Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Kryten said:

The booster intended for the AMOS-6 launch has exploded during static fire test.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/spacex/2016/09/01/explosion-reported-spacex-pad/89710076/

Can't exactly say I "like" this, but thanks for the info.

9 minutes ago, Rdivine said:

Would the strongback be able to withstand a strong explosion from the rocket itself?

According to the livestream, it does look like it's still standing.

How usable everything will be once the fires, out, tho...;.;;.;;.;

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Can't exactly say I "like" this, but thanks for the info.

According to the livestream, it does look like it's still standing.

How usable everything will be once the fires, out, tho...;.;;.;;.;

It's rather crucial to know if the rocket did actually explode, or was it just ground support equipment. This way, we can know who to assign blame on we can know if the rocket has any flaws, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rdivine said:

It's rather crucial to know if the rocket did actually explode, or was it just ground support equipment. This way, we can know who to assign blame on we can know if the rocket has any flaws, or not.

CrRkpE5UIAAorv3.jpg

Not sure how to post tweets, don't usually even twitter, but this is from SpaceX official *I think*

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Wait, was the explosion at LC-39?

Yup it was...

Edit: My apologies, it was LC-40. I can't remember things.

7 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

CrRkpE5UIAAorv3.jpg

Not sure how to post tweets, don't usually even twitter, but this is from SpaceX official *I think*

Another great source is https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g

Edited by Rdivine
Link to post
Share on other sites

"And payload" is kind of a weird thing to read in that official statement, considering multiple people in attendance (at KSC) insist that only the first stage was erected on the pad. No fairing on top. Which means AMOS-6 wasn't on it either.

 

Edited by Streetwind
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Wait, was the explosion at LC-39?

LC-40.

 

Amos have confirmed that their payload was on the booster, and has been destroyed. This isn't good news for them, they're a relatively small outfit with only a few sats. Their insurance will probably cover the immediate costs, but they had a takeover of the company set up with a big cash injection that was contingent on this launch being successful.

 

I'd wait on anything on immediate cause for a few days, reports this early are never reliable.

Edited by Kryten
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah, that is super confusing. Did they roll the vehicle back into the hangar after these people saw it, mounted the payload, and rolled it back out? I don't know... but wow, poor customer. AMOS-6 was already very late (got pushed back a long ways due to CRS-7 mishap), and now this. Life is going to be difficult for them. Even if they get the insurance payout, money is not the problem - they needed that satellite in service months ago. Building a new one will take years. They don't have years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

"And payload" is kind of a weird thing to read in that official statement, considering multiple people in attendance (at KSC) insist that only the first stage was erected on the pad. No fairing on top. Which means AMOS-6 wasn't on it either.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dino1984 said:

Please, enlight me - they do static tests with payload on top of the first stage? Is it standard procedure? 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Launch was scheduled for Sat, so in this case, yes

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, insert_name said:

Wait I thought the f9 didn't have hydrazine. This would suggest a payload anomaly.

Or pad infrastructure.

Regardless, this would be ideal for SpaceX - it would mean they wouldn't need to suspend flights to look for and fix a problem with the rocket.

Of course, it looks like the strongback is bent out of shape, and the pad in general is going to need refurbishment. But they can still go ahead with Iridium NEXT from Vandenberg in a few weeks. Also, I think SpaceX has said earlier this summer that LC-39A is technically ready to service launches...  :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Streetwind said:

Or pad infrastructure.

Regardless, this would be ideal for SpaceX - it would mean they wouldn't need to suspend flights to look for and fix a problem with the rocket.

Of course, it looks like the strongback is bent out of shape, and the pad in general is going to need refurbishment. But they can still go ahead with Iridium NEXT from Vandenberg in a few weeks. Also, I think SpaceX has said earlier this summer that LC-39A is technically ready to service launches...  :P

Doesn't the F9 second stage use hydrazine for attitude control?

This sucks. ;.;

Link to post
Share on other sites

Handling operations matter for turn around, etc, so while it would be a plus if it is not the F9 itself, they certainly need to reevaluate all pad procedures. Yeah, this sucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dino1984 said:

Please, enlight me - they do static tests with payload on top of the first stage? Is it standard procedure? 

Depends on schedule, this way is faster.

 

Reports of debris being found in KSC parking lot A, nearly two miles from LC-40. Sounds like they'll have cleanup for the entire centre for a good while.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kryten said:

Reports of debris being found in KSC parking lot A, nearly two miles from LC-40. Sounds like they'll have cleanup for the entire centre for a good while.

Hopefully it won't affect OSIRIS-REx. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't, but still, terrible news. I feel sorry for Elon!

Edited by Frida Space
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...