Slashdot Mirror
Falcon 9 Explodes On Pad (npr.org)
Reader Mysticalfruit writes: NPR is reporting that a Falcon9 carrying the AMOS-6 satellite that was supposed to launch on Sat exploded during it's scheduled static fire. No injuries are reported. They're reporting that this was going to be the first reflown first stage.
The Verge adds:SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, meant to launch a satellite this weekend, exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida this morning. The explosion occurred during the preparation for the static fire test of the rocket's engines, NASA told the Associated Press. The blast reportedly shook buildings "several miles away." The company confirmed to The Verge the loss of the Falcon 9 an hour later: "SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries."
The Verge adds:SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, meant to launch a satellite this weekend, exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida this morning. The explosion occurred during the preparation for the static fire test of the rocket's engines, NASA told the Associated Press. The blast reportedly shook buildings "several miles away." The company confirmed to The Verge the loss of the Falcon 9 an hour later: "SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's static fire, there was an anomaly on the pad resulting in the loss of the vehicle and its payload. Per standard procedure, the pad was clear and there were no injuries."
awesome work, spaceX! You rock guys. Please send your next rocket to north korea. Thanks in advance.
As they say, there's always a silver lining...
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09...
"And what does this button do?"
OOPS!
Correction: This was a brand new rocket. The first customer to fly on a used rocket will be SES.
I couldn't find a video of the actual explosion, but the Mirror has some footage and pics of the aftermath:
It's very likely the used rockets will have micro fractures everywhere that are nearly impossible to find.
This was not the reused booster stage. That was scheduled to launch later this year.
SES-10 was suppose to be flown on a reused rocket, in October.
The article is incorrect. First customer for a used rocket was already announced (SES) and this isn't it.
This wasn't a used rocket. The first reuse will be for the SES-10 launch in a couple of months... assuming this doesn't push back the timeline.
This rocket was brand new it was the first that would have been SCHEDULED TO REUSE later after this launch.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The satellite may have cost $200 million but it also belonged to FaceBook. Nothing of value was lost.
Sorry I got my sources wrong... This was a brand new booster. I'm sure like everything else SpaceX does there was voluminous amounts of data being recorded and they'll quickly understand the issue.
It sucks they lost the vehicle and the payload, but more so that the pad is likely heavily damaged.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
But it's unfortunate that this is being reported as a failure of the SpaceX Rocket, while the malfunction was apparently in the pad.
You're kidding, right? When SpaceX reported "an anomaly on the pad", they just meant the rocket had an issue leading to its explosion while it was standing on the pad waiting to fire.
Of course Musk may choose to describe this as a "rapid unscheduled prelaunch disassembly" rather than an explosion - we'll have to see.
#DeleteChrome
I read an interesting rocket story in "Computing in the Middle Ages: A View From the Trenches 1955-1983" by Severo Ornstein. The author had to jiggle a tracking antenna connected to a computer during a rocket launch at Cape Canaveral. When the rocket launched, the top and middle stages went in opposite directions while the bottom stage sat unlit on the launch pad. When the self destruct signal got sent out, the bottom stage blew up because the explosives were located only in that stage, and the launch pad got destroyed. The other two stages crash landed downrange.
https://www.amazon.com/Computing-Middle-Ages-Trenches-1955-1983/dp/1403315175/
Well it is rocket science. Reliability doesn't come cheap.
That's why I laugh when private contractors say they can do rocket science better than nation states that have been doing it for over 60 years.
What a shame that SES didn't stay true to its state-owned roots and continue to work with organisations that do it for the sake of science rather than the sake of profit.
Still though, LOL ZUCKERBERG YOU FUCK.
I'm just grateful that nobody was harmed. Fuck private property - hooray for humanity!
Is there independent confirmation of this, because I'm not hearing that?
Privatization - better, cheaper, faster... more bang for the buck.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
"It happens sometimes. Pads just explode. Natural causes."
Its not a used rocket, its a brand new rocket - the first re-use isn't scheduled until later in the year.
And "on the pad" is terminology meaning thats where the failure occurred - not that it was specifically a failure of the pad or the pad equipment (although that can be the case), just that thats where it happened. As opposed to "in flight" etc.
This rocket was brand new it was the first that would have been SCHEDULED TO REUSE later after this launch.
Wrong.
--quote--
For SpaceX, the private space company owned by Elon Musk, it was the "first launch of [a] flight-proven first stage," the company says. The mission was using the same rocket booster that sent the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station earlier this year.
--end quote--
They should be reusable though, right? ;-)
This wasn't a used rocket. The first reuse will be for the SES-10 launch in a couple of months... assuming this doesn't push back the timeline.
--quote--
For SpaceX, the private space company owned by Elon Musk, it was the "first launch of [a] flight-proven first stage," the company says. The mission was using the same rocket booster that sent the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station earlier this year.
--end quote--
This rocket was brand new it was the first that would have been SCHEDULED TO REUSE later after this launch.
So, it's looking good then?
As this was an "experimental" used rocket, it's likely highly insured.
Who the hell is going to insure *that*?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This wasn't a previously flown rocket as misreported here. It was a brand new first stage, and information from SpaceX says that it was a pad issue during fueling, not a problem with the rocket itself.
But it's unfortunate that this is being reported as a failure of the SpaceX Rocket, while the malfunction was apparently in the pad.
Yer, just like the "rapid unscheduled pre-launch disassembly". Their language is increasingly not going to help them.
This rocket was brand new it was the first that would have been SCHEDULED TO REUSE later after this launch.
Wrong.
--quote-- For SpaceX, the private space company owned by Elon Musk, it was the "first launch of [a] flight-proven first stage," the company says. The mission was using the same rocket booster that sent the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station earlier this year. --end quote--
Sorry, but that quote is wrong. The first reused booster is (was?) scheduled to launch SES-10 later this year.
Some re-assembly required.
I just wonder if the payload have to do anything with military gear, they don't like that in space...
It blew during or shortly after a static firing - that is, a test run of the engine with the rocket restrained. That's a *very* unusual procedure in the modern world, but they used to do it all the time. The reason they don't do it any more is that it tends to reduce overall reliability, and the rocket was designed to work in flight, not necessarily with the back-pressure, or acoustic and thermal reflection from the pad/blast deflector/ground.
In this case, I expect, that SpaceX brobdingagian hubris figured that they could get away with it, and it was "designed" for reuse, so it will encounter those effects anyway, and in any case, they have lots of fast computers so they know better than those dinosaur idiots back in the late 50's.early 60's.
Who the hell is going to insure *that*?
You can insure almost anything. Whether the cost of the premium is good value for money is a separate issue. The upper bound on an insurance policy premium is the cost to replace whatever is being insured. Beyond that there is no point in utilizing insurance. (In reality the real bound is substantially lower than that)
But frankly nobody would fly cargo on a spacecraft if it wasn't either insured or if the owners of the cargo could not absorb the loss. Obviously someone thinks the benefits outweigh the cost.
Sorry, but that quote is wrong. The first reused booster is (was?) scheduled to launch SES-10 later this year.
Correct.
You can insure anything. It just becomes impractical when the premium approaches or exceeds the replacement cost.
Next up another long investigation probably rest of 2016, expect the next new Falcon 9 in early 2017 and the first Falcon Heavy and reused booster probably not before mid-2017. I'm guessing they took another big step back from being man-rated too. I bet Musk is not a happy camper right now.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Isn't this pretty much WHY they do static fires in the first place?
I'm sure they didn't expect the whole damn thing to explode though. Either way, the data they got from this is incredibly valuable. Whatever happened I'm willing to be won't happen again.
But it's unfortunate that this is being reported as a failure of the SpaceX Rocket, while the malfunction was apparently in the pad.
You're kidding, right? When SpaceX reported "an anomaly on the pad", they just meant the rocket had an issue leading to its explosion while it was standing on the pad waiting to fire.
The anomaly probably was the explosion.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
From TFS..
exploded during it's scheduled static fire
and then
SpaceX can confirm that in preparation for today's static fire
Still, at least it isn't as bad as the article in The Mirror which said it exploded during lift off, just after it stated that the launch was tomorrow !
There was no one at all 'in the vicinity'. These people aren't idiots. The system was a T-3, ready to start the firing sequence. Humans had been kicked out long ago. Security has made several sweeps of the area. People looked at cameras. Unless some pelicans have taken up cigarettes, the explosion wasn't due to a nic-fit.
There is a reason why you launch giant tubes full of high powered explosives in the middle of deserts or swamps.
Quasi edit - On reflection, it could have been due to a drone. The seem to be the current boogie man.
Or Aliens.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
you're funny, imagining a cigarette butt would be dangerous in place designed to take firing rocket engine
It's ghosts.
It blew during or shortly after a static firing - that is, a test run of the engine with the rocket restrained. That's a *very* unusual procedure in the modern world, but they used to do it all the time. The reason they don't do it any more is that it tends to reduce overall reliability, and the rocket was designed to work in flight, not necessarily with the back-pressure, or acoustic and thermal reflection from the pad/blast deflector/ground.
Yer, I don't get that, nor with the payload attached. If it's going to fail then it'll fail in flight anyway. I don't know what it would prove, and then a bit Schrodinger the test firing might well cause issues with the actual flight itself. That's the problem we have with rockets in general, and I don't see them as being a viable vehicle to reuse. We need something better.
In this case, I expect, that SpaceX brobdingagian hubris figured that they could get away with it, and it was "designed" for reuse, so it will encounter those effects anyway, and in any case, they have lots of fast computers so they know better than those dinosaur idiots back in the late 50's.early 60's.
Heh. People have been launching crap into space for decades. It amuses me when people think SpaceX are doing something new or incredibly groundbreaking, no doubt fuelled by the Musk flavoured anti-freeze.
Don't worry about the astronaut rating. That's never going to happen.
There's not enough detail to say that. The issue may have not involved the rocket directly, but occurred in the pad's infrastructure, possibly related to fueling operations in preparation for the firing test. You didn't provide the full quote of SpaceX's statement:
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You cannot imagine how many fires happened and will continue to happen due to butts. After a fire it is hard to prove. And people who smoke tend to smoke no matter where or what.
The AMOS-6 satellite belonged to Spacecom, an Israeli telecommunications company. Facebook was to lease a transponder on the satellite, which had many transponders and would have served a lot of other customers.
It's not yet known what exploded first. It could be AMOS itself, part of the Falcon 9, or something on the pad. It will probably take some time to isolate.
Bruce Perens.
o.0
Even if the failure was in the pad equipment, said equipment is also SpaceX's and part of the overall Falcon 9 system.
Armchair engineers commonly think of the rocket as a stand-alone thing, but it's not really - its just the most visible part of a larger system.
The anomaly probably was the explosion.
Indeed. Having listened to a few SpaceX launches, things are either nominal or they have an anomaly. Which can be everything from a gauge being slightly off to an explos^H^H^H^H^H unscheduled rapid disassembly. Understatement seems to be the a rocket science in-joke, "Houston, we have a problem" is their version of "OMG half the ship blew up, we're so screwed".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The only rational explanation: Elon burned a lot of karma with that SolarCity merger.
Now he's having tough times: both (Tesla and SC) companies are in cash crunch, plus this...
The first stage which is meant to be reflown, F9-023, is waiting for launch later this year. This first stage was brand new, and given the reports that the rocket was still standing with the top bent after the explosion, it doesn't really look like the first stage exploded. The explosion could have been part of the Falcon, the AMOS satellite, or the pad facilities for fueling the rocket. We'll find out which eventually.
Bruce Perens.
SpaceX has been doing static fire tests before every launch for years. This is the first time one blew up. Better for it to blow up during testing than on actual launch, at any rate, if you're planning to eventually launch humans with it.
This space intentionally left blank
Wernher von Braun went through all this. I saw a documentary on German television where an ex-colleague said that after a V2 crash on the launchpad, von Braun quipped, "Diese Scheise ist nicht einfach!" In English, "This shit is not easy!"
I think that sizes it up for me.
But hats off to Falcon engineers! And good luck at you next attempt! Don't let the bastards grind you down!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
"An anomaly on the pad" doesn't mean it had anything to do with the pad. It literally could mean anything, including that the rocket exploded - which is on the pad.
Not only have the insurance companies already signed off on the re-used rocket, they've insured it at a similar price to first-use rockets:
"There also was “no material change” in the insurance rate compared to using a new Falcon 9 rocket, indicating insurers’ confidence in the launch vehicle, Halliwell said."
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
This space intentionally left blank
There are two crucial differences betweeen 1960's rockets and the Falcon 9:
1. The Falcon has thousands of on-board sensors and a high-bandwidth digital data stream of their data during the entire flight. So, it is possible to see a lot more go wrong while you can still do something about it. Thus, testing the rocket at full fire before launch makes sense. The Space Shuttle didn't have this sort of sensor coverage.
2. The Falcon engines can be fired many times, and some of them can re-light in flight. 1960's rockets could not do that.
Bruce Perens.
The reason they say the "pad" is that there are three main things that could have failed and they don't know which. The AMOS satellite, the Falcon 9, and the pad infrastructure which fuels the Falcon 9.
Bruce Perens.
The mission was using the same rocket booster that sent the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station earlier this year.
The quote is incorrect. The booster they are planning to reuse won't be flown until later this year at the earliest.
Astronaut rating, unfortunately, has historically been something like "we will only lose one crew in 90". Rockets blow up (although we don't yet know that this started with the Falcon rather than pad infrastructure or AMOS) and astronauts know that better than anyone else. Early reports are that this started at the top of the rocket, not the part that was firing, and it will take some time to determine what actually happened.
Bruce Perens.
The quote is definitely wrong. The SES mission was to be the first to use a re-used first stage, and it was just announced a few days ago and is months from launch. The AMOS mission was on the pad.
Bruce Perens.
no I stick with reality, not imagining cigarette buts where there were none. causes of fires in buildings and industrial facilities and rocket launch pads are investigated and determined in the real world
you have butts on the brain
TIL "anomaly on the pad" is what "major malfunction" was in 1986.
Actually, a cigarette in an area with liquid oxygen would be quite dangerous. All of the things in the immediate area have to be designed to be non-sparking. Thus we have expensive non-sparking flashlights, tools specially made of non-sparking metals, non-sparking walkie talkies, etcetera ad infinitum. So, the next time someone wonders why NASA buys $10,000 tool boxes, you'll know why: the tools are specially short-run machined to be non-sparking.
Bruce Perens.
The Falcon has thousands of on-board sensors and a high-bandwidth digital data stream of their data during the entire flight. So, it is possible to see a lot more go wrong while you can still do something about it.
Obviously worked very well ;-).
They're still rockets I'm afraid (large, incredibly explosive and unstable objects), and when something does go wrong, even if you can see something on the telemetry it's generally already too late to do something about it. You can certainly simulate a lot more then you could decades ago, and test firing like this is still a little unusual.
The Falcon engines can be fired many times...
I think this one has fired for the last time.
....and some of them can re-light in flight. 1960's rockets could not do that.
SpaceX didn't invent the concept of refiring a rocket I'm afraid.
Same type, not same instance.
Although a cigarette butt would be really dangerous there, all of the co-workers you have at NASA would know that, and freak out if you lit up anywhere near that area. Human bodies burn quite readily in the presence of liquid oxygen.
Bruce Perens.
SpaceX states that it blew up in preparation for the static fire test.
Looks like an inherent problem with the rocket or the procedures leading up to the static test, which I assume are basically the same as those leading up to launch.
I'm afraid that this will set SpaceX back by months while they figure out what's wrong with their systems and procedures. Well, unexpected setbacks are to be expected in the space industry.
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
You don't know what the word "may" means, do you?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The Falcon engines can be fired many times...
I think this one has fired for the last time.
Dude, I just about spit coffee all over my laptop - that was the first Slashdot comment in quite a while to make me laugh out loud! Thanks for that.
#DeleteChrome
The question is, why? If you have confidence in your engineering and QA it's something you wouldn't want to do with a rocket - certainly of the duration SpaceX seem to fire beyond a few seconds of other tests. Rockets are just not cars or airliners unfortunately and don't have anything like the same life. Wrap them in cotton wool.
The rocket is sort of the mushroom. The mycelium underground is the important part of the organism.
Oh, you and your space nutters. Classic 110010001000.
But its OK. We have been working on rocket technology to LEO only for the last 80 years or so. I'm sure we will be building generational ships powered by EmDrives by the end of the year. Get your suit on, we are headed to the STARS!
The Space Shuttle didn't have this sort of sensor coverage.
You sure about this? I could swear I read a document about the diagnostic systems for the STS once and I don't see how it could have worked without a lot of automated diagnostics that implied that the sensor coverage was very extensive.
Ezekiel 23:20
It blew during or shortly after a static firing...
Eyewitnesses said the explosion happened at T-3 minutes. If that is true, the explosion would have occurred during the fuel load and not the firing of the engines. I'm sure we'll learn more as the day goes on. I'm also sure the SpaceX engineers have very valid reasons for conducting a test firing. They are well-trained professionals, and not teenagers given to thinking like "get away with it" and the previous generation is full of "dinosaur idiots". If nothing else, this will provide a vector for making pre-launch procedures safer. Better to figure it out with a $200M satellite on board than human lives.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
It all depends how you read the quote. Just like exam questions. I read it the same way you did, now see they probably meant this was the 'exact same configuration', as opposed to 'previously flown'. Choice of words can be a huge thing in conveying a clear message. Of course, they may have chosen the wording to confuse?
BTW I got my clarification that it wasn't a previously flown stage from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
This is going to make that manned rating a lot harder to get. Blowing up on the pad during a test fire doesn't look good for your QA processes.
Before they can fly anything other than cargo, they are going to need to ramp up that QA process ALOT.. Not to mention their insurance rates are going to skyrocket if they keep up with these "loss of vehicle" events.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You just stay right here where you are comfortable. Think of it as evolution in action.
Bruce Perens.
You aren't going anywhere, Bruce. This is what real hard engineering work looks like. It is full of smart people, who still occasionally fail. Wishing hard that you will go to Mars doesn't make it happen. This isn't computer software, which is easily correctible. This is the reality.
Geez. Do you think that anyone here doesn't know that?
Bruce Perens.
The shuttle had a large number of sensors for its time. If you look back at how they diagnosed the two space shuttle disasters vs. how they diagnosed the Falcon 9 second stage failure, there's a big difference in the data they had available.
Bruce Perens.
Besides the static fires on the pad, every SpaceX rocket is fired for full mission duration at their test site in McGregor, Texas. The whole point is that their life should be more like airplanes than the rockets you're thinking of.
Bruce Perens.
He's like apk without the charisma and other endearing qualities.
Sorry, reality can be harsh sometime. Welcome to Earth!
I am old enough to have heard all of the same talk about people going to the moon. People will go, it's only a matter of time. The naysayers aren't relevant, they are evolution's castoffs.
Bruce Perens.
Why? How are they different from any other reusable aerospace structure?
I had an old friend at NASA who did a lot of the instrumentation on the shuttle. I think it was used only once to gather data and then removed to save weight.
Anyone who works for SpaceX is a dangerous acolyte of the Free Market approach to space travel, which does pretty much make them "teenagers" in that they make the same mistakes previous generations have made but think somehow they're better.
you too are being silly
I can assure you that the vicinity of a rocket about to be fired is very spark prone
were a person smoking while attaching and working with the LOX that would be another matter
however that is not a consideration at the time this incident happened
I have read statements that the rocket's first stage had been one of those successfully used before and returned to Earth.
And also, that this was the first time they had tested a first stage that was being re-used like that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but those indicate that SpaceX haven't even made sure they can go through with this whole re-use plan by at least sending the same rocket stages up more than once.
Another person pointed out to me that one of the first stages (perhaps this same one) suffered some damage when landing on the target on a previous mission.
So we could even possibly be talking about re-use of damaged parts.
So that would mean this US$200M (not a small number by any means but in the space and satellite industry not a particularly large one, either) satellite payload was attached to a rocket that is launching from a more or less completely experimental stage.
I say this because if they haven't even gone through a proof-of-concept of this whole reusable rocket thing, then it's still experimental.
And not only that, the payload is attached to this rocket during the first ever static test firing of a reused first stage. In other words during a completely experimental moment.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's kind of fucked up. Especially when you consider that now, the entire satellite industry is rocking back on its heels. A company's entire future is at stake. Investors are fleeing. Space engineers are saying that this is going to push space exploration itself back 1-2 years just in terms of loss of investments and confidence alone.
All of this is foreseeable. You can look at the whole set up and say, "if this rocket explodes and this satellite is destroyed, SpaceX is going to be fucking over the entire space industry. Not just the satellite industry. Not just the Falcon program. The entire space industry."
And to find out that it was somehow green-lit in Elon Musk's world of high pressure corporate decision making and, um, investor confidence, to go ahead and kill two birds with one stone and perform this first-ever completely experimental test while the expensive new "everything's riding on this" payload is sitting on top of the rocket... (?)
I mean, can corporate greed get any fucking sicker?
What if that was a group of human beings in a capsule, dying, because it was the first ever time a successfully re-entered life support system was green lit? And some fucking insulation was burned but passed inspection. And there's an electrical fire and life support fails. And three people die.
There's this thing called ethics in engineering. I had to take a course in it. It's actually considered very important by any truly solid engineer. And it doesn't always take the loss of human life to call a company's ethics into question.
There was a very clear, very blatant sense of calculable corporate risk, and corporate bottom line, and corporate corner cutting in this entire fucking situation.
And where is the blame going to be placed? I love it. Hour one what we're told is an anomaly on the pad. Yeah, okay, an anomaly. Why not? That fits the description of literally everything under the sun if we're all sane human beings and have every reason to believe that SpaceX did not purposefully intend for this to happen. Then yeah, fucking aye, yes "anomaly" is a good word for it.
But the problem is, there's a fucking anomaly in the experiment, too: that this equipment has not been tested to be sure it can perform as expected but it's being treated like it's the holy grail.
That's really not proper. It doesn't seem quite ethical, if you ask me.
Now I'm just waiting for New York Times to blame it on the Russians.
Fucking ridiculous.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
No you aren't that old. You have fallen into the same trap that most tech people have: you assume progress is inevitable. Since we went to the Moon, it must be possible to go to Mars, and thus it must be possible to go to Andromeda. Because the computer industry has seen amazing growth, you think that applies to everything else. But real engineering is not like software. Despite the claims marketing charlatans at SpaceX make, you won't be going to Mars in in 2024. You won't be going in 2025, or 2225. Welcome to Earth. Sorry you don't like it here, but get used to it.
The one in Brazil killed 21 people.
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if what went wrong had more to do with refueling than the rocket itself. The whole process of transferring fuel into a rocket is extremely dangerous especially with liquid oxygen. Guess we'll know soon...
Pfft.
Tell that to SpaceX so maybe they won't corner cut themselves into oblivion before they get a person to the ISS.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Should be plenty of data about the explosion ...
love is just extroverted narcissism
Quote not present in the linked articles.
Astronaut rating, unfortunately, has historically been something like "we will only lose one crew in 90". Rockets blow up (although we don't yet know that this started with the Falcon rather than pad infrastructure or AMOS) and astronauts know that better than anyone else. Early reports are that this started at the top of the rocket, not the part that was firing, and it will take some time to determine what actually happened.
You're thinking of the Shuttle program, which didn't have viable abort procedures for most scenarios. All current and proposed manned launchers would give the crew a really good chance of surviving failures on the ground and during launch. There are many good reasons to put the crew vehicle on top of the stack.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Here's a video of the explosion. It's just over 1 minute in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Judging from how much many people are seemingly willing to buy Musk's ridiculous bluster, yes.
When you need to get your head down and prove you can actually do something you say you're going to do, and prove you can do it reliably without a large number of vehicles and their cargo being lost being lost, I think talking about Mars is getting a little ahead of yourself. I would hazard a guess that announcement will get delayed beyond 2018 somehow.
The trouble for poor Elon is it's "Show me the money" time, and that doesn't mean money in terms of actual profitability, although that would be nice. It means can you actually achieve what you say you are going to without, and before, jumping off on to another Moon shot? Although we're a little beyond the Moon now. There's only so many times you can completely ignore the fact that you haven't achieved what you should and then start talking about grand visions of the future before investors, the public and even the media start getting weary.
LOL!
A Facebook Satellite burns with it.
So...a Silver Lining.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
From the guy who brought you "autopilot" mode on the Tesla....
In the following article the fire expert in Dubai says: "Mahmoud El-Shahat, a fire expert at the department told this website that most of the fires that break out start due to cigarette butts...":
http://www.emirates247.com/new...
I did not write that it caused fire, but advised to verify security camera footage, as cigarette butts are the main reason of fires in buildings in accordance with the fire experts living in the real world.
Here are some more examples:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/20...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/...
The whole point is that their life should be more like airplanes than the rockets you're thinking of.
Indeed, that they should be more like aeroplanes to be properly reusable, reduce maintenance and give the turnaround and profitability required to fulfil all those grand visions is a point I've made elsewhere. However, rockets are *not* aeroplanes as should now be readily apparent for anyone who didn't know before. Anyone who thinks they are or ever will be is just not thinking this through properly.
Rather than dredge up why here I'll leave it to someone else far more qualified, probably of anyone, to talk about it. Sound quality isn't great though sadly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sure, we can have viable abort procedures for every second of the mission, but they all depend on time to get away and distance from an energetic event. And you might not get that. It is likely they would have protected from the Falcon 9 second stage helium tank issue. It's not yet at all clear there would have been the time to get away from today's event.
Bruce Perens.
Explosion starts at 1:11 here
Yes. Sadly it doesn't alter anything in what you wrote. Put simply it means absolutely nothing.
Apollo CSM engine SPS was throttleable and restartable.
Of course it wasn't a consideration. Humans burn in liquid oxygen, and if you happened to light up near that stuff, everyone around you would take action.
Bruce Perens.
Musk is clearly not driving his engineer slave labor camp hard enough - 90 hours a week? Fucking peasants can get a full night's sleep on 112/week and half the salary because they won't even need to spend it on anything!
the phrase is "intrinsically safe"
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Keeping his companies in the air, so to speak, is a primary concern.
That's what people though fifty years ago when Apollo was happening. The film 2001 was totally feasible and just around the corner...... You need to look into why the Apollo missions have never been attempted again in fifty years. We ain't getting stuff into space cheaply, reliably and safely with great big massive rockets.
Talking about missions to Mars would seem to be a little premature, no?
You would have to be betting on the death of the species or the collapse of society to believe that one. As for me, I was born before the US put anything in space, and I have had my own work go into orbit and will have another project in orbit soon. So, this is all a lot more real to me than people who are at a greater distance from space research.
Bruce Perens.
It blew during or shortly after a static firing - that is, a test run of the engine with the rocket restrained. That's a *very* unusual procedure in the modern world, but they used to do it all the time. The reason they don't do it any more is that it tends to reduce overall reliability, and the rocket was designed to work in flight, not necessarily with the back-pressure, or acoustic and thermal reflection from the pad/blast deflector/ground.
In this case, I expect, that SpaceX brobdingagian hubris figured that they could get away with it, and it was "designed" for reuse, so it will encounter those effects anyway, and in any case, they have lots of fast computers so they know better than those dinosaur idiots back in the late 50's.early 60's.
You know, you could just watch the video and see that the explosion originated in the upper section of the second stage, which isn't firing during a test fire, or particularly affected by a test fire, and that in fact the first stage wasn't firing at the time.
SpaceX performs static firing because, statistically, the primary cause of historical launch failures has been engine-out during flight. That's also why Falcon 9 has 9 engines. The purpose is to improve reliability and reduce hazard to bystanders during a launch. It has succeeded this time. The explosion and fire happened on the pad, instead of downrange. That's precisely what is supposed to happen.
Cheaper than who? You might want to look up who makes the Delta and Atlas families of rockets (the US's workhorses before SpaceX showed up, and currently their main domestic competition)
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
To be fair, sending a communications satellite into space is new, untested technology and there are bound to be some mishaps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Maybe Elon didn't use enough Reardon Metal this time, but the next Falcon 9 will be self-driving, definitely.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Where's the conspiracy theorists? Usually this place is full of them.
How long will it take before we don't have to rely on Russia for shooting things into space?
Video Here
The explosion seems to originate between the gantry and upper stage from this view; certainly wasn't the main booster/return base bit (please excuse my terminology)
As for me, I was born before the US put anything in space. . .
Then you are old enough to know all the things that were assumed to be inevitable at the dawn of the "Space Age" that have never come to pass and likely never will. Something to ponder while zipping around the Moon City I'm sure you live in, in the flying car I'm sure you own.
The delay may not be as much as expected. As this appears to have been an upper stage failure (or maybe around the umbilical, or a few other possibilities), the returned lower stages should still be fine. Unless there's a more fundamental problem at hand....
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I would just love to have another way to do it than with rockets, but that's what we have right now. As for Apollo, no we are not leaving the entire thing to governments again.
Bruce Perens.
Hopefully someone will come along and provide internet, but Facebook as a non profit? I don't believe it., Like they wouldn't be selling every scrap of info they could scrape from the satellite.
Congress told us to pencil-whip SpaceX's space rating. They'll tell NASA to just pencilwhip the man rating too. Not a big deal.
Ya don't think it would have been safer to test the rocket engines.... WITHOUT the real payload on it?
WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS PACKAGE:
A pile 'o rocks that weighs as much as the payload.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE:
Place on rocket during test firing.
YOU SAVED:
$75 Million!
Thank you. Please inquire about our other fine products.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Why was the payload onboard during a static fire. Why did they spin it as an anomoly on the launch pad. Was the anomoly a tank of fuel...
Orva pad with wings
Actually, I am not a big fan of the Mars mission for similar reasons. I think SpaceX needs to work on cadence first, and of course we're going to face mission failures on the way.
And I hate hyperloop. It's B.S., meant cynically to divert attention from real trains, kill it.
And the compusolipsism was just silly.
But everybody knew there would be mission failures, this is unfortunate but not sure it changes much. Especially after watching the video and seeing where the problem started. And the Mars thing will probably happen, because NASA wants to go. Maybe not during the 2018 conjunction, though.
Bruce Perens.
If it didn't have micro-fractures before, it sure does now... and they're definitely going to be hard to find.
Don't worry about the astronaut rating. That's never going to happen.
You seem very certain. Maybe you should put some money on it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Brobdingnagian
adjective Brobdingnagian \bräb-di-na-g-n, -dig-na-\
: marked by tremendous size
Now that's a ten-dollar word. I learned something new today.
Meanwhile, one of the stages that landed successfully has seen 5 full-duration test firings since the landing. Maybe they actually designed the rocket for those loads instead of just winging it.
Just because cigarettes cause fires in some areas does not mean they cause them in others.
Houses have lots of flammable materials all over the place (because they're comfortable!)
Launch pads are designed to have fire spewed all over them.
Stop it with your pet peeve. You already sound like a hyper-defensive idiot.
that should be "rapid unscheduled autonomous prelaunch disassembly", just to be clear.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Right. The guys who built the Atlas did it for years, too, with *far* more missiles. Then they stopped because there's not much upside. AND, importantly, they usually didn't do it with the *payload* at risk in an accident. They didn't say, "hey, John Glenn, climb up in the capsule while we do a test to see if it will blow up". In this case, that's exactly what happened, they did the static test with the payload on board and at risk from any problem.
"Diese Scheise ist nicht einfach!"
My new motto!
My old one was "Yob tvoyu i tvoi loschad'".
sr
If you watch the video of the explosion, you would see the explosion happened very high where you would expect the interface between the second stage and the payload would be, so it's not clear that it was the Falcon9 that blew up or the payload. Those Geosync satellites carry considerable fuel for both station-keeping and for vacating there position upon retirement. It's plausible that either had the problem, or even both.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It blew during or shortly after a static firing
The explosion actually occurred during tanking. The point of a static fire test is less the actual testing of the engines, but as an all-up dress rehearsal prior to launch. It's intended to find any snags in fuelling procedures/equipment, communications equipment, procedures, and so forth. Unfortunately, this time, the snag was catastrophic. Additionally, the actual ignition with the rocket restrained is very brief. It only burns for a couple of seconds before being shut down, basically similar to a pad abort.
Delta IV Heavy does a WDR (Wet Dress Rehearsal) where they do the full countdown, including loading all the propellants (hence "wet"). The only thing they don't do is actually ignite the engines. As I recall, a similar test was done with the Space Shuttle, including igniting the SSMEs (but not the SRBs obviously).
Anyhow, to your original point, the failure occurred in the second stage, prior to first stage ignition, in a procedure that is similar for most rocket manufacturers out there.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
I'm sure it was insured, even if the insurance was basically an escrow against public liability in the event of a catastrophic launch anomalies involving the public. It's not like you can go to three repair facilities and get written estimates on repair cost!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'm sure you can find web sites that talk about that stuff all the time. Try google.
Here, generally, I find that only *you* are talking about that stuff.
I know you're trying to make a point, but your spear is blunted.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
The ones where the mostly empty tube are American and the motors are Russian? Is that the one you are thinking about?
Looking at the explosion, a computer controlled 'Tower Jet' might have saved a man-rated capsule and got it out of the area. Although, the shockwave from the first explosion probably would have turned them into human jelly.
Good-bye
That's the only way Israelis exist, suckling on the teat of the American taxpayer and never so much as saying "thanks."
SpaceX doesn't use the escape tower in Dragon 2. They use rockets on the side of the vehicle that are also intended for propulsive landing. But yes, the system would probably have been able to get the astronauts out of there.
The explosion is not the only kick in the pants they'd get. Escape approaches 10 Gs. As for the force of the initial explosion, the carbon fiber fairing seemed to survive intact until it was dropped.
Bruce Perens.
Yes, of course. But this was not the case for booster rockets. They were mostly one-use, and they did not have a throttle capability. If you were not launching the design weight, you added ballast. Or sometimes a secondary payload.
Bruce Perens.
I'd be really happy for the SABRE engine to work, but it's not clear that it simplifies the problem. If wings were necessary we'd not have all of those recovered boosters. Spaceplanes thus seem to be a dead end. And we have yet to see that the SABRE engine ends up being lighter, for a given payload to space and booster return, than a plain rocket.
Bruce Perens.
Having the payload aboard took a day off the launch cycle. It was, however, a relatively new thing for SpaceX and maybe they won't do it again soon.
I bet John Glenn would have been more confident riding a rocket on which all engines had been thoroughly tested. Just not with him in it.
Bruce Perens.
1) A rocket is not "a mostly empty tube". A rocket is a heck of a lot more than just engines bolted onto tanks.
2) Only the Atlas V has Russian rockets, the Delta series use Rocketdyne engines.
3) None of this changes the fact that these are SpaceX's domestic competition, and they're not made by NASA. NASA hasn't been running commercial launches since the Space Shuttle, and even then they were a small fraction of commercial launches.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
you ask a question...
http://insurethat.com.au/web/
Please spell your new motto with an ß. It's Scheiße without.
My guess is just in case something got damaged in transit (from McGregor to the Cape) or during integration (mating the first and second stage or the payload). Although unfortunately they can't test fire the second stage once it's integrated.
Darn it! You're right!
#DeleteChrome
I heard a Boeing van left the scene just before the incident.
The adjacent tower was still standing. The rocket wasn't. It was blown to bits. Explosion appeared to have initiated in the upper part of the rocket, just under the payload.
There was a forced update at a critical moment. Boom.
Not launch!
Now to find out if the "Autopilot Convenience Features" should be blamed.
That said, as big as today's fireball was, it was just that, a fireball. It wasn't a detonation (likely until Amos 6 hit the ground and and the Hydrazine went off). The failure mode you actually want in these kinds of situations is to ignite the mixture before it mixes adequately to detonate. As such, the fireball was pretty clearly sub-sonic, and thus wouldn't be that hard to get away from assuming suitable detection and ejection systems.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
There wasn't *any* part that was firing. They were still only fuelling it up; the static fire hadn't started yet. The engines were cold (literally; they chill the engines before start). But yes, the problem started in (or near) the second stage, which wouldn't even have started its engine chill, I think (normally that starts a couple minutes after launch, though maybe they do a MVac chill cycle for static fires too; not sure).
Also, problems like this are the reason why human-rated spacecraft have launch escape systems. Well, human-rated craft other than the Space Shuttle, at least. Did you watch the Dragon 2 Launch Pad Abort video from last year? If anything goes wrong. the capsule blasts all eight of its thrusters to full and takes off like a bat out of hell. It's completely automated, as well; it'll happen faster than a human could ever react.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Yes. It wasn't clear earlier in the day. But the rocket was at T minus 3 minutes with the strongback still up even though it should have been retracted by that time. So nowhere near firing and in a physical configuration that would have prevented firing.
Yes, I watched the pad abort test. I think they undershot a bit, they came down really close to shore. But they would have gotten away in time. One mechanism of the abort system is a wire that runs the length of the stage, and loss of continuity in that wire causes an abort. It would have triggered instantly.
Bruce Perens.
I had a friend of a friend who knew someone who worked at NASA cleaning the toilets there, and she said people saying what you said were wrong.
So, there you have it.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Well... I can see the use in testing it, but it DOES seem rather foolish to do it with the actual satellite on board. I mean, that really saves nothing. Why not do the exact same test with the exact same rocket (so that, indeed, you can test the whole system) with a dummy load?
It will give you all the same parameters and data to see if your rocket works and has no structural failures, but wouldn't entail the loss of the actual satellite (and dito raise in insurance they'll suffer) by the loss of a 2 billion-worth satellite.
I'm not agreeing with those such a 'wet test' isn't useful to do in front, but it doesn't seem a good cost-benefit analysis, nor a good reason to take the risk of losing the satellite. I mean: if everything went well, it would have went well for the launch too, and if something borks, you'll lose the satellite anyhow, whether it's with this test or with the actual launch.
In comparison, if you do it with a dummy load, it's like this: if everything goes well, it will go well with the satellite too, and if something goes wrong, you'll only lose a dummy-load, not something worth 2 billion.
In both cases you get the necessary data and assurance that nothing big went wrong (or data on what went wrong). But in the latter case you take a lot less risk with your customers' expensive goods, your reputation, and the possibility of your insurance getting raised.
So... I understand the test, but I don't understand why they test it *this way*.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Got a citation for this quote? It's fantastic, but a Google search turns up nothing but this thread...
Got a citation for this quote?
No sorry, I can't give you a citation, but I saw it on a documentation on NTV or Poenix in Germany. They also mentioned that that he was as scientific genius, who got involved with the wrong crowd.
The dude was later accused of being a Nazi, but when push comes to shove, he built the rocket that took us to the Moon! h
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Better to figure it out with a $200M satellite on board than human lives.
It depends if you consider Facebook executives humans...