SpaceX's Falcon 9 explodes on Florida launch pad during rocket test

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: The Verge

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, meant to launch a satellite this weekend, exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The explosion occurred during a static fire test of the rocket's engines, NASA told the Associated Press. The blast reportedly shook buildings "several miles away."

SpaceX was getting the Falcon 9 ready to launch the Amos 6 satellite, a communications probe for the Israeli satellite operator Spacecom. The mission was scheduled for 3AM ET Saturday morning. Prior to all launches, SpaceX conducts a static fire test, in which the rocket's engines are turned on while the vehicle is constrained. It's a routine procedure the company has done many times before.

The 45th Space Wing, the US Air Force unit that commands the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, is responding to the explosion. "There are no known casualties. There's no threat to public safety and our emergency management teams are on site responding," Bryan Bryan Purtell, a representative for the 45th Space Wing, told The Verge. The unit will provide more updates soon.

It's possible that the Amos 6 satellite was not harmed during the explosion. The satellites aren't always loaded on top of the Falcon 9s during a static fire. But right now, the fate of the Amos 6 is unclear.

Read more: http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/1/12748752/spacex-launch-site-explosion-cape-canaveral-florida

---

UPDATE: SpaceX says no injuries in blast; says 'anomaly' on launch pad during test firing resulted in loss of vehicle and payload
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/771352966209167361

Seems like Amos 6 got smoked as well

[Atman]

1. My friends at the cape say it was just launch pad.

Not sure how the pad could explode without the rocket, but that's what several have posted, with their own photos. Waiting some clarification on this one, buts it's definitely bad either way.

[Atman]

2. The locals' photos show a pretty massive smoke plume.

I wish i could link to them, but they're in a private Cocoa Beach group. Clearly it's not just the launch. One of the SpaceX personnel posted that no one was hurt and all workers are accounted for.

[bananas]

43. Video of it blowing up posted in the Video Forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017399195

[GummyBearz]

38. Yea, pads don't blow up

Plus spacex confirmed the rocket and payload were lost

[Sunlei]

3. good to know they're 'testing'. I admire the SpaceX program

[MicaelS]

4. I wonder is this was a booster

They were reusing?

[Atman]

5. Yet, it was.

It was scheduled to re-launch on Sept 3.

ON EDIT: Apparently I was mistaken. This was a new rocket.

[MicaelS]

6. Have they sucessfully

Recovered, reused and recovered a booster?

[Atman]

9. This was supposed to be the first.

[vdogg]

30. This was NOT supposed to be the first.

SES was the first customer confirmed for a reused rocket and that launch is scheduled for later this year.

[backscatter712]

10. According to Reddit, it was not.

This one was a new Falcon 9.

Glad nobody was hurt. When any rocket like this is loaded with fuel and LOX, they keep people away for obvious reasons.

The reuse test was due for next month. Looks like that's going to get kicked back...

[Atman]

18. Thanks for clarification.

They've all been posting about the re-launch for weeks. I thought it was this one. My mistake.

[sofa king]

27. Absolutely not.

The re-use mission was only announced a couple of days ago, originally scheduled for sometime this fall, now certain to slip into next year:

http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-reused-falcon-9-by-years-end/

Of at least equal significance to the problem of troubleshooting what went wrong, photographs show that the launch tower itself was severely damaged and there were reports of secondary explosions, which may indicate that the cryogenic O2 and RP1 fueling system was destroyed as well.

If all of that turns out to be the case, SpaceX's east-coast launches are certainly sidelined for an indeterminate (but long) time. Consider that the much more rudimentary Orbital Sciences facility on Wallops Island is still being rebuilt after the explosion of the Antares rocket in October, 2014.

It's very unfortunate.

[philosslayer]

7. This is what happens....

When you let private companies engage in a "space race". I realize its early, but its very possible that corners were cut in the interest of speed.

Given the risks, the exploration of space should be limited to Federal Governments, not space cowboys who want to prove who's wallet (or dick) is bigger.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. I have to disagree.

I personally know many people employed by SpaceX and they are every bit as committed to safety measures as NASA. For one thing, their liability exposure is probably greater being a private entity than a government agency.

How many rockets have exploded with NASA at the controls? They weren't exactly explosion free either if you'll recall.

That being said, I am a strong proponent of NASA funding as well, so please don't think I'm in favor of privatization in general. I'm not. I just think you've jumped to conclusions and made a broad brush statement that is unfounded.

[Wilms]

13. You largely described the first ten years of humans in space.

It was a race. Corners were cut. They were cowboys trying to outdo the Soviets.

[MicaelS]

14. I disagree also.

Given how our government has never properly funded NASA since the Apollo program, I will take anyone, government or private industry willing to invest in spaceflight.

[Democat]

15. There were no accidents when NASA was in charge?

I doubt that.

[snooper2]

16. Um, you think that is was all government workers sitting around at NASA building every component?

[GummyBearz]

19. The odds of a space shuttle/rocket blowing up are 1/20

So its not like these things wont happen. In the early days of NASA it was 1/9

[Codeine]

20. That's ridiculous.

The space race was entirely predicated on proving whose dick was bigger and cutting corners non-stop was SOP.

[daleo]

24. Spacecraft still fail, private, NASA, ESA, Russia, etc

I think the failure rates tend to be about one percent. It would be interesting to see a straight-up comparison of failure rates, though.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. Our space program

was essentially built by private contractors (e.g., Grumman, now Northrup-Grumman and Rockwell), who were under the control of the government but were still private entities...

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. Look, yet another person who thinks the space program is public

You might want to look up who built, oh, all space vehicles used by NASA.

[vdogg]

31. You are making an awful lot of assumptions

Based on NO evidence whatsoever. This is what happens when people venture to space, period. It is a dangerous and difficult task. Lets not forget that NASA has had more than their fair share of failures...

[PersonNumber503602]

33. I'm amazed people still reply to your posts with serious responses.

I admire you for that.

[Throd]

36. You never disappoint, I'll give you that.

[christx30]

39. The US government doesn't want to fund NASA.

They shut down the shuttle program, with nothing to replace it. We have to contract with Russia to get supplies and astronauts to the ISS. I don't mind if a private company is willing to jump in there.
There were hundreds of failed launches and explosions on the launch pad during the first few years of the US space program. It's a learning process.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Exploration and innovation are not risk free. Three NASA astronauts died on the pad in 1967.

If innovation were only up to governments, then the Wright brothers would not have gotten off the ground. We might only be getting around to national air mail about now.

[Atman]

8. Shelter In Place/stay indoors ordered.

KSC is monitoring toxicity levels of the smoke plume. No evacuations ordered so far, according to friends on the scene.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. Power flickered at my work about the time the explosion occurred.

Wondering if it was related.

[George II]

17. Reports now are that the rocket itself wasn't involved.

[Calista241]

22. wow. glad this was a test, and i suspect there were no / few injuries.

[Eugene]

23. Reuters banner: SpaceX says no injuries in blast, 'anomaly' on launch pad destroyed vehicle and payl

SpaceX says no injuries in blast, 'anomaly' on launch pad destroyed vehicle and payload

No link yet, but CNN on air just confirmed the statement.

[joshcryer]

25. Man the Russian YouTube comments are crazy...

Something seriously fishy about this.

[PersonNumber503602]

32. Russian youtube comments are always crazy...

They put our crazies to shame, I think.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. "Footage taken after the blast showed the rocket still standing, although the top third ...

... appeared to be bent over."

http://news.sky.com/story/explosion-at-spacex-rocket-launch-site-10561500

(though that footage is not at that page yet)

If so, that does sound like something other than a problem with the rocket engines at the base.

[joshcryer]

35. Close up video. It's bad. Really bad.

[Xithras]

37. Wow. The detonation occurred at the TOP of the rocket.

Fuel leak? Static discharge? Another strut failure leading to a ruptured fuel tank, like the one that destroyed their rocket last year?

It's weird to see a rocket blow up before it's engines are even lit.

[joshcryer]

40. The densified LOX has been an ongoing problem.

It's difficult to deal with, requires liquid helium, hard to contain. The first RUD (rapid unplanned disassembly) was rumored to be connected to that engineering complexity.

They may need a redesign. But at least in this case they have a lot of wreckage to go with unlike last time.

[Blue_Tires]

41. That's what I call a "rapid disassembly"