9 ms·
Air Force Strike Takes Out SpaceX's Floating GovSat Booster
- protomyth 9y agoSo, SpaceX figured that the booster was actually a hazard and asked the Air Force to fix the problem. The Air Force is referring all questions to SpaceX and we really don't know what happened since there is no video or photographs of the strike.
- Kelbit 9y agoMore likely it was a floating ITAR export risk than a major threat to marine safety.
- IntronExon 9y agoLarge pressure vessels are essentially bombs; in this case a very large bomb.
- michaelt 9y agoHasn't most of the energy been spent at that point? I was under the impression space launches were miserly with fuel for weight reasons?
- IntronExon 9y agoYou’re right, but it’s still under incredible pressure. You’re talking about liquified cryogenic fuels, so the remainder has greatly expanded over time. Even a small amount of remaining fuel must be vented to render it safe. Volumetric expansion is a bitch!
- Kubuxu 9y agoFuel in SpaceX rockets (and other working gases) are cryo-cooled, after tanks warm up, even small amount of liquid gas stored in a tank evaporates into a lot of gas which can create very high pressure.
- akira2501 9y agoCryogenic oxygen has something like a 700:1 expansion ratio when it is warmed into a gas.
- vvanders 9y agoTake a look at all of the failed landings[1], even after they land on the barge they still go boom(or RUD if you prefer that term) when the structural integrity is lost. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ
- JackFr 9y ago> More likely it was a floating ITAR export risk Indeed. Literally an ICBM.
- IntronExon 9y agoThey would have understood that it was a hazard from the get-go, but presumably believed that they could render it safe, destroy it themselves, or tow it back intact. It would seem that they realized how unfeasible civilian EOD would be, and that necessarily ruled out any option save destruction.
- biesnecker 9y agoAccording to Musk, "This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived." I suspect they never really thought about what it would take to tow it back, and when they did realized they didn't really want to.
- IntronExon 9y agoThat sounds very likely, and having the USAF do the job right, while a bit of negative PR, is better than losing lives. Edit: Good points about PR, I missed that.
- rocky1138 9y agoI don't think it's negative PR at all. Blowing stuff up is cool as long as nobody gets hurt. Also, people understand that bits and pieces of rockets need recovering or destroying. There's a lot of precedence for this.
- navaati 9y agoAnd, all in all, which negative PR ? This is more positive in the "wicked cool" sense, isn't it ?
- miketery 9y agoWait, are you saying the core wasn't intending to land on the barge? Why have the barge out there to begin with then?
- plopz 9y ago
- dfischer 9y agoInteresting decision. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the decision happened. "We should probably ask the Air-force to destroy this. It may blow up on itself..."
- jonwachob91 9y agoExplosives are routinely destroyed in controlled explosions, controlled detonations allow for us to choose when and where the ordnance detonates, minimizing collateral damage. Towing it is too dangerous when you don't know when it will detonate (imagine it detonating in port, even at sea it could kill the ship crew), and allowing it to just sit at sea leaves it at risk for detonating in the vicinity of an unsuspecting vessel.
- gaius 9y agoLink is just a blank page?
- Ajedi32 9y agoHere's Google's cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g0mFwVo3H-wJ:www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g0mFwV...
- theBobBob 9y agoHow does one go about requesting an airstrike from the USAF? Is there a form that you need to fill out? Asking for a friend. Seriously though, it would be interesting to know how that conversation went.
- scrumper 9y agoPerhaps via FAA which regulates and approves SpaceX activities?
- drewpc 9y agoThere actually is a form. It's called a Joint Tactical Airstrike Request (JTAR). That request is put through the appropriate approval process and then added to the Air Tasking Order (ATO) cycle that allocates aircraft and munitions to conduct the strike. After the aircraft and munitions have been allocated, then the detailed planning occurs to ensure the aircraft are in the appropriate location to conduct the strike at the time requested. An example of the form is shown in the below link, which is an excerpt from Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-23 "Offensive Air Support": https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23/appc.pdf https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/...
- jonwachob91 9y ago>>> All U.S. Armed Forces use the JTAR Request Form (DD Form 1972) to request CAS SpaceX isn't a branch of the US Armed Forces, and neither is NASA...
- ChuckMcM 9y agoBut both the Coast Guard and the Navy are, and either may have been the 'sponsor' of removing something, with the owner's permission, that was a hazard to navigation or sea operations. And rather than SpaceX asking, I wonder if the conversation was more, "Are you going to go get that or not? Because if not we're going to sink it." And when the drone recovery vessel returned to port with engine troubles (cited in the article) SpaceX would have reported "Our equipment is down so we're not going to get it right away." And the decision may have been taken out of their hands.
- vermontdevil 9y agoI would think the port authority would have told SpaceX not to tow it back to the port for safety reasons. So where else could SpaceX take it to if a tow was successful. This would be logical to do if it's true.
- simonh 9y agoSpaceX rockets are switched to autonomous control before take off right? They launch and fly themselves, including landing. Are we sure we want to initiate hostilities against beings with the potential to rain death on our cities? I for one welcome our new Falcon 9 overlords!
- bob_theslob646 9y agoWebsite is down.
- synctext 9y agobroken link. This works for me: https://t.co/zY26IgXKMA https://t.co/zY26IgXKMA
- xPhobophobia 9y agoBroken too :(
- sailfast 9y agoIt would make a lot of sense to turn over the booster as a potential live targeting run, but I'd think naval aviation assets would be better suited, and it would be better training. Most any reserve unit out of Jacksonville or Pensacola could handle it no sweat, I'd think. Free target drone, good will with a primary customer, and a risk avoided? What's not to like?
- toomanybeersies 9y agoMy wild guess is that SpaceX has a lot more contact with the USAF (launching from Vandenberg AFB etc), so it would've been faster and easier to just the USAF.
- dtparr 9y agoNot just Vandy, the Eastern Range is run by the AF's 45th Space Wing, and SLC-40 is on Cape Canveral Air Force Station, an AFB.
- ericcumbee 9y agoJax and Pensacola are both Navy... more likely it would be Tyndall AFB, or Homestead
- JshWright 9y agoThat was the parent comment's point. It might have more sense from an operational perspective to have naval aviation assets take it out.
- ISL 9y agoOne of those days when it must be darn fun to be a combat aircraft pilot, ground crew, and wing commander. Flying, check. Expending ordnance, check. Highly explosive target, check. Not killing anyone, check.
- aidenn0 9y agoNobody shooting back at you, check.
- petecooper 9y agoLink not working for me, archive.org mirror: http://web.archive.org/web/20180208154713/http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/ http://web.archive.org/web/20180208154713/http://www.america...
- pensivemood 9y agoWho paid for this? Just wondering...
- jfoutz 9y agoI would guess taxpayers. But keep in mind the military has a huge budget for training exercises. I would guess they just cancel one of those and go blow this up instead. I doubt it's costing us anything 'extra'. Also I'm not super enthusiastic about corporations being able to purchase airstrikes, or really any kind of military operation. If someone's complaint is the military budget is too big, i'd agree. But this specific thing seems like it's in everyone's best interest, and a good use for resources we'd spend anyway.
- drivingmenuts 9y agoI dunno. The military could really clean up if they created Airstrikes As A Service. Select reason: [X] Loose equipment [ ] Tuesday [ ] There's oil there [ ] Won't sell resources [Click here to Accomplish Mission][Cancel]
- knieveltech 9y agoI kinda feel like this is already a thing.
- walshemj 9y agoIts removing a hazard to navigation
- dzhiurgis 9y agoThe booster was probably already paid for (at $62M per launch I expect one cost at least $100M), specifically not to be recovered. While it was possible to recover 100 million dollars from the ocean, gov decided to spend another million to destroy it :|
- valuearb 9y ago
- ceejayoz 9y agoIf they did, I really hope there's video.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoIt is a good example of how hard these landings can be, they didn't have the barge out for GovSat because they didn't think they could land it, and they did for Falcon Heavy because they thought they could. I'm not sure what the take away should be from an operations standpoint, always leave equipment on site? The other question is that given the number of these that have landed or nearly landed they have always come down within a few 100 yards of their intended landing point. When does range safety open up the rules about stationing personnel on ships down range?
- Hextinium 9y agoI don't know about the restrictions in specifics but I would say that even if they come down in the same area the restrictions are not for protection of people from the rocket but the rocket from people. Aircraft have been taken down by small arms fire and a boat can cover distance rather quickly
- Armisael16 9y agoThey absolutely could've landed the booster. They chose not to because it was an old model (block 3, iirc) and they wanted data on a more-efficient landing technique.
- AdmiralAsshat 9y agoThat's quite the antiquated error page: https://imgur.com/a/au5hT https://imgur.com/a/au5hT Feel like I haven't seen one of those since IE6 days.
- swozey 9y agoGood ole IIS6 I'm guessing
- pasbesoin 9y agoOne of my first thoughts about this was, to prevent recovery by another entity. I imagine it would make for interesting and informative study.
- cyberferret 9y agoI wonder if the Air Force will invoice Mr. Musk for fuel & munitions expended? (vis a vie [0]) Or does this come out of their training budget? [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16293421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16293421
- consumer451 9y agoThis has been denied by SpaceX "SpaceX says no, the Air Force did not destroy one of its rockets in the Atlantic Ocean" “While the Falcon 9 first stage for the GovSat-1 mission was expendable, it initially survived splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean. However, the stage broke apart before we could complete an unplanned recovery effort for this mission. Reports that the Air Force was involved in SpaceX's recovery efforts are categorically false,” wrote SpaceX communications director John Taylor in an email. The statement does not specify how the rocket broke apart or whether it was intentional. But AmericaSpace, citing anonymous sources, now claims, “the Air Force was, instead, initially considered to take care of the job, but a commercial company of demolition specialists was eventually hired to safely destroy the hazardous booster.” http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/technology/article199527789.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/technology/article199527...