7 ms·
SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- lafar6502 12y agoI almost expect a statement that this was a successful test of the self-destruct mechanism. ... Oops, looks like they really did it.
- Chronic29 12y agoAnd their stock price will drop as a result.
- AVTizzle 12y ago>>The unmanned rocket was destroyed when its self-destruct system was triggered after an unexplained malfunction. It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct?
- mariuolo 12y ago> It's interesting these rockets are equipped with self-destruct systems. What scenario would warrant a rocket purposely self-destruct? When they're out of control and could hit someone.
- gus_massa 12y agoFrom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Vehicle_breakup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disast... > The more robustly constructed crew cabin also survived the breakup of the launch vehicle; while the SRBs were subsequently destroyed remotely by the Range Safety Officer, the detached cabin continued along a ballistic trajectory and was observed exiting the cloud of gases at T+75.237. In the images, you can see the solid rocket booster (SRB) following a random path after the explosion.
- tim333 12y agoBecause if they lose guidance but the motor keeps running the thing could hit a populated area.
- electromagnetic 12y agoHonestly, play KSP. Once you flip a rocket, its nearly unrecoverable and it just accelerates into the ground.
- sjtrny 12y agoI wonder if the reusable rockets from SpaceX could recover from a flipped position during re-entry?
- exDM69 12y agoNo, they can't. Once you're supersonic, the aerodynamic stress will tear a rocket into shreds if there's even a few degrees of angle of attack.
- Gravityloss 12y agoBut if you're high enough, the forces are not very high, so there's probably a Q limit, (that is, proportional to density * speed^2).
- lutorm 12y agoYeah, the landing attempts obviously flip before entry, while they're out of the atmosphere.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- washedup 12y agoNot only that, but it accelerates at a higher rate because the thrust vector and gravitational pull are pointing in the same direction.
- serf 12y agoprobably isn't such a difficult system to add when you're adding that capability to a massive tank of pressurized fuel. One can imagine all sorts of instances where it'd be preferable to litter the area with debris rather than missle-ing the rocket into a densely populated area.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 12y agoNot only do these rockets have them, but manned craft like the Space Shuttle are destructible from the ground (one hopes the encryption keys are well-protected). You don't want an out-of-control bomb heading towards Orlando. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US_manned_spaceflight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US...
- shabble 12y agoAny number of reasons. Test ranges are usually in remote areas to avoid any immediate danger, but if the guidance or control systems malfunction, it can go somewhere unfortunate rather quickly. I can't seem to find any good numbers, but it seems like the F9 rocket should have somewhere around 200 tons of fuel & oxidiser (kerosene & liquid oxygen). That, in addition to the few other hundred tons of rocket landing anywhere public is probably not going to end well. IIRC, most rockets over a certain size are required to have some form of 'range safety package'[1] which may include a self-destruct capability for exactly these reasons. In the course of the Challenger shuttle accident, the Solid Rocket Boosters were remotely destroyed by the range safety officer[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety [2] http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch9.htm http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch9.htm
- wlesieutre 12y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 comes to mind as an example of when you'd want a failed launch to self-destruct. It went off course and landed in a village.
- jpatokal 12y agoAvoidance of cases like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708
- pingburg 12y agoA video link to the actual launch failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfMbGPf4r9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfMbGPf4r9g
- Mvandenbergh 12y agoInterestingly the Russian space program never used range safety systems, but then they had an empty part of Kazakhstan to launch in.
- mikeash 12y agoGreat video of an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo Then imagine if it was headed for somebody's house (or a city). You'd want to blow it up in the air before it reached the ground.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoI absolutely love that video - it's pretty much Kerbal Space Program in real life!
- mikeash 12y agoI agree. I'm glad nobody got hurt, so I can enjoy it without guilt. My favorite part is at the end when the sound from the explosion arrives. Everything is calm, then suddenly KABOOM! Really drives home how far away the thing is (because it takes so long for the sound to arrive) and how big it is (because it's still a massive KABOOM even at that distance).
- Shivetya 12y agothe KABOOM is impressive, shock wave at that distance is more telling
- kryptiskt 12y agoOn the other hand, they had a system on their unmanned spacecraft that blew them up with TNT if there was a chance of them coming down outside the USSR. It was regularly triggered during their heyday in the 60's. There was a lot of gnashing of teeth from the engineers when that prevented them from collecting data on failed missions. I read about it in Boris Chertok's memoirs (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/feb/HQ_12-054_Chertok_Rockets_and_People.html http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/feb/HQ_12-054_Chertok_R...), which are huge and sprawling, he was there from the beginning, from the mission to get V2 stuff from Germany after WW2, through the Soviet Union's fall.
- negamax 12y agoA rocket going far off the designated trajectory. It would be a catastrophe for a space launch rocket to fall into a civilian area.
- rasz_pl 12y agoAlien on board comes to mind.
- zerr 12y agoShit happens. Especially when you have a requirement for US citizenship for your employees...
- adventured 12y agoBecause nearly exclusively using US citizens has turned out so terribly for NASA the last 50 years.
- RD-180 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180#History
- lutorm 12y agoThat is factually incorrect. You do not have to be a US citizen to work there. You do, however, with few exceptions, have to be a US permanent resident. And those rules are the US government's, not SpaceX's.
- spacefight 12y agoBetter video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qv2VEX9iyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qv2VEX9iyI SpaceX Statement: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/502976401729798144/photo/1 https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/502976401729798144/photo/1
- wfunction 12y agoIs there any actual HD video? I find it really surprising I can't find any...
- 51Cards 12y agoSpaceX will be in possession of some... Probably just not ready to release it yet.
- richardwigley 12y agoBBC Updated the video to the 'better video' in @spacefight's link (the original was taken from a more distant vantage point). SpaceX Statement in full (copied from facebook page): Earlier today, in McGregor, Texas, SpaceX conducted a test flight of a three engine version of the F9R test vehicle (successor to Grasshopper). During the flight, an anomaly was detected in the vehicle and the flight termination system automatically terminated the mission. Throughout the test and subsequent flight termination, the vehicle remained in the designated flight area. There were no injuries or near injuries. An FAA representative was present at all times. With research and development projects, detecting vehicle anomalies during the testing is the purpose of the program. Today’s test was particularly complex, pushing the limits of the vehicle further than any previous test. As is our practice, the company will be reviewing the flight record details to learn more about the performance of the vehicle prior to our next test. SpaceX will provide another update when the flight data has been fully analyzed.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- kome 12y agoThe Falcon 9 explodes again? ...While the European Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads, but much more versatile of the Falcon 9[1]) is 3 success out of 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket The political will to create a private market for rockets is strong in US. So strong that a lot of American public money has been used to save SpaxeX from failure, multiple time. But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded. Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX, even if they have issues with their job... [1] Vega launch satellites to Sun synchronous orbit, satellites here are earth observers and usually a few tonnes at most, the majority much smaller. Launches here are very infrequent, so matching spacecraft is difficult. Falcon 9 isn't currently equipped with an appropriate fairing to do dual launch like this without satellites built to stack (which most aren't). Falcon 9 might haul 9 tonnes, but you might not be able to find 9 tonnes of spacecraft to that orbit. Vega payloads are also kept in a clean environment and fairing, something SpaceX hasn't demonstrated. Horizontal integration can be an issue. ITAR issues... The list goes on.
- oostevo 12y agoThe point of it is that the US government finds it politically inexpedient and costly having to pay Russia or United Launch Alliance[1] (who sometimes use Russian engines anyway[2]) in order to get people and equipment to space. SpaceX is an obvious path away from the Russia Space Agency / ULA. For things that the government wants to launch from the US, having a second US-based option for space launch will get the US out of the bilateral monopoly that exists with ULA. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance [2] http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1408/20rd180delivery/ http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1408/20rd180delivery/
- zizee 12y agoAre you trolling? Most rocket platforms have had a rate of failure. The ESA's Ariane 5 (predecessor of the VEGA rocket) had launch failures as well. SpaceX has had an amazing run in comparison to most other platforms. >But concretely, what's the point of it? NASA worked fairly well if well founded... NASA doesn't build rockets. They have always outsourced the job to aerospace companies. > Now for political reasons they prefer to give money to SpaceX I think you'll find that political reasons are keeping NASA from buying more launches from SpaceX. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/25/spacex-sues-to-block-contract-award/8157667/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/25/spacex-... EDIT - changed my wording from "very checkered history" to "had launch failures as well" - in my rush to respond, I went from memory and checking the facts found my words too strong.
- smoyer 12y agoI hope there's a way to disable the self-destruct mechanism when they start doing manned flights!
- ceejayoz 12y agoVery unlikely. The Space Shuttle also had this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US_manned_spaceflight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety#Range_safety_in_US...
- daeken 12y agoThere won't be. If the self-destruct triggers, then the rocket is 1) already going to cause their deaths, and 2) going to potentially save the lives of people on the ground. Now, that said, this is why we have escape towers on pods (and the escape rockets around the sides of the Dragon 2). In the case of an emergency, those eject the pod from the rocket so that it can be returned safely, even as the rocket is destroyed.
- ejr 12y agoThe shuttle had its own variant although that was manual, not automatic http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479 I believe it doesn't matter what the craft is, there is always some manner of self-destruct to ensure a larger population isn't threatened by debris from an exploding rocket.
- libria 12y agoIt does matter. I doubt you'll load 300 willing passengers on a 747 if it was widely known it had a self destruct. I would guess each case has to weigh its pros and cons for inclusion of a system. There is such thing as acceptable risk to population. If FAA mandated them carte blanche, Michael Bay movies would become documentaries.
- squeaky-clean 12y agoA 747 isn't a spacecraft travelling at supersonic speeds, so it's not really the type of craft relevant to the discussion. Cars, buses and boats also aren't loaded with self-destruct mechanisms for obvious reasons.
- speeq 12y ago"We've got to tunnel one of these vehicles into the ground by trying something really hard." - Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO of SpaceX
- ddorian43 12y agoplease explain
- ceejayoz 12y agoAs an experimental vehicle, you're generally supposed to be pushing the limits of what it can do to find those limits. Essentially, they're saying "no accidents means we aren't trying hard enough to break the thing".
- Gravityloss 12y agoYes. If you read interviews, they had stuff like Elon having complaints that they aren't pushing the envelope hard enough since they don't get any crashes. Maybe they tested the control system's abilities by pushing it over very quickly. I bet there's people at SpaceX who were involved on the DC-X that did a successful translation to horizontal and back in 1995. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o Hope SpaceX has enough spare hardware that they can get quickly back up to testing again. I don't see any reason they wouldn't since they have produced quite many leg sets already - maybe they were planning to moving to newer hardware iterations anyway and the vehicle was "expendable", or at least the risk with dangerous tests was more acceptable.
- transpy 12y agoIt's interesting how diametrically different are the mindsets of engineers in one hand and the general public on the other. When I saw the video I thought it was a very bad news for SpaceX's name and I imagine some people might think the same. Like that one time when a Tesla car got fire. I remember reading news that highlighted the dangers of electric cars, etc., but then some commentators quickly pointed out the obvious: gasoline vehicles catch fire all the time. But the point is, it's in benefit of everybody to get educated about engineering issues. I hope media outlets don't start going like "SpaceX: Too Dangerous? A rocket may land in your backyard". For me at least, it's interesting to learn that they WANT to break the thing to find the weak spots.
- alexobenauer 12y ago"the flight termination system automatically terminated the mission"... by blowing itself up?
- MichaelApproved 12y agoHow else would you terminate an active rocket flying through the air?
- Chronic29 12y agoPerhaps by changing it's flight path to land in the ocean? Sorry but real life isn't like movies - you can't blow everything up.
- maccard 12y agoLand it safely on the ground 20 or 30 feet from where it took off, obviously /s
- lutorm 12y agoNo, that would be "completing" the mission, not "terminating" it... ;-)
- mikeash 12y agoYes, "flight termination system" refers to a bunch of explosives and a widget to blow them up on command.
- bane 12y agohttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/502974683864518657 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/502974683864518657
- isaacV 12y agoI also almost got a job there, and toured that facility during the final interview. Their testing at that site involves firing rockets that are secured to the ground, and monitoring the results from an underground bunker. I lived in that area up until this year, and I've never seen them launch anything from that site. I didn't even know they had that infrastructure there! There are also houses all around that facility, so I am surprised to see them launch this thing.
- chmullig 12y agoThey've done lots of launches of the Grasshopper and F9R landing tests there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4
- githulhu 12y agoHuh. Why did the explosion produce two distinct, different-colored smoke clouds? Also, what's the environmental impact of this kind of accident?
- lutorm 12y agoThe rocket has two tanks, one with kerosene, one with liquid oxygen. I bet the black fireball is the kerosene burning, the white cloud is the liquid oxygen vaporizing. Environmental impact is likely small, the kerosene would have burned anyway and there are little other hazardous chemicals on board. (Unlike for example the Proton failure linked by kryptisk above which is fueled with really nasty hypergolic fuels.)
- AustinDev 12y agoTo add to that. I'm sure Space X attempts to collect all the debris that falls to the ground.
- utefan001 12y agohttp://global3.memecdn.com/ksp-in-a-nutshell_o_2453969.jpg http://global3.memecdn.com/ksp-in-a-nutshell_o_2453969.jpg http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/082/8/8/ksp_secondary_motto_by_xveris-d5yz4p0.jpg http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/082/8/8/ksp_secondary...