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

[Quick_Nick]

Who would sabotage SpaceX, though? Disgruntled employee?

Time travellers, preventing Zuckerberg's Skynet satellite from mind controlling Oculus Rift users around the world.

 

[Thorsten]

I hope everybody now sees the risks to allow a profit-driven company to perform crewed launches.

You mean to say the private sector can not solve problems much better than anyone else and make a profit on top of it? And the reason Shuttle launches were expensive isn't just that NASA wastes money? *irony*

Frankly, I can't see how a company would opt /not/ to make more profit if it can (in some countries as far as I know stakeholders can even go to court if the management doesn't maximize profits) - and sadly the usual state of affairs is that the safer option is also the more expensive one (which is why the Shuttle used solids as well... with an outcome well known).

Personally I'm convinced all else is whishful thinking - cutting launch costs does not ever seem a viable recipe to make things safe.It all works in aviation because it's highly regulated and airlines are simply unable to cut on security without breaking the law, but space flight isn't nearly there.

 

[Hlynkacg]

There is a flip side to that argument...

A major contributor to our current state of aviation safety is the fact that we fly a lot. The aviation industry has millions upon millions of flight hours worth of data and institutional experience to draw upon. Space flight does not, and it will not so long as the barriers to entry remain as high as they are.

Edit
In response to N_Molson, I could just as easily argue that NASA's rather abysmal safety record is exactly why space exploration should be left in the hands of private industry and eccentric billionaires rather than government bureaucrats.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Regardless of what the actual cause turns out to be... The USAF is no doubt going to be asking some rather pointed questions about why the rocket blew up on THEIR property. ANd I suspect that they will not take kindly to SpaceX's usual answers.

 

[Hlynkacg]

What answers would those be?

 

[Urwumpe]

Regardless of what the actual cause turns out to be... The USAF is no doubt going to be asking some rather pointed questions about why the rocket blew up on THEIR property. ANd I suspect that they will not take kindly to SpaceX's usual answers.

I doubt it. Its a SpaceX thing on SpaceX property (though rented from the USAF). There will be some investigations, but more about commercial spaceflight services than USAF. If SpaceX would demolish their pad every launch, its their right to do so.

Much worse is the economic impact on SpaceX. The launch pad seems to be a complete loss as well, it will take months to years, until the next launch can take place and LC-39 is not yet ready for launches. The test was not insured.

Remember Orbital Sciences still has to repair its pad and NASA pays it from the ISS budget. Maybe NASA will do the same for SpaceX.

 

[n122vu]

Here's a video with audio synchronized / track shifted to counter the speed of sound and distance to camera:
SpaceX - Static Fire Anomaly - Edit with audio timing changed - YouTube
It's now more jumpscare while watching it.

Anyone notice the strange bird-like object at about 45 sec in this video? It appears to be a bird, but then seems to accelerate off to the left of the screen at a high rate, without flapping its wings.

No tinfoil hat here, just an interesting observation. Draw your own conclusions, I just think it's odd.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I doubt it. Its a SpaceX thing on SpaceX property (though rented from the USAF). There will be some investigations, but more about commercial spaceflight services than USAF. If SpaceX would demolish their pad every launch, its their right to do so.

Yet the USAF still holds title to the property, correct? So they will be involved in this investigation, because it happened on their land.

 

[boogabooga]

Anyone notice the strange bird-like object at about 45 sec in this video? It appears to be a bird, but then seems to accelerate off to the left of the screen at a high rate, without flapping its wings.

Looks like a hawk to me. That's what hawks do.

 

[N_Molson]

Much worse is the economic impact on SpaceX.

I feel that private company or not, taxpayers are going to pay the rebuild of that launchpad anyways... Musk is going to be just fine, don't worry for those people.

About sabotage, the initial flash comes very precisely from the the LOX tank inlet. That's probably the most dangerous place during fueling operations. You don't have to put a bomb there. Though it didn't happened everyday during non-private launches, a lot of things can go wrong without bombs.

 

[Andy44]

Yet the USAF still holds title to the property, correct? So they will be involved in this investigation, because it happened on their land.

The USAF is well aware of the hazards associated with rockets. This is just another rocket accident in a long history of rocket accidents to them. No need to overdramatize it.

 

[DaveS]

This from spacex.com:

September 2, 6:45pm EDT

SpaceX has begun the careful and deliberate process of understanding the causes and fixes for yesterday's incident. We will continue to provide regular updates on our progress and findings, to the fullest extent we can share publicly.

We deeply regret the loss of AMOS-6, and safely and reliably returning to flight to meet the demands of our customers is our chief priority. SpaceX's business is robust, with approximately 70 missions on our manifest worth over $10 billion. In the aftermath of yesterday's events, we are grateful for the continued support and unwavering confidence that our commercial customers as well as NASA and the United States Air Force have placed in us.

Overview of the incident:

- Yesterday, at SpaceX's Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, an anomaly took place about eight minutes in advance of a scheduled test firing of a Falcon 9 rocket.

- The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle.

- This was part of a standard pre-launch static fire to demonstrate the health of the vehicle prior to an eventual launch.

- At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test. At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad. There were no injuries.

To identify the root cause of the anomaly, SpaceX began its investigation immediately after the loss, consistent with accident investigation plans prepared for such a contingency. These plans include the preservation of all possible evidence and the assembly of an Accident Investigation Team, with oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration and participation by NASA, the United States Air Force and other industry experts. We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds.

As for the Launch Pad itself, our teams are now investigating the status of SLC-40. The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined. We will share more data as it becomes available. SpaceX currently operates 3 launch pads – 2 in Florida and 1 in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. SpaceX's other launch sites were not affected by yesterday's events. Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base is in the final stages of an operational upgrade and Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center remains on schedule to be operational in November. Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. We are confident the two launch pads can support our return to flight and fulfill our upcoming manifest needs.

Again, our number one priority is to safely and reliably return to flight for our customers, as well as to take all the necessary steps to ensure the highest possible levels of safety for future crewed missions with the Falcon 9. We will carefully and thoroughly investigate and address this issue.

 

[Keatah]

Overview of the incident:

[..]
- The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle and its cargo.
[..]

They conveniently forgot to mention that.

 

[Andy44]

Overview of the incident:

[..]
- The anomaly on the pad resulted in the loss of the vehicle and its cargo.
[..]

They conveniently forgot to mention that.

Right here:

We deeply regret the loss of AMOS-6

 

[Hlynkacg]

They conveniently forgot to mention that.

No they didn't

It was announced less than 2 hours after the incident occurred, as noted in the 9th post of this very thread.

 

[Keatah]

..of course..

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Regardless of what the actual cause turns out to be... The USAF is no doubt going to be asking some rather pointed questions about why the rocket blew up on THEIR property. ANd I suspect that they will not take kindly to SpaceX's usual answers.

Yeah, because the USAF has absolutely no sympathy for rockets blowing up on their property. Absolutely none.

 

[RisingFury]

Someone superimposed Dragon abort test onto the Falcon 9 failure. So, would they make it?

[ame="https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer/status/771877970411520001"]Phil Plait on Twitter: "Wow. RT @Sci_Phile: Crew Dragon test abort speed compared to Falcon 9 fireball https://t.co/mmWwxN8Ysu @reddit https://t.co/Tt9Dx5Jpyp"[/ame]

 

[Thorsten]

There is a flip side to that argument...

A major contributor to our current state of aviation safety is the fact that we fly a lot. The aviation industry has millions upon millions of flight hours worth of data and institutional experience to draw upon. Space flight does not, and it will not so long as the barriers to entry remain as high as they are.

Edit
In response to N_Molson, I could just as easily argue that NASA's rather abysmal safety record is exactly why space exploration should be left in the hands of private industry and eccentric billionaires rather than government bureaucrats.

I think you misunderstood the argument - it is one of incentive structure.

Let's take a different example - science.

It's good scientific behavior to share results and tools, say simulation codes, to acknowledge your own errors whenever you find them, to not let others repeat them.

Now put scientists in a competitive environment for funding. A group now gets a competitive edge by not sharing their code, by not admitting errors and by letting other groups go down the wrong path. The incentive structure has changed - if you want to be successful in this system, you tend to be by discarding good scientific behavior.

I argue it's similar for spacecraft. What's the incentive structure?

I think until enough spaceflight experience has accumulated to pass reasonable regulations for an industry, it ought to be seen as a money sink, not as a money source - you can dump money into it, not get it out.

I'm not saying that this automatically generates the right incentives - clearly safety was not paramount in the early Russian space program either, the incentive was to get a success, no matter what.

I don't mind a billionaire seeing it as a 'plaything' and dumping his money into his idea - that's a similar incentive structure to a nation pooling resources to get someone to the moon. In both cases the idea is to make a goal real even if it turns out to be expensive. But that's not what a corporate incentive structure is - stakeholders typically want to cut costs as much as they can get away with that, not dump money in to make the best idea work. The 'short term cost cutting' incentive structure of corporates has a long track record of lowering safety standards as much as possible (Why get textile workers killed in fires in Bangladesh? Not because people don't know how to build halls with fire exits - but because doing so and installing sprinklers would ultimately make T-shirts 5% more expensive, which means anyone doing it would get out of business because the competition can offer these 5% discount).

So given the very fact that we do not fly a lot into space and lack experience as in aviation, the incentive structure at this point ought to be to dump money into finding the best way to accomplish it safely.

And later, when we have experience, regulations can be passed and then there can be a market like for airlines.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Yeah, because the USAF has absolutely no sympathy for rockets blowing up on their property. Absolutely none.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsVzpE7ltb8

I'm not saying they'd have no sympathy. I'm saying they're going to want to know, in exacting detail, why the booster went up like that.