Slashdot Mirror


First Satellite in Facebook's Plan For Global Internet Access Exploded With Falcon 9 (qz.com)

Mike Murphy, reporting for Quartz: The first step in Facebook's grand vision to connect the entire world to the internet -- or Facebook -- has gone up in flames. Earlier today, a SpaceX rocket carrying a satellite that Facebook planned to use in its internet.org initiative exploded during a pre-launch test at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The rocket was due to send the satellite up into orbit Sept. 3, but during the set-up and testing process, an "anomaly" occurred on the launch pad, according to SpaceX, and the rocket exploded. Facebook had planned to lease some of the bandwidth on the satellite, Amos 6, from its operator, the Israeli company SpaceCom, to beam internet to sub-Saharan Africa. The satellite was intended to fill in until Facebook's more ambitious plans for internet access are ready, including developing and launching massive solar-powered drones that use lasers to beam internet to the ground. This the first time Facebook had planned to use a satellite.Facebook wanted to use the $200 million AMOS-6 satellite to beam free internet to developing parts of the world such as Africa. The satellite was supposed to ride SpaceX's Falcon 9 into orbit. After hearing the news, Mark Zuckerberg said he is "deeply disappointed" to hear that SpaceX's launch failure destroyed his satellite. But this setback won't stop him from his goal to connect every person he can find on the face of the earth to get online. He said, "Fortunately, we have developed other technologies like Aquila that will connect people as well. We remain committed to our mission of connecting everyone, and we will keep working until everyone has the opportunities this satellite would have provided."

155 comments

  1. Video of the accident by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative

    USLaunchReport has video of the accident. The first visible anomaly is at 1:11.

    1. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I only saw an explosion. The good news is that it looks like it happened during refueling. Once we switch to EmDrive technology we won't have to use propellant like that.

    2. Re:Video of the accident by kalpol · · Score: 2

      Looks like an electrical arc? pretty impressive boom.

      --
      12:50 - press return.
    3. Re:Video of the accident by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Ouch, looks like a second stage failure - seems very odd!

    4. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I saw this comment, I thought, where is 110010001000 when you need him? This is exactly the kind of post he could irrationally sieze upon as one of his loathed "space nutters".

      Why am I not surprised that he is the only space nutter ever to be found?

    5. Re:Video of the accident by Ichijo · · Score: 1
      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    6. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      The only surprise here is that SpaceX is still using those nasty chemical rockets. Why aren't they using anti-matter engines? I can think up dozens of better engine designs than chemical propellant!

    7. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Right! Why aren't they using a railgun? Or a space elevator? Don't they read stackexchange?

    8. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like SPACE NUTTER talk to me.

    9. Re:Video of the accident by ajedgar · · Score: 1

      It does kind of look like an electrical arc. There is definitely a really bright, really regular shaped flash before the next frame where it's already looking like a regular explosion.

    10. Re:Video of the accident by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      That's nonsense! Everyone knows that the known laws of physics mean that chemical propellant are the pinnacle of engine technology and will never be replaced, ever. The known laws of physics say so, and if there's one thing I know it's that the known laws of physics have never changed.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I know, right? Why aren't they using EmDrives, or antimatter engines, or railguns, or space elevators? It is almost like they don't believe that they work. But they do: NASA proved it! So again, why use those nasty old chemical propellant rockets? Why?

    12. Re:Video of the accident by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because the known laws of physics clearly dictate that chemical propellant is the only way to do this. That's why we've been doing it since the 50s, because in the 50s we already knew all of the known laws of physics (which don't change), so we already knew that the only way to do this was chemical propellant, therefore that's what we used. If it was possible to use a railgun then we would have done that in the 50s, because we already knew everything and technology and our understanding of physics has not progressed since then. I can't even have a conversation with some kind of luddite nutter who doesn't even understand that what we know about physics is as immutable as the fact that chemical propellant is the pinnacle of space launch technology.

      At least, known laws of physics have been immutable since Newton finally figured everything out and gave us all the answers. And if you don't know that then there's nothing I can do to convince you that things never change.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    13. Re:Video of the accident by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Ouch, looks like a second stage failure - seems very odd!

      Does it fuel from the top? If you stop at 1:11 and single-frame through ( , and . ) there's is an X of light (lens flare?) that seems to cross right where a hose-like thing enters the second stage of the rocket in the previous frame.

      There was another lens flare around 1:08 which seemed odd, but maybe that was just out-of-focus bugs.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      We should notify SpaceX that in 2017, the laws of physics aren't really that strict. It isn't like they are laws, more like guidelines. No one REALLY understands all that mishmash anyway. Once they understand that fact, they will realize that anything is possible, and they will launch their generational starship immediately. Onward and upward! We will be leaving this rock in no time! The only reason they are still using chemical rockets must be that they are old-fuddy duddies who are unwiillng to learn the New Physics.

    15. Re:Video of the accident by NotAPK · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link to the video.

      I've watched it on slow motion now a handful of times. "Something" flies across the frame right at the time of the explosion, almost like an overflying aircraft dropped a bomb or something...what do people think?

    16. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I think you are right. It was a bomb. I did my own analysis and confirmed it. What do you think?

    17. Re: Video of the accident by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      What about technology powered by this kind of drive?

      http://www.screanews.us/SouthS...

    18. Re:Video of the accident by msauve · · Score: 1

      Why expend the effort of moving vehicles back and forth, when transporter technology is right around the corner?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    19. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I like how you think. Do you have a newsletter or blog?

    20. Re:Video of the accident by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      You clearly don't understand how this works, so let me help explain this to you. I'll use small words. I do physics. That's my job. I do physics every day, in fact I'm doing physics right now. That means that I'm superior to you, which means that I'm right, ergo you are wrong. Good day sir!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:Video of the accident by msauve · · Score: 1

      It was a terrorist flying rod.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    22. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Nah, what do physicists know about Physics anyway? I have a blog that explains ZPE, EmDrives and generational starships and how they work. That is all you really need. Chemical rockets? Science? That is so 1950s.

    23. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. The just need to unlock the power of the vacuum!

    24. Re:Video of the accident by msauve · · Score: 1

      Memetard. It's "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    25. Re:Video of the accident by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Can't decide if it's a bug or a terrorist drone strike...

      My frame by frame analysis is inconclusive.

      What do you think?

    26. Re:Video of the accident by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait, wait! Elon Musk can build electric cars with big batteries. Why didn't he build an electric rocket? I barely remember seeing black and white movies of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon as a child, and their spaceships seemed to be powered by electric razors, that emitted smoke.

      Come on Mr. Musk, watch some ancient science fiction films, and get your engineers working on it!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    27. Re:Video of the accident by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking terrorist drone strike. I did a subframe analysis that was conclusive.

    28. Re:Video of the accident by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      No, new EPA regulations say you can't use antimatter until you're outside of earth orbit. Too much chance of a particle of un-destroyed antimatter getting out.

    29. Re:Video of the accident by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I SAID GOOD DAY!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    30. Re:Video of the accident by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Hey! Leave him alone. He's spacesick!

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    31. Re:Video of the accident by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      As alarming as that may be, I checked the pixels but don't think it was shopped.

    32. Re:Video of the accident by ls671 · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, Elon should build Tesla cars driven by chemical rocket propellant. That would rock the place.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    33. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rockets are 1000+ year old. Major improvements have been made in the belle epoque in France and Nazi Germany tried to build super weapons with rockets. Then a large share of the world GDP was used to build the rocket that would bring people to the moon. The technology is ready, but it is still an industry that looks like science fiction. Combine this with a personality that can sell his business plan to wealthy investors and a 'world government' that wants privatization of former government owned and controlled industry and you get SpaceX.

      SpaceX is the most well known private rocket maker, but there are others less known (probably because not American) who have successfully launched satellites into space and others who are prototyping completely new models of rockets and even self launching space crafts. It's the same with the electric cars. Electric cars predate the traditional cars, and they have been made since the first model without interruption. Some 25 kilometers from where I live there is a company that made its first full electric car in 1874 (!!!!) and it is still a profitable, but small, company 142 years later. But you don't hear anything about these companies, only American companies get massive amounts of attention and massive amount of support from wealthy investors.

    34. Re:Video of the accident by murdocj · · Score: 1

      If they were using anti-matter, we'd be missing Florida instead of just a rocket.

    35. Re:Video of the accident by bigfoottoo · · Score: 1

      I recorded https://www.youtube.com/watch?... with VLC. The object is visible for 4 frames before the start of the explosion. At that point the bright X of light occurs. In frame 5 the object is directly over the exploding rocket. Then, it disappears! The explosion progresses for 4 more frames. Then ANOTHER object enters the video from the lower left. This object appears to go behind the fireball. It exits to the upper right and transits for about 15 frames. Weird! Has anyone seen a video from a different angle?

    36. Re:Video of the accident by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      You've gone past humor, over sarcasm, and through cynicism. You've gone to plaid. Yer gunna make space tracks.

      But, why would we need a vehicle for "space travel", when we could just use project montauk, That's been explained in great detail.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    37. Re:Video of the accident by bigfoottoo · · Score: 1

      In one frame the second object coincides with one of the legs of a lightning tower. Zooming in shows that the leg is being illuminated by the fireball. And, it appears that the object is BEHIND the leg otherwise the illuminated portion of the leg would be darkened by the occluding object.

    38. Re: Video of the accident by mandy2tom · · Score: 1

      I'm still holding out hope for a long rail gun , low gforce, across the valley floor, up the side of a mountain to replace the first stage! ??

    39. Re: Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You promised to use small words!! Not fair!

    40. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So again, why use those nasty old chemical propellant rockets? Why?

      That's odd, I was going to say the Koch brothers.

    41. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it stunning they keep repeating it was a Facebook sattelite when it was an Israëli sattelite for spying purposes most likely, Only a small part of it would be hired by Facebook for purposes of delivering internet via sat in the african continent. So not surprisingly at all this rocket got blown up if it was an israeli sattelite.

    42. Re:Video of the accident by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Anti-matter engines are for sissies, real men teleport.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    43. Re:Video of the accident by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Clearly, from following your advice it is quite obvious it was caused by that bird. The bird shot at the rocket and caused the LOX to explode.

      In all seriousness, how did you zoom in enough to see the sparks you are mentioning, I don't see anything in the frame before the conflagration obscures everything. By how fast that bird moves between frames, I am guessing that the video has an extremely low frame rate. That bird looked like it flew 100ft or so in the span of a frame.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    44. Re:Video of the accident by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

      I would think that if they powdered or granulated Elon Musk and packed him into a rocket, all that hot air would make a great propellant.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    45. Re:Video of the accident by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      That is kind of interesting. I spent a couple hours to try to figure out what that object is, I zoomed in quite a bit on it and tried to enhance it as best I could. Here's the result, what do you think?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    46. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying to know the frame rate, we'd need to know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

    47. Re:Video of the accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EM drive won't get you into orbit from earth surface - if you have read ANYTHING about it you know the thrust is very small, suitable for space travel but NOT planetary lift-off.

  2. A setback but... by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    I am sure SpaceX will use their high bandwidth sensor data and figure out the problem and fix it. It is just like software: you iterate and fix problems. They are still on track to go to Mars by 2018 I am certain. And then...beyond?

    1. Re:A setback but... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Space nutter? You don't know how this works. Its like software: iterative waterfall model. You fix it and move on. This really isn't a big deal. They will make sure it won't happen again.

    2. Re:A setback but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...says the guy wildly flailing at his keyboard.

    3. Re:A setback but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well of course. One of the true hallmarks of science is refusing to learn from past experience and repeatedly trying the same old thing until maybe it works.

    4. Re:A setback but... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Right. Like repeatedly trying to use chemical rockets to launch satellites into LEO. What are those people thinking? We have been doing that since the 50s! They should be using a space elevator. Or a railgun.

    5. Re: A setback but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how come when NASA has the slightest setback with their new designs involving scheduling (and no explosions) all we hear about is how bad government is and how we should privatize this and that and how smart all these billionaires are ad nauseum.

      In less than two years two different companies have destroyed two launch pads, both on facilities they don't own, and the reaction around here is 'meh, they'll fix it'. The double standard is laughable, doubly so when you consider nobody even notices it.

    6. Re:A setback but... by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dear Mr 3208 (if I did the binary conversion right),

      I taught a class on space elevator design last year:

      Notes: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/...
      Slides: http://imgur.com/a/cCTY5

      I should like to make a few comments on your post:

      * There have been a number of small scale "space tether" experiments. These bear about the same relation to a full space elevator as flying a kite across a river does to a suspension bridge across that river. We have long way to go before we are ready to build a functioning space elevator.

      * The popular image of a space elevator (a 60,000 km vertical cable attached to the ground) is based on a 121 year-old thought experiment by space pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. That design is laughably impractical, and nothing like what a modern version would be like.

      * A space elevator is a transportation infrastructure project, like a bridge or an airport. We don't build that kind of infrastructure for a few tens of vehicles a year, neither would we build a space elevator. The economics would make no sense.

      These comments should not be taken as implying I am against the idea. On the contrary, I think space elevators will be very important at some point in the future, and therefore I and many others have done work on the concept. But the time is not yet ripe for them to be built.

    7. Re:A setback but... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What? But I was told that the future was NOW! We are still going to Mars though, right? Pretty please?

    8. Re: A setback but... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Because you don't believe hard enough. Off to the reeducation camps with you!

    9. Re:A setback but... by youngone · · Score: 1

      Please don't feed the trolls.

    10. Re: A setback but... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      No injecting thought into this discussion!

    11. Re: A setback but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's SpaceX's money to blow. If they break something not theirs then they will have to pay to fix it. No public money used and no one gripes about government failures.

    12. Re: A setback but... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Um, it would take one hell of an explosion to destroy a launch pad. It will be fixed, likely with only replacing the grating that sits under the rocket and the tower that fuels the rockets. The pads are designed to deal with exploding rockets.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:A setback but... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      FYI, this person you responded to is the same guy who calls anyone trying to advance the state of the art in space, "space nutters".

      He is a troll that honestly believes that the laws of physics are all known and exactly perfect, and that there is no chance of any human ever traveling to Mars or farther. Trying to have a civil discussion about these things will just get him calling you a space nutter for not giving up on ever improving the state of the art.

      In fact, every post I have seen him make in response to this article has been of a mocking sarcastic type meant to make people who try to improve on science look like fools, because he thinks that there are people who honestly think we are right around the corner from "antimatter drives" and "EMdrive powered rockets".

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    14. Re:A setback but... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If I'm reading those slides right, and I think I am, then I'm looking forward to a laminated Douglas Fir space elevator. I like it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    15. Re: A setback but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iterate and fix? I'm guessing you don't work for the government.

  3. Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times is this thing going to explode today? I've got stuff to do.

  4. Lulz @ Suckerberg...!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T

  5. Facebook's grand vision by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, there IS a God. And He is just.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Facebook's grand vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say this

    2. Re:Facebook's grand vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook must not be allowed into space, the line must be drawn here, this far, no farther.

    3. Re:Facebook's grand vision by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Who here read that headline as "... Facebook's Plan for Global Internet Domination ..."?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re: Facebook's grand vision by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      But will you make them pay for what they've done?

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    5. Re:Facebook's grand vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded instead of commented. There was just nothing more that needed to be said.

      Ramen.

    6. Re:Facebook's grand vision by msauve · · Score: 2

      Sheryl Sandberg: "What are we going to do today, Mark?"
      Mark Zuckerberg: "The same thing we do everyday, Sheryl, try to take over the world!"

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re: Facebook's grand vision by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a simple "they will rue the day" will do?

    8. Re:Facebook's grand vision by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Oh man, I miss pinky & the brain

    9. Re:Facebook's grand vision by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Did anyone check to see if this guy was anywhere near the launch site?

    10. Re:Facebook's grand vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, God once again has shown his displeasure with the Israelis. Zuckerbergfeingoldsteinfarb's glorious spy satellite goes down in flames, Mossad might be crying but the rest of the world isn't.

    11. Re: Facebook's grand vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fiord!!!

    12. Re: Facebook's grand vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Narf!

    13. Re: Facebook's grand vision by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Nah, he'll just go break his little ships.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  6. We will keep working... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    ... until everyone accepts their mandatory cyber upgrade.

  7. Since its Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't help but feel happy about this outcome.

  8. hhahahahahaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck facefuck

  9. Wow again!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's two in one day...

  10. must be divine intervention ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there is a god after all..

  11. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just 3D print another rocket with a facebook satellite in it?

  12. Rocket science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it's not exactly brain surgery.

  13. “To Serve Man” by s1d3track3D · · Score: 1

    But this setback won't stop him from his goal to connect every person he can find on the face of the earth to get online. He said, "Fortunately, we have developed other technologies like Aquila that will connect people as well. We remain committed to our mission of connecting everyone, and we will keep working until everyone has the opportunities this satellite would have provided.”

    Translation, “But this setback won't stop him from his goal to connect every person he can find on the face of the earth to Facebook. He said, "Fortunately, we have developed other technologies like Aquila that will collect people as well. We remain committed to our mission of assimilating everyone, and we will keep working until everyone provides their personal data to us for free, so that we can continue to monetize it for our proprietary business growth, since our product is humans.

    Facebook reminds me of that Twilight episode “To Serve Man” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:“To Serve Man” by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What a cynic! Zuckerburg and Elon are doing this for good reasons I am sure. What is good for them, is good for you!

    2. Re:“To Serve Man” by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Fortunately, we have developed other technologies like Aquila that will collect people as well.

      Pokébook—gotta catch 'em all.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:“To Serve Man” by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I would expect every ad delivery platform to have the same goal, at least in theory.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  14. His satellite? by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    It belonged to Spacecom and since it exploded before launch isn't covered by insurance, so they're out $200 million.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:His satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only person jumping for joy?

    2. Re:His satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. Now go apologize the poor engineers' whose years of work just went up in flames.

    3. Re:His satellite? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Or SpaceX is out a rocket, a bunch of fuel and owes SpaceCom a whole lot of compensation?

    4. Re:His satellite? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If they didn't get paid for that work, they should have taken at least a few Liberal Arts courses in college.

    5. Re:His satellite? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      It's covered by insurance, just not *launch* insurance. You thought they wouldn't have a $200M machine covered by insurance for every step of its trip into space?

      But yeah, Facebook was just going to pay for part of the satellite's capacity, they were definitely not the owner in any way.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    6. Re:His satellite? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I wrote software for a living. Nearly all of it is no longer in use.

      Today I do security audits. Some of the systems I audited and spent hours, days, even months to secure have been shut down in the meantime.

      If you can't stomach the idea that something you worked on is no longer used or destroyed, maybe even willfully so, you might want to build cathedrals or chisel some statues. They tend to last a few years or millennia.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. I feel better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first i was sad about the falcon 9 exploding, but now that I learned it had a Facebook satellite on it i'm very very happy

  16. Failure is a part of success by backslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's amazing to watch the people with zero achievements or inventions saying that SpaceX should just give up. You have to keep improving and keep trying. The Wright brothers airplanes didn't work on the first attempt. You cant have discoveries and advances if you just keep giving up.

    1. Re:Failure is a part of success by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      True. Imagine how amazing it will be once the first company is able to use a rocket to launch a satellite! Truly a new age will be upon us. And then once they have accomplished that, maybe they can go to Mars. Or even better, another star!

    2. Re:Failure is a part of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The future is self-driving rocket drones controlled by a smartwatch.

      And also, apps!

    3. Re:Failure is a part of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take spaceX over up-cycled soviet rocket engines any day.

    4. Re:Failure is a part of success by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      "Success is moving from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm." --David Guy Powers

    5. Re:Failure is a part of success by jeneag · · Score: 1

      There is no upcycled Soviet rocket engines. They are not reusable and they are Russian. Maybe you meant closed-cycle rocket engine? Well, you Americans still haven't mastered even that...

    6. Re:Failure is a part of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Positive thinking nonsense. Isaac Newton pursued alchemy for most of his adult life. Moving from failure to failure never brought him closer to the Philosopher's Stone.

    7. Re:Failure is a part of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew this was you before I expanded the comment to confirm...

    8. Re:Failure is a part of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SpaceX PR?

    9. Re:Failure is a part of success by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Failure is a part of success

      Sure, but failure is also a part of failure. Failure leading to success is much, much rarer than failure leading to failure.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    10. Re:Failure is a part of success by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Von Braun said it best, it's not a failure as long as we got data.

      So SpaceX got data, FB got a setback, it's so win-win.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Failure is a part of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this a failure? SpaceX took money from an Israeli company and Mark Zuckerberg and blew up an old used rocket that destroyed a way for facebook to spread more of its nasty payload. I just don't see the downside.

    12. Re:Failure is a part of success by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Americans fucking suck at space flight.

      I forget though, how many countries have landed men on the moon? How many countries have sent a probe to visit every planet? Sorry, I don't remember. There's a list here if you'd like to help me, it would also be interesting to calculate the percentage of successful launches on that list for each country. The US only has around 4% of the global population, so I assume that we also have around 4% of successful space launches. I could be wrong though, since we suck so bad at it and have so little experience.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    13. Re:Failure is a part of success by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Imagine how amazing it will be once the first company is able to use a rocket to launch a satellite!

      It was a huge step forward, just like the first country launching one was before. We're currently at the point where even our lower aristocracy can afford a trip to space, and seem to be moving towards Joe Average vacationing there in my lifetime.

      And then once they have accomplished that, maybe they can go to Mars. Or even better, another star!

      Well, yes. That's what we're moving towards. However, it'll probably take a few hundred years to colonize our own solar system and get used to not being planetbound before making a serious effort to venture forward.

      But by all means, tell us where you think the virtuous circle of falling launch costs, more people who can afford them, and more money going towards developing space technology and infrastructure further are going to lead?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  17. Google spies did this in order to stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 competitors at once...

  18. But seriously why don't they make two by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    satellites every time they make one, as a general rule.

      I don't think that would double the cost (or if it does, something's very wrong with the engineer and build process),

    and you can just launch the duplicate when the original blows up instead of goes up.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:But seriously why don't they make two by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      $60M of the $200M is the cost of launching it.
      They take a long time to design and build.
      Why not just do what they do now, and start development on the next satellite before the current one is finished?
      Then if the launch fails, you don't have to wait for another launch window and pay to send up your then obsolete spare satellite. May as well send up a more modern one.

    2. Re:But seriously why don't they make two by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      $60M of the $200M is the cost of launching it.
      They take a long time to design and build.
      Why not just do what they do now, and start development on the next satellite before the current one is finished?
      Then if the launch fails, you don't have to wait for another launch window and pay to send up your then obsolete spare satellite. May as well send up a more modern one.

      Not to mention, accidents are quite rare, so companies like Facebook actually would have launch insurance - if anything went wrong, like this, well, insurance will pay for the development of the next satellite.

      If it was a common event, insurance companies wouldn't do it (payouts of hundreds to a billion dollars would make for massive premiums). So developing 2 satellites is really a waste.

      All that really happens is SpaceX's insurance premiums will probably go up.

  19. God expresses his opinion re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook's "Grand Vision"
    Scrrew facebook (and the little twit that runs it)

    1. Re:God expresses his opinion re: by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just imagine him sitting in that payload pod instead of the sat. It's such a nice mental image.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Geekdom is Torn by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    Geekdom is torn. On one hand, they dance at the setback for the loathsome empire of Zuckerberg and his Book of Faces. On the flip side, that same event is a horrible setback to the great Musk's efforts to colonize Mars.

    1. Re:Geekdom is Torn by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It isn't much of a setback to going to Mars. Think of it like a software bug: once they identify it, it will be fixed. Problem solved. Mars is within our reach, you just need to believe.

    2. Re:Geekdom is Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Book of Faeces

    3. Re:Geekdom is Torn by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Rockets explode. Even the best and most tested design will loose a rocket every now and then. That's what happens when you strap cargo or people to a few million pounds of explosive that you hope will go off in a controlled manner. The key is to iterate and learn from the mistakes.

      As far as Facebook it's not a big deal, everyone buys satellite launch insurance these days. They'll have to build a new bird but it likely won't cost facebook anything other than another launch insurance. It will make the rates for a spaceX launch go up a bit do to the increased insurance cost but they are already so much cheaper than everyone else that it probably doesn't even matter. And IIRC they already have one of the lowest "anomaly" rates in the commercial launch industry.

    4. Re:Geekdom is Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just pay out 250000000 $ and continue believing,

    5. Re:Geekdom is Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      id software showed us what would happen if we tried to colonize Mars. Nothing of value was lost. In fact, this explosion just might have saved all of humanity.

  21. Not a God, an AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > So, there IS a God. And He is just.

    Not a God. This is the hidden battle of the AIs leaking into public view. The Google AI took out the Facebook AI's launch vehicle to prevent it from achieving a skynet foot hold. There will be more such incidents in the time to come.

  22. Send 'Thank You' cards to Musk by kheldan · · Score: 0

    Good job Elon, anything you can do in the cause of obstructing and dismantling Facebook is truly a service to humanity! Absolute genius on your part, killing two birds with one stone like that, performing your worst-case launch scenario testing of booster failure, and nixing Zuckerbergs' sattelite all at the same time!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Send 'Thank You' cards to Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...I'd like to think this was a case of divine intervention. The world would be better off without Facebook.

  23. Faceboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Archons did not like payload on that rocket...

  24. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should ask Lockheed Martin and get the Fluxliner instead.

    PEACE

  25. Will SpaceX reuse that rocket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  26. No, you got it wrong by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    It wasn't an explosion, but rather a Rapid Unplanned High-Temperature Disassembly.

  27. test by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

    if they're just testing the engines why did it need the payload in place ?

    is testing the engines worth the risk ? what is gained by it that they would not find out on the day of the launch ?

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They were loading propellant at the time of the accident. It's something you have to do if your engines don't run on magic sparkle power...

    2. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they're just testing the engines why did it need the payload in place ?

      Because what they were testing is fate.

    3. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you do a static fire because on launch day once you hit T+0:00 and you are separated from tower, you are either going to space or you're not. Static fire helps because you can analyse the rocket conditions and system operations to ensure there are no issues prior to actually launching the thing. This gives you time to verify and check data and fix any issues that might arise. Also, you can use the data to know how nominally the systems are operating, so if something happens before you separate from the tower, you can abort.

      The payload doesn't have to be attached but it's good to get launch conditions so you don't have data you can't apply.

    4. Re:test by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > if they're just testing the engines why did it need the payload in place ?

      They're not just testing the engines. They are testing everything on the rocket, including communications and power to the satellite. It would be embarrassing if they forgot to charge the satellite's battery (it has to use one before the solar arrays open up). Basically this is a dress rehearsal for launch, where they do everything except let go of the rocket from the pad. Assuming everything went well, it would shut down the engines after a few seconds, then fuel up and launch for real a few days later.

    5. Re:test by solartear · · Score: 1

      It did not need the payload in place, and they used to do it without the payload on top.

      With their experience built up and rocket design finally(?) standardized, they judged the risk to the payload was small enough to be worth saving an extra day or so of work to do the test without the payload. This is the first time a payload was or would have been harmed by a static fire on the pad.

      Doing the test without the payload means after the test they have to lower the rocket, bring it back into the building to attach the payload, and then take it back out to the pad and run some more tests of the final integration.

    6. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I understand the biggest reason is time: mating and unmating the payload from the top of the rocket is actually a very time consuming and more complex exercise than most people realise, and this saves them days for the launch sequence. It also means you dont need massive integration facilities at the launch site.

    7. Re:test by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      if they're just testing the engines why did it need the payload in place ?

      My guess is that de-erecting the bird and returning to the hanger to install the payload breaks the very interfaces that are part of the static test in the first place. Which (likely) negates the reason for performing the static test. (Not that I understand or even know SpaceX's reasons - nobody else does them routinely, only SpaceX.)

    8. Re:test by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you static fired without payload, you'd then have significantly longer between the static test fire and launch (during which something might break) and you'd need to lower the rocket to horizontal to attach the payload and raise it again, again with the potential for breaking something. You'd also have each launch keeping the launch pad occupied for longer.

      So, it is a trade-off, and you'd need an intimate knowledge of the rocket and launch operations to know whether SpaceX's choice to test with payload was correct.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    9. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It reduces the time to launch, thereby saving money and increasing the capacity of the launch site. It is counter-intuitive to test the engines before launch with the payload in place. They do the test to make sure there won't be any issues at the time of launch. It costs money to set up the exclusion zones and all that, and they don't want to wast money paying for it while the rocket is just sitting on the pad. Obviously, they didn't think there was a serious potential for a catastrophic failure like this, or they would never put the payload in place for the static fire. I would be very surprised if they ever do another static fire with the payload in place.

    10. Re:test by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      This is correct. They *can* do the static fire without the payload attached - and for many early launches, that's what they did - but it takes longer between static fire and launch. With the launch window coming only three days away, and no incident like this having occurred in approximately forever (they didn't even have the engines lit yet!) saving some time and (presumably) risk by having the payload stacked on the rocket probably made sense... to the satellite owner.

      It wasn't even SpaceX's decision; the payload owner makes the choices like that.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    11. Re:test by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      It wasn't even SpaceX's decision; the payload owner makes the choices like that.

      That is an interesting bit of information which I was unaware of.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    12. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it did just cost them $100 million for the loss of the payload and a reputation hit. I would imagine their testing procedures are going to be revised now (to probably not test with the payload on the rocket) as it taking longer between testing and launch due to payload loading is far more desirable then losing a very expensive satellite that took a long time to carefully build and cannot be replaced from off the shelf on isle 5 at Walmart.

  28. It did not explode. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Rapid Unplanned Disassembly is the term they use.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  29. Most advanced AI to date? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is enough suffering and disease in Africa already, if the country also became infected with Facebook the situation would be unbearable. The Falcon 9 onboard artificial intelligence therefore decided to self-destruct. I think that is incredibly noble.

  30. "Rocket was due to send satellite up into orbit.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...but instead, it sent bits of the satellite up into orbit."

  31. Expect even more ads in your feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to pay for it.

  32. I warned Musk by Snufu · · Score: 1

    it was too soon to replace rocket fuel with Tesla batteries.

  33. Why second stage? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    The explosion appears to have started in stage II. You can't test fire stage II, so why would it even have fuel in it?

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  34. Matthew 23:12 by Max_W · · Score: 1

    For whoever promotes himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be promoted.

  35. A facebook sat, you say? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Anything of value that was lost?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. Premature ignition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I loved the part at the end when the Facebook payload fell from the top like a cock going flaccid.