly probably was the explosion.
Indeed. Having listened to a few SpaceX launches, things are either nominal or they have an anomaly. Which can be everything from a gauge being slightly off to an explos^H^H^H^H^H unscheduled rapid disassembly. Understatement seems to be the a rocket science in-joke, "Houston, we have a problem" is their version of "OMG half the ship blew up, we're so screwed".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's not enough detail to say that. The issue may have not involved the rocket directly, but occurred in the pad's infrastructure, possibly related to fueling operations in preparation for the firing test. You didn't provide the full quote of SpaceX's statement:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Its not a used rocket, its a brand new rocket - the first re-use isn't scheduled until later in the year.
And "on the pad" is terminology meaning thats where the failure occurred - not that it was specifically a failure of the pad or the pad equipment (although that can be the case), just that thats where it happened. As opposed to "in flight" etc.
Re: (Score:2)
As this was an "experimental" used rocket, it's likely highly insured.
Who the hell is going to insure *that*?
Insure anything (Score:2)
Who the hell is going to insure *that*?
You can insure almost anything. Whether the cost of the premium is good value for money is a separate issue. The upper bound on an insurance policy premium is the cost to replace whatever is being insured. Beyond that there is no point in utilizing insurance. (In reality the real bound is substantially lower than that)
But frankly nobody would fly cargo on a spacecraft if it wasn't either insured or if the owners of the cargo could not absorb the loss. Obviously someone thinks the benefits outweigh the
Re: (Score:2)
You can insure anything. It just becomes impractical when the premium approaches or exceeds the replacement cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only have the insurance companies already signed off on the re-used rocket, they've insured it at a similar price to first-use rockets:
"There also was “no material change” in the insurance rate compared to using a new Falcon 9 rocket, indicating insurers’ confidence in the launch vehicle, Halliwell said."
http://www.latimes.com/busines... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But it's unfortunate that this is being reported as a failure of the SpaceX Rocket, while the malfunction was apparently in the pad.
Yer, just like the "rapid unscheduled pre-launch disassembly". Their language is increasingly not going to help them.
Re: (Score:2)
o.0
Even if the failure was in the pad equipment, said equipment is also SpaceX's and part of the overall Falcon 9 system.
Armchair engineers commonly think of the rocket as a stand-alone thing, but it's not really - its just the most visible part of a larger system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It all depends how you read the quote. Just like exam questions. I read it the same way you did, now see they probably meant this was the 'exact same configuration', as opposed to 'previously flown'. Choice of words can be a huge thing in conveying a clear message. Of course, they may have chosen the wording to confuse?
BTW I got my clarification that it wasn't a previously flown stage from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well it is rocket science. Reliability doesn't come cheap.
That's why I laugh when private contractors say they can do rocket science better than nation states that have been doing it for over 60 years.
Yeah, because the spacecraft made by nation states NEVER blow up!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, happened four times with the Soyuz in the past 40 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is rocket science.
It's not brain surgery.
That's why I laugh when private contractors say they can do rocket science better than nation states that have been doing it for over 60 years.
Sounds like quite a point to coalesce into a good old belly laugh over. Presumably they'll get there, NASA certainly seems to want them to.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is engineering skating on the bleeding edge of the physically possible. Brain surgery kills one person at a time and is physically simple in comparison.
Re:I'm not suprised at all... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's actually easy to answer. The very largest problem that we have to cope with is getting out of Earth's gravity well. Consider the size of the Saturn V vs. the size of the Lunar Module ascent stage. Both lifted a crew and some hardware to orbit on the same mission, but their sizes were radically different, for the most part because of the difference in gravity of the two bodies. So, the biggest challenge we face is lifting things. We have, as a species, mastered lifting things with the economic abandon of a war, and are working on lifting things more economically.
Once in orbit, you have the problems of keeping a crew alive and transporting them, but these are smaller in magnitude than just getting them into Earth orbit in the first place. Getting down to Mars is a challenge because of the need to use supersonic retropropulsion rather than atmospheric braking, but SpaceX has done well in making that work with first stage recovery.
Re: (Score:3)
Assumes that NASA rockets are built by NASA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There was no one at all 'in the vicinity'. These people aren't idiots. The system was a T-3, ready to start the firing sequence. Humans had been kicked out long ago. Security has made several sweeps of the area. People looked at cameras. Unless some pelicans have taken up cigarettes, the explosion wasn't due to a nic-fit.
There is a reason why you launch giant tubes full of high powered explosives in the middle of deserts or swamps.
Quasi edit - On reflection, it could have been due to a drone. The see
Re: (Score:2)
you're funny, imagining a cigarette butt would be dangerous in place designed to take firing rocket engine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no I stick with reality, not imagining cigarette buts where there were none. causes of fires in buildings and industrial facilities and rocket launch pads are investigated and determined in the real world
you have butts on the brain
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect statement (Score:3)
The mission was using the same rocket booster that sent the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station earlier this year.
The quote is incorrect. The booster they are planning to reuse won't be flown until later this year at the earliest.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you and your space nutters. Classic 110010001000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at the video frame by frame, it looks like the explosion starts between the rocket and the tower...