• Update: SpaceX Return to Flight Thread - 16th @ 20:36 GMT
    136 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Revenge282;50983574]Apparently this thing made a pretty sizable explosion when it went off. I wonder what will happen with the Saturday launch.[/QUOTE] If it exploded, then I'm going to be the launch will be postponed.
Title is misleading. We don't know at this point that it was the rocket that was at fault. While the evidence suggests it was a payload failure, theres no way to tell at the moment until SpaceX or the cape releases a cause officially
It's not misleading. Whether it was the rockets fault or not, it still exploded. If a bridge collapsed because a truck crashed into it, you'd still say the bridge collapsed.
It just seems to me that 'truck crashes into bridge support, causing collapse' is a better title in that case than 'CompanyX's Bridgemaster9 bridge collapses on Florida road during load test'. It seems to imply that the rocket was the cause. I know there's probably no better way to word it at this juncture but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it just seems like some sites are jumping to conclusions for those sweet clicks.
Right now all we know is the rocket suffered a Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly. If we get more info about the cause we can change it.
He did post this minutes after it happened, before SpaceX even picked up a phone to talk to press. It's not exactly an outlandish title given what was known.
[QUOTE=Zombii;50984149]It just seems to me that 'truck crashes into bridge support, causing collapse' is a better title in that case than 'CompanyX's Bridgemaster9 bridge collapses on Florida road during load test'. It seems to imply that the rocket was the cause. I know there's probably no better way to word it at this juncture but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it just seems like some sites are jumping to conclusions for those sweet clicks.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the rocket did explode, they just don't know what caused it yet because it just happened, they're probably not even done picking up the pieces yet. You wouldn't call an explosion in the middle of a city a terrorist attack unless you were absolutely sure it wasn't caused by a gas leak or something, same here.
People get weirdly defensive of SpaceX. Its almost like the Star Citizen community. "I really love Elon Musk and worship at my shrine daily, and honestly he's accomplishing the dreams of us all, but does anyone think that overworking your engineers and giving unrealistic deadlines may be bad?" It is known that he overworks engineers and that he has terse deadlines. That sort of stuff catches up to you, eventually, in the space industry. Things move slowly for a reason - putting ULA out of business is more because they're a bloated government contractor that plays fast and loose with their budgeting. They're good too, but not as good. Slow movement ensures you follow all the regulations and paperwork - some of which is silly. Like, I just found out you can't use red LEDs in equipment going into the space station unless the LED is showing an emergent condition that is putting the station at risk. Makes sense, in a dense bureacratic way. Each bit of hardware has to be space-certified and many parts have to be tested on a batch basis. Slow, slow, going but its ultimately quite safe. By all means, SpaceX is a capable company with a good history of launch successes. To people in the industry, criticizing their downsides while remembering what they do right is fair and common. Two of our employees left my current workplace (NASA contractor, we do space stuff yo) to go there and were already being prepared for what they would do as soon as they announced their impending departure. But, you get the chance to work for SpaceX and do some really neat really active stuff so its usually worth it. I think the problem comes with the publics perception of space travel and SpaceX, and possible lobbyists using this as leverage in convincing the government to fund its "proven" contractors more. Statistically, SpaceX has a high success rate and I'd trust our payloads with them. In fact, I have two payloads going up with SpaceX. One in January (afaik), and one a year after that. I'm not worried, but the press may give people reason to worry. I'd bet its a fuel malfunction, it doesn't make sense for there to be a sudden fault of this magnitude in a proven line of launch vehicles.
Some pictures of some secondary explosions. [media]https://twitter.com/taliaeliana/status/771356794291687428[/media] I don't think it's fair to blame Musk overworking engineers as the cause of this. The previous failure was a third party suppliers fault. We don't know the cause of this yet. But SpaceX test their rockets more than any other American launch provider afaik.
I looked at working for SpaceX at one time, though from what I hear they don't pay very well and go through employees pretty fast because they don't pay the wages required to retain high skilled workers compared to similar industries.
It should be noted that this rocket has already performed a full duration ignition test, likewise, each engine has been tested individually at McGregor. This would've been the hardware's 3rd time igniting, and 2nd time being tanked. Though the explosion allegedly happened at T-3 minutes, so the engines would've never fired anyway. Seems to me, to point at either a fuel issue or a payload issue.
If it was a hydrazine explosion maybe people will start using our borane based hypergols.
So at T-3m, it seems reasonable to assume the rocket was fully fueled. The last time we had a rocket explode at launch site, Antares, it took a year to get the launchpad back to operational status. Assuming that this explosion did comparable damage, that will put Launch Complex 40 out of commission for 6 to 18 months. That's SpaceX's only active launch site for equatorial orbits, including GTO (they have Vandenberg for polar launches but you can't launch eastwards from there). Is Launch Complex 39A ready for operations? I strongly suspect it will be faster to complete construction there than to repair LC40.
[QUOTE=Saxon;50984351]I looked at working for SpaceX at one time, though from what I hear they don't pay very well and go through employees pretty fast because they don't pay the wages required to retain high skilled workers compared to similar industries.[/QUOTE] dude space industry pays poorly everywhere, SpaceX pays the best in this industry and its still somewhat abysmal compared to other positions for aero/electrical engineers
It might be SpaceX hardware: [media]https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504[/media] [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] The upper stage lox tank would be the upper-most part of the second stage. Then iirc computers sit on top of the Lox tanks dome, and then there's a payload adapter on which the Satellites sit. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Should also note that the previous explosion during CRS-7 was caused by struts holding the helium COPVs in place in the upper stage Lox tank failing. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Video: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ[/media] ULA CEO offers a hand: [media]https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/771398257301819393[/media]
Does anyone know what happens to the satellite company in a case like this? I mean, I assume someone paid a lot of money to have that satellite put up there. Do they get a refund, or an insurance payout, or something?
[QUOTE=smurfy;50984596]Does anyone know what happens to the satellite company in a case like this? I mean, I assume someone paid a lot of money to have that satellite put up there. Do they get a refund, or an insurance payout, or something?[/QUOTE] It's insured: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_insurance[/url] [quote]Pre-launch insurance provides coverage for loss or damage to the satellite or its components from the time they leave the manufacturer's premises, during the transit to the launch site, through testing, fueling, and integration with the launcher up until the time the launcher's rocket engines are ignited for the purpose of the actual launch.[/quote] [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] However, the services the satellite was expected to supply are obviously going to be delayed. Which can run ripples down the line and harm whoever was going to profit from the use of this satellite.
[QUOTE=OvB;50984467]It might be SpaceX hardware: [media]https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504[/media] [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] The upper stage lox tank would be the upper-most part of the second stage. Then iirc computers sit on top of the Lox tanks dome, and then there's a payload adapter on which the Satellites sit. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Should also note that the previous explosion during CRS-7 was caused by struts holding the helium COPVs in place in the upper stage Lox tank failing. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Video: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ[/media] ULA CEO offers a hand: [media]https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/771398257301819393[/media][/QUOTE] This doesn't look like that. It looks like the explosion started outside of the fuselage - but the immense heat and the whole explosion thing eventually compromised that too. There's a small primary explosion near what looks like the fuel line connection point - then, further secondary explosions that propagate outwards and slag everything. You can see them travelling down the fuselage towards the ground. Could be anything from a leak that was sparked by a failed ground connection or something, to a catastrophic failure on the part of SpaceX but I bet it's not that.
[QUOTE=Saxon;50984351]I looked at working for SpaceX at one time, though from what I hear they don't pay very well and go through employees pretty fast because they don't pay the wages required to retain high skilled workers compared to similar industries.[/QUOTE] How does this relate to this thread.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50984596]Does anyone know what happens to the satellite company in a case like this? I mean, I assume someone paid a lot of money to have that satellite put up there. Do they get a refund, or an insurance payout, or something?[/QUOTE] big fucking insurance payout, but you lose fuckloads of time and ahve to go through the whole satellite construction process again, a large part of which is testing and safety checks before launch. The biggest cost really is time, and the difficulty of acquiring a launch slot in the first place.
[QUOTE=paindoc;50984633]This doesn't look like that. It looks like the explosion started outside of the fuselage - but the immense heat and the whole explosion thing eventually compromised that too. There's a small primary explosion near what looks like the fuel line connection point - then, further secondary explosions that propagate outwards and slag everything. You can see them travelling down the fuselage towards the ground. Could be anything from a leak that was sparked by a failed ground connection or something, to a catastrophic failure on the part of SpaceX but I bet it's not that.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I posted the bit about the previous explosion as a reminder, and edited in the video afterwords because it had just been released. I didn't intend to imply that a lose strut was once again the culprit. I think you're on the right track about it being a connection/stray spark issue.
[QUOTE=paindoc;50984633]This doesn't look like that. It looks like the explosion started outside of the fuselage - but the immense heat and the whole explosion thing eventually compromised that too. There's a small primary explosion near what looks like the fuel line connection point - then, further secondary explosions that propagate outwards and slag everything. You can see them travelling down the fuselage towards the ground. Could be anything from a leak that was sparked by a failed ground connection or something, to a catastrophic failure on the part of SpaceX but I bet it's not that.[/QUOTE] Well the ground equipment belongs to SpaceX as well so regardless of if it's a vehicle or ground support issue it's still a SpaceX failure. But yeah I can kinda see what you are talking about, it does look like the explosion started outside but perhaps it started inside and then just broke out at the weakest point? [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;50984596]Does anyone know what happens to the satellite company in a case like this? I mean, I assume someone paid a lot of money to have that satellite put up there. Do they get a refund, or an insurance payout, or something?[/QUOTE] This particular payload loss has some big implications for the provider. They was merging with some chinese company and the merger was contingent on the successful launch of this payload.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50984662]Well the ground equipment belongs to SpaceX as well so regardless of if it's a vehicle or ground support issue it's still a SpaceX failure. But yeah I can kinda see what you are talking about, it does look like the explosion started outside but perhaps it started inside and then just broke out at the weakest point? [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] This particular payload loss has some big implications for the provider. They was merging with some chinese company and the merger was contingent on the successful launch of this payload.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I could also see it being an outward-sort of explosion - if the valve was opened and actively fueling, going out that way would be by far the easiest barring any other structural weaknesses (which there don't appear to be, so more for that idea). I didn't see the fuel line immediately go up though, or go up right after. What's interesting is that it looks like the initial explosion expanded much faster than the rest of the ignitions/explosions - a rapid "popping" sort of expansion, followed by ignition of what looks like dispersed propellant (still outside the fuselage) down the fuselage direction. After this, you can see smaller secondary explosions appearing to pop out from under the fuselage, than one biiiiig explosion as the whole thing goes up. After that, its a bunch of burning. Whats weird is that it looks like the payload was mostly unscathed by the initial explosion - it just tips over and collapses after the fire has been burning for a bit. The last explosion of a Falcon 9 was because a helium bottle [I]inside[/I] the oxygen tank broke loose, vented, literally blew up the oxygen tank and cause a big explosion. That's probably vaguely what it looks like when the internal oxygen tank blows, and this didn't look like that. I'm really curious what this was.
[QUOTE=paindoc;50984638]big fucking insurance payout, but you lose fuckloads of time and ahve to go through the whole satellite construction process again, a large part of which is testing and safety checks before launch. The biggest cost really is time, and the difficulty of acquiring a launch slot in the first place.[/QUOTE] No insurance payout: [QUOTE]Elon Musk has stated that because the rocket didn't intentionally ignite for launch, the loss of payload is not covered by launch insurance.[/QUOTE] [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Payload was worth $200 million alone.
damn this is awful, hope it doesn't set SpaceX back too much.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50984780]No insurance payout: [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Payload was worth $200 million alone.[/QUOTE] oh fuck, makes sense. Sort of. In the way that it would make sense for an insurance company to find exceptions it could - failure to ignite or failure during testing not being conditions for coverage. damn.
[QUOTE=Techno-Man;50984793]damn this is awful, hope it doesn't set SpaceX back too much.[/QUOTE] One of the big issues is the damage to the pad. This puts both of their east coast pads out of operation.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50984450]So at T-3m, it seems reasonable to assume the rocket was fully fueled. The last time we had a rocket explode at launch site, Antares, it took a year to get the launchpad back to operational status. Assuming that this explosion did comparable damage, that will put Launch Complex 40 out of commission for 6 to 18 months. That's SpaceX's only active launch site for equatorial orbits, including GTO (they have Vandenberg for polar launches but you can't launch eastwards from there). Is Launch Complex 39A ready for operations? I strongly suspect it will be faster to complete construction there than to repair LC40.[/QUOTE] One thing to note is that Antares came down [url=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/17/article-urn:publicid:ap.org:b177e4768dd34b1293dd2822a2253d23-6UtoGe9PVHSK2-119_634x383.jpg]next to the pad[/url], whereas this F9 exploded on top of the pad, so the F9 will probably have done more damage.
[QUOTE=OvB;50984181]Right now all we know is the rocket suffered a Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly. If we get more info about the cause we can change it.[/QUOTE] physics based or design based? Did you use enough struts?
[QUOTE=paindoc;50984801]oh fuck, makes sense. Sort of. In the way that it would make sense for an insurance company to find exceptions it could - failure to ignite or failure during testing not being conditions for coverage. damn.[/QUOTE] Apparently due to Spacecom cheaping out on insurance and getting it from the "marine cargo market" that kicks in at T-0 and gives them 1 year after launch. Classical space insurance would of covered it. [editline]1st September 2016[/editline] Not sure why Spacecom would of opted into having their payload mounted during the static fire though if their insurance didn't cover it? It's entirely up to the customer if it's on during the static fire or not. Benefit for doing it is that it might get up a few days faster.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.