Slashdot Mirror


Implication of Sabotage Adds Intrigue To SpaceX Investigation (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: The long-running feud between Elon Musk's space company and its fierce competitor United Launch Alliance took a bizarre twist this month when a SpaceX employee visited its facilities at Cape Canaveral, Fla., and asked for access to the roof of one of ULA's buildings. About two weeks earlier, one of SpaceX's rockets blew up on a launchpad while it was awaiting an engine test. As part of the investigation, SpaceX officials had come across something suspicious they wanted to check out, according to three industry officials with knowledge of the episode. SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The SpaceX representative explained to the ULA officials on site that it was trying to run down all possible leads in what was a cordial, not accusatory, encounter, according to the industry sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The building, which had been used to refurbish rocket motors known as the SMARF, is just more than a mile away from the launchpad and has a clear line of sight to it. A representative from ULA ultimately denied the SpaceX employee access to the roof and instead called Air Force investigators, who inspected the roof and didn't find anything connecting it to the rocket explosion, the officials said. This week, ten members of Congress sent a four-page letter to several government agencies about the SpaceX explosion, raising the question as to whether or not SpaceX should be leading the investigation. Elon Musk said the investigation into what went wrong is the company's "absolute top priority." He added, "We've eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there. So what remains are the less probable answers." SpaceX aims to resume flights in November.

182 comments

  1. Insightful by alphatel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Elon Musk said "We've eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there. So what remains are the less probable answers."

    Solving a rocket failure is a complex task, on the order of magnitude of building a rocket from scratch.
    Generating theories that pseudo-government entities utilize sabotage devices from a mile away seems a bit John Nash.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A President Trump is an actual possibility, at odds which while less than 1 in 3 are still scary. These are strange times indeed. It's now dangerous to discount the possibility that the world has gone full retard.

    2. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We call those mysterious devices "guns", "rockets", and "drones". And if you think that a company wouldn't stoop to shooting a sniper rifle at a competitor's product when there are billions of dollars at stake, you are completely out of touch with reality.

    3. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need Mythbusters to come out of retirement to show that shooting at a rocket can make it explode

    4. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget "laser". I'd rather pretend that people that would do that kind of shit don't actually exist though. Surely no one's that low.

    5. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's pretty self-evident that anti-materiel rifles that can penetrate some armor and can be fitted with explosive munitions are likely effective against rockets as well, at least if aimed properly.

    6. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean like ADAM and ATHENA, from a company called "Lockheed Martin"?

    7. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The fact that SpaceX thought of ULA, from a mile away, sabotaging their launch shows that SpaceX has thought about how to sabotage a rocket launch from a mile away.

      ULA better watch their back.

    8. Re:Insightful by TVmisGuided · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier"

      I'm just sayin'.

      --
      All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
    9. Re:Insightful by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "Generating theories that pseudo-government entities utilize sabotage devices from a mile away seems a bit John Nash"

      Are you that blind to the technological capabilities of the world in this day and age? At a distance of a mile, a gun can easily reach target within seconds, or a 10+kW laser is more than enough to effectively fuck something up with a clear LOS.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World, or country, where warmongering mass murderers like Obama, Bush, Clintons, etc, were elected, and are treated with respect, "has gone full retard" already.

      It has NEVER been different

    11. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Musk is a PR machine. He will invariably say whatever it takes to keep him in the press to get the free publicity for his corporations. It's far far cheaper playing with rockets than directly advertising.

    12. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metal problem? I have a magnetic personality!

    13. Re:Insightful by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't even have to be that powerful. So long as it can create a spot of differential temperature high enough to destabilize the contents of the rocket it would work.

    14. Re: Insightful by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Though William of Ockham would have used a sniper rifle, that would have left physical evidence that a laser would not.

    15. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That assumes humans are infallible and will not misclassify the possible as impossible.

    16. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bingo. see his mars and ai craziness. he is just a showman with a car and a space lift biz.

    17. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just being sensible. C'mon, you've never considered how you'd kill someone and get rid of the body if you had to?

    18. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No never. Now grab those bags and follow me.

    19. Re: Insightful by PseudoThink · · Score: 1

      The Dark Forest is everywhere! (Yes, this is a reference to Cixin Liu's trilogy...)

    20. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kids these days. They know nothing of history everything is NEW and triggers their deep feelz. It's literally been worse.

    21. Re:Insightful by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the freakin sharks with lasers on their heads who cannot be ruled out as potential saboteurs under an unknown entity's command.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    22. Re:Insightful by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Well, of course you can probably spin a piece of wood on the rocket as well. After all, that's how primitive's started fire as well as well trained scouts.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    23. Re: Insightful by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      True. It's amazing what you can put together after even an explosion. One charred and warped, but mostly intact panel with a hole consistent with a .50 cal anti-materiel round would be pretty conclusive.

      Of course, if you know how rockets are generally constructed, you might be able to put a round somewhere that isn't as easy to conclusively prove was from a rifle.

      Still, given all the things you have to do just right to enable space flight with rockets, I'm still going to regard this as pretty unlikely. The fact is that somebody inside that conglomerate would have to have hired a professional and had a pretty detailed program to make something like this happen. You're not just going to put a sniper on the roof and tell him to take potshots at it. That sniper will need to have been given a briefing with specific places he needs to hit with one shot to havethat effect. And he'll probably need to practice it. All of that takes time, money, and most importantly, other people committed to a secret that they all know would be very, very illegal. Such people exist, certainly, but are those people going to be involved in something as petty as this? No idea.

    24. Re: Insightful by Rei · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring the issue of whether a shock can make LOX react with aluminum (it can) or composites (it can very easily), the failure was in the helium system. The high pressure helium system, which stores all of the pressurant for the launch. Yes, if you shoot a pressurized COPV, it most definitely will release its pressurant in very short order.

      That's not to back up this shooting hypothesis. But concerning whether a bullet could have caused the failure if present, I don't think there's any question about it. I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone, but in case it does: shooting at fueled, pressurized rockets is a bad idea.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    25. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes humans are infallible and will not misclassify the possible as impossible.

      Bullshit. Us 'Mericans would never do that. Only real answer we'll will accept is "an act of God."

    26. Re:Insightful by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing.. this reeks of "Musk has failed! That can't be correct, there must be some other explanation!"

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    27. Re:Insightful by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible." -- Dirk Gently, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    28. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Solving a rocket failure is a complex task

      I really doubt that they've considered everything. For instance possible ignition sources should include static electricity from high atmospheric charge driven by enhanced solar wind conditions (coronal hole influence). They're smart enough not to launch in a thunderstorm, yet surprisingly don't seem to avoid a related condition. Aside from direct electrical effects, a high charge gradient can also cause dry-air wind shear. There's been plenty of that when people get banged around in planes.

      Yes, there is still space weather even when there is little flaring or or a lack of active sunspots. (Kinda funny how some make a fuss over a spot lull, then fail to mention the eruption of a long fat solar filament... Some of the usual data isn' being shown right now either - 20160901) The effects of another coronal hole and any from that filament should show up within a few days. Oh yeah, that's a "natural" effect. Asteroids must be natural too?

    29. Re: Insightful by Rei · · Score: 1

      I think the concept that ULA itself would have hired a sniper to shoot out a SpaceX rocket to be beyond absurdity. However, the concept that a ULA employee might happen to be a bit unhinged, as well as good with a gun? Not nearly so much.

      It would of course depend on how good ULA's security procedures are. Do their employees need to go through a metal detector or anything that could have stopped them from taking a gun to work? Honestly, I doubt it, but if so it'd hinder that possibility.

      It's interesting that this event happened 2 weeks after the explosion. They had almost certainly recovered most of the debris by that point and looked over the most obvious culprits; it's not like they did this the day after the explosion. This would imply that - at least based on what they could see two weeks into the investigation - the damage could be consistent with a bullet. That, of course, doesn't mean that it couldn't be consistent with anything else - only that it's at least considered a possibility. What I wouldn't give to see what they've found so far.... a COPV with a big round hole in its side for example would be pretty damning.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    30. Re:Insightful by Rei · · Score: 1

      I really doubt that they've considered everything. For instance possible ignition sources should include static electricity from high atmospheric charge driven by enhanced solar wind conditions (coronal hole influence). They're smart enough not to launch in a thunderstorm, yet surprisingly don't seem to avoid a related condition.

      You mean, on the rocket sitting between four separate lightning towers? Our are you talking about some other situation?

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    31. Re: Insightful by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Cough, cough, the US War Industries, staged an entire war based upon lies, killing thousands of US service personal in the process, blowing over a trillion dollars of tax payer money, so they could profit in the billions. Those lies proven and yet not one prosecution for mass murder ie war based upon fraud and all those who die as a result of criminal activity are legally considered murder victims, not even a hint of justice for that high crime. Could those same corporations start sabotaging projects, even assassinating each other and blaming it on the Russians or the Chinese? Quite simply based upon that fraudulent war and the resulting mass murder of thousands upon thousands and the complete and total lack of prosecution in the face if blatant corruption, abso-fucking-lutely.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shiva doesn't exist. Zeus doesn't exit. Thor doesn't exist. Therefore, Russel's teapot exists.

    33. Re:Insightful by bongey · · Score: 1

      Boeing workers have sabotaged their OWN PLANES in the past. What makes you think a nut job worker wouldn't do it? Two sources below
      http://articles.orlandosentine... http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/...

    34. Re:Insightful by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1, Informative

      A President Trump is an actual possibility, at odds which while less than 1 in 3 are still scary.

      A president hillary is scarier. Never forget: Clinton (Bill) and Gore caused the 2008 collapse by forcing banks to start taking on subprime mortgages when he was in office.

    35. Re: Insightful by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Just because they thought of it (and perhaps not right away) doesn't mean they planned to do it.

      I lock my car because I don't want it stolen. Before I did that, I thought of that possibility it might happen. But I didn't do it because I planned to steal cars.

      It's paranoia when your suspicions are unjustified, and prudent suspicious when they are. Too bad you won't know which is which until after the fact -- if then.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    36. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT s got to do with Helium. That s the keyword that triggered this. But it will sound like poetic justice if you keep scratching all the people involved. Ha. Tell me of thrillers, eh?

    37. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn Adams was good

    38. Re: Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now they want to control the investigations. Unbelievable.

    39. Re:Insightful by mADneSs · · Score: 1

      Came here to make sure someone had already posted this quote; leaving satisfied.

    40. Re:Insightful by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      No, the act was to prohibit redlining, meaning that there would have to be fair criteria. The act did not require banks to loosen their criteria. They didn't have to make ninja loans. If the Federal government was pressuring banks to make bad mortgages in the seven years before 2008, that really wasn't Clinton's fault.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Insightful by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. If you make something offering a massive advantage the first competitor to jump on it means everyone must or go bankrupt.

    42. Re:Insightful by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. If you make something offering a massive advantage the first competitor to jump on it means everyone must or go bankrupt.

      In addition, if you think it started 7 years before 2008 you shouldn't even be talking about the issue, but to pump your candidate. It wasn't Bush, it was Clinton and Gore which adjusted Acorn to ensure subprime mortgages were pushed to market.

    43. Re:Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's already a combustible mixture from leakage, a very tiny spark might be enough to set it off. Look at what piezo lighters produce.
      Lightning arrestors don't remove static electricity. Static charge on things like hoses or any floating conductors are what I suspect as the ignition source. I was once able to get arcs over an inch long from the twinlead coming in from a tv antenna. The lead was loose and got my attention when the end started hissing (just like a disconnected c.r.t. anode wire in a television set). The wind and clouds were unsettled, but there was no lightning.

      I've looked at other explosion events and seen correlation with space weather. For example earlier this year a lab tech in Hawaii was hurt in an explosion, doing something that they'd done many times previously without incident. Although most people assume that static electricity depends on temperature and humidity, there's often more to it than that. Although I've seen space weather drive thunderstorms, it can also cause clear air wind-shear, heat burst, dry lightning etc. Precautions to avoid launch preparations when thunderstorms are expected very likely isn't going far enough.
      No lightning was required for Ben Franklin's kite and key experiment to show charge. He can be forgiven for not knowing about space weather, but the rest of us really ought to be willing to move past the old notions of assuming friction alone is the source of charge.

      Although it seems that people are always looking for someone to blame, it's better to remain open-minded. (The speedups and crashes of the Philly and NJ trains are another case of something unexpected and the investigators being clueless, but the mechanism is different and no it isn't cosmic-ray bit flipping) Maybe our public safety people would do better science if they had more guns???

      People that are predisposed to expecting that sinister people are behind malfunctions probably aren't open-minded enough to be competent investigators. Get rid of the gun nuts.

  2. What implication? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Rather than as an implication, it seems to be more about covering all their bases.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:What implication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're not going to let us know the real cause, because of the "implication."

      It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - The "Implication"

  3. What's with the video? by Sibko · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Not only does the video link not match the description,

    "video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building"

    it's tantamount to a propaganda video of exactly the sort I'd pay for if I wanted to ridicule anyone conducting an actual investigation into my industrial sabotage. How the fuck did this get past Slashdot editors?

    1. Re:What's with the video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch the entire video. It debunks the UFO claims made by the crazier segments of the internet.

    2. Re:What's with the video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing propagandistic about the video. The tone is derisive but the content is quite objective. It does some elementary math to conclude that the "odd shadow" is most likely an insect at short distance. If this was actually your industrial sabotage I'm sure you have better evidence to prove it.

    3. Re:What's with the video? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only does the video link not match the description,

      "video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building"

      it's tantamount to a propaganda video of exactly the sort I'd pay for if I wanted to ridicule anyone conducting an actual investigation into my industrial sabotage. How the fuck did this get past Slashdot editors?

      Amazing your post has been modded as flamebait. Really amazing that Slashdot is playing to the Alex Jones crowd.

      The video, which I have watched dozens of times, doesn't show anything weird at all. One of the "UFOs" was a seagull, another probably a bug. There is a fellow who does Youtube videos who calls himself "thunderfoot" - yes - that thunderfoot, the anti-modern day feminist, but he puts together a pretty good analysis.

      While not conclusive, he pretty much debunks this conspiracy theory of launchpad sabotage.

      As well, anyone wanting to sabotage the second stage would find the easiest path would be during buildup of the second stage.

      The breach almost certainly started at the interface between the second stage fuel and Oxidant tanks, which share a shell. Where in that area remains in question, but that's where it starts. There is an odd screech a second or so before the rapid disassembly that may or may not be connected to the event. The camera was some miles away, so a lot of things in between might make noise.

      note: that screech, if related, sounds like what happens when an extremely cold substance comes in contact with warmer metal. You can duplicate this by putting a penny on a piece of dry ice. The penny will make wierd noises.

      But don't the conspiracy folks have better things to do, like proving the moon mission was faked, or that Ted Cruz's father put the hit on John Kennedy, or that 9-11 was an inside job, or that electrical companies put the kibosh on perpetual motion?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:What's with the video? by msauve · · Score: 1

      The video, which I have watched dozens of times, doesn't show anything weird at all. One of the "UFOs" was a seagull, another probably a bug. ... There is an odd screech a second or so before the rapid disassembly that may or may not be connected to the event. The camera was some miles away, so a lot of things in between might make noise.

      Like the cry of a seagull?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:What's with the video? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The video, which I have watched dozens of times, doesn't show anything weird at all. One of the "UFOs" was a seagull, another probably a bug. ... There is an odd screech a second or so before the rapid disassembly that may or may not be connected to the event. The camera was some miles away, so a lot of things in between might make noise.

      Like the cry of a seagull?

      One of many possibilities. To me it sounded like a very cold substance coming into contact with metal.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:What's with the video? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Amazing how Slashdot can include a video about conspiracy theories not being investigated, and by doing so imply that this is actually the core of the investigation.

      The "UFO" has nothing to do with anything being investigated. The only thing present in that particular video under investigation was a sound heard shortly before the explosion. A different video (not public) showed a shadow and white flash on the roof of a ULA building.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    7. Re:What's with the video? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      While not conclusive, he pretty much debunks this conspiracy theory of launchpad sabotage.

      I assume you're saying that he tries to identify and explain the anomalies seen in the videos we have access to. That certainly does not debunk theories of launchpad sabotage, but only applies to those oddities in the video that apparently had nothing to do with the explosion.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  4. So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tesla crashes are always the user's fault, SpaceX explosions are sabotage...

    Why ever worry about QC if you can blame all your failures on someone else?

    1. Re:So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the last refueling failure happened 60 years ago, so chances are they tried to cut corners to save some pennies and kaboom!

      Pointing fingers diverts the attention of the main issue, that is whether commercial space technologies are viable to begin with. Saving pennies ends costing hundreds of millions, and if the failure gets traced to their own wrongdoings it may lead to NASA stopping their subsidies and SpaceX going down the dustbin of history as a colossal waste of time and money.

      And that in turn can make the public and investors question other shady projects he is pushing hard (and getting funds for), like the hyperloop.

    2. Re:So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Yeah because NASA never ever blew up rockets on the pad and destroyed payloads. Even the Nazis blew up a ton of V2's on the pad before they got it right.

    3. Re:So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      The point is not about the blow up, it is about taking responsability for it. That fucking Musk is always blaming someone else.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    4. Re:So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by liquiddark · · Score: 1

      In his defense, not that he needs it, he's quite often got proof behind him. In this case, they've been investigating a while and are running out of threads. It's not exactly like his first call was "ULA DID IT!"

    5. Re:So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > blew up a ton of V2's on the pad before they got it right.

      They never "got it right", V2 rockets had something like a 30% failure rate AFTER they were "perfected".

      I've been reading chunks of Boris Chertok's series on the Russian rocket program, and it's mind boggling the number of nasty unexpected things that happen when you combine rocket fuel with high pressure high flow systems and all the other extremes that are involved in spaceflight.

      And figuring out and learning - my god so expensive and painful - literally they had to instrument the bonkers out of rockets just to try and help them figure out which part of the rocket might have failed, then go sift through debris fields to find the ruined parts, and then from that figure out what might have gone wrong.

    6. Re:So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What proof? Proof from logs that they exclusively control and wont let anyone access or analyze until they have already done it. Who needs chain of custody when you have the hype train.

      "We have investigated ourselves and have detected no wrongdoing."

    7. Re:So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure at least one V2 blew up due to a colonial warrior shooting it with a laser pistol.

  5. Re:morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    or a SNIPER with MA DEUCE shooting at the OXYGEN TANK.

  6. Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The link to the SpaceX "evidence" is an alien conspiracy video. Anyway, I'm guessing SpaceX is implying ULA had a shooter on the building? A .50 anti-material rifle like a Barrett or a Tac-50 with a single HEIAP round could do the trick easily, space rockets are fragile little toys. Timed right it would look like a failure or the rocket and the chances of anyone finding any indication of what really happened after the resulting explosion would be pretty damn slim. Only things I could think of would be punctures opposite the force of the explosion and shell fragments (good luck finding those). Any residue from the shell would most likely be burned off (if you could find it to begin with).

    But I don't think anyone with enough knowledge of rockets would be that stupid. If you didn't get it to explode immediately there's a good chance the damage would cause the rocket to veer off course. The range safety officer would initiate self-destruct or the rocket would finally explode at that point but either way you're putting other people and equipment at risk.

    What is interesting is that SpaceX uses Pad 40 and ULA uses Pad 41 so taking out Pad 40 would not affect Pad 41 (insert ominous sound effect here).

    Personally I'm now convinced it was aliens *cough*.

    1. Re: Grassy knoll? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      It turned out that the pad systems actually aren't independent so there were some potential issues (ultimately prevented only with a great deal of effort). Regarding the tanks, I believe they're an aluminum-lithium alloy, so I'm not sure a piece of it with a bullet hole would be even guaranteed to survive.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it have to be a bullet? Why not an infrared laser? A rifle shot could be heard easily, and would have clearly preceded the explosion, but an IR laser would be quiet. The only question would be if the beam would diverge enough to lose its metal-cutting ability over a mile through a humid atmosphere, but even intense localized heating on the rocket may be enough to do it.

    3. Re:Grassy knoll? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      The link to the SpaceX "evidence" is an alien conspiracy video.

      A SATIRICAL conspiracy video... but yeah it seems awfully out of place.
      =Smidge=

    4. Re: Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (OP) Good to know about pads. Al-Li isn't combustible like pure Li (not sure if that's what you were concerned about). But yes, a standard jacketed .50 would probably do the trick. A smaller round would probably work as well. However, I figured if someone was going to go through the trouble of doing this they'd want to make absolutely certain there was an earth shattering kaboom :-).

      As for the laser comment below. You'd need one hell of big laser to even puncture the skin and plumbing at that distance, it definitely wouldn't be man portable. They make fairly effective silencers for the Barrett. There's still a distinctive shot but it's more on the order of a pistol than a large caliber rifle. If they were on top of an assembly building most people wouldn't hear it. Also, as someone pointed out, this area should have been cleared of personal (the "shooter" would have to have hidden), so there wouldn't be many people to hear the shot. At an 8 mile distance it would be hard to hear the shot and depending on where you were there would be much less time between the shot and the explosion. Actually if the rocket was between you and the "shooter" you might hear the rocket explode before you heard the rifle shot since the bullet would be traveling faster than the speed of sound. Depends on how long it took the rocket to explode after it was hit.

      I don't think this actually happened, it's just fun to storyboard.

    5. Re: Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Navy has sea level lasers. Seals or sharks fooling around?

    6. Re:Grassy knoll? by MTEK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When Musk tweeted earlier, "particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off", I was kinda hoping he wasn't implying something.

    7. Re: Grassy knoll? by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      It would be a little difficult to get it to veer off course during a static motor test, however.

    8. Re:Grassy knoll? by MTEK · · Score: 1

      I should further add, given the enormous pressure Musk must be under (SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity, etc.), I'm surprised the man hasn't gone complete bat-shit crazy. So for anyone waiting for Musk to blame aliens, just give him more time.

    9. Re:Grassy knoll? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When Musk tweeted earlier, "particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off", I was kinda hoping he wasn't implying something.

      I doubt it. Immediately before the disassembly, there was a screeching noise, and then another noise. Whatever it was, it didn't sound like any firearm.

      Commentary such as is is just people trying to put what pieces they can find together after the event. I'd like to understand those sounds as well. For the life of me, I can't imagine a competitor a-sniping.

      Spacex has been having some issues with that second stage. This isn't surprising that issues come up. When dealing with candles, there is a big learning curve, and if anyone doubts it, NASA and before them NACA, had rapid disassembly events on the launchpad - a lot of them. They are all on Youtube for people to see.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re: Grassy knoll? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "As for the laser comment below. You'd need one hell of big laser to even puncture the skin and plumbing at that distance, it definitely wouldn't be man portable."

      We've got 50+kW solid state lasers. They're plenty effective one mile away on a totally stationary target, and modular so easy to set up. Ever hear of Rheinmetall? They've got a 50kW that knocked out moving targets from 1.24 miles out. Lockheed Martin (ULA partner) has the same tech. It would be a somewhat trivial task to set one up on the roof, give it power from the rooftop AC unit power feed, blast a hole, disassemble it, and clean the roof, all in just an 8 hour shift.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re: Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lasers like that are freaking bright. Pretty sure we would have seen a big flare on the rocket, and a line of glowing dust and moisture pointing back to the source.

      Captcha: stimuli

    12. Re: Grassy knoll? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      "Lasers like that"? Lasers don't have to have emissions in the visible spectrum, but since they are so dangerous to the eyes regardless, it's common to ensure they do. As a matter of fact, nope.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    13. Re:Grassy knoll? by S48D31F68E4S2 · · Score: 1

      > For the life of me, I can't imagine a competitor a-sniping. Then you're not a very imaginative person.

    14. Re: Grassy knoll? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Strangely, Al-Li alloys are more resistant to impact ignition with LOX than pure Al. That said, the LOX will have burned up part of the aluminum. *That* said, I still would expect them to "most likely" recover a penetration hole if one existed.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    15. Re: Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (OP) Yes I've heard of Rheinmetall. And I know their 50kw laser (and even their smallest model for that matter) is meant for turret mounting. I'm also pretty sure staff at Cape Canaveral would notice a frigging tank on top of a vehicle assembly building. So yes, there are lasers that can practically do this but they are by no means man portable or remotely covert, both of which would be required to pull this off.

      Another post below mentioned that lasers don't have emissions in the visible spectrum. That's not always true. Some lasers are in the visible spectrum but the photons are emitted coherently... all headed in the same direction in the same phase. For your eye to perceive a photon it has to strike your retina, photons from a coherent light source that's not pointed at your eye will never hit your retina, thus you'll never see it. When you watch demonstrations of lasers you'll generally see them blow talcum powder or something similar into the path of the laser. Some of the photons will hit this and scatter, some of those that scatter will go toward your eye and you can "see" the laser (you're actually seeing it reflect off the medium in it's path). This is the reason laser pens can cause temporary or even permanent blindness. The light from a single point light source is distributed across the surface of a sphere (4r^2), the light from a laser stays concentrated in an area measured by a few mm or less. So the light from a 100W light bulb disperses pretty quickly but if you shine a 600mW laser in your eye you're getting almost all 600mW in one tiny spot. But the person who commented that you wouldn't be able to see the laser is mostly correct, you wouldn't be able to see the "beam" (even assuming some particulates in the path), however if a visible spectrum laser was used you'd be able to briefly see a very small bright spot on the rocket. Actually, even if a non-visible spectrum laser was used the surface of the rocket that was being struck would emit in the infra-red (heat) and visible spectrum.

    16. Re:Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Grassy knoll OP) I agree completely. I don't think most people realize just how fragile rockets like this are. e.g. one of the reasons rockets are fueled after their readied for launch (besides safety) is that most are not designed to support the weight of the propellant in a horizontal configuration. i.e. if you take a fully fueled Atlas rocket and turn it on it's side, the fuel tanks will come loose and the rocket will be destroyed. This is one of the reasons portable rockets always use solid fuels.. besides the safety factor the fuel is a load bearing member in the structure. Honestly I think most people would be shocked at how "flimsy" space faring rockets are. Anything that is not absolutely needed for safety or function is discarded... and I mean everything. The rough cost of a space launch in 2016 was ~$20k per kg (actually a remarkably detailed post for quora). Just launching an iPhone 6 into space would cost ~$2600. At that cost, if you don't need it... it's gone.

      Some people while astutely point out that rockets eventually go from the horizontal to the vertical in flight. This is true but rockets burn through propellants very quickly. The first stage of the Atlas V burns for ~253 seconds. So 1/4 of the propellant is gone in the first minute. By the time it starts to tip over the rocket already ways substantially less than it did on the ground. Additionally, the major force (the thrust from the rocket engine) is still compressing the structure.

    17. Re:Grassy knoll? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      > For the life of me, I can't imagine a competitor a-sniping. Then you're not a very imaginative person.

      Oh - I can imagine. It just stops at the interface between Occams razor, and we never went to the moon, or the president was born in Kenya, or that there is something wrong with the earth's core and NASA is hiding it.

      If you want to see everyone disallowed from using NASA's facilities, just try purposely causing a billion or so damage by destroying the other's ships. All of these companies have a vested interest in all of them functioning and functioning well. Why?

      I'm pretty certain that if NASA had even a hint of a competing facility user purposely destroying NASA's infrastructure by purposely destroying it's competitors rocket no one but NASA would launch from Cape Canaveral for the forseeable future. Mutually assured destruction of your private companies. Because the private market competitor who did that would be effectively destroying NASA as well. If it turns out that someone came up and shot that candle full of holes, and they can offer convincing evidence for it, I have not a problem accepting it. But so far, there is not only not any proof, but completely ignoring that rockets are explodey things, and have exploded before, and all ot the things I outlined being in both companies worst interest.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re: Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lasers like that are probably IR, so noseeums for human eyes. but are probably visible to CMOS CCD camera sensors...

    19. Re: Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are assuming that NASA carries equal weight with other US Government activities, overt or not. Lockheed and Boeing are big enough and do enough covert work, and work with other covert entities, where its not totally ludicrous to think about this. SpaceX is the pretty naive teen princess at the ball, who has ruffled a lot of old guard feathers. The old guard is not going to just let it go. but they realize they have to be really careful with how they go about it...
      Still, cold temp shock and abrupt fatigue failure seems likely with one of the systems. leading to rapid leak of LOX, which with a sudden electrical disconnect or static discharge provided the spark...kaboom indeed. or maybe lox/o2-rich atmosphere causing oil lubricant to suddenly oxidize...

    20. Re:Grassy knoll? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      I doubt it.

      If you're implying that Musk isn't implying anything... I don't know about that. Musk has demonstrated a propensity for hype in the past, most dramatically with the hyperloop, which is certainly not (and feel like I'm telling a five year old that Santa doesn't exist every time I say this) plausibly cost-effective or revolutionary in any of its proposed forms, even using the most generous of assumptions.

      Anyone that can ride a pipe dream like that for as long as he had, despite the fact that it's vaccuuming up millions of dollars and raising false hopes in millions of starry-eyed fledging geeks (for the love of god, please don't resort to Wright brothers analogies), certainly seems capable of implying that his competitors sniped his rocket.

      That's not to say Musk sucks at rocketry (there's a reason why 'rocket science' has the connotations that it does); just that he's obviously a bit prone to either self-delusion or cynical manipulation of public opinion, and either one could lead him to throw around implications like that.

    21. Re:Grassy knoll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just stops at the interface between Occams razor, and we never went to the moon

      You have only mentioned one of many possibilities. There's a huge amount of money and people involved and that means you'll get statistical outliers, events you're unlikely to see in smaller scale situations.

      It could be a redneck ULA employee who thought it would be funny - idiots take potshots at commercial airlines all the time. It could be a ULA employee who is worried about losing his job. It could be somebody who has lost their job and blames SpaceX. It could be a Russian; they're currently doing pretty well, but worried they're going to be squeezed out of the market and Russia doesn't have a good track record for "rule of law". It could be a Chinese nationalist. It could simply be a lunatic with a gun who thinks SpaceX is an alien conspiracy. It could be organized crime running a protection racket - companies get threats all the time (admittedly, mostly by crazies and usually discounted) . It could be a terrorist dry run. A site security guard could've been paid to do it. etc. etc.

      None of these are likely, particularly if ULA and NASA's on-site security is any good, however I'd say an event like this while improbable (this is rocket science after all) is not as as improbable as you imply and it definitely should be checked if other possibilities have been discounted.

  7. Re: SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not censorship to delete you copy pasta shitposts. It's still present on plenty of older articles. But most importantly, this site is private property.
    They can delete anything and it isn't censorship.

  8. Sabotage is the worst possible outcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How, as a customer, willing would you be to buy a rocket that is under threat of being sabotaged by another company.

    1. Re:Sabotage is the worst possible outcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SpaceX doesn't sell rockets.

      They sell a service to place an object in space.

      If they sold rockets the price would be MUCH higher, and it would be the customer that has to go through the effort of finding a place to launch from, paying for the fueling, the insurance, the shipping of the rocket... and all the government paperwork that goes along with a launch.

      Oh, and pay for the repairs after a launch or accident.

    2. Re: Sabotage is the worst possible outcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be willing to fund counter sabotage to get rid of the threat to be able to proceed.

      What is up with the massive number of comment deletions at Slashdot? This place used to be good until it was taken over by idiots.

    3. Re: Sabotage is the worst possible outcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless, the payload you want placed in orbit will be blown up with the rocket.

  9. Did I watch a different video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Either a) the video shows a projectile about half a metre in size passing through and past the rocket (without impacting).
    or b) Its a bee or similar sized insect about 30m from the camera (which is consistent with speed and size).

    As to "industrial sabotage"... how? That would be a f**ing big bullet, and yet it continued on without being deflected. I mean it makes no sense because its nonsense.

    Look, its always the same, stuff goes wrong with Musk rocket, cars or whatever and its a conspiracy! Remember the New York Times reviewer, who found the Tesla had crap range in the cold? He was told by Tesla support to drive it hard and warm up the batteries for better range, which he did, and stated in his review he'd done that, Musk pulls out that bit of telemetry and announces it is a conspiracy by car companies! Claims the reviewer drove it hard to flatten the battery! His car dies on Top Gear? Conspiracy! Nah it blew a fuse. A SpaceX rocket explodes? Conspiracy!
    A man's car drives under a truck.... conspiracy, he's lying. Man drives into side of a truck and dies! He failed to notice the truck, what do you expect, he's a bad driver and in no way is autopilot to blame. A man hits fence posts autopilot didn't see. Liar! Liar! Conspiracy!

    Give me a break.

    1. Re: Did I watch a different video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon Musk: You're holding it wrong

    2. Re:Did I watch a different video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making up 1/2 of that conspiracy shit. Get a life.

  10. And I was modded down... by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The direction of their investigation was obvious from their previous release where they were talking about the breach in the helium system. They had a "large breach" that could not be explained, so what else fits the description better than a projectile? I was actually modded down for pointing that out (people saying you can't get within 8 miles of the launch etc), but, yeah, that's what they are looking at (among other things I assume). It is not that far-fetched I guess, I mean there are billions at stake here. And if you think about it, if you wanted to sabotage a rocket fueling would be the perfect time - low security compared to a launch (not to mention no bullet-time cameras etc rolling) and yet some activity that could be thought to be related to the cause.
    I'm not saying it was certainly sabotage, but, regardless of what Giorgio Tsoukalos might tell you, it is much more probable than aliens ;)

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:And I was modded down... by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      IIRC the previous malfunction was caused by a faulty strut attached to one of the helium tanks. This would be the second time that that part of the rocket malfunctioned.

      It sounds like the Falcon 9 helium tanks need a lot more analysis and testing.

      I would not put my money on the rifle theory, not unless they have found bullet fragments or suspicious-looking damage.

    2. Re:And I was modded down... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The direction of their investigation was obvious from their previous release where they were talking about the breach in the helium system. They had a "large breach" that could not be explained, so what else fits the description better than a projectile?

      A pipeline breaking at a joint? A valve leaking through an inlet port? A seam coming apart?

      Explain why a sniper would go after the second stage and not the first. Much larger target area, already lit.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:And I was modded down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "already lit"? This was during the refueling.

    4. Re:And I was modded down... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "already lit"? This was during the refueling.

      It was during a static firing test. Rocket held down to the pad, first stage engines running.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:And I was modded down... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      No they were not. The engines were not fired. It happened during fueling.

    6. Re:And I was modded down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain why a sniper would go after the second stage and not the first.

      Because if it was a sniper, they still succeeded in destroying the first stage.

      You can say you have a better method to accomplish that task (and I am not at all arguing you are wrong), but the end result seems the same.

    7. Re:And I was modded down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was obvious long before that - I thought it as soon as I saw that the event had happened and Musk went public with it when he publicly asked for anyone with recordings of a pop before the fire to come forward.

    8. Re:And I was modded down... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      No they were not. The engines were not fired. It happened during fueling.

      You are correct, the engines were not running. This happened before the static test. My confusion was based on it being part of the test. My bad for certain.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:And I was modded down... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      I'd bet that from now on SpaceX will have a Hi-Def camera mounted on every lightning tower, recording 24/7, whenever there is a rocket on the pad. Also, if possible, they might add a few more sensors to the upper stage if they can spare enough telemetry channels for the data.

      I suspect they'll also voluntarily eat the cost of running the static-fire tests before integrating the payload for the next year or so, just to avoid higher insurance fees for their customers. (How long before they start offering vertical integration as a 'menu option' service?)

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    10. Re:And I was modded down... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      It was already up to the payload owner, not to SpaceX, whether or not the static fire was performed with the payload mounted. The first few Falcon 9s were all tested without payload. However, customers started opting for the post-integration test; it saved time (no need to take the rocket down again, attach the payload, and roll it back out). For people on tight schedules, it was deemed worth the risk; SpaceX had not, and still has not, ever lost a Falcon 9 stage due to engine failure*. I wouldn't be at all surprised if SpaceX's customers do indeed go back to testing without their payloads attached, but it will be, and always has been, their choice. It's not a matter of costs, either, just of schedule.

      * There was a single engine failure on CRS-1, but it was non-catastrophic; the rocket shut down that engine and continued to orbit, demonstrating its engine-out capability. CRS-7 failed in the upper stage during the boost phase; the second-stage engine was not ignited (since it was still attached to the first stage) and the first-stage engines continued firing right up until the rocket came apart. This recent failure came before *any* of the engines were ignited, and started in the second stage (which wasn't even going *to* ignite).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    11. Re:And I was modded down... by Rei · · Score: 1

      More to the point, as a general rule a second stage would be easier to penetrate, as they're usually built lighter (not sure the thickness on SpaceX's stages, but in general it works like that).

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    12. Re:And I was modded down... by Rei · · Score: 1

      They've cleared the struts of any responsibility. Nor would that make any sense, as - being on the ground - there would be little force on the struts. Due to how buoyancy works, the more the G forces there are on the rocket, the more the helium tanks try to rise in the LOX, and the more load there is on the struts keeping them in place.

      Note that the strength of the struts has nothing to do with the "helium tanks" (COPVs)

      I doubt that they would consider this theory if there was any sort of other obvious explanation for the damage that they're seeing. Every failure requires an explanation, a way to reproduce the results.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    13. Re:And I was modded down... by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the point is that the strut that failed in 2015 was directly attached to the helium tank that failed last month. There is literally a strong connection between the two. Perhaps there's a logical connection too.

      I would suspect a flaw in the design process that lead to the design of that part of the rocket.

      SpaceX says they've looked at all the obvious explanations, but they have probably only had time to look at the known obvious explanations. There could be 'unknown obvious' explanations, explanations that are not obvious because the engineers lack a full understanding of the rocket. Explanations are only obvious if you fully understand the thing that you're trying to explain.

      The rifle theory is incredibly unlikely when you consider that new rocket designs (like the Falcon 9) tend to fail every now and then. So far it has always been because of some problem with the rocket or with the processes surrounding its use.

      Like someone wrote on the SpaceX Reddit: SpaceX probably only wanted to go up on the roof to look for debris from the rocket in case any of it happened to land on the roof.

    14. Re:And I was modded down... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Yes, it has always been the customer's option, but it's not free. Moving rockets around costs money. A trifling amount, perhaps, compared to the overall launch cost, but a non-zero sum nonetheless.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    15. Re:And I was modded down... by S48D31F68E4S2 · · Score: 1

      There could be 'unknown obvious' explanations, explanations that are not obvious because the engineers lack a full understanding of the rocket. Explanations are only obvious if you fully understand the thing that you're trying to explain.

      Yes, SpaceX engineers only understand some of what they've created, the rest came together *very* last-minute while Charlie was drooling on the keyboard during a late night of drinking and designing - and oh boy, that guy does NOT like sharing with the rest of his design team. Now they're just waiting for him to tell them what the 'unknown obvious' explanation is for this damned explosion is!

      The rifle theory is incredibly unlikely when you consider that new rocket designs (like the Falcon 9) tend to fail every now and then.

      Um, no. That new rocket designs tend to fail every now and then is what's called a "baseline", which in turn leads the investigators to check for, wait for it... "obvious" (stuff they know about) problems that a new design might encounter, like things they've seen in past new design failures. Then they start to factor in evidence from this particular failure, like that they've already considered all the previous failures they've encountered and this one doesn't fit, and that there was a gunshot-like noise hear *just before* the rocket went kaboom, and that there's an as of yet unreleased video apparently showing odd activity on the roof of a nearby ULA building around the same time as the gunshot-like noise was heard. But fortunately we have you to enlighten all of us that this is simply a matter of an 'unknown obvious' explanation, and that the rifle theory is unlikely... well because rockets tend to explode now and then so move along folks! (on, and it also depends on what the definition of "is" is.)

    16. Re:And I was modded down... by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that no team of engineers have ever had a fully satisfactory understanding of a space launch system. Space launch designs have such tiny margins for error that some subtle phenomenon going on with the design could be serious enough to destroy the rocket.

      The gunshot-sounding pop could easily have been the sound of the first thing to fail inside the rocket. That sound (and any other sounds from the launch pad) could have echoed off of the building. People are notoriously bad at recalling the sequence of events, so it's possible that a person could report hearing the echo before the sound itself.

      The problem with the gunshot theory is that it has an incredibly low a priory probability. The ULA has a lot to lose by trying to sabotage their competitors in a blatantly illegal way. It's the last thing they would do. It could have been an employee acting on their own (perhaps someone with mental health problems), but what are the odds that the ULA has such an employee combined with the odds that that employee could have successfully smuggled a rifle all the way to the top of the building? Close to zero.

      The gunshot theory only becomes probable if they find hard evidence, like bullet fragments, or tell-tale damage to the wreckage.

    17. Re:And I was modded down... by Rei · · Score: 1

      The gunshot-sounding pop could easily have been the sound of the first thing to fail inside the rocket

      Not when you have multiple videos for triangulation, as well as internal sensors which are sensitive enough to - as in the case of CRS-7 - not only detect an impact, but internally triangulate where in the spacecraft it occurred based on how long it took to get to the individual sensors.

      The ULA has a lot to lose by trying to sabotage their competitors in a blatantly illegal way. It's the last thing they would do

      I fully agree.

      It could have been an employee acting on their own (perhaps someone with mental health problems), but what are the odds that the ULA has such an employee combined with the odds that that employee could have successfully smuggled a rifle all the way to the top of the building?

      You tell me. Do employees have to walk through metal detectors on the way into work? No? Then pretty damned high.

      I don't know if you've watched news coming out of America lately, but "armed people with grudges shooting at things" aren't exactly a rare situation. People involved in spaceflight are no exception. Wasn't that long ago when an astronaut - one of the most highly screened/profiled individuals in any employment field on Earth - went off her rocker and tried to kidnap the girlfriend of another astronaut.

      The gunshot theory only becomes probable if they find hard evidence, like bullet fragments, or tell-tale damage to the wreckage.

      And your knowledge that they haven't is?

      This "visit" came two weeks after the explosion. They almost certainly had gathered the debris by that point and gone through the second stage components where the explosion started. And they still felt the need to go visit ULA. So you tell me what that means.

      I can't tell you what they've found. Maybe there's a COPV that's basically shredded to fiber and they think it might have been shot which caused it to disintegrate. Or maybe they have a COPV with a nice bullet shaped hole in its side, aligned with the building in question. I can't tell you what they have. Before we insist either that it surely was shot, or surely wasn't shot, we should wait to see what evidence was actually found.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
  11. I wouldn't put it past them by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lockheed Martin and Boeing

    Given the amount of money at stake, I wouldn't put it past them to engage in a little bit of industrial sabotage.

    1. Re: I wouldn't put it past them by joh · · Score: 1

      Doesn't need to be the companies actually knowing anything. One guy would be enough.

    2. Re:I wouldn't put it past them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If a rocket made by Lockheed Martin and Boeing blew up during fueling, would you put it past Elon Musk to engage in a little bit of industrial sabotage? Or is St. Elon above all that?

    3. Re: I wouldn't put it past them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's always one guy in the end. Saying that the companies did it just means that someone in the company was motivated enough to do it.

    4. Re:I wouldn't put it past them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a rocket made by Lockheed Martin and Boeing blew up during fueling, would you put it past Elon Musk to engage in a little bit of industrial sabotage? Or is St. Elon above all that?

      Red Herring? Is that you?

    5. Re:I wouldn't put it past them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a stupid statement.

      Musk is looking for someone to lame because it happened to Musk. If it happened to someone else and Musk was the possible culprit, we'd be reading a conspiracy theory implicating Musk.

      It seems like the readers here are getting dumber every day. Jesus Christ.

    6. Re:I wouldn't put it past them by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Funny how everyone fawning over Musk and his pet projects are so quick to point the finger of blame everywhere else, even before the facts are in

      I'm not "fawning over Musk"; I don't like the guy. And I'm not "pointing the finger of blame" either. I am simply stating that industrial sabotage is a plausible possibility.

      Given the amount of money at stake, I wouldn't put it beyond Musk and SpaceX to lie about the causes either

      So? Where did I say it wasn't? How does pointing out that industrial sabotage is plausible contradict that in any way?

    7. Re: I wouldn't put it past them by Rei · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I would be utterly shocked if ULA, as a company, made a decision to do this. Even moreso if it were done in a way that could lead back to them. On the other hand, a random angry employee with a gun? Gee, Americans shooting at entities that they're angry about, never heard of that happening before ;)

      Break out the popcorn...

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    8. Re:I wouldn't put it past them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confining our imagination to ULA is a bit simplistic, as they are only one of many stakeholders here. Let's remember that on top of that rocket sat an Israeli satellite that was going to allow Facebook to provide internet access to sub-saharan Africa, built by a company in the process of being acquired by a Chinese conglomerate. "Who had something to gain from this rocket's failure" is no more valid than "who DIDN'T have something to gain from this rocket's failure?

    9. Re: I wouldn't put it past them by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Doesn't need to be the companies actually knowing anything. One guy would be enough.

      Yes, but engineers don't get paid well enough to buy that kind of rifle.

  12. Not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing passing the rocket in the video doesn't hit it. It flies over. From the scale of the rocket, the bullet would be 20 inches plus. It's debris would be found if it hit, and if it missed it would be on the ground.

    So no. Just a bit of Musk conspiracy nonsense again.

  13. Re:Can I ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, they did pass the safety tests. There are a number of videos showing that.

    The problem you are attempting to address is that there are no safety tests for driverless operation.

    For there to be a safety test, there has to be multiple examples to identify what is safe and what is not.

    Paypal is not a bank. If you want to call it a bank, then you ALSO have to call all credit card companies a "bank".

    Credit card companies are frequently fronted by a bank, but the company itself is not.

  14. SMARF by lbalbalba · · Score: 0

    Hold up, we have found the culprit: the SMARFs did it.

  15. James Bond Did It... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    James Bond did It... because that's what James Bond does, he takes out Bond Super-Villains.

    1. Re:James Bond Did It... by murdocj · · Score: 2

      I could picture Musk stroking a white cat in his underground lair.

    2. Re:James Bond Did It... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      I could picture Musk stroking a white cat in his underground lair.

      Something like this? Looks like it's in a private jet but close enough.

      --

      Enigma

  16. Shadow was nothing by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow

    Which, as the linked video shows, was neither odd nor a shadow - I don't know why this was even included in the summary. It was never anything of interest to anyone but UFO kooks.

    then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA

    That would be the more interesting image to see.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Shadow was nothing by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Which, as the linked video shows, was neither odd nor a shadow - I don't know why this was even included in the summary. It was never anything of interest to anyone but UFO kooks.

      As is this story.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  17. the congressmen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Congressmen in question here aren't exactly unbiased towards SpaceX, you'll note that they are all from places where ULA has major operations: Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Texas.

    Now I wonder why would those folks have any interest in seeing SpaceX fail..hrmm.

    1. Re:the congressmen.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The US government also has major space/defence-related operations in each of those states. Coincidence, or conspiracy? YOU BE THE JUDGE.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:the congressmen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Congressmen brought home the pork to their home states and want the kickbacks to keep coming from ULA?

  18. Re: It was the will of Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Allah is a fag

  19. Imagine by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it was actually a meteorite impact. Now that would be funny.

  20. Russians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? I'd put it beyond a USA based competitor. But doesn't musk eliminate the stranglehold the Russians have on launch vehicles?

    Seriously makes me wonder :

    - why there aren't super hi Def recordings from all angles

    - better telemetry sensors

    - line of sight protection similar to what presidents have. I've not heard anyone say that a shot from a mile away is impossible

  21. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is wrong with you? Seriously, what kind of head injury or metal problem do you have?

  22. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Lecture us now about why we still need AC posting on this site.

  23. Damn by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Wish I had mod points for that one.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  24. They should be ashamed! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    They should be ashamed for calling something so technical and scientific "SMARF".

  25. Musk; Conspiracy theorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your rocket exploded.
    Deal with it.

  26. Re:It was the will of Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The proper phrase for Muhammad is "peace be upon him". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him

    Monotheistic religions typically reserve praise for their god alone, although Christianity gets a little more complicated starting in the fourth century with the doctrine of the trinity...

    Little mistakes like this can wreck an otherwise brilliant troll post.

  27. Dudes with a 50kW laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly would it take for a non-visible laser to be fired line of sight from the other building to the spacex launch site utilizing a man portable version of the hummvee/zumwalt mounted models to cause just enough thermal disruption to cause a catastrophic failure?

    I personally go with the internal shell failure from the other day, but the available technology amongst the involved companies is certainly more than capable of doing that with the potential to not leave much visible evidence that could be directly correlated to it.

    Besides, tell me that tlas wouldn't like a nice show of capable while keeping upcomings from destabilizing their otherwise tightly controlled and institutionalized space industry?

    1. Re:Dudes with a 50kW laser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly would it take for a non-visible laser to be fired line of sight from the other building to the spacex launch site utilizing a man portable version of the hummvee/zumwalt mounted models to cause just enough thermal disruption to cause a catastrophic failure?

      Not much. 1 personnel, 240 volts AC, less than 5 minutes. All easy on an industrial rooftop with line of sight to target.

  28. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks to me like you are still anonymous, some might say that is cowardly by itself. The only difference between you and me is that I don't have a persistence record of posts.

  29. Re: SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    None of the *AA's are welcome here.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  30. Could be done by a single person in theory by dallaylaen · · Score: 1

    A corporate sabotage version is unbelievable. What if it comes out? Why do it from their own building?.. Won't believe it until an official admits in court they did it, and would doubt even then.

    However, what about an employee going postal and acting on their own, out of envy, hatred, or fear of being laid off? It looks like it's possible to buy a suitable rifle in USA (I'm not a resident), so if only they could bring it to the building... And a ULA employee *should* be able to know when to shoot, and what happens if LOX equipment is hit.

    That said, the chance is still beyond slim. On the other hand, making unsound sabotage accusations in this circumstances would be a PR suicide. SpaceX better have rock solid evidence if they do.

    --
    WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
    1. Re:Could be done by a single person in theory by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's pretty easy to get a rifle that will fire a bullet a mile. They are, however, loud as hell because the bullet is supersonic.

    2. Re:Could be done by a single person in theory by bioteq · · Score: 1

      Not saying this theory is true, but have you ever heard a rocket? Especially a space bound rocket?

      Those things are -loud- -- Even when sitting on the pad and going through pre-flight checks -- or anything where they're throttling the engines.

      A .50bmg round wound sound like a chirp against all that background noise.

    3. Re:Could be done by a single person in theory by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Would you see a dark spot on a low resolution video capture representing a bullet flying at supersonic speed?

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    4. Re:Could be done by a single person in theory by Rei · · Score: 1

      One of the things SpaceX had been investigating from the beginning was a bang heard in distance before the explosion.

      I really doubt this is what happened. But if it did... my god, this would be one of the biggest scandals in the entire history of spaceflight. Even if it was an employee acting on their own.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    5. Re:Could be done by a single person in theory by Rei · · Score: 1

      What is the dark spot on the video supposed to have to do with anything? I can't believe Slashdot even linked that thing. SpaceX is investigating seeing a shadow and white flash on a ULA building in a video that they have.

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
    6. Re:Could be done by a single person in theory by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "And a ULA employee *should* be able to know when to shoot, and what happens if LOX equipment is hit."

      Hitting a target the size of a rocket isn't improbable, but hitting a sensitive area from a mile away without zeroing in the weapon would seem to require extraordinary skill or considerable luck. Perhaps marginally more probable would be a malfunction that somehow propelled a small component from the rocket or fueling gear toward the ULA building at many hundreds of meters per second -- fast enough to overcome drag and hit the building. Seems unlikely, but presumably has to be checked out.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    7. Re:Could be done by a single person in theory by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      And a ULA employee *should* be able to know when to shoot,

      Why should a ULA employee be more likely to know how to shoot than - say - a tank-cleaner at the local sperm bank?

      Even though there are approximately as many guns in America as there are people, it's still over two-thirds of the population of America who don't own a gun of any sort (and 50% of the weapons owned by something less than 5% of the population.

      Or are all ULA employees required to pass sniping proficiency tests? Got a reference for that?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  31. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it is mentally ill attention whore fucktards like yourself that have pushed this situation

    Maybe they will start banning IP ranges just to smash you like the fucking cock-a-roach that you are

  32. putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he was personally shooting the rocket while riding a tiger without wearing a shirt.

    surely hillary will help musk now that we know this...

  33. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason that I post AC is due to Dice's attempts to monetize their user base, and the new owners relentless right-wing politiking

    I can still post, communicate and even get modded up, although they do shove AC posts to the bottom and re-order the faithful like you to the top

    Slashdot ain't what it used to be (I have been here since 1999), but posting as AC makes it tolerable for me

  34. Dig a hole and they will come. by thexfile · · Score: 1

    SpaceX should start launching their rockets from a underground silo. A least if the rocket goes 'pop' it will be contained enough to flood the silo with nitrogen.

    1. Re:Dig a hole and they will come. by Rei · · Score: 1

      I think you're a bit confused as to how rockets work (hint: they don't need air to burn)

      --
      Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
  35. ULA is a patsy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A corporate sabotage version is unbelievable. What if it comes out? Why do it from their own building?

    ULA didn't, it was a 3d party using ULA's building. The ULA building provides a good location, but just as important it provides a good patsy. ;-)

  36. Turbulent air not good for shooting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that sound is caused by rapidly moving air, turbulent air. Which would alter the trajectory of the bullet and possibly cause a miss.

    1. Re:Turbulent air not good for shooting by bioteq · · Score: 1

      (In reply to ALL the replies to me)

      Let me clarify for the record: I do NOT believe it was a bullet. I was merely stating that no one would hear a bullet with the loudness of a rocket. As I said, those things are -loud-.

      Also, I think the whole conspiracy thing is a bunch of BS. Rocket science is -hard-, very hard. And things go boom all the time. Suck it up, Princess.

    2. Re:Turbulent air not good for shooting by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      At the time of the explosion, there wasn't much noise. The engines were not lit, the rocket was being fueled, which uses pumps, that while loud, are nothing compared to an anti materiel rifle.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  37. I thought this at the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it happened I immediately thought this might be sabotage , but immediately thinking something is sabotage without any proof other than \
    MOTIVE AT 100%
    MEANS AT 100%

    nets you a big downvote on slashdot.

    Of course there is a very high probability it was sabotage (see above). Billions and billions of dollars are at stake and his opponents are old-school military-industrial complex contractors who know where a lot of bodies put there by important people are buried.

    Don't look for the fed to pursue this at all. If Musk wants to prove it, he's on his own and the only court he has available to him is the court of public opinion.

    Next up, Elon Musk dies in fiery crash traced to a flaw in Telsa software; total recall initiated by govt. Tesla files for bankruptcy.

  38. Elon Will Blambe The World Before Himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paypal was Elon's first Ponzi Scheme and each "company" he runs is just another exercise.

    Elon knows that if SpaceX cannot get FAA re-certification then SpaceX and his Ponzi Scheme Dream of sending 100 dead human cadavers to Mars is dead and all the $$$$$$$$ loot will vanish into thin air.

  39. Something just occurred to me. by Rei · · Score: 1

    Any bullet striking the LOX tank would immediately turn into an incendiary bullet - even ignoring the hot/molten aluminum it would spray into the tank (which most definitely burns). Long-range bullets are going to be either copper or steel jacketed, commonly with a steel penetrator, lead core. While the lead is iffy, both copper and steel will ignite in LOX under high shock conditions (and if there's anything that's a high shock condition, it's a bullet impact).

    --
    Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
  40. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ive had several karma capped accounts over the years. I know how to make the wind blow in my direction to get +5.

    The way to do that is to GROUPTHINK.

    The reality is without AC nobody can talk truthfully. Everyone Bernays and Goebbels and propagandizes the shit out of everything to karma whore.

    AC means we can think and speak freely and the worst you can do is to -1. And most of us read at -1 - you need to to hear what people say when they can speak without chains.

    man just fuck you. im glad the ultimate retreat will be ham radio.you cant take that away fucker.

  41. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    This is a comment to make it appear as though comments don't get deleted and anyone suggesting otherwise is like the OP.

  42. Why is the investigation team controvrsial? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    This week, ten members of Congress sent a four-page letter to several government agencies about the SpaceX explosion, raising the question as to whether or not SpaceX should be leading the investigation.

    Sorry, but the protocols for this were established back in the 1950s for investigating aircraft crashes - the investigation is lead by the civilian agency from the country where the plane was registered ; plane manufacturer, airline, engine manufacturer, agency where the debris landed, agencies for the countries with people killed and some others (e.g. ATC) have listening and often speaking rights. It's a well-established procedure. Why did anyone even waste a minute considering setting up a different system?

    Oh, let me guess - spooks didn't want non-spooks to see what spooks do?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  43. Re:SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    I agree with you, that AC has it's use and I like that it is available here. Especially since we both know, without a doubt, that big brother (government) is recording you. And also, because, as you mentioned, business is often withholding privacy in order to make money from you without properly informing or compensating you.

    But you must also agree that AC is the worst part of Slashdot. Several user consistently post some crap that is clearly designed to offend someone and elicit further responses. Responses like this one I am writing and the post you just made. What a waste of time and space. All of which makes reading Slashdot a pain.

    As a minimum, there should be a way for readers to shut off AC posts entirely. So that only posts with names behind them are shown. If her knows that there is such a thing, please let me know.

  44. Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not saying it but .. Aliens.

  45. Do not link another video from Thunderf00t... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next time Slashdot provides exposure to one of that cranks videos, on the front page, I'm boycotting the site again (the last time being the Beta debacle...) - Slashdot puts up a lot of shíte on the front page, yet still maintains credibility as an interesting (or amusing...) source of information - but if it starts putting out that level of outright propaganda, then I'm boycotting the site, as I won't tolerate a site that supports outright propaganda like that.

    Do Not provide exposure to cranks like that again.