In a striking and extraordinary allegation within the fiercely competitive aerospace industry, Elon Musk once theorized that a sniper, stationed on the roof of a competitor’s building, was behind the abrupt and catastrophic explosion of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in 2016. What began as a tragic incident resulting in the loss of a $200 million rocket and the Amos-6 Israeli communications satellite it carried, rapidly escalated into a comprehensive investigation driven by Musk’s persistent suspicions, which even involved the FBI.

On September 1, 2016, a video vividly documented an explosion that caused the Falcon 9 to disintegrate instantaneously during a standard static fire test. There was neither a launch nor a countdown; instead, the event marked the abrupt conversion of one of the most advanced rockets globally into a fireball. The aerospace community was left in shock, with Musk being particularly affected by the incident.

Upon receiving the news while at his residence in California, the billionaire CEO allegedly became preoccupied with the notion that sabotage may have played a role. Information acquired through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by journalist Eric Berger indicates that SpaceX engineers commenced a thorough investigation into the potential that a sniper had discharged a projectile at the rocket’s pressurized tanks, leading to their rupture and subsequent explosion.

In a decision that some may consider implausible or overly cautious, Musk instructed his team to investigate the rooftop of a nearby structure owned by United Launch Alliance (ULA) — the primary competitor of SpaceX — situated approximately one mile from the Cape Canaveral launch site. Engineers even took the additional step of simulating the event by firing projectiles at comparable tanks, in an effort to determine if a precisely aimed shot could feasibly cause such a disastrous failure.

This suspicion evolved from a fleeting consideration into a significant aspect of the internal investigation. The subsequent involvement of the FBI underscores the seriousness with which SpaceX and Musk approached the matter.

The circumstances at that time only intensified Musk’s escalating doubts. SpaceX found itself in a progressively antagonistic competition with ULA, a collaboration between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that had historically held a strong grip on the government launch sector.

In 2014, Musk initiated legal action against the U.S. Air Force, alleging anti-competitive behavior and preferential treatment towards ULA, which effectively barred SpaceX from obtaining valuable military contracts. That year, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 experienced its first significant explosion during a launch, and by 2016, the company faced considerable pressure to demonstrate its reliability to NASA and the U.S. government.

The occurrence of the second explosion, coinciding with NASA’s significant investment in SpaceX’s commercial crew program, was particularly unfortunate. This event led to a decline in public confidence. Musk, recognized for his intense competitiveness and unwavering faith in his vision, might have perceived the explosion not just as a technical setback, but as a calculated attempt to disrupt his company’s progress.

The concept of a corporate sniper attack may seem like a plot from a Hollywood thriller, yet it was treated with utmost seriousness at SpaceX. This was not merely a fleeting comment made in exasperation; rather, it was a theory that Musk fervently advocated, despite the significant doubts expressed by law enforcement and aerospace specialists. As indicated in Berger’s FOIA documents, even the FBI was compelled to provide an official response.

A correspondence dispatched in October 2016 clearly indicated that investigators discovered “no evidence to imply that sabotage or any form of criminal activity contributed” to the explosion. Rather, the true cause was considerably more ordinary, albeit equally important from a technical perspective. SpaceX engineers ultimately determined that the rocket’s pressurized tanks were filled with super-cooled helium at an excessive rate, leading to a structural failure.

Despite Musk’s initial misjudgment, his company ultimately became more resilient. By 2017, SpaceX had outperformed ULA in annual launches, reinforcing its position as the foremost private spaceflight provider. In 2019, it accomplished a historic feat by successfully transporting astronauts to the International Space Station, a first for any private entity.

Musk’s fixation on the sniper theory exemplifies the brilliance and unpredictability of his leadership approach. He requires unwavering loyalty, relentlessly chases his objectives with fervent dedication, and frequently perceives resistance even when it is not present.

This paranoid perspective may appear unreasonable to those outside the field, yet in the high-stakes realm of space exploration, it has occasionally provided him with the advantage necessary to confront established authorities. Nevertheless, this very mentality can create distance from allies, instill internal apprehension, and divert attention from genuine technical challenges. Detractors contend that Musk’s preoccupation with conspiracy and sabotage indicates a profound reluctance to accept responsibility.

Instead of addressing the internal errors that resulted in the Falcon 9 explosion, Musk opted to assign blame and create a story of treachery.

Despite the surrounding drama, the outcome was clear. SpaceX gained valuable insights from its setbacks, revised its fueling protocols, and emerged more resilient.

The company’s growth remained unaffected. In fact, it may have been expedited by the heightened scrutiny and public pressure that ensued after the explosion. If anything, Musk’s peculiar theory — despite being disproven — further solidified the legend surrounding him. He transcends the roles of a mere entrepreneur or CEO.

In the perceptions of both his supporters and critics, he is viewed as an individual perpetually engaged in a struggle against unseen adversaries, frequently of his own creation. Although the sniper was a mere figment, the 2016 explosion stands as a crucial event in SpaceX’s narrative — a turning point that underscored the significant risks involved and the lengths to which Musk would go to safeguard his aspirations.