>>>Oh so close:
>>>
>>>http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20140116-falcon9-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly.html
>>>http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-problem-falcon9-crash-landing-2015-1
>>>
>>>They claim they know what went wrong, and that they've already fixed it.
>>>
>>>I'm starting to be impressed by these guys...
>>
>>Amazing that the landing platform sustained so little damage.....
>
>From the pics I saw, there isn't much on the platform that could be damaged. Also it seems there wasn't much fuel left in the stage (in a perfect world there would be none) so the explosion wasn't as big as it could have been.
>
>That said, explosions are funny things - I was taught that the forces generated usually follow the path of greatest resistance, which is a bit counterintuitive. You can, for example, use explosives to fell trees: http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf08672325/pdf08672325dpi72.pdf

Hi Al

Why should it be counterintuitive?

following setting:

a wooden board with a nail, and butter around the nail
Hit the setting with a hammer. The force will go with the nail - the butter means nothing. Also the air you move with the hammer will not be notified.

OTHO
A blast from explosives woud be waisted without proper ?? (end of my english. :) you need something to hold the blast). The site you mention uses something like a cone or pyramid of explosives for the external blast - the explosion will build an internal counter force, so the outer layer will put a pressure to the inner layer. :)
Also the problems with the damage (external 2mil vs internal 700ft) gives a hint how much enrgy is waisted. Even considering that the external blast needs more explosive, the energy goes by the square root (or was it the cubic, but then its even worst) of the distance.