
SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas - richardwigley
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28910812
======
spacefight
Better video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qv2VEX9iyI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qv2VEX9iyI)

SpaceX Statement:
[https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/502976401729798144/photo/1](https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/502976401729798144/photo/1)

~~~
richardwigley
BBC Updated the video to the 'better video' in @spacefight's link (the
original was taken from a more distant vantage point).

SpaceX Statement in full (copied from facebook page):

Earlier today, in McGregor, Texas, SpaceX conducted a test flight of a three
engine version of the F9R test vehicle (successor to Grasshopper). During the
flight, an anomaly was detected in the vehicle and the flight termination
system automatically terminated the mission.

Throughout the test and subsequent flight termination, the vehicle remained in
the designated flight area. There were no injuries or near injuries. An FAA
representative was present at all times.

With research and development projects, detecting vehicle anomalies during the
testing is the purpose of the program. Today’s test was particularly complex,
pushing the limits of the vehicle further than any previous test. As is our
practice, the company will be reviewing the flight record details to learn
more about the performance of the vehicle prior to our next test.

SpaceX will provide another update when the flight data has been fully
analyzed.

~~~
matt-attack
> An FAA representative was present at all times.

Well thank goodness. I was so worried that a government agent was not present.
All is well. Hail the FAA.

------
AVTizzle
>>The unmanned rocket was destroyed when its self-destruct system was
triggered after an unexplained malfunction.

It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What
scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct?

~~~
electromagnetic
Honestly, play KSP. Once you flip a rocket, its nearly unrecoverable and it
just accelerates into the ground.

~~~
sjtrny
I wonder if the reusable rockets from SpaceX could recover from a flipped
position during re-entry?

~~~
exDM69
No, they can't. Once you're supersonic, the aerodynamic stress will tear a
rocket into shreds if there's even a few degrees of angle of attack.

~~~
Gravityloss
But if you're high enough, the forces are not very high, so there's probably a
Q limit, (that is, proportional to density * speed^2).

~~~
lutorm
Yeah, the landing attempts obviously flip before entry, while they're out of
the atmosphere.

------
speeq
"We've got to tunnel one of these vehicles into the ground by trying something
really hard." \- Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX

~~~
robert_tweed
This puts "move fast and break things" into a whole new perspective.

I'm glad I can joke about this because nobody was hurt. Saw the headline at
the top of the frontage and it immediately brought back memories of seeing
Challenger on the news when I was 9, which rather changed my perspective on
space travel at the time.

~~~
dclowd9901
Indeed, but when I move fast and break things, my website goes down, and maybe
costs a few thousand in lost sales. In terms of man hours and construction,
this broken thing must cost tens of millions! That's some agile.

------
isaacV
I also almost got a job there, and toured that facility during the final
interview. Their testing at that site involves firing rockets that are secured
to the ground, and monitoring the results from an underground bunker. I lived
in that area up until this year, and I've never seen them launch anything from
that site. I didn't even know they had that infrastructure there! There are
also houses all around that facility, so I am surprised to see them launch
this thing.

~~~
chmullig
They've done lots of launches of the Grasshopper and F9R landing tests there.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsY)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4)

------
lafar6502
I almost expect a statement that this was a successful test of the self-
destruct mechanism. ... Oops, looks like they really did it.

------
utefan001
[http://global3.memecdn.com/ksp-in-a-
nutshell_o_2453969.jpg](http://global3.memecdn.com/ksp-in-a-
nutshell_o_2453969.jpg)
[http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/082/8/8/ksp_secondary...](http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/082/8/8/ksp_secondary_motto_by_xveris-d5yz4p0.jpg)

------
bane
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/502974683864518657](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/502974683864518657)

------
githulhu
Huh. Why did the explosion produce two distinct, different-colored smoke
clouds?

Also, what's the environmental impact of this kind of accident?

~~~
lutorm
The rocket has two tanks, one with kerosene, one with liquid oxygen. I bet the
black fireball is the kerosene burning, the white cloud is the liquid oxygen
vaporizing.

Environmental impact is likely small, the kerosene would have burned anyway
and there are little other hazardous chemicals on board. (Unlike for example
the Proton failure linked by kryptisk above which is fueled with really nasty
hypergolic fuels.)

~~~
AustinDev
To add to that. I'm sure Space X attempts to collect all the debris that falls
to the ground.

------
smoyer
I hope there's a way to disable the self-destruct mechanism when they start
doing manned flights!

~~~
ejr
The shuttle had its own variant although that was manual, not automatic
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479)

I believe it doesn't matter what the craft is, there is always some manner of
self-destruct to ensure a larger population isn't threatened by debris from an
exploding rocket.

~~~
libria
It does matter. I doubt you'll load 300 willing passengers on a 747 if it was
widely known it had a self destruct.

I would guess each case has to weigh its pros and cons for inclusion of a
system. There is such thing as acceptable risk to population. If FAA mandated
them carte blanche, Michael Bay movies would become documentaries.

~~~
squeaky-clean
A 747 isn't a spacecraft travelling at supersonic speeds, so it's not really
the type of craft relevant to the discussion. Cars, buses and boats also
aren't loaded with self-destruct mechanisms for obvious reasons.

~~~
libria
Obvious enough that I had assumed craft = aircraft as well since you can "take
the keys out" of ground/water vehicles. I was challenging the thought that
every aircraft needs self destruct, as I suspect it's a minority. If as you
say supersonic capability is the threat threshold, fighter jets/rockets would
have them but a C-5 Galaxy and Blackhawk might not (I don't know, I'm
speculating).

~~~
ejr
In this context, I meant craft = spacecraft. Our current space launch
technology relies on extremely volatile and dangerous fuel. Until that
changes, a self destruct will be found in all large launch vehicles[1]

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

------
alexobenauer
"the flight termination system automatically terminated the mission"... by
blowing itself up?

~~~
MichaelApproved
How else would you terminate an active rocket flying through the air?

~~~
maccard
Land it safely on the ground 20 or 30 feet from where it took off, obviously

/s

~~~
lutorm
No, that would be "completing" the mission, not "terminating" it... ;-)

------
zerr
Shit happens. Especially when you have a requirement for US citizenship for
your employees...

~~~
adventured
Because nearly exclusively using US citizens has turned out so terribly for
NASA the last 50 years.

~~~
RD-180
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#History)

------
kome
The Falcon 9 explodes again? ...While the European Vega rocket (aimed at the
same size of payloads, but much more versatile of the Falcon 9[1]) is 3
success out of 3:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket)

The political will to create a private market for rockets is strong in US. So
strong that a lot of American public money has been used to save SpaxeX from
failure, multiple time.

But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well
founded. Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX, even
if they have issues with their job...

[1] Vega launch satellites to Sun synchronous orbit, satellites here are earth
observers and usually a few tonnes at most, the majority much smaller.
Launches here are very infrequent, so matching spacecraft is difficult. Falcon
9 isn't currently equipped with an appropriate fairing to do dual launch like
this without satellites built to stack (which most aren't). Falcon 9 might
haul 9 tonnes, but you might not be able to find 9 tonnes of spacecraft to
that orbit. Vega payloads are also kept in a clean environment and fairing,
something SpaceX hasn't demonstrated. Horizontal integration can be an issue.
ITAR issues... The list goes on.

~~~
zizee
Are you trolling? Most rocket platforms have had a rate of failure. The ESA's
Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had launch failures as well. SpaceX
has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.

 _> But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well
founded..._

NASA doesn't build rockets. They have always outsourced the job to aerospace
companies.

 _> Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX_

I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more
launches from SpaceX.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/25/spacex-...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/25/spacex-
sues-to-block-contract-award/8157667/)

EDIT - changed my wording from "very checkered history" to "had launch
failures as well" \- in my rush to respond, I went from memory and checking
the facts found my words too strong.

~~~
kome
> The ESA's Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had a very checkered
> history.

Ariane 5 is not the predecessor of Vega. They are two very different project,
for different payloads. And look at the table of success and failure rate of
the Ariane 5 itself
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianne_5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianne_5)

> SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms.

Clearly that's not the case.

> I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more
> launches from SpaceX.

From that interview: [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-
indu...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-industrial-
empire/)

 _Elon Musk_ : NASA called and told us that we'd won a $1.5 billion contract.
And I couldn't even hold the phone, I just blurted out, "I love you guys."

 _Scott Pelley_ : They saved you.

 _Elon Musk_ : Yeah, they did.

~~~
zizee
_> Ariane 5 is not the predecessor of Vega._

I stand corrected. The point is that the ESA's rocket program is far from
flawless as your "3 from 3" post above suggests.

 _> > SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms._

 _> Clearly that's not the case._

From the article, this was a TEST flight. Exploding rockets is an expected
part of the development process.

