codepoet Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) 39 minutes ago, CptRichardson said: Not really, no. This was an explosion in the PAD, not the launcher. This wasn't a launch failure. Failure still occurred somewhere in the whole launch system, regardless if it was booster or second stage or pad or operational procedures. If the satellite had been on top of an ariane5 would it have been lost? Of course the failure could have been caused by the payload, in which case it is not spacex's problem, but at this stage we just do not know. Edited September 1, 2016 by codepoet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 A launch isn't just a rocket (which is also why the cost of a launch isn't just the rocket hardware). Pre and post-launch operations, including payload and pre-launch testing are all part of the launch campaign. So this should certainly be counted as a launch failure. Both the vehicle and the payload were destroyed, as well as a large part of the pad. Whether it happened on the pad or 10 meters above the pad is irrelevant, it's still a LOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 SpaceX already has a good handle on the cause, and will post something later. They have telemetry, and likely HD video (a plus of it being on the pad). A video alone would allow us here to narrow it down a great deal were one available (we'd know the time, and location, which would reduce the suspect causes massively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Do they mean that toxic and flammable hydrazine leaks from Falcon in amounts enough to burst a rocket and nobody even notice that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saabstory88 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 To put the Hydrazine issue to bed. The payload uses a Hydrazine powered orbital insertion motor. The payload is fueled well in advance of the launch. If the vehicle is destroyed, the payload and its propellant will not remain intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) LC-40 is going to need serious reconstruction work, putting it out of service for months (maybe a year). Assuming there is nothing wrong with the launcher and they can resume F9 flights ASAP, they are going to have to expedite LC-39A operations and the delays are going to increase their backlog even more. If there is any redesign work, that will mean more delays before RTF, that will mean more backlog and they will absolutely need both pads. This probably means that FH will be postponed again, which is also likely to push back the 2018 Mars launch target (which was overly optimistic anyway) to at least 2020. It also means that the big September MCT reveal probably isn't going to happen. They will delay it at least until they get back on track with a successful F9 flight and recovery. You don't announce Big F. Plans when you have just destroyed a customer's payload. Edited September 1, 2016 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frida Space Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) Mr Musk has spoken... or tweeted: "Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon." Three years on this forum and I still don't know how to embed tweets. EDIT: Oh nevermind, apparently it does it automatically. Edited September 1, 2016 by Frida Space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 So it seems like it was a second stage failure, not good for SpaceX, but hopefully the first stages do not suffer from this issue as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) Just now, insert_name said: So it seems like it was a second stage failure, not good for SpaceX, but hopefully the first stages do not suffer from this issue as well We don't know yet. It could still be a problem with the ground equipment or a procedural error. Edited September 1, 2016 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 minute ago, Nibb31 said: We don't know yet. It could still be a problem with the ground equipment or a procedural error. Hence the hopefully. Also is spaceflight now down for anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frida Space Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Just now, insert_name said: Hence the hopefully. Also is spaceflight now down for anyone else? They have a backup site running fine - at least for now. http://www.astronomynow-store.com/spaceflight-now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frida Space Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Crazy video (skip to 1 minute) Crazy how the fairing was almost intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Frida Space said: Crazy video (skip to 1 minute) Holy ****. SpaceX Static Fire Anomaly directed and produced by Michael Bay. This sucks. Edit: Is SpaceX the only launch provider that does pre-launch static fires? Why do they leave the payload on for the static fire? Vibration measurements? Edited September 1, 2016 by Robotengineer Quick Questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frida Space Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) In case anyone wants to embed it here is a 2.5 MB Twitter-friendly gif I made from that video. Link to higher-res, not sped up version (44 MB). 12 minutes ago, Robotengineer said: Why do they leave the payload on for the static fire? Vibration measurements? They do that at the customer's discretion. They've done it before for Dragon. It helps with the schedule (liftoff was planned for tomorrow) and, from what some people say, it also allows them to run basic tests on the satellite too. Edited September 1, 2016 by Frida Space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW-1 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Simple really, someone left their Note 7 near the second stage ... http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/09/01/samsung-galaxy-note-7-recall-due-exploding-batteries-might-imminent/ Really, we can speculate, but I'm sure they'll announce later today/tomorrow what occurred, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 10 minutes ago, Robotengineer said: Is SpaceX the only launch provider that does pre-launch static fires? Currently, yes. Most other providers have a simulated launch with tanking but without firing (a so-called wet dress rehearsal, WDR). 10 minutes ago, Robotengineer said: Why do they leave the payload on for the static fire? Vibration measurements? It's faster. This thing was supposed to be going up in two days, not much time for rolling the stage back and doing extra integration work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 2d stage. Ouch. Another COPV issue? Clogged vent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 I say this in all seriousness - hopefully not another busted strut. If it was that again, then I'd think SpaceX would need to look at redesigning the upper stage tank - which wouldn't be a quick or easy task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Highly unlikely. The strut failed under acceleration. There was no acceleration happening here. Still, what a quick and hard explosion. I've no idea how it can just go off like that. Wouldn't you need at least two or three concurrent faults? Like a short circuit next to a fuel leak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codepoet Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 So I am wondering if second stages get test fired in Texas the same way that the first stages do before they are shipped to the launch site. Much better to have a single f9s2 go pop that loose the whole stack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 16 minutes ago, Streetwind said: Still, what a quick and hard explosion. I've no idea how it can just go off like that. Wouldn't you need at least two or three concurrent faults? Like a short circuit next to a fuel leak? Yeah, what caused it? One second it's there, the next it's replaced with a fireball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Streetwind said: Highly unlikely. The strut failed under acceleration. There was no acceleration happening here. It was an engine test, right? Had they already lit off the engines? If so, that's a lot of vibrational energy. Never mind, I just watched that video. Edited September 1, 2016 by mikegarrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Just now, mikegarrison said: It was an engine test, right? Had they already lit off the engines? If so, that's a lot of vibrational energy. the RUD occurred before the test could happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, insert_name said: the RUD occurred before the test could happen LOL at myself -- yeah, I should have read a few more posts and looked at that video before I asked my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts