SpaceX Launch Fail

Sadness.

At about 1:40 in the video, a little before the announcement of the vehicle going supersonic, I noticed flames seeming to lap up the base of the rocket. This might be normal or a false impression due to my eyes and/or camera angles. I was wondering if possibly the partial vacuum behind the forming shock wave might be drawing the flame up the body. I bring this up only because I do not remember seeing this effect before.

Here flight #12, launching a satellite....looks the same I think....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CkuC-zl_N4

Thank you.

I saw a many similarities in the flame plumes that I mentioned, at a similar time in the transition to supersonic velocities. Because of the change in camera angles and difference in time of day (daylight vs. night) I'm not certain that this is or is not the root of their problem here. I gladly accept my observation from a you tube video is likely a red herring.

I leave this to the professionals to figure out WTF actually happened

"Hey, what does this red button do...?"

It tests our insurance policy.

How can they state a definitive burn time for the first stage? Wouldn't that depend on weight? In any case it looks like the second stage ignited prematurely.... Could this be a hack??

Air Force officials said the rocket "experienced an anomaly" 148 seconds into the flight.

Reminds me of the drug ads on TV: "Some fatal events have occurred."

So lame! As the giant explosion and falling debris of the Challenger Shuttle rained down on the ocean, NASA said, "we have experienced an anomaly'.

It was pretty obvious the thing had exploded, in both cases.

Pretty abnormal when it explodes. But seems to become more frequently.

Is it just me or do we have more problems getting gear into space? This should have been a pretty basic launch.

Or was NASA testing new technology?

Looks like Cape Canaveral in the late 1950's to me. Haven't we already learned this before?

NASA has, now it's the turn of Private Industry, since they want to do this on the cheap, and the last thing they want to do is spend money licensing NASA-held patents.

Look how much money they're saving! Think of how much it would have cost to keep that sattelite powered for the years it would be in orbit. What? Solar powered? Operating costs are all for ground stations, which monitor and link with multiple satelites?

(Gilda Radner voice) Nyever miiiind...

Private industry is always more efficient than government programs. Well at least the private industries that survive.

Oh yeah, "The invisible hand of the free market" and all that.

The way things are SUPPOSED to go with a free market is "The companies that produce a quality product at a fair price attract the customers and thrive, those that fail to do so do not attract the customers and go under." The problems are A) when politics get involved, either by a company making policy decisions or public statements about political issues, then complaining when the customers that do not share the opinion on those issues choose to do business somewhere else, or when a company actively engages the politicians to pass regulations than make the market less free and more tilted in favor of one business over its competition, or B) when a (typically) company uses unfair business practices to gain an edge over the competition, and after 'clearing the market,' lowers quality and increases prices, all while complaining about 'government interference' when policies are being brought up to undo the damage the company has done.

I know a lot of people hate Big Government, however, loathsome as it may be, it's out only real ally against the tyranny of Big Business. (Except for the times that Big Gov screws over We, the People because they've been bribed by Big Biz, but that's more a failing in the corrupt little poopie-stains that pass for politicians these days.)