my subreddits front - all - random | askreddit - funny - pics - videos - todayilearned - gifs - worldnews - news - gaming - movies - aww - showerthoughts - mildlyinteresting - jokes - iama - television - lifeprotips - nottheonion - tifu - music - explainlikeimfive - science - Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds. COMMENTS UPDATE: "SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's pre-launch static fire test, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and [Amos-6]. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries." - SpaceX on Twitter Ask Amos-6 Iridium r/SpaceX RULES WIKI FAQ Anything Launch Mission 1 Mars Thread Campaign Launch Architectur [September Discussion Campaign e AMOS-6 Explosion Falcon 9 & AMOS-6 Static Fire Anomaly FAQ, Summary, & what we know so far 386 from r/SpaceX submitted 8 hours ago * by EchoLogic [M] Summary Today, at 9:07AM EDT (13:07 UTC) September 1st, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle suffered a catastrophic failure on SpaceX’s SLC-40 launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The vehicle was being prepared for a late- night launch on September 3rd to deliver AMOS-6, a geostationary communications satellite (the payload onboard) to a geosynchronous transfer orbit. At the time of the explosion, the vehicle was about T-3 minutes away from engine ignition and completion of its static fire; which is when the vehicle test fires the 9 Merlin 1D engines of the vehicle’s first stage as a mission assurance step before launch to ensure all measured parameters are within their correct ranges. An explosion, which originated from the area near or at the upper stage LOX (Liquid Oxygen) tank, ended in a total loss of both the Falcon 9 vehicle and its payload, AMOS-6, as well as causing damage to the SLC-40 launch pad. FAQ search What happened? this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2016 386 points (93% upvoted) The vehicle was performing a routine wet dress rehearsal and static fire (read below for static fire definition) on shortlink: https://redd.it/50rr9v the SLC-40 launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Approximately three minutes before the first stage engines ignited, the upper stage exploded, destroying both stages of the vehicle and the payload. In addition, the accident damaged the launch site to an unknown extent. username password What caused the explosion? remember me reset password login At this point in time, all that is known is that the explosion originated near the upper stage LOX tank, as per Elon Musk’s (CEO and founder of SpaceX) tweet here. This is the second time the upper stage LOX tank has been the rough origin for a fatal vehicle problem on Falcon 9; a weakened heim joint on a COPV (Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel) strut caused the loss of a Falcon 9 vehicle carrying Dragon to the ISS as part of the CRS-7 mission on 28 June 2015. This in no way implies causality between these events, and no extra information is available at this time. What are some possible causes of the explosion? Short answer: we don’t know. Long answer: SpaceX are still investigating. They’ll need to conduct a detailed investigation over the coming weeks to determine the root cause, as well as examine all of the vehicle & ground systems to make sure the failure doesn’t occur again. Until the investigation is complete and the findings have been announced, baseless speculation is not helpful, and will be removed from this subreddit. What is a static fire? Submissions restricted Immediately before, during, and after a launch, submissions A static fire is a test, performed before the launch, to verify that the vehicle is ready for flight. It is identical to a are restricted. Please try again soon. launch until the moment of liftoff; instead of releasing the vehicle shortly after first stage engine ignition, the vehicle fires for several seconds and then shuts down. Afterwards, propellant is unloaded, the launch vehicle is SpaceX lowered and taken back to the hangar, and all the data from the static fire is reviewed. subscribe SpaceX is unique in the launch services industry in that they perform static fire tests on their vehicles before launch; no other provider does this. 76,488 DragonRiders 1,608 In Orbit Was it a reused first stage? Welcome to /r/SpaceX, the premier SpaceX discussion community and the largest fan-run board No, this was F9-029, a newly produced Falcon 9 first stage core that was preparing for its first flight to carry on the American aerospace company SpaceX. This AMOS-6 to orbit. The first mission using a “flight-proven” (also known as reused) first stage core will be lofting board is not an official outlet for SpaceX SES-10, which was scheduled for a launch no earlier than October prior to today’s anomaly. information. There is no statistical data at this point in time which points to either new or “flight-proven” vehicles being more or less safe than the other. This will only be able to be determined experimentally through reuse itself. Before Posting How is this incident similar to the CRS-7 Falcon 9 failure last fall? Please read our community rules, and check out the Both failures stemmed from an issue apparently near the second stage of the vehicle, and both missions carried Community Wiki & FAQ! unmanned payloads. Beyond that, similarities are few and far apart. CRS-7 was not a commercial mission, but rather part of a contract with NASA to deliver supplies and scientific experiments to the ISS. The CRS-7 incident took place 2 minutes and 19 seconds into flight, while the Amos-6 incident occurred at approximately T-3 minutes to its static fire. Hot Jobs at SpaceX Who will be a part of the incident & investigation report? Tell your friends, tell your classmates: SpaceX is looking to fill these positions as soon as possible! SpaceX lease SLC-40 from the United States Air Force. As the anomaly occurred on their property, they will want These hot jobs will change every Thursday, so keep to be part of any investigation; just as NASA was a part of the investigation which grounded Antares out of an eye on them! Wallops in 2014. Location Position Was anyone injured or killed? State Hawthorne All personnel were cleared from the launch pad in accordance with SpaceX’s static fire protocols. Because of Full-Stack Enterprise Developer this, nobody was near the vehicle or the launchpad, so no confirmed fatalities or injuries were caused. All Cape California Canaveral Air Force Station Fire Department and Kennedy Space Center Fire Department firefighters remained Hawthorne safe; and assisted in the cleanup operation yesterday. Mechanical Engineer (Composites) California Why does SpaceX static fire the vehicle with the second stage attached? Hawthorne Structures Engineer Falcon 9 California A static fire is designed to emulate a launch up until the T-0 mark; except for the releasing of the vehicle, the run-up should be identical. The intent of this process is to discover any issues (such as unexpected vehicle Hawthorne Applications Product Manager margins, non-functional components, or out of bound parameters) that might appear during propellant loading California (Manufacturing, ERP) or other pre-launch processes. Obviously the vehicle should never explode during the static fire. Seattle Sr. RFIC Engineer Why does SpaceX static fire the vehicle with the payload attached? Washington Vandenberg According to Peter B. de Selding on Twitter, SpaceX implemented an optional policy of attaching the payload to Avionics Integration Engineer the vehicle earlier this year with some “insurer upset”, as it saves about a day during of launch preparations, California and allows SpaceX to monitor the payload’s interaction with the vehicle. The customer can decline this option if Be sure to select Reddit in the “How did you hear they wish. about us?” section! Why was the second stage being fueled if its engine is not fired during a static fire? More jobs are listed at spacex.com/careers. A static fire is a dress rehearsal for actual launch procedures. SpaceX uses the static fire to make sure all the systems and procedures are working well and running smoothly for the impending launch. To make this Select Upcoming Events procedure as true to the actual launch as possible, SpaceX loads both stages with propellant, and the customer often agrees to let their satellite be integrated for the entire process. The ten second firing of the engines at the end may be the flashiest part of the static fire, but it is preceded by hours of work by launch teams making sure Event NET Date the pre-fire checklist is coming along well. Details Thanks, /u/old_sellsword! Amos-6 Sep 3 What happened to the satellite? Falcon 9 (F9-029) Iridium NEXT Flight 1 (1-10) The AMOS-6 satellite, which was atop the second stage and encapsulated in the payload fairing during the static TBD Falcon 9 fire, fell off the vehicle after the explosion and was completely destroyed. Colonizing Mars (Mars architecture Was the AMOS-6 satellite insured? TBD presentation) w/ Elon Musk International Astronautical Congress Spacecom insured the payload under two policies: one for pre-launch procedures, where the satellite was r/SpaceX IAC2016 Meetup classified as marine cargo for $285 million. The second policy is a more standard space launch policy. The latter TBD policy does not become active until the moment of ignition for launch, and remains active for T+1 year after Guadalajara, Mexico liftoff. As today’s anomaly occurred during the prelaunch-phase of operations, Spacecom does not get to Formosat-5/SHERPA exercise this policy.