"On June 28, 2015, following a nominal liftoff, Falcon 9 experienced an overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank approximately 139 seconds into flight, resulting in loss of mission."
-- SpaceX statement
SpaceX's CRS-7 mission to the International Space Station (ISS) last month resulted in a "SpaceXplosion", and a fiery spectacle in the skies above Cape Canaveral -- but it could have been worse.
In less than a tenth of a second, the explosion vaporized 4,000 pounds of supplies destined for ISS astronauts, along with a docking station that, if it had made it to ISS, would have facilitated docking by SpaceX and Boeing (NYSE:BA) spaceships beginning in 2017.
NASA noted in an earlier report, however, that ISS had enough supplies on hand to maintain its crew through October, even before the Russian cavalry arrived. More supplies arrived with a Russian space cargo ship that reached ISS earlier this month, and perhaps even more on the Soyuz capsule that brought three new astronauts to ISS Thursday. And there's a second docking station in the U.S. that can still be shipped up. So for ISS, the situation is not critical.
The situation for SpaceX may not be as critical as it seemed back in June either.
Timing is everything
SpaceX'sCRS-7 disaster came at an especially inconvenient time for SpaceX, occurring just after the company had landed twin "certifications" from U.S. government agencies to operate highly complex space launches that SpaceX had previously been excluded from bidding upon. With the U.S. government planning to spend nearly $25 billion on space launches annually in the coming years, this is a huge opportunity for SpaceX.
In just two weeks, SpaceX won clearance to run both NASA medium-risk "Category 2" missions, and also Air Force national security launches. However, having just won certification for both, SpaceX naturally has no track record on either of these more advanced missions. The CRS-7 explosion, therefore, would seem to have offered anyone at NASA or the Air Force leery of risking an expensive cargo with SpaceX the perfect excuse to stick with the company's archrival, United Launch Alliance.
Indeed, in a prescient warning made back in April, Air Force Space Command chief Gen. John Hyten commented: "I'm not going to stand up and put a billion dollar satellite on top of a rocket I don't know is going to work." Even more so when there's still the alternative of putting that satellite atop a Boeing or Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) rocket -- rockets that ULA has launched 96 times over the past nine years without any of them blowing up.
SpaceX gets a reprieve
But not to worry, says the U.S. Air Force. CRS-7 notwithstanding, they've still got full confidence in SpaceX. As reported by DoDBuzz.com earlier this month, Air Force Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves, head of the Space and Missile Systems Center, has confirmed that "the Falcon 9 Launch System remains certified" to perform Air Force national security missions, even after CRS-7.
That means that, once the Air Force finalizes its request for proposals to launch the next GPS III communications satellite (expected this month), SpaceX will be able to bid on the work. Dismissing the SpaceXplosion as a mere "anomaly," Greaves confirmed that nothing has changed about SpaceX's ability to bid on the GPS III.
The upshot for investors
When CRS-7 blew up, it was a humbling and costly moment for SpaceX. But the company's working hard to identify the root cause of the explosion, fix it, and make sure it doesn't happen again. With continued backing from two big government agencies, SpaceX will now be given a second chance to prove it's a safe bet to carry America's "billion dollar satellites" into orbit.
Last month was only "strike one" for SpaceX. But let's hope there's no "strike two" when SpaceX resumes launching rockets in September.
Fool contributor Rich Smith does not own shares of, nor is he short, any company named above. You can find him on our virtual stockpicking service, Motley Fool CAPS, publicly pontificating under the handle TMFDitty. He's currently ranked No. 338 out of more than 75,000 rated members there.
The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.