SpaceX Failure

I just heard that announcement a few minutes ago on NPR, no injuries sustained, but windows and building shaken for miles around. From the video, it appears the entire craft was not destroyed??

I have no idea if this was the previously used rocket, but I heard it was a test burn of the boosters.

@JereckNET This was a new Falcon 9 core. The first re-used (CRS-8) core was expected to be flown later this year, but probably 2017 now.

Loss of rocket and satellite Amos 6x...

"Amos-6 was a 5.5-tonne Earth communications satellite, one of the Spacecom AMOS series, that was built by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), a defense and aerospace company.^[5]

Amos-6 was intended to be launched by SpaceX's Falcon 9 Full Thrust Flight 29 to geosynchronous transfer orbit on September 3, 2016. At 1:33PM GMT on September 1, 2016, SpaceX confirmed that in preparation for a static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload.^[6] Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6

Israeli satellite. Hmmm....me thinks this whole event needs to be investigated for sabotage by persons unknown. This whole thing has an odd smell to it (figuratively), but I have a mind that gravitates to the mysterious and suspicious.

Where was Paul Manafort when this thing blew?

Maybe he's trying to get back into the good graces of Vladimir.

Was this the the reused rocket?

It won't be anymore...

The first use of a used rocket was suppose to carry supplies to the space station. Sometime in September or October. The one that blew had not been used.

Unfortunately it takes a lot of energy to lift something off the planet, resulting in big accidents when something goes wrong! It's hard to make rockets both cheap and safe...

The Challenger disaster proved that even the most expensive rockets can be rendered deadly by inept managers.

Here's the video. Explosion at 1:11.

Between 1:11 and 1:12 it looks like a projectile flies across the screen and strikes the rocket....

After contact it deflects ....

It's just a drone fly-by.

It crosses the screen in less than .25 sec...anybody care to est the speed?

Unfortunately, none of the frames indicate range. It could be something close going not so fast (e.g. a bird) or far away going really fast. The camera is 2.5 miles away so the shot is a telephoto.

Although the timing is very suspicious, I can't see how it caused the explosion. I'm sure right now someone is studying this that knows more details.

I agree that this "bird" is probably just carrying a red herring to its young and had nothing to do with this anomaly.

From the frames that show where the conflagration originates it looks to me that the payload engine/fuel system provided the chemical energy for the first visible signs of failure to this camera.

My WAG for a failure at that point is a premature detonation of explosive bolts or a payload engine valve leak.

You can see here the object is behind the tower....and crosses within 7 frames at 25 per sec..between the 2nd and 3rd frame it seems to accelerate to a much higher speed...unless it's turning..

I sort of doubt the camned damera would have sufficient depth of field in focus over that range to pick up an object near the lens. But you are correct in the assertion that if something could be picked up closer in, it would appear to move rapidly relative to objects in the far field of the frame.

Holy crap is that a UFO?

Even though this UFO does not appear to be directly involved in the explosion, and its range is unknown as far as I know, could it have shot something toward the rocket?

It is an object, it is flying, and it is unidentified. I think that actually is something that flew off the AMOS within a fraction of a second of the explosion.

The object you are referring to prior to (and after) the explosion appears to be (1) very rapid, (2) cylindrical symmetry (within limits of imagery), and (3) not falling in a ballistic trajectory (unless really fast). Do our (or Israel's) enemies now have some sort of gun on a submarine that can fire from miles out undetected (doubtful)?

An artillery round, however, would be far faster than we could see incoming like that, IMHO. Was there an helicopter traffic within 1000 yards of this event that day, and was there any reported equipment anomaly? Something being slung from a helicopter blade, or a tip breaking could have a large kinetic energy.

Alternative: some sort of rocket powered drone with aiming system designed to hit the AMOS right in the kisser.

Are you kidding? At all times, the object with the arrow pointing at it is well above the rocket.

Yeah I see that now....when you watch it at full speed it looks like it hits the rocket , but it is definitely a fly by....

I am not so sure. I was able to get what appeared to a change in trajectory at the second tower, like a ricochet that carried the rapid object directly into the joint of the lift engine and the payload. Next frame I caught, it showed the fireball, and this object was then directly above as if deflected once again upward. This needs some very serious image analysis, better than we can do here.

Not true, I clearly saw it track directly into the point of origin of the explosion.

Are you kidding? Or are you effing kidding?

What I saw (or thought I saw) was something about the size of the other "fly-by" object, that changed directions at the middle tower and diverted downward to the point of the explosion. Hard to say, we were not watching the high speed camera of this, but there almost has to be one for internal failure investigation purposes.

I found a point just as the explosion begins where I cannot see the "fly-by" object anywhere in the frame. Are you 100% certain we are not talking about two objects? Are you 100% that what you think is the same object traversing the field of view, is not expelled debris (after the explosion), and that what appears in the next frame on the left side of the explosion is not another separate object?

I installed a youtube frame-by-frame add on to my Chrome.

As you can see, whatever is flying across the top continues across without striking the rocket and the explosion occurs before it gets to the rocket. It's VERY suspicious that this occurs within milliseconds of the explosion. I'm sure there are some very smart people looking at this!

I thought I saw a flash when the object was behind the tower, but it's inbetween frames...between your 3 and 4 frame...need a higher speed video...

Here's a frame by frame composite....that would have to be one fast bird...it covers that distance in about 1/3 sec...watch it in real time...

There appeared to be two birds flying by just before the helicopter sounds.

The frame is approximately 530' wide. This is based on a known height of the Falcon 9 of 230'.

Your 1/3 second estimate would imply the object was traveling 1085 mph if it was close to those towers. Faster if farther behind them.

Obviously not a bird.

Also, at the 1:08 point, a larger object crosses the entire frame, followed closely by a smaller one that turns 180 degrees at that speed.

Why so many explosions? Still going on after 4 minutes.

One can still see objects like the payload falling (these have thrusters in them and fuel).

I thought it was an earthquake. LC-40 is almost a total loss.

Rocket science is really really hard. Stuff happens. Glad no-one was injured. They will figure out what happened and build another one...stay tuned.

Yes, it was a previously flown booster. It is obvious from the images that the problem was not with the booster however, but with the new second stage where it has been reported an oxygen leak occurred. It will most likely be a while before we have a really good idea about what happened. Until then folks in Africa are spared the "joys" of Facebook a little longer.

Why does every damn thing have to be a conspiracy??? THEY will figure out what happened and you can't, because you don't have ANY REAL data!

Latest 9/6...

..."Editor's note: This story, originally posted at 9:38 a.m. EDT, was updated to include details from SpaceX's official statement on the explosion, which cited a pad anomaly, not the Falcon 9 rocket itself."

Definitely not one of the used rockets. This was a pretty badly timed accident given all of Elon Musk's projects. I worry a bit Elon Musk is spreading himself thin. With Tesla buying Solar City and launching reusable rockets at SpaceX, and launching the Falcon Heavy at SpaceX later this year, and the Gigafactory at Tesla, and the new car line at Tesla, and the autopilot at Tesla, it just feels like he has a lot of opportunities to fail. I very much want to see him succeed, particularly on his Mars ambitions, so I'm concerned.