The one last month?
"no injuries from the explosion itself"
and
"To guard against the dangers of a failed launch the Nasa facility maintains a hazard area of about 1,400 square miles around the site"
Both from: www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/28/antares-rocket-explodes-nasa-launch-pad-orbital-science
Unless your referring to a different Antares rocket fail, no-one was injured, and the cameras would have been remote as point out^
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Wed 26 Nov 2014, 18:24,
Share,
Reply)
It was an impressive explosion nonetheless
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Wed 26 Nov 2014, 18:26,
Share,
Reply)
Yes
This footage shows it from more angles, including loads of wizzy twirly bits : youtu.be/BSr4hUcROwo?t=3m57s
(, Wed 26 Nov 2014, 18:28, Share, Reply)
It did not autodestruct before hitting the ground...
Major fail there...
(And how did I survive without full screen HD)
(, Wed 26 Nov 2014, 19:15, Share, Reply)
2002 - no one died
2003 - no one died
2004 - no one died
2005 - someone died
2006 - no one died
...
(, Wed 26 Nov 2014, 20:14, Share, Reply)
Here's a Russian Soyuz launch from last week for comparison
Thats' about 150m away from the pad.
In former Soviet Russia monohydrazine eats you!
(
CockGripShaftingSleeve, Wed 26 Nov 2014, 22:42,
Share,
Reply)
fucking mentals, how are they not fried to a crisp?
(
Rebel biscuit stercore sumus et nos esse novimus, Wed 26 Nov 2014, 23:01,
Share,
Reply)