So...here we have the Cadillac of space vehicles, popping at or around the second stage connection point for an undetermined reason. We know how it exploded, the fuel and oxidizer mixed...we need to know why.
The best best, based on the track record of the Falcon 9 1.0 and this new 1.1 F9R model, is to look at the differences:
"The re-usable version of Falcon 9 is known as F9R which itself does not represent a fully different launcher and is more of an add-on to the v1.1 version in the form of the Nitrogen Cold Gas Attitude Control System, the four deployable landing legs and four grid fins used for three-axis control during atmospheric flight, especially during non-propulsive flight phases." -Spaceflight101's article on the Falcon 9 (both version 1.0 and 1.1
The article also stated that their was a brand spanking new stage one design being used. A new design that failed? Who'd a thunk.
Now, I don't have the resources or access to investigate in detail. But I bet, dollars to donuts, the failure lies in a stress failure on the side of the rocket with the initial explosion, caused by a specific difference in the designs mentioned. I know its vague, but I'm not going to postulate a more accurate guess based on the limited data available, the actual team can do that, they have the burned up wreck and design on hand to actually examine, and the materials expertise to look at it. I will say that from an informed, but less educated perspective that's the most logical place to look for the details of the failure.
Slashdot Mirror
So...here we have the Cadillac of space vehicles, popping at or around the second stage connection point for an undetermined reason. We know how it exploded, the fuel and oxidizer mixed...we need to know why. The best best, based on the track record of the Falcon 9 1.0 and this new 1.1 F9R model, is to look at the differences: "The re-usable version of Falcon 9 is known as F9R which itself does not represent a fully different launcher and is more of an add-on to the v1.1 version in the form of the Nitrogen Cold Gas Attitude Control System, the four deployable landing legs and four grid fins used for three-axis control during atmospheric flight, especially during non-propulsive flight phases." -Spaceflight101's article on the Falcon 9 (both version 1.0 and 1.1 The article also stated that their was a brand spanking new stage one design being used. A new design that failed? Who'd a thunk. Now, I don't have the resources or access to investigate in detail. But I bet, dollars to donuts, the failure lies in a stress failure on the side of the rocket with the initial explosion, caused by a specific difference in the designs mentioned. I know its vague, but I'm not going to postulate a more accurate guess based on the limited data available, the actual team can do that, they have the burned up wreck and design on hand to actually examine, and the materials expertise to look at it. I will say that from an informed, but less educated perspective that's the most logical place to look for the details of the failure.