The other lightning tower had a leg sheered through. I bet the water tower has to come down as well.

That tower is in bad shape pic.twitter.com/BNv0fpU8h0

— Zizka Paladin (@PaladinZizka) May 29, 2026

There was some speculation the satellite payloads for the impending launch may have been stored nearby and lost.

plain_o_llama said:

---

There was some speculation the satellite payloads for the impending launch may have been stored nearby and lost.

---

Yikes. Two cargos in a row is bad.
At what point could insurance back away from or simply become prohibitive for customers.

And that's just to replace the cargo. That doesn't count business impacts for the time to rebuild and get a new launch.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

plain_o_llama said:

---

There was some speculation the satellite payloads for the impending launch may have been stored nearby and lost.

---

Yikes. Two cargos in a row is bad.
At what point could insurance back away from or simply become prohibitive for customers.

And that's just to replace the cargo. That doesn't count business impacts for the time to rebuild and get a new launch.

---

This payload belonged to Amazon, so at least it is Bezos' left hand paying his right if it was destroyed or damaged. But having worked in munitions response work and dealing with Explosive Quantity Safety Distance (EQSD) arcs, I can't understand why they would have so much relatively unprotected infrastructure and equipment so close to a launch pad where it could be damaged by a detonation like the one they just had. It does look like the propellant tank farm likely survived in much better condition than I was expecting, but quite a few of the buildings have obvious damage and do not appear to have been constructed to withstand any kind of blast or hardened to protect anything inside from it.

I think it's less about hard safety limits and more about overall risk management. If you lose the rocket on the pad like this and have to rebuild the pad you can replace everything that was in the building in less time than the overall recovery project.

It's not clear to me where the payload was, other than not on the pad. I'm pretty sure their other booster is in the building, but it can be repaired/replaced quicker than the pad can be rebuilt.

Yes hindsight but how does it make sense to have a hangar so close to the pad that stores high valuable cargo/vehicles that are unused. Explosions are always possible.

Damn - yall beat me to it

normaleagle05 said:

---

I think it's less about hard safety limits and more about overall risk management. If you lose the rocket on the pad like this and have to rebuild the pad you can replace everything that was in the building in less time than the overall recovery project.

It's not clear to me where the payload was, other than not on the pad. I'm pretty sure their other booster is in the building, but it can be repaired/replaced quicker than the pad can be rebuilt.

---

I was thinking less about the time than about the cost of replacing it. When you are a multi-billionaire like Bezos or Musk launching stuff for your own companies, I guess the extra cost is incidental. But when you are launching one of a kind government or commercial payloads for somebody else, it seems careless to potentially have it within the radius of the blast.

As for why the hangar is that close, I am sure space on the Cape is at a premium and you want a short trip from the hangar to the pad. But I would expect the hangar to be hardened or have some kind of a blast diverter in the way to prevent damage to the hangar from a detonation at the pad.

I don't think that was correct.

Also some speculation blue origin mk1 lander could go in a falcon heavy. That would be a bit poetic/ironic I guess.

nortex97 said:

---

I don't think that was correct.

Also some speculation blue origin mk1 lander could go in a falcon heavy. That would be a bit poetic/ironic I guess.

---

How much does the MK1 weigh? Search assistant says FH can deliver 16,800kg to TLI.

Goodness even if Bezos had to pay SpaceX to launch it for the Artemis III LEO rendezvous tests... That's going to be a tough pill to swallow

You have to snug right up to the risks at some point, everything else is a cost. I guess everything looks close when you unleash a few kilotons of energy.

Hearing that Blue Origin’s other New Glenn first stage booster, Never Tell Me The Odds, has been damaged. It was inside the nearby HIF facility.

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) May 29, 2026

From the pics, you can see a booster sitting outside between the towers and the hanger. It never stood a chance.

You don't "damage" a booster. It's either untouched or scrap.

normaleagle05 said:

---

You have to snug right up to the risks at some point, everything else is a cost. I guess everything looks close when you unleash a few kilotons of energy.

---

We were digging exploratory trenches to evaluate some buried debris that could have contained munitions many years ago. The round that was the basis of our Explosives Safety Plan was a 105mm HE round with 4.6# of TNT. That round had a horizontal fragment distance of 2,111 feet that we had to evacuate during our operations and an inhabited building overpressure distance of 67 feet that we had to protect our equipment operator from. This explosion was hundreds or thousands of times larger than that 105mm round and yet they had all kinds of equipment stored in the open or in sprung structures a few hundred feet from the pad and a high value hangar and contents with minimal blast protection maybe 500 meters away. Sorry, but that is insanity to me. I guess it is just two different worlds, but it seems like putting blast deflectors in between the pad and the hangar or other buildings should be at least the minimum to do if you don't want to or can't move them farther away.

"inhabited building"
"equipment operator"

These are the main difference right here. Not the only difference, but the main part. They evacuate people from a huge radius around a test **** that, but there is a lot of risk tolerance toward equipment and structures.

normaleagle05 said:

---

"inhabited building"
"equipment operator"

These are the main difference right here. Not the only difference, but the main part. They evacuate people from a huge radius around a test **** that, but there is a lot of risk tolerance toward equipment and structures.

---

Yeah, my point was that there is danger at those distances for even a relatively small munition, so why would they tolerate a much larger danger to equipment and structures without trying to fortify or shelter them in some way? Simply building a large earthen berm 150-200 feet high between the pad the hangar would cost relatively little, but would deflect any pressure wave of shrapnel headed for the facility from a blast.

Obviously a massive difference in energy, but the first stage of the first Falcon 9 launch was crashed into a building during its transport from Texas to Florida.

hph6203 said:

---

Obviously a massive difference in energy, but the first stage of the first Falcon 9 launch was crashed into a building during its transport from Texas to Florida.

---

Go read about the last Falcon 1 test. It was a make or break test for SpaceX as the money was running out. They had the booster loaded into a cargo plane, C130 I think, maybe one of the bigger ones... Anyway some vents apparently were not properly configured and it started crushing like a soda can during descent into Quaj.

Story I read said Elon called back to California and they loaded up every spare part they had in Hawthorne on his plane and "striped that rocket like a small block Chevy" right at the airstrip. Flipped it on it's end and sent it to orbit.

The blast bent those steel beams on the tower inwards: https://t.co/tusftSv25h pic.twitter.com/VAw1o3L8WW

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) May 29, 2026

The U.S. Space Force has just announced that it has awarded @SpaceX a $4.16 billion contract to build a constellation of satellites that can track airplanes, cruise missiles, and airborne threats globally from orbit.

It’s for the “Space-Based Airborne Moving Target Indicator… pic.twitter.com/ppsjFrGiJm

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 29, 2026

Quote:

---

This explosion was "seen" several days ago.....

---

Sea Speed said:

---

The blast bent those steel beams on the tower inwards: https://t.co/tusftSv25h pic.twitter.com/VAw1o3L8WW

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) May 29, 2026

---

Does rocket fuel melt steel beams?

5/28truth.com

Watching Scott Manley's video from earlier...

Big setback for Amazon and their Internet constellation... They have a tightening deadline to get a minimum number of units on orbit or they lose their FCC licenses and will have to rebid those. Minimal spare launch capacity among other commercial providers. SpaceX only has one pad in operation and only one barge in Florida.
F9
Vulcan -- grounded, and potential issues with BE4 Engines now
Arian 6 --always very slow turnaround
AST space Mobile -- also more shopping launches

No other launch vehicle can carry the Mark1 lunar lander and the rover due to both weight and fairing sizes.
HLS lander Moon landing and LEO test for Artemis III

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Watching Scott Manley's video from earlier...

Big setback for Amazon and their Internet constellation... They have a tightening deadline to get a minimum number of units on orbit or they lose their FCC licenses and will have to rebid those. Minimal spare launch capacity among other commercial providers. SpaceX only has one pad in operation and only one barge in Florida.
F9
Vulcan -- grounded, and potential issues with BE4 Engines now
Arian 6 --always very slow turnaround
AST space Mobile -- also more shopping launches

No other launch vehicle can carry the Mark1 lunar lander and the rover due to both weight and fairing sizes.
HLS lander Moon landing and LEO test for Artemis III

---

Falcon Heavy can launch it to TLI, but doesnt have the capability to top off its fuel tank in orbit. But there is some question about whether the top off would be needed since the Falcon Heavy can launch directly to TLI orbit in an expendable core and 2nd stage configuration, while NG would go to orbit then boost to TLI. That delay is supposedly the reason they need to top off.

The other question is how much effort Spacex wants to put into helping launch a competitors vehicle.

txags92 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Watching Scott Manley's video from earlier...

Big setback for Amazon and their Internet constellation... They have a tightening deadline to get a minimum number of units on orbit or they lose their FCC licenses and will have to rebid those. Minimal spare launch capacity among other commercial providers. SpaceX only has one pad in operation and only one barge in Florida.
F9
Vulcan -- grounded, and potential issues with BE4 Engines now
Arian 6 --always very slow turnaround
AST space Mobile -- also more shopping launches

No other launch vehicle can carry the Mark1 lunar lander and the rover due to both weight and fairing sizes.
HLS lander Moon landing and LEO test for Artemis III

---

Falcon Heavy can launch it to TLI, but doesnt have the capability to top off its fuel tank in orbit. But there is some question about whether the top off would be needed since the Falcon Heavy can launch directly to TLI orbit in an expendable core and 2nd stage configuration, while NG would go to orbit then boost to TLI. That delay is supposedly the reason they need to top off.

The other question is how much effort Spacex wants to put into helping launch a competitors vehicle.

---

It won't fit inside SpaceX fairings. Therefore it can't fly FH without second stage modifications.

SpaceX will launch for BO. They've done it before. The question is will SpaceX modify a vehicle they're looking to 100% retire.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Watching Scott Manley's video from earlier...

Big setback for Amazon and their Internet constellation... They have a tightening deadline to get a minimum number of units on orbit or they lose their FCC licenses and will have to rebid those. Minimal spare launch capacity among other commercial providers. SpaceX only has one pad in operation and only one barge in Florida.
F9
Vulcan -- grounded, and potential issues with BE4 Engines now
Arian 6 --always very slow turnaround
AST space Mobile -- also more shopping launches

No other launch vehicle can carry the Mark1 lunar lander and the rover due to both weight and fairing sizes.
HLS lander Moon landing and LEO test for Artemis III

---

Falcon Heavy can launch it to TLI, but doesnt have the capability to top off its fuel tank in orbit. But there is some question about whether the top off would be needed since the Falcon Heavy can launch directly to TLI orbit in an expendable core and 2nd stage configuration, while NG would go to orbit then boost to TLI. That delay is supposedly the reason they need to top off.

The other question is how much effort Spacex wants to put into helping launch a competitors vehicle.

---

It won't fit inside SpaceX fairings. Therefore it can't fly FH without second stage modifications.

SpaceX will launch for BO. They've done it before. The question is will SpaceX modify a vehicle they're looking to 100% retire.

---

Mk 1 lander is 3.08m and FH fairing is 5.2m. It will fit. But not sure they want to modify it to handle the top off if needed.

txags92 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Watching Scott Manley's video from earlier...

Big setback for Amazon and their Internet constellation... They have a tightening deadline to get a minimum number of units on orbit or they lose their FCC licenses and will have to rebid those. Minimal spare launch capacity among other commercial providers. SpaceX only has one pad in operation and only one barge in Florida.
F9
Vulcan -- grounded, and potential issues with BE4 Engines now
Arian 6 --always very slow turnaround
AST space Mobile -- also more shopping launches

No other launch vehicle can carry the Mark1 lunar lander and the rover due to both weight and fairing sizes.
HLS lander Moon landing and LEO test for Artemis III

---

Falcon Heavy can launch it to TLI, but doesnt have the capability to top off its fuel tank in orbit. But there is some question about whether the top off would be needed since the Falcon Heavy can launch directly to TLI orbit in an expendable core and 2nd stage configuration, while NG would go to orbit then boost to TLI. That delay is supposedly the reason they need to top off.

The other question is how much effort Spacex wants to put into helping launch a competitors vehicle.

---

It won't fit inside SpaceX fairings. Therefore it can't fly FH without second stage modifications.

SpaceX will launch for BO. They've done it before. The question is will SpaceX modify a vehicle they're looking to 100% retire.

---

Mk 1 lander is 3.08m and FH fairing is 5.2m. It will fit. But not sure they want to modify it to handle the top off if needed.

---

I've been going off what I've heard various YouTuber's saying.
But doing some digging...
The Mk1 is also 8.05m tall and the Falcon fairings begin to taper at 6.7m. Not certain how quickly that taper occurs and what the minimum offsets are required for clearance.

Digging a bit deeper... SpaceX says it's TMarsI payload is 16,800kg and ArsTechnica estimates them at 28,800 to TLI. So perhaps the FH can get the MK1 lander to the moon with a launch mass just under 22,000kg according to Wikipedia. Not sure if that includes the rover or not. I don't' see a FH being able to throw the MK2 to the moon at all with it's projected mass over 45,000kg.

Starship can certainly do it... But SpaceX has enough going on just getting it flying and ready to meet all of of their internal goals, they absolutely aren't ready to use it to help BO.

Either way.... This sucks for Artemis!

I just noticed the flare stack getting blown out lol https://t.co/xVeceA0V6b pic.twitter.com/e5ZqAxIegb

— random (@r3a9an_k_) May 29, 2026

txags92 said:

---

The other question is how much effort Spacex wants to put into helping launch a competitors vehicle.

---

For Artemis III, if they're trying to see which HLS option is ready for Artemis IV, and SpaceX has to fly MK2 up to dock with Orion, doesn't that answer the question for Artemis III?

TexAgs91 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

The other question is how much effort Spacex wants to put into helping launch a competitors vehicle.

---

For Artemis III, if they're trying to see which HLS option is ready for Artemis IV, and SpaceX has to fly MK2 up to dock with Orion, doesn't that answer the question for Artemis III?

---

CAN SpaceX even get the MK2 into LEO?
I think for that one they absolutely would have to rebuild the whole FH 2nd stage?