6 ms·

Updates... Elon tweeted: "Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More

by Arjuna 10y ago

Updates... Elon tweeted: "Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon." [1] SpaceX tweeted: "At approximately 9:07 am ET, during a standard pre-launch static fire test for the AMOS-6 mission, there was an anomaly at SpaceX's Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 resulting in loss of the vehicle. The anomaly originated around the upper stage oxygen tank and occurred during propellant loading of the vehicle. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries. We are continuing to review the data to identify the root cause. Additional updates will be provided as they become available." [2] [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336 [2] https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504

rbanffy 10y ago
Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.
- krastanov 10y ago
  The first stage for this launch was brand new. They have not launched a reused stage yet (they just announced a contract with SES about such a launch).
- GarrisonPrime 10y ago
  As unforgiving as brain surgery. :)
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    On brain surgery, the worst case scenario is one dead person. Rockets tend to inflate the body count prodigiously.
    - tmptmp 10y ago
      On a slightly light-but-not-so-light note: A brain surgery can result in worse still: like, surgeon performs a surgery, makes some mistake, the patient is alive and gets up and goes home, but due to the surgical damage caused becomes a serial killer. So, strictly speaking a brain surgery can also result in a body count that is greater than 1. Respectfully submitted.
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        That's a good one. Thanks. I wonder if there is a surgeon who's that skilled.
        carbocation 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston#Liston.27s_most_famous_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston#Liston.27s_most_... See "Liston's most famous case"...
        bostonpete 10y ago
        Good grief -- cases 4, 2, and 1 all read like something out of Itchy and Scratchy! In fact, I know something like #4 was a story line in South Park...
      - tominous 10y ago
        On a similar note, there's also the case of the leg amputation that killed 3 people: the patient (gangrene), the assistant (gangrene from fingers accidentally being amputated) and a spectator (from "fright"). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston
    - ajarmst 10y ago
      Be careful with that assumption: the standards for reliability and safety for crew-rated vs. uncrewed vehicles are very different. I've heard figures at around 10% hull-loss accident rates as expected for uncrewed, vs. an order of magnitude less for crew-rated. There's a very good reason that the pad had been cleared of personnel, and no one was injured in this launch. While spectacular, this explosion didn't inflate any body counts, because the risks were understood and well-managed. Spaceflight is hard, and people die, but we need to make sure we are comparing the same categories when we assess risk, reliability and cost. Trimming that 10% hull-loss rate down to 1% can be done, but probably not at anything like a cost that would make it commercially viable. The only other way to ensure reliability is the way commercial aviation did it: break enough vehicles (and lose enough people) that you understand the failure modes so well you can very nearly eliminate them.
  - filereaper 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
  - dansze 10y ago
    Except in brain surgery the surgeon generally still gets paid.
  - RIMR 10y ago
    Things like brain science and rocket surgery are hard...
- nixos 10y ago
  Unfortunately, it's 2 for 29. But if you look at the FT version, it's 1 for 8. 1. What kind of insurance will be needed on a billion dollar NSA satellite? $100 million? $125 million? It's not so cheep anymore, and considering delays etc. It's not such a great deal anymore. 2. They probably should have a "stable" platform and a "beta" platform, with a discount offered for beta. Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets.
  - vel0city 10y ago
    Well, the moving fast part is pretty important in rockets. Breaking things on the other hand...
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Thats's what the explosive bolts are for.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      Since until now rockets have been of the throwaway kind, they are all broken by the time we finish using them.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    Well, the whole origin of rocketry was about moving fast and breaking things. Less glib, I'm not so sure. In shed development, you spend a lot to make perfect things. Aston Martin or Rolls Royce are great examples of this. In factory development, you spend a lot to make perfect systems. I'd hold up Toyota or Honda as good examples. I'm not an expert in SpaceX technology, but i thought their big supposed advantage was tons of automation. With bespoke development, it's tough to bring down the failure rate. you just keep testing and verifying more. With a defined system, you fix the system to avoid those errors. There's obviously a spectrum, and SpaceX isn't that far out on the automation scale, but i do think that's the intention. If they can survive long enough to reap those benefits, their launches will be cheaper and more reliable. In the mean time, lots of cheap, risky, attempts are probably better for debugging than thinking real hard and building the perfect thing.
visarga 10y ago
> all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries But it still must burn a hole in Musk's pocket.

by Arjuna 10y ago

rbanffy 10y ago

Upper stage, so, unrelated to the reused first stage. Rocketry is hard... And very unforgiving.

krastanov 10y ago
The first stage for this launch was brand new. They have not launched a reused stage yet (they just announced a contract with SES about such a launch).
GarrisonPrime 10y ago
As unforgiving as brain surgery. :)
- rbanffy 10y ago
  On brain surgery, the worst case scenario is one dead person. Rockets tend to inflate the body count prodigiously.
  - tmptmp 10y ago
    On a slightly light-but-not-so-light note: A brain surgery can result in worse still: like, surgeon performs a surgery, makes some mistake, the patient is alive and gets up and goes home, but due to the surgical damage caused becomes a serial killer. So, strictly speaking a brain surgery can also result in a body count that is greater than 1. Respectfully submitted.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      That's a good one. Thanks. I wonder if there is a surgeon who's that skilled.
      - carbocation 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston#Liston.27s_most_famous_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston#Liston.27s_most_... See "Liston's most famous case"...
        bostonpete 10y ago
        Good grief -- cases 4, 2, and 1 all read like something out of Itchy and Scratchy! In fact, I know something like #4 was a story line in South Park...
    - tominous 10y ago
      On a similar note, there's also the case of the leg amputation that killed 3 people: the patient (gangrene), the assistant (gangrene from fingers accidentally being amputated) and a spectator (from "fright"). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston
  - ajarmst 10y ago
    Be careful with that assumption: the standards for reliability and safety for crew-rated vs. uncrewed vehicles are very different. I've heard figures at around 10% hull-loss accident rates as expected for uncrewed, vs. an order of magnitude less for crew-rated. There's a very good reason that the pad had been cleared of personnel, and no one was injured in this launch. While spectacular, this explosion didn't inflate any body counts, because the risks were understood and well-managed. Spaceflight is hard, and people die, but we need to make sure we are comparing the same categories when we assess risk, reliability and cost. Trimming that 10% hull-loss rate down to 1% can be done, but probably not at anything like a cost that would make it commercially viable. The only other way to ensure reliability is the way commercial aviation did it: break enough vehicles (and lose enough people) that you understand the failure modes so well you can very nearly eliminate them.
- filereaper 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
- dansze 10y ago
  Except in brain surgery the surgeon generally still gets paid.
- RIMR 10y ago
  Things like brain science and rocket surgery are hard...
nixos 10y ago
Unfortunately, it's 2 for 29. But if you look at the FT version, it's 1 for 8. 1. What kind of insurance will be needed on a billion dollar NSA satellite? $100 million? $125 million? It's not so cheep anymore, and considering delays etc. It's not such a great deal anymore. 2. They probably should have a "stable" platform and a "beta" platform, with a discount offered for beta. Unfortunately, the "move fast and break things" attitude doesn't work with rockets.
- vel0city 10y ago
  Well, the moving fast part is pretty important in rockets. Breaking things on the other hand...
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Thats's what the explosive bolts are for.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    Since until now rockets have been of the throwaway kind, they are all broken by the time we finish using them.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  Well, the whole origin of rocketry was about moving fast and breaking things. Less glib, I'm not so sure. In shed development, you spend a lot to make perfect things. Aston Martin or Rolls Royce are great examples of this. In factory development, you spend a lot to make perfect systems. I'd hold up Toyota or Honda as good examples. I'm not an expert in SpaceX technology, but i thought their big supposed advantage was tons of automation. With bespoke development, it's tough to bring down the failure rate. you just keep testing and verifying more. With a defined system, you fix the system to avoid those errors. There's obviously a spectrum, and SpaceX isn't that far out on the automation scale, but i do think that's the intention. If they can survive long enough to reap those benefits, their launches will be cheaper and more reliable. In the mean time, lots of cheap, risky, attempts are probably better for debugging than thinking real hard and building the perfect thing.

visarga 10y ago

> all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries But it still must burn a hole in Musk's pocket.