SpaceX - Static Fire Anomaly - AMOS-6 - 09-01-2016

Ok, the Falcon 9 1.2 [1] is 70m tall [2], and the rocket fills up about 80% of the vertical frame [3]. Using the "Image = FL * Obj / distance" equation, we get: .8 * 24mm = x * 70m/4080m Where x is the focal length of the lens assuming a full frame camera. This comes out to a x = 1119mm equivalent focal length. If you have a crop sensor, this isn't too hard to obtain. I'd be amused if the video was taken with a Canon EF 1200mm lens or something, but the probability of that is 0. [1] [LINK] [2] [LINK] [3] [VIDEO]

> they do not know if a launch escape system would save astronauts in that situation. 1. In the video of the Amos 6 explosion[2], you see the payload fairing falling to the ground, with the satellite inside. You see it happened slowly, the payload did not explore, it burned down after falling. The abort system would have saved the crew in that situation. We were also told[3] the Dragon 1 would have been just fine if it was programmed to open its chutes after the second stage disintegrated under it during ascent on CRS-7. NASA participated in analyzing both failures, they know this. 2. SpaceX have done a pad abort test in 2015[1] that demonstrated the capsule reacting to "something bad happened to the rocket" on the launch pad and saving a test dummy's life. 1 - [LINK] 2 - [VIDEO] 3 - [LINK]

An interesting thing here is SpaceX are building TWO launchpads. Which will definitely help prevent delays if an when there is an AMOS-6 [1] or Orb-3 [2] type explosion that destroys the launchpad. It may also help for rapidly testing orbital refueling in 2022, though the plan is to do orbital refueling with 1 launch pad, 1 Super Heavy and 2 Starships (1 standard, 1 refueler) with 1 hour turnaround times between launches (and 5-6 launches) before Starship is ready to depart for the journey to Mars. [1] [VIDEO] [2] [LINK]

And they also have previous painful experience of destroying a Falcon 9 pad. [VIDEO] Really can't afford to repeat that if they are to make the timeline for using Starship as NASA's next lunar lander.

In September 2016 almost exactly the same thing happened to a Falcon 9 at the Cape, also on a static fire. New Glenn is bigger, so bigger bang, but pretty much exactly the same thing. Off the top of my head, I recall in SpaceX's case it was a helium tank failure- a helium tank weld failed and the helium tank itself shot through the cryogenic oxygen, hit the far wall, and gave off a spark. But that sort of failure is only apparent when everything is pressurized correctly, which means tanks have to be full. The goal of the test is that you detect that sort of failure before it goes boom and then can fix it. [VIDEO] is a video of SpaceX's failure.