About The Author
-

20 Comments

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Denicio Del Tore
    Reply

    LMFAO Recently the Americans were laughing when he fell Russian "Progress"
    What will they say now that dropped the American missile-shit SpaceX Falcon 9?

  • Alfred Samual
    Reply

    Looks like an explosion in the upper stage LOX tank. This is evident by the vapor cloud that forms during the explosion from the cryogenic liquid oxygen. Additionally, due to the presence of additional oxygen in the main exhaust jet, the flame turns from orange to red following the explosion, indicating a fuel lean mixture. Also, worth noting it wasn't the fuel (RP-1) tank that failed. Otherwise, the fuel would have immediately ignited being ejected into a Mach 4.4 flow (indicated by the telemetry data at t+ 2:19). Based on this observation, I would much rather have an issue with an over pressure in a tank, than the Merlin rocket engine family. Sad day for SpaceX and a sad day for space flight and travel. That being said, please continue to scratch the surface of the final frontier and provide the stepping stones for the greatest human endeavor.

  • danthemanzizle
    Reply

    This is a bummer! But when you think about it they have done really well making it this far, Antares blew up on like its 3rd launch ever. I feel bad for the makers of the experiments onboard this rocket, many years of work have been set back.

  • Joseph Sunday
    Reply

    For you doubters of the moon mission vehicles (silly comments) keep in mind that in the 1960's there were infinitely less distractions at the Administration level as well as much better talented technicians than is fielded today especially at the private level. My dad was a Contract Worker (Engineer) on the very first SkyLab Project. Parts, planning, and a whole host of environments MUST be 100% (or near) in total Sync when dealing with electromechanical/chemical propulsion craft. Take the very tiny rather insignificant O-Ring issue of the space shuttle malfunction years before as one example.

  • Vladimir Vladimirovich
    Reply

    We conclude from this failure that:
    The moon landing was a hoax! They can send a man 300,000 KM away from
    earth in 1969 the first time they tried with a rocket that has a computer inferior to any smart phone on the market today, but they can't leave lower earth orbit in 2015 after many trials…. Give me a break.

  • Ally Van Andel
    Reply

    The structural failure appeared to begin at the capsule area then propagated aft. Almost looks like an aerodynamic failure, but that could have been due to a preceding cause itself. That's a particularly unfortunate failure because it should have been preventable. Engines looked hot and normal all the way. And it was hitting its time, distance and speed until the forward section seemed to shatter down onto the first stage.

    There is a plume on the (then) underside of the rocket near the first and second stage joint just before a much larger plume engulfs the upper stage. Could have been second stage fired early.