SpaceX did more than privately wonder whether a sniper had damaged its Falcon 9 rocket. According to a newly reported FAA letter, the company submitted video, audio, and analysis that it believed could indicate sabotage or criminal activity after the rocket and Amos-6 satellite exploded during a prelaunch static-fire test on September 1, 2016. SpaceX also provided the information to the FBI in Florida.
Federal authorities reportedly found no indication of sabotage or another criminal act. The later engineering explanation attributed the failure to a problem involving the rapid loading of super-cold propellant into the Falcon 9’s helium pressure system—not a shooting.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What happened to Falcon 9 and Amos-6?
The incident was not a launch failure. It occurred on September 1, 2016, at Cape Canaveral during a static-fire test, when SpaceX planned to ignite the Falcon 9’s engines while the rocket remained on the ground. The explosion occurred roughly eight minutes before ignition.
The vehicle and its payload, the Amos-6 communications satellite owned by Spacecom, were destroyed. The immediate technical mystery centered on the rupture of a pressurized helium vessel in the Falcon 9’s upper stage.
#1 Best Overall
- A COMPLETE LAUNCH-PAD SCENE: This starship model adds a tower, capture arms and storage-tank details around the rocket for a more immersive desktop display.
- MIST AND RED LIGHT IGNITION EFFECT: The built-in humidifier and LEDs work together beneath the rocket to simulate a dramatic launch plume without heat or propulsion.
- SIMPLE RESERVOIR CARE: The integrated water system is straightforward to operate; refill as needed and wipe the atomizing plate regularly to limit mineral buildup.
- HIGH-DETAIL 3D-PRINTED STRUCTURE: Contrasting silver, black and white components make the launch system easy to examine from multiple angles in offices, classrooms and exhibits.
- A DISPLAY GIFT FOR SPACE ENTHUSIASTS: Suited to adult collectors, engineers and students; place on a stable surface and handle the fine tower and arm details carefully.
Ars Technica’s reporting describes the newly disclosed federal-investigation detail.
Why did SpaceX consider a sniper?
The theory was based on circumstantial observations, not proof of a shooting. The first visible rupture appeared to be on the rocket’s southwest-facing side, approximately 200 feet above the ground. A ULA-leased building stood about a mile in that direction.
A separate video reportedly showed a flash on or near the building’s roof. SpaceX considered whether the timing could be consistent with a projectile striking the rocket. The theory involved a stationary rocket as the proposed target; it was not necessarily a claim that someone had fired at a person-sized target.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchSeveral factors made the possibility worth investigating at the time:
- The explosion appeared sudden and unusually violent.
- The rocket was not undergoing an obvious major movement immediately before the failure.
- The initial rupture appeared to be on a side facing the nearby building.
- The reported flash seemed potentially relevant when compared with the timing of the explosion.
- Engineers initially struggled to reproduce the failure mechanism.
None of those observations established that a weapon had been fired. The flash has not been identified in the available reporting as a muzzle flash, projectile impact, or other specific event.
Rank #2
- Name：1:233 Falcon 9 Block 5 Material:：Alloy+resin
- Size：Approximately 22x7cm (8.6*2.7inch) Function： Static desktop display
- For collection or display, Not suitable for children to play with Handmade, there may be minor flaws
- Model is a highly Simulated SpaceX Falcon9 Dragon+F9 Starship Heavy Falcon Falcon 9 Biock 5 rocket model. The main body of the first-stage rocket is precision aluminum alloy tube, and the rest of the rocket materials are made of high-quality imported resin-with excellent laser forming ability and long-lasting preservation
How far did SpaceX pursue the theory?
According to the reporting, SpaceX investigated the possibility internally for more than a month. The company reportedly shot comparable pressurized helium tanks in Texas to compare the damage with the Falcon 9 failure. It also sought access to the roof of the nearby ULA-leased building.
Eric Berger’s account also reports that Elon Musk was receptive to, or encouraged, the theory. That detail should be understood as attributed reporting rather than independent proof of Musk’s motive or conclusions.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThe important distinction is between an internal hypothesis and a formal referral. SpaceX did not merely discuss the possibility among engineers: it presented the theory and supporting material to federal authorities.
What did the FAA letter reveal?
The key document is a letter dated October 13, 2016, from FAA commercial-space official Michael C. Romanowski to SpaceX general counsel Tim Hughes. The letter was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Berger.
As reported, the letter said SpaceX had supplied the FAA with video, audio, and analysis that the company believed could indicate “sabotage or criminal activity” connected with the explosion. It also said SpaceX had provided the information to the FBI in Florida.
Rank #3
- HANDS-ON ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE: Build this detailed 3d puzzle for adults and explore the complex engineering of the legendary SpaceX Super Heavy booster. A truly immersive dive into aerospace technology
- IMPRESSIVE DISPLAY MODEL: Once completed, this highly detailed and cool-looking model makes a perfect decorative centerpiece for your office, study, or game room, showcasing your unique interests
- SATISFYING MENTAL CHALLENGE: Enjoy hours of focused, relaxing fun. This 3D puzzle provides the perfect level of difficulty, offering a great sense of accomplishment upon completion
- THE PERFECT GIFT IDEA: An unforgettable and inspiring gift for birthSpace-X Falcon Heavydays, holidays, or any occasion. Ideal for space enthusiasts, model kit fans, teens, and adults who love a good challenge
- PREMIUM & SAFE MATERIALS: Made from high-strength, eco-friendly materials with precisely cut pieces for a smooth build. The finished model is robust and durable, designed for long-term display
The FBI’s Tampa field office and the bureau’s Criminal Investigative Division in Washington reportedly reviewed the matter. The FAA said federal criminal and security authorities found no indication that sabotage or other criminal activity caused the explosion and considered the matter closed.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The original letter is more important than summaries of it. The available reporting does not provide the complete FBI investigative file or establish precisely which tests, interviews, security records, or video analyses investigators performed. It therefore supports a careful conclusion: SpaceX reported a possible sabotage scenario to the government, and federal authorities reportedly found no evidence supporting it.
What did investigators conclude?
The reported federal conclusion was negative: no indication of sabotage or criminal involvement. That does not mean the FBI publicly published a detailed reconstruction of the failure, nor does it show that investigators independently established every aspect of the later engineering explanation.
The available material does not answer several narrower questions:
- What exactly caused the flash shown in the separate video?
- Did investigators inspect the ULA building or review its security footage?
- Was any projectile, weapon residue, or ballistic evidence found?
- What specific tests did the FBI conduct?
- What evidence did SpaceX submit, and how was it preserved?
Those gaps matter because “reported to the FBI” and “thoroughly proven false by a publicly documented investigation” are not interchangeable descriptions. The reported FAA letter supports the former and summarizes the latter, but it does not disclose the full investigative record.
Rank #4
- Name：1:233 Falcon 9 Material:：Alloy+resin
- Size：Approximately 28x2.4cm (11*1.5inch) Function： Static desktop display
- For collection or display, Not suitable for children to play with Handmade, there may be minor flaws
- Model is a highly Simulated SpaceX Falcon9 Dragon+F9 Starship Heavy Falcon Falcon 9 Biock 5 rocket model. The main body of the first-stage rocket is precision aluminum alloy tube, and the rest of the rocket materials are made of high-quality imported resin-with excellent laser forming ability and long-lasting preservation
The engineering explanation was different
The later engineering explanation involved the Falcon 9’s super-cold propellant-loading process and its composite-overwrapped pressure vessels, commonly called COPVs. These vessels contain helium used to pressurize the rocket’s propellant tanks.
According to the reported account, the helium vessels were filled too quickly. That process heated the aluminum liner inside the pressure vessel, causing it to buckle and ultimately rupture. The resulting failure led to the destruction of the rocket and satellite.
This explanation should not be expanded beyond the available evidence. The retrieved reporting does not independently establish every tank location, temperature, pressure, or interaction among possible failure mechanisms. But it does establish the central contrast: the accepted engineering explanation involved the propellant-loading and helium-pressure system, not an external shooter.
A clear timeline
| Date or period | What happened |
|---|---|
| September 1, 2016 | Falcon 9 and Amos-6 were destroyed during a prelaunch static-fire test at Cape Canaveral. |
| Following weeks | SpaceX investigated several possibilities, including an external projectile. It reportedly conducted comparative tank-shooting tests and pursued access to a nearby building’s roof. |
| About three weeks after the explosion | SpaceX reportedly submitted video, audio, and analysis to the FAA and reported the information to the FBI. |
| October 13, 2016 | The FAA reportedly sent SpaceX a letter summarizing the federal review and saying authorities found no indication of sabotage or criminal activity. |
| Later engineering investigation | The failure was attributed to a problem involving rapid propellant loading and rupture of a helium pressure vessel. |
| Spring 2023 | Berger filed the FOIA request that led to the FAA disclosure. |
| Spring 2025 | The FAA response and the newly reported details became public. |
Why this mattered beyond the “sniper” claim
The explosion occurred during an important period for SpaceX. The company was competing with United Launch Alliance, seeking NASA’s confidence for crewed missions, and dealing with the consequences of another major Falcon 9 failure.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →The incident also affected discussion of SpaceX’s proposed “load-and-go” approach to crewed launches, in which a rocket would be fueled relatively close to liftoff. A failure associated with loading super-cold propellant made the safety implications of that procedure particularly important.
Best Value
- Extremely exquisite Falcon Heavy rocket model (For collection or display, not a toy! Children should not buy it)
- This model is a highly simulated SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket model. First-stage super heavy-duty booster is made of precise aluminum alloy tubes.Second-level starship is embedded with reinforced aluminum alloy tubes
- The proportional model:1:233
- Actual height: 32cm (the core diameter is 24mm, the real rocket is 9 meters in diameter) This ratio is the best choice for desktop placement
- Note: This model is not a toy model, it is not recommended to buy for children, please buy with caution to avoid unnecessary trouble for your shopping
The ULA connection adds narrative force, but it must not be mistaken for evidence against ULA, its employees, or its contractors. The available evidence shows only that a ULA-leased building was in the direction SpaceX considered relevant to its hypothesis. It does not show that SpaceX formally accused ULA of attacking the rocket.
What the disclosure does—and does not—prove
The new information changes the historical record in a meaningful way. The story is not simply that some SpaceX employees privately wondered about a sniper. The reported FAA letter indicates that SpaceX formally presented a possible sabotage case to federal authorities and supplied supporting material to the FBI.
But the disclosure does not prove that SpaceX fabricated evidence, knowingly promoted a false cover story, pressured investigators, or tried to conceal an engineering error. It also does not prove that the theory was irrational: reporting a possible attack on a rocket or launch facility to government authorities can be a reasonable precaution when the evidence is unresolved.
Nor does referral prove that the theory had merit. Federal authorities reportedly found no indication of sabotage, while the later engineering investigation pointed to a failure in the helium-pressure system associated with propellant loading.
Bottom line
SpaceX escalated the “sniper” possibility far beyond an internal rumor. It reportedly investigated the idea, conducted comparative shooting tests, sought information from a nearby building, and submitted video, audio, and analysis to the FAA and FBI. Federal authorities found no indication of criminal involvement. The accepted explanation for the September 1, 2016 explosion was an engineering failure involving rapid propellant loading and a helium pressure vessel—not a sniper attack.
Quick Recap
Source: Ars Technica.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
