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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ is a video of SpaceX's failure.

▲

Polizeiposaune 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wasn't a bad weld; it was a bad interaction between liquid or solid oxygen and what were previously thought to be inconsequential defects in the composite-overwrapped pressure vessel the helium was loaded into.

Quoting from one of the press releases:

"The recovered COPVs showed buckles in their liners. Although buckles were not shown to burst a COPV on their own, investigators concluded that super chilled LOX can pool in these buckles under the overwrap. When pressurized, oxygen pooled in this buckle can become trapped; in turn, breaking fibers or friction can ignite the oxygen in the overwrap, causing the COPV to fail. In addition, investigators determined that the loading temperature of the helium was cold enough to create solid oxygen (SOX), which exacerbates the possibility of oxygen becoming trapped as well as the likelihood of friction ignition.

"The investigation team identified several credible causes for the COPV failure, all of which involve accumulation of super chilled LOX or SOX in buckles under the overwrap."

https://web.archive.org/web/20170216160231/http://www.spacex...

▲

appplication 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this makes sense, but then what’s the learning - dont make bad welds? I imagine they were already trying to do as best they could. Or perhaps “however stringent you think your checks are, they need to be more stringent”. And then learning that repeatedly is somewhat spectacular.

	▲	AdamN 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> trying to do as best they could There's another comment that it wasn't the weld but even if it was the welders would build to spec and "better" (if it's known what better is) only if it's straightforward. There are certainly scenarios where a fabricator could design a better jig or use a more precise process but if the spec doesn't call for it then it's probably not going to happen because there are also the dimensions of time and money that matter as well.

▲

overfeed 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Was that when a SpaceX engineer demanded immediate "roof" access to ULA's pad because they suspected someone at ULA had used a sniper rifle to shoot at the Falcon? Crazy times.

Edit: yes it was https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/spacex-pushed-sniper-t...

	▲	adt 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Incredible. >Externally, they sent the site director for their Florida operations, Ricky Lim, to inquire whether he might visit the roof of the United Launch Alliance building... ULA told SpaceX’s Ricky Lim to get lost when he wanted to see the roof of their building in Florida. The FAA letter: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Space...
	▲	rplnt 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This theory appealed to SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who was asleep at his home in California when the rocket exploded. Within hours of hearing about the failure, Musk gravitated toward the simple answer of a projectile being shot through the rocket. Man, the signs were always there, right? I think I only fully realized it in 2018 during the cave "incident".

▲

Buttons840 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How do they determine the cause of failure in a things like this?

	▲	WalterBright 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Lots and lots of telemetry.
	▲	tonyhart7 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		a lot of sensor