Launch Pad Explosion during Static Test Fire - Sept 1 2016

[bxr140]

I'll be interested to see if this has any affect on Vandenburg operations....I wonder if part of their recovery, they can speed up the cadence at Vandenburg....

VAFB and CCAFS launch to different orbits. They're for two completely separate and not interchangeable missions.

This will absolutely will stop vandenberg launches. They need to determine the root cause before doing anything, then implement a corrective action. Since this was clearly a rocket or a ground equipment problem, it affects both sites. Few if any causes coukd be site specific.

If it's a smoking gun problem with an obvious solution, vandenberg could come back online relatively soon. Unfortunately, there aren't many commercial customers that want to launch something on a heavy-ish launcher to a polar orbit, so for now even if they did try to shift focus to more vandenberg launches, there wouldn't be anyone to launch.

 

[ecarfan]

I am curious to know how much this will affect their launch schedule. Since the problem seems to be external to the rocket would there need to be any significant delays? Certainly SLC-40 needs the damage repaired before a launch can happen out of that location. The next launch is scheduled out of Vandenberg.

If the cause of the incident can be identified in a few days and corrective action taken quickly then it seems possible that the next launch could proceed on schedule, but I'm doubtful that ideal scenario will take place.

The extent of the pad damage is not known to us, but it is hard to imagine it was trivial and that repairs could be completed within a month.

The pad repairs, in combination with an unknown length of time to diagnose and fix the issue that caused the explosion, makes it likely that launch schedules will be negatively impacted for many months out. What a bummer.

 

[Stoneymonster]

You can see it enter the right side of the video and move towards the rocket before the explosion and it continues past the rocket after the explosion. The piece you're talking about comes after the explosion and moves vertically.

Oh I see it. Yeah that's probably a bug. The camera is over 3 miles away so anything close to the lens looks like mothra attacking the rocket. You can see a bunch of them flying around in the minute prior to the explosion.

 

[ecarfan]

I watched the video of the explosion posted at Spectacular Video Captures Catastrophic SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Explosion During Prelaunch Test - Universe Today

The explosion appears to have occurred near the top of the second stage. Is that where the propellant lines connect to the second stage LOX tank?

 

[adiggs]

If the cause of the incident can be identified in a few days and corrective action taken quickly then it seems possible that the next launch could proceed on schedule, but I'm doubtful that ideal scenario will take place.

The extent of the pad damage is not known to us, but it is hard to imagine it was trivial and that repairs could be completed within a month.

The pad repairs, in combination with an unknown length of time to diagnose and fix the issue that caused the explosion, makes it likely that launch schedules will be negatively impacted for many months out. What a bummer.

The tower didn't look to be in any good shape to my completely untrained eye. More than a scorch mark at least I'd guess

 

[glhs272]

Wow. What a gut punch. As if loosing rocket and payload wasn't bad enough, looks like it completely totaled SLC-40. We may even see launches out of 39A first. Hang in there SpaceX!

 

[jdevo2004]

Starts at upper stage (again)....

If you slow to 0.25 speed and pause at 1:23 you see the intact second stage fall to the ground and explode. Seems the problem did not originate in the second stage.

 

[dpeilow]

Agreed, it's very odd that a 1/4 Billion dollar payload was onboard during a static fire test.

Zuckerberg must not be very happy with Space X. His satellite didn't need to be present for the test.

I'm not saying the satellite shouldn't have been on there. It takes more than a few hours to integrate a payload to the top of the vehicle and SpaceX obviously sees value in doing this hold down test prior to flight. What I'm saying is loading the second stage obviously increases the risk of an accident for no obvious gain.

An by the way, it's not Zuckerberg's satellite. It was a satellite owned by Israeli company Spacecom which the entire Ka-band payload had been leased to a London based JV between French company Eutelsat and Facebook.

The insurance will be interesting for this one. Depends on the contract but normally these days the launch vehicle provider is responsible until injection into the correct orbit. If that's the case here then I hope SpaceX has insurance for this scenario or it could be a quarter billion dollar cash flow issue.

 

[dpeilow]

If you slow to 0.25 speed and pause at 1:23 you see the intact second stage fall to the ground and explode. Seems the problem did not originate in the second stage.

That's the fairing and payload.

 

[Canuck]

The insurance will be interesting for this one. Depends on the contract but normally these days the launch vehicle provider is responsible until injection into the correct orbit. If that's the case here then I hope SpaceX has insurance for this scenario or it could be a quarter billion dollar cash flow issue.

I can't imagine SpaceX doesn't have insurance for this loss, regardless of where the loss occurs. The problem will be insurance premiums for the future since insurers are taking a bath in this particular market, even before this crash:

SpaceX rocket brings new underwriting challenges to satellite insurance market - Business Insurance

Insurers don't take a bath for long, though, and they make up for increased risk by increased premiums, or leaving the specialized market completely. There's more info on insurance for rocket crashes here:

With explosions like the SpaceX rocket, here's who pays

I found it heartbreaking when I heard the news. But nothing worth doing comes without risk and heartbreak, or at least that's how I rationalize such bad news.

 

[Cosmacelf]

The payload will be insured, but not necessarily the rocket, and certainly not the launch pad...

 

[Canuck]

The payload will be insured, but not necessarily the rocket, and certainly not the launch pad...

What do you base that on? I'm quite certain both the rocket and launch pad are insured. For example,

"SpaceCo - The Allianz specialists in space and satellite insurance":

Providing the full range of space insurance coverage
We are well-equipped to meet the demands of the industry by providing capacity and expertise in the following space insurance classes:

• Assembly, integration and test (AIT) coverage during the manufacturing and testing phase
• Pre-launch – coverage during transport to the launch pad, at the launch pad before launch or in storage, as well as contingent exposures
• Production facility / launch pad property damage – property cover for manufacturing and storage facilities
• Launch and commissioning – cover for the launch systems and commissioning equipment
• In-orbit – operational life insurance for the space satellite
• In-orbit incentives – cover for the manufacturer’s obligation to the client in the event of malfunction or non-performance
• Service interruption / loss of revenue / broadcast events – cover for broadcasters or any organization that uses telecom networks
• Liability – cover for third party liability during a launch or in-orbit activities
• Captive services – assisting cover for companies that self-insure space risks

Of course, this type of specialized insurance, with high risk and high payouts, are usually subscription policies, or reinsurance policies, meaning the risk is shared over a number of insurers, or after a certain amount of damage the primary insurer has reinsurance.

Why would SpaceX not have insurance for the rocket and its launch pad? That makes no sense to me. Do you have a source you can direct me to?

 

[bxr140]

Why would SpaceX not have insurance for the rocket and its launch pad?

The question is: under whom is the payload insured during such an operation.

 

[ecarfan]

If you slow to 0.25 speed and pause at 1:23 you see the intact second stage fall to the ground and explode. Seems the problem did not originate in the second stage.

What you see falling to the ground is the nose fairing with the satellite payload inside it.

The initial explosion appears to have originated near the top of the second stage. I cannot ascertain from the video of the accident if the explosion orginated inside or outside the second stage. It seems likely that SpaceX will be able to make that determination.

 

[palmer_md]

Play this video at 0.25 speed and it looks like it starts on the strong-back and not the rocket, but still very hard to tell as it is too quick and not the best angle .

Such a sad day yesterday. Anxiously awaiting the SpaceX review of the event.

 

[mediocreguy]

looks like it starts on the strong-back and not the rocket

Yes - I agree - it doesn't look like it starts at the rocket. It might be either an over-pressurization, ruptured hose, or electrical arc in the strong-back. I hope they can resolve this soon - I really believe SpaceX will be the leader in US space exploration (and already is in some ways).

 

[Pando]

I estimated the location by triangulating the lens flares. This shows the brightest light source within the explosion cloud. However from the first frame of the explosion it seems that there was a leak and something ignited the leaked gas that was already outside the vehicle.

 

[Super_Popular]

A totally real conversation between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg about a rocket

 

[jdevo2004]

An article so poorly researched it is almost funny.
Elon Musk Continues To Blow Up Taxpayer Money With Falcon 9

 

[McRat]

Just a single grease smudge can ignite in the presence of LOx or high pressure O2.