Launch News [Sep.1, 2016] Falcon 9 explodes on the Launch Pad

[DaveS]

They can't catch a break, can they?

Was this a new booster or one that was about to be reused?

Brand new. No re-used boosters yet.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Sounds like a construction/manufacturing/material fault ?

 

[DaveS]

Sounds like a construction/manufacturing/material fault ?

Too early to say. There's nothing publicly available to implicate any part, either on the ground side or the flight side.

---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

Statement from Elon Musk:

[ame="http://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336"]Elon Musk on Twitter: "Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon."[/ame]

 

[MaverickSawyer]

That's two for two that are related to the upper stage LOX tank, isn't it?

 

[DaveS]

That's two for two that are related to the upper stage LOX tank, isn't it?

Yes, this time and CRS-7 when the struts holding one of the helium COPVs failed.

---------- Post added at 07:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

 

[Urwumpe]

Hmm... triboelectric effect? Lightning strike? Riding the rocket with a lit cigar? Looks really bad in the video, like some sudden rupturing of the tank. I doubt it was an overpressurization, the venting of the stage appeared normal.

And I would say, the launch complex is heavily damaged and requires lengthy repairs.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Hmm... triboelectric effect? Lightning strike? Riding the rocket with a lit cigar? Looks really bad in the video, like some sudden rupturing of the tank. I doubt it was an overpressurization, the venting of the stage appeared normal.

Elon was reportedly at Burning Man earlier this week... :shifty:

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

And I would say, the launch complex is heavily damaged and requires lengthy repairs.

Uhm... yeah. Flaming strongback is not a good sign.

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------

Y'know... the more I think about it, the less Elon's tweet makes sense... especially after seeing the video.
Why would the LOX tank exploding result in the flames we saw? That would require a fuel source. Perhaps the second stage LOX tank exploded with enough force to rupture the fuel tank, too? Or was it the fuel tank that let go first?

 

[Urwumpe]

Y'know... the more I think about it, the less Elon's tweet makes sense... especially after seeing the video.
Why would the LOX tank exploding result in the flames we saw? That would require a fuel source. Perhaps the second stage LOX tank exploded with enough force to rupture the fuel tank, too? Or was it the fuel tank that let go first?

Because of the burning fuel raining down after the initial explosion, I suspect the tank failed at the common intertank wall.

 

[Linguofreak]

Y'know... the more I think about it, the less Elon's tweet makes sense... especially after seeing the video.
Why would the LOX tank exploding result in the flames we saw? That would require a fuel source. Perhaps the second stage LOX tank exploded with enough force to rupture the fuel tank, too? Or was it the fuel tank that let go first?

Could the oxygen have started a fire with done random oxidizable thing that then spread to the fuel?

 

[RisingFury]

You can mix LOX and RP-1, but that won't result in an explosion. You still need a source of ignition. At least a spark...

It's also interesting to see that the entire rocket didn't just blow up right away. After the initial explosion, there are many others, small and large.

The satellite wasn't destroyed instantly, either. It exploded on the ground, once the fairing hit the ground - that's when its own propellant went off.

It also looks like the RP-1 or LOX tanks of the first stage survived the initial explosion and only ruptured later on, adding large quantity of fuel and / or LOX to the fire.


That's the end of SpaceX launches for 2017.

So, does this count as a launch failure?

 

[Urwumpe]

It's also interesting to see that the entire rocket didn't just blow up right away. After the initial explosion, there are many others, small and large.

Not really - the rocket was already gone quickly and collapsed with the deluge of burning kerosene.

The payload fairing and the satellite had been held in place by the strongback for a short period of time, but when the strongback failed structurally, it dropped.

 

[RisingFury]

Ok, something flies by the camera at high speed right as the explosion happens. I don't know what it is. Might just be a fly close to the camera, but still creepy.

Here are the frames from the video:

This happens at 1:10 to 1:11 in the video.

The explosion also happens within a single frame and with a bright flash, but nothing unusual about that...

 

[JonnyBGoode]

Welcome to the big leagues, SpaceX.

 

[jroly]

Ok, something flies by the camera at high speed right as the explosion happens. I don't know what it is. Might just be a fly close to the camera, but still creepy.

Cool we can call it a UFO

 

[Thunder Chicken]

In the flight termination bunker a young airman lifts his coffee mug to see the 'flight termination system activate' button, depressed and illuminated. :lol:

---------- Post added at 05:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

So, does this count as a launch failure?

Well, they weren't intending for it to go anywhere, so I don't think we can call it a launch attempt. A handling accident, maybe.

Why do they do the static fire with a payload? Couldn't they do it and then process the payload afterwards? If the rocket fails during a test, at least the customer still has their payload.

 

[Hielor]

I get that rocket science is Hard, but how many times in the past has a rocket that wasn't actively in the process of being launched exploded on the pad like this? The majority of spontaneous unplanned deconstructions I've heard of/seen have been during or immediately after launch...

Also, SpaceX: KSP IRL

Also, random thought--with the way that the payload/fairing seems to have survived intact for several seconds after the initial anomaly, if that had been a manned capsule with an escape tower, would this have been survivable? Corollary: How much do escape towers cost, and could it possibly be worth it for a hypothetical rocket company with a high failure rate to add escape towers even for unmanned payloads?

 

[DaveS]

Why do they do the static fire with a payload? Couldn't they do it and then process the payload afterwards? If the rocket fails during a test, at least the customer still has their payload.

It's save time during processing. It's a SpaceX idea, not very popular.

 

[Kyle]

It's save time during processing. It's a SpaceX idea, not very popular.

They're probably unlikely to ever do it again now.

 

[orb]

Here's a video with audio synchronized / track shifted to counter the speed of sound and distance to camera:

It's now more jumpscare while watching it.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, random thought--with the way that the payload/fairing seems to have survived intact for several seconds after the initial anomaly, if that had been a manned capsule with an escape tower, would this have been survivable?

Very likely yes. Assuming that the automatic escape system is activated during tanking already. A manual abort could have been too late. It is not sure how the acceleration inside the capsule would have been during the initial explosion - if its strong enough to knock astronauts out, you could only try a remote launch abort, if possible.