
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral - mariusz79
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-just-exploded-at-cape-canaveral/
======
trothamel
Here's good video of the test/failure:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s)

~~~
TheGuyWhoCodes
There is something flying just above when the explosion starts, probably a
bird, but how hard will it be to just fly a drone there with some kind of
projectile?

[Edit] Pre and Post explosion:
[http://imgur.com/a/IIzg2](http://imgur.com/a/IIzg2)

~~~
objclxt
> but how hard will it be to just fly a drone there with some kind of
> projectile?

It's a massive long metal tube full of extremely flammable things...what seems
more likely: drone with projectile entering a highly restricted piece of
airspace, or as rockets are want to do, it blew up by itself.

~~~
dredmorbius
NB: _wont_ to do.

Though you've given me a reason to look up the etymology. Now I now:
[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wont&allowed_in_fra...](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wont&allowed_in_frame=0)

~~~
disillusioned
NB: Now I _know_

:-)

~~~
dredmorbius
Aaaaagh!

:-)

------
artursapek
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...](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/771353886238072832)

~~~
nateberkopec
I know nothing about space - why are they doing tests, where the rocket could
possibly explode or fail, with the payload on board?

~~~
mabbo
They do the tests to validate that this rocket won't turn into a cruise
missile, headed for the nearest residential area. Not an impossible scenario.
Lots of energy stored up in one of those rockets.

Just like when we test software, they want to have everything as close to what
they would expect on launch day as possible (2 days from now). All the
stresses, the structure, etc. That means putting stage 2 and the payload on
top of the main rocket before the test starts. They probably did a lot of
tests before the payload was on board as well, and those didn't reveal
whatever flaw has caused this issue.

Yes, it sucks that the payload was lost but there will have been insurance to
cover the loss. No human lives lost, no cruise missile scenario, no out of
control fire... this is the best case scenario for a rocket failure.

~~~
ygra
> They do the tests to validate that this rocket won't turn into a cruise
> missile, headed for the nearest residential area.

In that case the rocket has a flight-termination system, though, which should
activate as soon as it veers too far outside the planned/expected parameters
of the flight.

~~~
Phlarp
For more context, all (edit: American!) rockets for decades have had onboard
self destruct systems and a "Range Safety Officer" on the ground whose entire
job is to determine if and when to deploy this self destruct system.

The cruise missile scenario is highly unlikely as the rocket itself would be
destroyed soon after leaving its intended trajectory.

~~~
cstross
Not _all_ rockets:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708)

(China, CZ-3B, Intelsat 708 payload, the launcher flew off-course and crashed
on a village in 1996: by some estimates 200-500 civilians were killed.)

~~~
dalke
That links to
[http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2323/1](http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2323/1)
where one of the comments is:

> Like Russian vehicles, there is no flight termination system that receives
> ground commands onboard Chinese launch vehicles. Only US and ESA launch
> sites have such a system. Correction, Falcon 1 did not have such a system
> for launching on Kwaj.

~~~
dogma1138
That's because usually the US and ESA/France launch from densely populated
areas.

The launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center/CC is effectively about 50 mile
from downtown Orlando, Baikonur is in the middle of nowhere.

~~~
T0T0R0
Okay, rockets that can go very high, can still crash very far away.

An unpredictable, malfunctioning rocket could still _million-to-one_ itself
onto a school bus filled with children, halfway across a continent.

~~~
dalke
Phlarp's original comment was about 'a "Range Safety Officer" on the ground
whose entire job is to determine if and when to deploy this self destruct
system.'

The text I quoted implies there is an _onboard_ flight termination system,
even if there is no Range Safety Officer who can send _external_ commands.

FWIW, a part from an exploded rocket, like the engine, could still destroy a
school bus filled with children. The odds are very hard to estimate, and made
more complicated in that there are few failure modes where a rocket failure
halfway across a continent, at supersonic speeds, would reach the ground
_without_ breaking long before.

~~~
T0T0R0
Congratulations on replying to me. I'm sure you're feeling good about it. I
just wanted to let your know that I noticed, and feel special too.

------
Symmetry
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...](https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

~~~
sangnoir
> A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better
> than losing a $2b custom government bird.

In fairness, when did the government last lose a bird? Doesn't the ULA have a
'100%' success rate (where success is getting payload to space, though some
payloads fail to make it to the planned orbit)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I suspect the $2b custom government bird refers to the space shuttle. Of which
we have, in fact, lost more than one.

~~~
vkou
The shuttle was a vehicle with vastly different capabilities, and technical
challenges to overcome, compared to a Falcon rocket.

There have been 133 successful shuttle launches, and 2 failed ones.

There have been 27 successful Falcon launches, and 2 failed ones.

~~~
dpcx
While true, NASA was able to have the shuttle program be so successful because
of the things that they learned in the previous space programs. This is
SpaceX's _first_ space program. Don't compare a "senior" program to a
"freshman" program.

~~~
vkou
Which is great advice - that should temper everyone's expectations of the firm
(Which were sky-high a few days ago, when Musk was promoting his 'flight-
tested' reused rockets.)

------
cstross
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.)

~~~
rst
Test fire for the launch of a commercial satellite (AMOS-6), which had been
scheduled for a few days hence (and now presumably delayed, along with the
rest of their launch schedule, pending further investigation). It might
conceivably have been during fueling/de-fueling around the test. It's not yet
clear from public reports whether the payload was attached at the time of the
test-fire; sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

(Note that fueling operations for Falcon 9 got a whole lot trickier when they
switched to use of super-cooled fuel and oxidizer, to increase density -- if
that stuff gets warmer, its volume increases to more than that of the tank,
but it's still liquid, so you can't just vent it off.)

~~~
mikro2nd
Interested to know more about the fuels... when I searched for info about
Falcon-9 fueling a week or two ago (having briefly conceived of a semi-idle
interest in rocket propellants) I read it was RP-1 plus oxidiser - so
basically "just" high-spec kerosene. That doesn't jibe with supercooling in my
mind... Please enlighten us further.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
They chill the fuel and oxidizer to slush, just above their freezing point, to
fit more of it into the same volume and save on structure.

~~~
angryspacesheep
How many Falcon 9s have been launched using this fueling method?

~~~
ygra
As far as I know that was one of the defining changes of the Falcon 9 Full-
Thrust, which flew first in December 2015 with Orbcomm OG2 M2. So, every
Falcon 9 this year, plus one.

~~~
angryspacesheep
Thank you

------
julianpye
[http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-
explor...](http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-
technologies/spacex-set-launch-amos-6-tropical-storm-hermine-looms/)

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.

~~~
ww520
Interesting on the fuel. Oxygen's boiling point is at -297F (turned into
liquid) and its freezing point is at -362F (turned into solid). Lowering the
temperature to -340F would be solidifying the liquid oxygen but not quite yet.
I guess at that point the volume has reduced, enabling the packing of more LO
into the container.

Having an additional phase change doubles the risk factor along the whole
pipeline that it flows through, the container, the valves, the pipes, the
chambers, whatever. Liquid to gas can be dissipated quickly. How bad can
uncontrolled solid to liquid expansion be?

Edit: uncontrolled liquid to gas venting is equally volatile and dangerous.

------
hydrogen18
You can see the smoke plume on the radar image from Melbourne airport weather
radar

[http://imgur.com/a/FQ4qx](http://imgur.com/a/FQ4qx)

Live link:

[http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=mlb](http://radar.weather.gov/radar.php?rid=mlb)

~~~
_kyran
Melbourne, FL for those wondering.

~~~
pmyjavec
Melbourne, FL, United States :)

------
ChuckMcM
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-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-faces-cash-squeeze-at-tesla-
solarcity-1472687133)) 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.

~~~
manarth
I initially started this comment saying "I doubt that there's that much cash-
flow between SpaceX and Tesla/Solar City", then thought I should at least
google it first.

What do you know? Turns out SpaceX invested $165M in Solar City last year [1].

[1] [http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/this-is-why-elon-musks-
spacex-...](http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/this-is-why-elon-musks-spacex-has-
been-buying-up-solarcitys-bonds/)

~~~
mhermher
Looks like it was in 2015 on a 1-year term. So it would already be paid off.
However, the linked article is from Aug 2015, so they may have bought even
more bonds after that point.

------
nameless912
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...](https://twitter.com/TroyLeeCampbell/status/771353677642760192)

------
josh_carterPDX
Just read no injuries. That's awesome. I mean, bad for the rocket, but hooray
for no human loss of life.

------
bitwize
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.

------
trothamel
[http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/705/web](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.

------
m12k
Live thread over on reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g](https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g)

------
dtparr
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](https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504/photo/1)

------
artursapek
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?

~~~
ygra
About the same as you debug an issue from having just a tracelog. The rocket
and pad equipment have quite a few sensors that record information, so you
have quite a lot of data afterwards to spot anomalies (you could also compare
to previous successful launches / static fires to spot them). Admittedly, that
doesn't really explain _how_ they figure out some stuff, e.g. with CRS-7 the
problem was with a strut holding a high-pressure helium vessel in the second
stage. They likely would have seen the overpressurization of the tank and
there are not many sources for that pressure, but pinpointing it to a piece
that doesn't even exist anymore ... beats me.

~~~
mikeknoop
I don't recall the source, but they identified the CRS-7 strut by using
several mechanical vibration sensors placed on various parts of the rocket.

The deflection / explosion reaches the sensors at different times, and with
precision timing, it enables you to reverse pinpoint where it must have
originated: the failing strut.

~~~
TrevorJ
they also have pressure sensors in the tanks so the timing of pressure
differences allowed them to determine that the tank came loose before it
burst.

------
blastofpast
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!

~~~
wrigby
The reused rocket will be used to launch SES-10 later this year, not AMOS-6.

Source: [http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-
re...](http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-reused-
falcon-9-by-years-end/)

~~~
ygra
Question is whether they will have a launch pad at that time and how long
investigations will last and until a fix is deployed. May well be that there
are no more launches this year.

~~~
Klathmon
Yeah the last time they lost something it was a 6 month freeze on launches.

------
corv
"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

~~~
walkingolof
No payload on rocket while hotfire test.

~~~
ohitsdom
Payload is sometimes mated, just depends. No word yet on this payload.

[https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77134295079838924...](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/771342950798389248)

UPDATE: payload lost.
[https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/771352111657385984](https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/771352111657385984)

~~~
krisoft
That confirmation is so strange. Why would you confirm something with the
screenshot of notepad "officially" when you have a twitter account?

~~~
harshreality
He's a space news reporter at Ars Technica. It makes sense they'd be one of
the first to get the SpaceX news release. It has too many characters to fit in
a tweet, and even if it could fit, embedding an image of the text sets it
apart from the tweeter's introduction and makes it more readable. It's
standard practice on twitter to use images for blocks of text.

~~~
throwanem
> It's standard practice on twitter to use images for blocks of text.

Yep. The best of 1997, Web 2.0 style.

------
hakanderyal
Video of the explosion:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ)

------
flyinghorse
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.

~~~
mathattack
Wow! So who picks up the bill in this case? I'm sure it was in the contract
somewhere.

------
BatFastard
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...

~~~
nameless912
I mean, it's not like SpaceX _doesn 't_ test. They missed something, and
unfortunately this time it caused a total loss that they're going to have to
answer to. But yes, you're right; we recently implemented a two-week demo
lockout policy at my office. No changes are allowed being committed closer
than two weeks from a demo date, and two or three guys are dedicated to just
testing and shaking down the system. They're the only ones allowed to call for
a bug fix, and they're _only_ allowed to call for a bug fix. It seems as
though management has finally realized that missing one requirement during a
demo is much, much better than having the whole enchilada crash spectacularly.

~~~
jakub_h
The problem is that software works the same every time, hardware doesn't have
to (for example, if there was some kind of wear in the umbilical, for
example).

------
palakz
Here's some info on this from TC: [https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-
falcon-9-rocket-j...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/a-spacex-
falcon-9-rocket-just-exploded-at-cape-canaveral/)

------
scrumper
Looks like this may have been the Falcon 9 getting ready to launch AMOS-6 on
9/3\. Not a previously flown rocket.

~~~
ygra
Static Fire for that launch was due today which is probably during which this
happened.

------
yigitdemirag
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?

~~~
Shanea93
Aon International Space Brokers ([http://www.aon.com/singapore/risk-
services/products-services...](http://www.aon.com/singapore/risk-
services/products-services/isb.jsp)) covers liability for the payloads to be
delivered, however, SpaceX shoulders the financial burden of losing the rocket
itself, as only the contents are insured.

~~~
api
It will also likely increase the cost of insuring SpaceX launches. I'm sure
it's like car insurance. Of course SpaceX is so much cheaper than their
competition that it may not matter, and reuse is about to make them cheaper
still.

Short term setback, but probably not so awful long term. Also glad nobody got
hurt. It's just money.

~~~
kuschku
> Of course SpaceX is so much cheaper than their competition that it may not
> matter, and reuse is about to make them cheaper still.

They’re 2 million USD more expensive per launch for a mid-size satellite than
the Ariane 5 is, so I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

~~~
xenadu02
No they aren't; SpaceX is charging around $62m and Arianespace charges
$100-$130m for the same launch.

The first few Falcon 9 launches were a lot cheaper, around $40m I think. I'm
sure SpaceX would still be massively profitable at that price, but they're
already over-booked so might as well raise prices to generate more capital
since building rockets is an _ahem_ <i>capital intensive</i> business.

If SpaceX can re-use rocket engines for 10 launches that will change
everything yet again. Let's be extremely generous and say $5 million for fuel,
personnel, range rental, etc. Amortize the vehicle across 10 launches and
you're talking $10m.

~~~
kuschku
Actually, that’s not true.

For the mid-size launches that SpaceX is billing 62m$ for, Ariane bills 60m$
for.

What Arianespace offers at 130m$ is instead something SpaceX isn’t even
offering currently, as their second stage is far inferior to Ariane’s.

(Ariane always bundles a 130m$ and 60m$ contract per launch together).

If SpaceX can relaunch the rockets multiple times, that might reduce the cost
indeed, but they also have far increased labor costs up ahead, as they can’t
keep everyone working overtime for free forever.

------
TheMagician0
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...](http://www.metaculus.com/questions/224/will-spacex-
launch-for-mars-in-the-2018-window/)

~~~
greglindahl
Last accident, Falcon Heavy had a big delay. Apparently SpaceX pulled
engineering resources off of FH to work on F9. Given that the 2018 launch
window is narrow, it's quite likely that Red Dragon won't launch until the
2020 launch window.

p.s. are you involved with Metaculus in some way? All of your recent postings
appear to mention metaculus.com.

------
yread
CNBC says that NBC says (I know...) that thankfully nobody was injured

[http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-
cap...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-cape-
canaveral-hours-before-launch.html)

EDIT: apparently it happened at t:-3m so nobody was around

------
caycep
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...

------
horseshoe7
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)

------
smegel
I'd almost be sad but Facebook.

------
sandworm101
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.

------
satyajeet23
A Google self-driving car was seen leaving the scene at high speed!

------
ldjb
Live video stream from the Kennedy Space Center (you can paste the link into
something like VLC):
[http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel4](http://kscwmserv1.ksc.nasa.gov/channel4)

(Via Reddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-70...](https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-704a-11e6-bb50-0e64be54f1eb))

------
dlgeek
Here's a few photos capturing what appears to be a massive secondary
explosion:
[https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428/ph...](https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428/photo/1)

(There was already an explosion or fire before this one given the smoke in the
air).

------
CountSessine
Does anyone know whether this was one of SpaceX's recovered/refurbished
rockets that had previously flown a mission and landed?

~~~
rohit89
No, it was a new one.

------
MOARDONGZPLZ
The rocket is currently in flames. Staffers at the facility are telling me.
Plumes of smoke rising from Launch Complex.

------
coldcode
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.

~~~
blackguardx
What makes you think this couldn't be a software bug? Studying about bugs like
Therac-25 [1] were standard practice at my school to show what it takes to
make software an engineering discipline.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25)

------
dlgeek
The reddit live thread seems to be the best source of current informations and
updates:
[https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g](https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g)

------
perseusprime11
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?

------
merpnderp
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.

------
andrewwhartion
Relative to the rest of the mission/rocket lifecycle, how risky is filling it
with fuel generally considered?

------
lutorm
This seems like a good place to point out that we are hiring! See the "Who's
Hiring" thread. :-)

------
DrNuke
I would leave wild speculation out of this debate and wait for a SpaceX
official release.

------
intrasight
Watched the live feed. That "smoke test" failure definitely made some smoke.

------
johndubchak
Was the launch rocket supposed to be one of their recovered/recycled rockets?

------
astdb
Shouldn't the static fire test have gone ahead without a live payload?

------
tempestn
The music in the techcrunch video seemed a bit inappropriate.

------
Halienja
It wasn't carrying it though, it was just a test.

------
mdrzn
From the twitter feed: [http://imgur.com/6b6MfNQ](http://imgur.com/6b6MfNQ)

~~~
verytrivial
404 for me.

~~~
mzs
[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY6bmYW5xXE/V8guijPQh7I/A...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KY6bmYW5xXE/V8guijPQh7I/AAAAAAAAz-w/wZNUvOFD3og-
gp7A2_45xqgt3UwsZXkhwCL0B/s4096/6b6MfNQr.jpg)

[http://i.imgur.com/6b6MfNQr.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/6b6MfNQr.jpg)

~~~
wyldfire
The imgur link doesn't work but the other one does.

------
gthtjtkt
One small loss for mankind, one giant win for Net Neutrality.

~~~
rootlocus
You mean one small loss for Facebook maybe?

------
monocasa
That was my immediate thought too. Israel is known for playing rough when it
comes to sovereignty concerns, particularly of a technological nature.

~~~
dang
Since this subthread went off the rails in several directions at once, we've
detached it from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12406651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12406651)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
monocasa
Sounds good. Keep up the good work! : )

------
remotelife
This is crazy!

------
byebyetech
Damn it. 0 Days since SpaceX Rocket exploded.

------
walkingolof
According to sources (twitter), they where F-3 minutes so no-one should be out
on pad, payload was not loaded either.

------
bunkydoo
The environmentally friendly aspect of Tesla's cars is seemingly negated by
SpaceX's black-smoke rocket fuel laden explosions.

------
627467
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.

~~~
0xffff2
I don't understand what the quote has to do with this at all. It's neither a
government payload, nor AFAIK do they have a second satellite.

Maybe I'm overthinking your comment.

~~~
dpcx
You are. :)

The comment was essentially stating that Facebook should have built two of the
satellites, as a contingency plan. Rocket science is hard. Having a backup is
easier.

------
microtherion
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092)

~~~
0xffff2
There is no insurance for SpaceX here. The payload is insured, but the loss of
the launch vehicle and any damage to the launch facilities will be born SpaceX
directly.

