On September 1, 2016, a seemingly routine static fire test at SpaceX turned catastrophic within moments. Just eight minutes before the Falcon 9 rocket's planned ignition, it erupted in a violent explosion, ultimately taking both the rocket and its priceless Amos-6 satellite with it.

John Muratore, the launch director, recounted the harrowing moment: "I saw the first explosion... it felt like an hour, but it was only a few seconds." As the rocket was engulfed in flames, the payload dangerously tipped and crashed to the ground before detonating in a fiery spectacle.

This incident marked SpaceX's second major failure in over a year and shook the foundations of the commercial space industry at a time when NASA was betting heavily on the company's future.

The aftermath of the explosion ignited a frenzy of theories among SpaceX engineers; the most outlandish being the "sniper" theory. This theory originated from the puzzling circumstances surrounding the failure—a critical helium tank ruptured, yet the rocket was sitting idle prior to the explosion.

The Sniper Theory Explained

Despite sounding like something out of a spy thriller, the sniper theory gained traction within SpaceX, particularly with founder Elon Musk. Curiously, the initial rupture appeared on the side of the rocket facing a United Launch Alliance (ULA) building, its main competitor, just a mile away. A video captured a flash on ULA's roof, which correlated suspiciously with when the rocket exploded.

Driven by this troubling evidence, engineers conducted experiments shooting at pressurized helium tanks to gauge potential explosions. Concurrently, SpaceX sought permission to investigate ULA’s roof, which they promptly denied.

For over a month, SpaceX pursued the sniper line of inquiry vigorously, until the FAA ultimately clarified that no shots had been fired.

The Rivalry Heats Up

This bizarre theory unfolded against the backdrop of an intense rivalry between SpaceX and ULA. Back in 2016, ULA was the dominant force in the industry, efficiently launching NASA's vital missions, while SpaceX struggled to catch up.

But this was a turning point—following the Amos-6 incident, SpaceX would dominate the launch market, but not without facing a severe existential crisis in the process.

NASA's Dilemma

The implications of the Falcon 9 failure threw NASA into turmoil, casting doubt on the safety of their partnership with SpaceX. With the agency relying on SpaceX to transport astronauts to the International Space Station, the stakes were sky-high. The chaotic failure sequence leading up to Amos-6 created panic in NASA’s safety community, igniting fierce debates over SpaceX’s new "load-and-go" approach, which involved boarding astronauts before fueling.

Ultimately, engineers deduced that the explosion was not due to external sabotage but stemmed from rapid fueling that caused a catastrophic failure in the helium tanks. They had pushed the boundaries of what was safe.

FBI Investigation

Interestingly, the probe reached federal levels, with the FBI investigating the explosion once SpaceX suggested possible sabotage. However, they found no evidence to corroborate any foul play, effectively closing the case.

Despite the grim moment for SpaceX, the company rebounded spectacularly, launching a record number of missions in the following years and firmly establishing itself as a premier player in space exploration. The mishap was a turning point that propelled SpaceX toward unprecedented success.

In the end, while the loss of the Falcon 9 and Amos-6 was a profound setback, it set the stage for SpaceX's triumphant rise to the top—without any sniper in sight.