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."

Comments

Video of the accident

[dtmos]

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

Re:Video of the accident

[110010001000]

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.

Re:Video of the accident

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:Video of the accident

[amicusNYCL]

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!

Facebook's grand vision

[PPH]

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

Failure is a part of success

[backslashdot]

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.

Re:A setback but...

[DanielRavenNest]

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.

Re:test

[Michael Woodhams]

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.