SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
p1stonhead said:
The speed of sound is slooooooooow 
Someone has synced up the audio to the video to remove the delay:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX1vdPjCh3Q
The satellite's own fuel makes a nice bang when it hits the deck.
Beati Dogu said:
Here's a better view of the incident. You can see it's the upper stage that explodes first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ
Interesting. Select 0.25 x speed in the YouTube playback control - what's the thing that goes shooting across the top of the screen at 1:11.75 (ish)?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ
p1stonhead said:
Beati Dogu said:
MartG said:
Zoobeef said:
I didn't realise they test fired it with the payload attatched!
Pretty sure that in the past the payload has generally been attached after the test fire On the previous pre-launch test, for the JSAT Corporation, it was done without the payload.
In some extra bad news for the satellite's owner, Spacecom, it seems that their satellite isn't covered by insurance. They went for $285 million of marine, not space insurance, which doesn't commence until the rocket is launched.
Blowing up on the pad during a test doesn't count.
Oooopsy
https://twitter.com/pbdes
Beati Dogu said:
p1stonhead said:
Beati Dogu said:
MartG said:
Zoobeef said:
I didn't realise they test fired it with the payload attatched!
Pretty sure that in the past the payload has generally been attached after the test fire On the previous pre-launch test, for the JSAT Corporation, it was done without the payload.
In some extra bad news for the satellite's owner, Spacecom, it seems that their satellite isn't covered by insurance. They went for $285 million of marine, not space insurance, which doesn't commence until the rocket is launched.
Blowing up on the pad during a test doesn't count.
Oooopsy
https://twitter.com/pbdes
Could have just been a simple spark perhaps rather than an electronic problem?
Leithen said:
Static electricity spark?
Bit odd considering it's all metal but a definite possibility considering the volume of fluids and gas moving around Static is easy to blame but you go and try to prove it. All you can try and do is guard against it but humans do get sloppy, not saying that's what happenned here.This rocket was test fired in Texas last week, so it wasn't its first rodeo.
The satellite itself had hydrazine propellant and that thing went off like a bomb when it hit the deck. Rocket debris is scattered pretty far and wide as you'd expect; Almost as far as neighbouring pad 39A apparently. The blast wave shook buildings and blew out a few windows. What state the pad is in is anyone's guess at the moment.
As bad as it was, it didn't look as destructive as some other pad explosions I've seen footage of. The one below was an Antares rocket that fell back shortly after launch and was remote detonated above the pad rather spectacularly. This was on 28th Oct 2014 and it did around $13 million of damage to the pad facilities at the Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia. For various reasons it took them nearly a year to put it back in operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U92w8bbLhQU
The last time SpaceX lost a rocket it took 6 months to get up and running again. So, repair delays to the pad will likely only really be an issue if the rocket's problem can be quickly identified and they're cleared to fly again
Alternative launch sites are limited at the moment:
Launch Pad 39A is currently being set up for the Falcon Heavy & I'm not sure if it can cater for Falcon 9s as well.
The new facility at Boca Chica in South Texas is still under construction and not expected to be finished until some time next year. The first launch was intended to be in 2018.
Vandenberg in California is unsuitable for geosynchronous launches, which make up most of Spacex's manifest. As it happens, the next launch after this one was scheduled to launch from Vandenberg in about 3 weeks. The cargo was 10 Iridium communications satellites.
The satellite itself had hydrazine propellant and that thing went off like a bomb when it hit the deck. Rocket debris is scattered pretty far and wide as you'd expect; Almost as far as neighbouring pad 39A apparently. The blast wave shook buildings and blew out a few windows. What state the pad is in is anyone's guess at the moment.
As bad as it was, it didn't look as destructive as some other pad explosions I've seen footage of. The one below was an Antares rocket that fell back shortly after launch and was remote detonated above the pad rather spectacularly. This was on 28th Oct 2014 and it did around $13 million of damage to the pad facilities at the Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia. For various reasons it took them nearly a year to put it back in operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U92w8bbLhQU
The last time SpaceX lost a rocket it took 6 months to get up and running again. So, repair delays to the pad will likely only really be an issue if the rocket's problem can be quickly identified and they're cleared to fly again
Alternative launch sites are limited at the moment:
Launch Pad 39A is currently being set up for the Falcon Heavy & I'm not sure if it can cater for Falcon 9s as well.
The new facility at Boca Chica in South Texas is still under construction and not expected to be finished until some time next year. The first launch was intended to be in 2018.
Vandenberg in California is unsuitable for geosynchronous launches, which make up most of Spacex's manifest. As it happens, the next launch after this one was scheduled to launch from Vandenberg in about 3 weeks. The cargo was 10 Iridium communications satellites.
Boca Chica is probably in land cleanup and dirt work yet, they might have parts for the strongback manufactured they can shift over to help, it'll be put on the back burner if needed.
F9H strongback for 39A can launch F9's so that would be an option assuming the rocket is certified for flight before the SLC-40 pad is fixed..
F9H strongback for 39A can launch F9's so that would be an option assuming the rocket is certified for flight before the SLC-40 pad is fixed..
Sylvaforever said:
Leithen said:
Static electricity spark?
Bit odd considering it's all metal but a definite possibility considering the volume of fluids and gas moving around Static is easy to blame but you go and try to prove it. All you can try and do is guard against it but humans do get sloppy, not saying that's what happenned here.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff