SpaceX explosion didnt involve intentional ignition - E Musk said occurred during 2d stage fueling - & isn't covered by launch insurance.
Spacecom insured Amos-6 for $285M in marine cargo market, not space insurance market. Launch +1 yr policy would kick in at rocket ignition.
September 2, 9:00am EDTStatement from SpaceX President and COO, Gwynne Shotwell:“We deeply regret the loss of Amos-6. Our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, and we will carefully investigate and address this issue. We are grateful for the continued support that our customers have expressed to us.”
September 2, 6:45pm EDTSpaceX has begun the careful and deliberate process of understanding the causes and fixes for yesterday's incident. We will continue to provide regular updates on our progress and findings, to the fullest extent we can share publicly.We deeply regret the loss of AMOS-6, and safely and reliably returning to flight to meet the demands of our customers is our chief priority. SpaceX's business is robust, with approximately 70 missions on our manifest worth over $10 billion. In the aftermath of yesterday's events, we are grateful for the continued support and unwavering confidence that our commercial customers as well as NASA and the United States Air Force have placed in us.Overview of the incident:- Yesterday, at SpaceX's Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, an anomaly took place about eight minutes in advance of a scheduled test firing of a Falcon 9 rocket.- The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle.- This was part of a standard pre-launch static fire to demonstrate the health of the vehicle prior to an eventual launch. - At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test. At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad. There were no injuries.To identify the root cause of the anomaly, SpaceX began its investigation immediately after the loss, consistent with accident investigation plans prepared for such a contingency. These plans include the preservation of all possible evidence and the assembly of an Accident Investigation Team, with oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration and participation by NASA, the United States Air Force and other industry experts. We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds. As for the Launch Pad itself, our teams are now investigating the status of SLC-40. The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined. We will share more data as it becomes available. SpaceX currently operates 3 launch pads – 2 in Florida and 1 in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. SpaceX's other launch sites were not affected by yesterday's events. Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base is in the final stages of an operational upgrade and Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center remains on schedule to be operational in November. Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. We are confident the two launch pads can support our return to flight and fulfill our upcoming manifest needs.Again, our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, as well as to take all the necessary steps to ensure the highest possible levels of safety for future crewed missions with the Falcon 9. We will carefully and thoroughly investigate and address this issue.
There's an important detail, that a lot of us here (myself included) missed:SpaceX gave costumers the choice to keep the satellite on the rocket for the test fire or not. Spacecom *chose* to keep it on top.See: http://spacenews.com/qa-spacecom-ceo-it-took-a-minute-to-realize-the-guys-under-the-smoke-are-us/
SpaceX’s decision to put satellites on the rocket before the standard static-fire test prelaunch, a policy that began only this year, allows the customer to agree or not to do this. Some have said no, others have said yes. You said yes: Could you explain that?This was a decision made by IAI engineers. We were of course not just guests in the theater, but the front-line engineers were from IAI and SpaceX. I think they looked back on the latest launches to perform the engineering analysis.I learned one thing years ago: Engineering is not mathematics.It seemed a prudent decision, and I am not sure the decision would have been different even now. We don’t know the cause of the failure. There are many engineering configurations that need to be analyzed. I have not yet come to any conclusion that would lead me to question the decision.I can tell you that no price or cost decisions were involved in the decision. And we were not the first to do the static with the satellite. Everybody will look at this now of course.
Elon Musk @elonmusk 8s8 seconds agoStill working on the Falcon fireball investigation. Turning out to be the most difficult and complex failure we have ever had in 14 years.
Elon Musk @elonmusk 35s35 seconds agoImportant to note that this happened during a routine filling operation. Engines were not on and there was no apparent heat source.
Elon Musk @elonmusk 4m4 minutes agoSupport & advice from @NASA, @FAA, @AFPAA & others much appreciated. Please email any recordings of the event to [email protected].
Elon Musk @elonmusk 16m16 minutes agoParticularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off. May come from rocket or something else.
AJ @ashwin7002 34m34 minutes ago@elonmusk @NASA @faa @AFPAA there are some videos on YouTube claiming something hit the rocket. Any reality there?
Elon Musk Verified account@elonmusk: @ashwin7002 @NASA @faa @AFPAA We have not ruled that out.
