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

[dman]

From video looks like second stage went first, followed by first stage

Remaining explosions are fuel "cooking off"

As fire fighter used to do training (back in good ole days...) where would fill shallow metal
pan with jet fuel (kerosene) and light it.....

Had to advance line up to pan and put fire out

 

[Thunder Chicken]

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...

There was the R-16 / Nedelin accident back in 1960.

I can't help but wonder if, in the push for reusability of the first stage, that design issues with the second stage are being marginalized. With CRS-7, now this...something is wonky with the second stage IMO.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

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

Hmm...stupid time/cost-cutting measures leading to loss of vehicle and payload. Yep, sounds commercial to me. I was hoping that SpaceX would avoid this disease, but they are not immune.

Yeah, I recall that commercial crew was not enthused about fueling while astronauts were on board. No way that is going to be allowed now.

SpaceX might have to rethink the whole deep-chill fueling arrangement where they need to top off just before liftoff. That will have a trickle-down effect on performance and payload, and ultimately their market.

 

[RisingFury]

I think we'll first have to wait to see what went wrong before we send SpaceX back to the drawing board.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, I recall that commercial crew was not enthused about fueling while astronauts were on board. No way that is going to be allowed now.

The astronauts of the STS also entered the Space Shuttle while it was still getting refueled for compensating for boil-off.

But the tank was practically full at that time, thats true. The pressurization for flight happened after the crew entered the orbiter.

 

[orb]

[ame="https://twitter.com/FxPhilW/status/771424582435688448"]Phil Wilson on Twitter: "@AuerSusan @Rand_Simberg
Bang X is enhanced & used to pinpoint the ignition source.
https://t.co/CckpEHLKck https://t.co/6sgoWPPlNh"[/ame]

 

[Thunder Chicken]

:ninja:'d by orb on LOX vent picture.

 

[GLS]

The closest things to this I can remember are:
- the Nedelin disaster, caused by a timer and open safety valves
- the Viking 8 test firing, where the vehicle ripped itself of the pad and flew for some distance
- and this Atlas losing pressure in the (empty) LOX tank

(notice the RP1 spilling at the bottom)

- and I almost forgot, also this Atlas FRF ending with a bang

(notice the tower flying to the right :blink

 

[RisingFury]

Fueling lines? Or are we starting to entertain the thought that this might be sabotage?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Who would sabotage SpaceX, though? Disgruntled employee?

 

[RisingFury]

Who would sabotage SpaceX, though? Disgruntled employee?

MySpace, given that it was a Facebook satellite

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Fueling lines? Or are we starting to entertain the thought
that this might be sabotage?

Nah, put the tinfoil hat away. LOX is weird and dangerous stuff. When I was in the AF the crew chiefs would pull LOX tanks out of the jets, dribble a puddle of it out onto the concrete, and drop a trailer hitch on the puddle. No spark, just hitting it would cause it to explode with a bang and toss the hitch up in the air. With LOX, everything is a combustible fuel, and it really wants to react. Steel? Aluminum? Concrete? May as well be gasoline.

They're pumping a lot of high density LOX really fast into the tanks. A high-speed impinging jet of LOX against a bulkhead, through a small leak, can trigger a reaction that could quickly breach a tank. I'm betting that there was a LOX leak, maybe in the GSE but probably in the bulkhead line fittings, that caused something in the 2nd stage intertank baffle to fail, mixing the hydrogen and oxygen into a perfect stoichiometric ratio at once and igniting it.

 

[Artlav]

On a related topic, i hear rumours that the satellite loss is not going to be covered by insurance since the loss happened when the rocket wasn't actually launching.

Could that be true?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

On a related topic, i hear rumours that the satellite loss is not going to be covered by insurance since the loss happened when the rocket wasn't actually launching.

Could that be true?

Not covered by the launch insurance policy, but covered under the marine transport policy.

Spacecom only has a capitalization of $150 million USD. They certainly would have insurance for a $200 million asset. They probably have insurance insurance to make sure their insurance doesn't fail.

 

[jroly]

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.

Hardly they would do it just to save costs, testing with the payload attached is a surer test than without the payload.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Who would sabotage SpaceX, though?

Not SpaceX, Israelis and Facebook.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Not SpaceX, Israelis and Facebook.

...
:blink:

 

[orb]

Spaceflight101.com: Dramatic Still Frames – Falcon 9 explodes atop Cape Canaveral Launch Pad

 

[jedidia]

Not SpaceX, Israelis and Facebook.

Well, the question "who would sabotage the Israelis" does sound sort of retorical... :shifty:

Still, rockets are essentially designed to explode, so the fact that one just explodes in the wrong place is not a reason to suspect sabotage, especially if it's such a young design.

 

[N_Molson]

I'm glad nobody was harmed.

I hope everybody now sees the risks to allow a profit-driven company to perform crewed launches. That's rocket science, and space exploration isn't a game.

The sabotage idea is ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons for the thing to have blown itself. As said above, LOX is extremely hazardous, especially when flowing under pressure. Look at it the wrong way and it will turn any place to an inferno at the slightest opportunity. It simply doesn't allow mistakes. Even without igniting, the thing can burn flesh in a nasty way by mere oxydation of the tissues. If I had to choose, I'd prefer to swim in Kerosene, provided I'm protected from the cold and vapors.

 

[Urwumpe]

The sabotage idea is ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons for the thing to have blown itself. As said above, LOX is extremely hazardous, especially when flowing under pressure. Look at it the wrong way and it will turn any place to an inferno at the slightest opportunity. It simply doesn't allow mistakes. Even without igniting, the thing can burn flesh in a nasty way by mere oxydation of the tissues. If I had to choose, I'd prefer to swim in Kerosene, provided I'm protected from the cold and vapors.

Sabotage is unlikely. But actually possible. We have lots of examples of attempted and successful sabotage in spaceflight.