CptRichardson

Members
  • Content Count

    480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About CptRichardson

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's only what they're saying in your head. There is no actual statement whatsoever one way or another, and saying 'they asked for any additional information that can be provided means they're helpless schmucks' is rather baseless given people have already pointed out that everyone does this if there is a chance someone has more information to provide, because more data points almost always helps to narrow down the problem quicker than trying to solve on internal data stores.
  2. The last time a test fire exploded on the pad in the US.
  3. Well, it says 'this seems to be the first time anything like this has happened, and even the most remotely similar failure in the US happened 58 years ago'. This is something at the end of the bellcurve for bellcurves, an event rare enough that everybody looking at it can't figure out what the hell happened yet.
  4. It's dimmed twice approximately 20% or so (or was it 10%?) either way, way too much for a normal natural phenomenon. More importantly, we detected uneven dipping, and these dips lasted for multiple days. Oh, and the whole '5% drop or so over the course of the kepler observations'. Basically, to also point to Sir Pratchett, these aren't mere million to one odds, these are billions to one odds that seem to be lining up just right, and honestly we don't have anything else that's stood up.
  5. No, the 'artifact' explanation was written off as Kepler detected an overall long-term dimming trend that slowly intensified over the course of the observations and matches up with previous observations. You are probably indeed mixing things up between Tabby's and this EPIC star.
  6. Highly unlikely. CRS-7 was overpressure. Rupturing destroyed the structural integrity of the booster without causing a blast. This was straight-up ignition. It is fairly unlikely to almost certainly not the same problem, and will probably be 'minor seal failure followed by static event'.
  7. I can already say that it fails sanity checks, as the star is dimming more as time goes on, and there still isn't any sign of a infrared shift from orbiting material.
  8. I have not said "You are a dupe of a conspiracy." I have said "This basically unheard of error mode happening to a company with a proven record and who have demonstrated extremely good engineering and handling practices, and especially with their coming up major world-first milestones is highly unusual/straining SoD, and should at least be examined as a possibility due to the sheer number of factors that coming together that make it at least theoretically possible, with the hopes that it's some new form of failure mode that nobody could have anticipated." Perhaps you should stop reading too much into it? As for the reconstruction that is giving the current 'event at the fill valve' explaination circulating around, he took the initial frame of the blast and turned its opacity almost to zero and lined it up perfectly with a frame of the rocket from pre-detonation and it centers in on the fill valve as the center of the blast based upon the artifact rays of the blast flare in the image.
  9. No, it's probably not the COPV failing, but instead a static discharge around the fueling port, given some of the footage reconstruction work of people trying to figure out the initial flashpoint. Which, once more, given that the last US static-fire test failure was in 1958, is still suspicious as hell.
  10. They were given defective parts that were supposedly cert'd for launch while following industry-standard practices. They didn't know that their supplier was doing a excrements job on their testing and passing on defective parts. Yes, it was absolutely the supplier's fault in that case. In this case, it's suspicious because of the bell-end of bell-end abnormality of this failure, and it's still not even clear if this is internal to their rocket or pad-side failure on the fueling equipment.
  11. First one wasn't their fault, and this one is too suspicious to pin on them yet. Otherwise, the second stage has been entirely reliable.
  12. You wouldn't have the tank-internal ignition.
  13. The only source of ignition in the second stage that I can think of is electrical. But even then... this makes no sense whatsoever, and I can't think of a failure mode that would cause this on the pad.
  14. Not really, no. This was an explosion in the PAD, not the launcher. This wasn't a launch failure.
  15. Well, yeah, but there are a lot of things that still make the timing fishy as hell. SpaceX is getting ready to start the relaunch train for real with SES-10 at the end of the year, has the FH coming out and planned manned flights coming up, the communications company they were servicing for this launch is getting bought out by a chinese company from what I understand, and in general the ground systems have never-EVER been the cause of a launch explosion as far as I'm aware. Something just doesn't seem right with this, and I can't figure out why.