Link here, but I have embedded his video statement below. He goes into detail about what they now believe happened when the rocket exploded during the static fire test, as well as the limited damage to the launchpad. They do not think the failure was a design flaw, which means it was caused by something that was done while building the engine. The company now plans to use for this first launch the stage that it was building for its second launch, and hopes to launch next year.

There was one little quote from him that tells me the company’s statement prior to the failed test that it could launch “in a matter of weeks” was based solely on its own engineering but was not going to happen. In today’s statement he says, almost as an aside, that “We wanted to launch in the next few weeks or months and this is unfortunately no longer possible.” [emphasis mine]

What the highlighted words tell me is that had this test been successful, Rocket Factory would have been able to stack the rocket and would have been willing to launch quickly. For that schedule to extend into months however could only be for one reason, an expectation that the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) would not issue the launch license immediatley, but would dither as it did with Virgin Orbit (bankrupting that company).

Thus, red tape remains a major obstacle for the next launch. I suspect the CAA — risk adverse as all bureaucracies are — will not be comfortable issuing a new license after this failure, unless Rocket Factory can show unequivocally that it has taken actions that will prevent all such failures in the future, something that is likely impossible.

UPDATE on our S1 test anomaly!

Our first stage is gone – but we have collected a significant amount of data and film footage. After reviewing it, we want to share some insights into the technical analysis, preliminary conclusions and our next steps ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/FnGHjTCS2g

— Rocket Factory Augsburg (@rfa_space) August 23, 2024