Anonymous
Source: Vandenberg Space Force Base
Space Launch Delta 30 terminated the Firefly Aerospace Inc., Alpha rocket over the Pacific Ocean at 7:01 p.m. Pacific Time after a successful lift off at 6:59 p.m. Pacific Time from Space Launch Complex-2 at Vandenberg SFB Sept. 2.
There were no injuries associated with the anomaly.
A team of investigators will convene to determine the cause of the failure.
Update by Vandenberg Space Force Base
Space Launch Delta 30 terminated the Firefly Aerospace Inc., Alpha rocket over the Pacific Ocean on Sept. 2.
As a result there may be debris in the local area.
A team of investigators has determined that any debris from the rocket should be considered unsafe.
All recreational facilities, including beaches on-base that were closed for the launch will remain closed until further notice due to the ongoing investigation.
More information will be released as it becomes available.
Photos by an edhat reader
My son and I were at Cachuma Lake last night taking photos, unaware of the upcoming launch from Vandenberg, and were fortunate to capture this rocket explosion from this unique vantage point.
3 mile island and Chernobyl disagree with VOR
3 mile island was built in the 1960’s (that’s 60 years ago, using technology developed 70 years ago), no one died in the accident they had in the 1980’s and no radioactive material was released (though a nonminimal amount of gas did leak during cleanup several days later, but it was such a small amount it never created a health hazard to the workers onsite). And Chernobyl? The reactor built off a flawed design in the 1970’s USSR operated by untrained personnel? By even bringing up Chernobyl as a reason why nuclear is unsafe is proof enough you have no clue what you’re talking about this arena.
VOR, you continue to spread lies as though you have some investment to protect. The final truth about nuclear energy plants is that we have absolutely no safe way to dispose of the spent waste and contaminated materials that the plant (itself contaminated by the end of its life time produces. Just burying them for some future generation is a grotesque solution. And we have increasingly large swaths of land that are not inhabitable or usable for hum purposes, such as the spreading upper Columbia basis problem, Chernobyl, northern Japan and others. Would you want to live in a home built on a nuclear energy site? As bad as burning hydrocarbons is, there is a natural re-circulation possible in this technology. But better to use energy such as sun, wind, tides, hydro thermal. How many times do we have to be fooled by those who assure us this latest nuclear tech is fool proof only to later blame the “inadequate” engineering that failed? Nuclear energy advocates are happy proclaiming the virtue of 20-20 hindsight.
Please let me tell 1 lie I’ve spread. The hazard waste created by all of our nuclear power plants has been safely stored for the 60+ years we’ve had nuclear reactors. The entire nuclear waste created by most countries can fit in a single storage facility, the fuel is so energy dense you don’t much of it volume wise. “Better to use energy such as sun, wind, tides, hydro thermal”, yes absolutely, and they should be increased in conjunction with nuclear. But you’d be the one lying if you said those sources could get us off fossil fuels alone anytime soon. Perfect? No, but’s it a better solution especially if you think we need to take drastic/significant action now. I also don’t think you have an accurate comparison of the nuclear risks and hazards vs. the current risks and hazards from the fossil fuel industry (remember Deep Water Horizon, Exxon Valdez, the Iraqi / Kuwaiti oil spills and fires after the Gulf War, numerous coal mining fires/explosions) . Oh hey look! a great graph to help https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Yes, fission is “better” than coal as far as killing people rapidly. Just because it’s better than something awful, doesn’t make it good. Quit spreading propaganda.
FYI, I’m not the one spreading propaganda here. Please read the link and if there is something you don’t agree with in there, please reply with something of substance.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Let us hope that this space craft was not nuclear powered.
Firefly Aerospace is a Texas “based” company, apparently not adverse to using California to test its products. I wonder what the insurance coverage for this is, if any, for the locals affected by this trash? Does the Air Force (?Space Force) just eat it?
There are huge swaths of controlled ocean and airspace off the coast of Vandenburg. An incredible amount of planning and coordination goes into each and every launch to help ensure safety even in the event of catastrophic malfunctions at any stage of flight. I don’t recall of any rocket malfunction that caused any injuries or damage on the ground.
VOR- Unlikely that it is nuke powered, just wondering…and hoping it is not. Nuke payloads have been sent into space though, not the kind of flotsam and jetsam I would want to wash up on another occupied planet w/our names on it!
seems to me the “debris” warning is because some small stuff can wash up on shore or be out in the channel. its not unheard of, so a warning is prudent. but this isnt “local” in the idea that most locals think.
local to the area of use. I.e vandenburg
Please read up on nuclear power and energy Channelfog. If you read beyond the climate alarmists sensationalism, you’ll see it’s really the best thing we have going for us, currently, that can take massive bites out of our reliance on fossils fuels.
Yep, a nucular-powered rocket ship from Texas. A criminal investigation should be conducted in parallel with the technical review. The Air Force (and FAA?) was sold a bill of goods on the Firefly Alpha’s flight readiness. Criminally deficient engineering if not outright fraud against Firefly’s investors was obvious. Faulty hardware, software, and procedures were all in evidence Thursday evening. Clearly the “Go” decision after a last-seconds abort on the earlier launch attempt was faulty. Hardware and software conditions should not have allowed a retry. The engines never developed full power before the rocket was released. A “death wobble” was evident before it cleared the umbilicals tower. Doubtless the Range Safety Officer was cutting little cotton circles from his/her underwear but had the presence of mind to let the doomed ship clear the launch facility. Insurance for their next try will likely be quite a bit more expensive and the Air Force will be a lot more diligent before it gives permission to fly from its facility.