SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas (opens in new tab)

Any number of reasons. Test ranges are usually in remote areas to avoid any immediate danger, but if the guidance or control systems malfunction, it can go somewhere unfortunate rather quickly.

I can't seem to find any good numbers, but it seems like the F9 rocket should have somewhere around 200 tons of fuel & oxidiser (kerosene & liquid oxygen). That, in addition to the few other hundred tons of rocket landing anywhere public is probably not going to end well.

IIRC, most rockets over a certain size are required to have some form of 'range safety package'[1] which may include a self-destruct capability for exactly these reasons.

In the course of the Challenger shuttle accident, the Solid Rocket Boosters were remotely destroyed by the range safety officer[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety

[2] http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch9.htm

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

When they're out of control and could hit someone.

Avoidance of cases like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708

Not only do these rockets have them, but manned craft like the Space Shuttle are destructible from the ground (one hopes the encryption keys are well-protected). You don't want an out-of-control bomb heading towards Orlando.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US...

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

Because if they lose guidance but the motor keeps running the thing could hit a populated area.

Interestingly the Russian space program never used range safety systems, but then they had an empty part of Kazakhstan to launch in.

A rocket going far off the designated trajectory. It would be a catastrophe for a space launch rocket to fall into a civilian area.

probably isn't such a difficult system to add when you're adding that capability to a massive tank of pressurized fuel.

One can imagine all sorts of instances where it'd be preferable to litter the area with debris rather than missle-ing the rocket into a densely populated area.

Alien on board comes to mind.

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-...

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.

The Falcon 9 never exploded. So far it has made 11 successful flights to orbit, it lost an engine mid-flight, once, Grasshopper made 8 successful hops, and G9R Dev1, a three engined first stage with grid fins, self-destructed on its 5th flight, probably while trying to do something no rocket has ever done. Note that SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell said last year that she feels the engineers are not pushing the reusability testing enough because there were no failures yet.

NASA is a terrible rocket design bureau good only for pork barrel, which is what is has been doing for decades. NASA had to admit that developing Falcon 9 (100% privately funded by SpaceX and private investors) would have cost more than twice if it was done by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf).

The point of it is that the US government finds it politically inexpedient and costly having to pay Russia or United Launch Alliance[1] (who sometimes use Russian engines anyway[2]) in order to get people and equipment to space. SpaceX is an obvious path away from the Russia Space Agency / ULA.

For things that the government wants to launch from the US, having a second US-based option for space launch will get the US out of the bilateral monopoly that exists with ULA.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance [2] http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1408/20rd180delivery/

You uh, do realize that this was a test-bed rocket right? Designed to do experimental things?

Also, I was not aware of any Falcon 9 exploding previously. What on earth are you talking about?

This is so incorrect it's almost funny. For the record:

First: Falcon 9 so far has 11/11 successful launches. This was not a Falcon 9, this was a test flight of a sub-orbital development vehicle (F9R-"Dev").

Second: "Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads...". Your Wikipedia link says maximum payload to LEO is 1,963 kg, while Wikipedia quotes Falcon9's maximum payload to LEO is 13,150 kg.

And how much do they charge for those 1963kg? Wikipedia quotes 32 million euros per launch, or $42M, corresponding to $21,000/kg, for the Vega, and $4,109/kg for the F9...

This was an auto-destruct, it didn't just randomly explode due to engine failure. Some other parameters of the test launch were either incorrectly configured or went out of bounds and the flight computer destroyed it. Rockets are hard, sometimes you have to fail fast.

Well actually NASA, like any beaurocracy, grew so large that rockets were costing billions of dollars to launch a new rocket. Without market forces to keep the costs in check, no one thought this a problem and contracts were issued based on paperwork driven development.

There won't be. If the self-destruct triggers, then the rocket is 1) already going to cause their deaths, and 2) going to potentially save the lives of people on the ground.

Now, that said, this is why we have escape towers on pods (and the escape rockets around the sides of the Dragon 2). In the case of an emergency, those eject the pod from the rocket so that it can be returned safely, even as the rocket is destroyed.

The shuttle had its own variant although that was manual, not automatic 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.

Dragon V2 will have a Launch Escape System, which is used to quickly separate the crew module from the rest of the rocket in case of an emergency.

http://www.collectspace.com/review/spacex_las01.jpg

Very unlikely. The Space Shuttle also had this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US...

The capsule sits on top of the rocket, and has the ability to quickly fly away if something goes wrong, whether it's the rocket exploding because it broke or because it's commanded to. There's nothing really incompatible with a manned rocket having a self-destruct system.

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.

please explain

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.

Is there any actual HD video? I find it really surprising I can't find any...

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

Yes, "flight termination system" refers to a bunch of explosives and a widget to blow them up on command.

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

That is factually incorrect. You do not have to be a US citizen to work there. You do, however, with few exceptions, have to be a US permanent resident.

And those rules are the US government's, not SpaceX's.

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.)

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=0UjWqQPWmsY

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