Also from Doug Ellison of UMSF fame, who was at the Cape today:Doug Ellison@doug_ellison@NASASpaceflight I drove from CAFS to KSCVC at about 8am - looked like 1st stage only was erected.
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/01/2016 01:53 pmAlso from Doug Ellison of UMSF fame, who was at the Cape today:Doug Ellison@doug_ellison@NASASpaceflight I drove from CAFS to KSCVC at about 8am - looked like 1st stage only was erected.Interesting... Has there been any talk of any of the recovered cores having a test fire today?
Transporter Erector seems okay. Smoke billowing from the base of the pad. No rocket in sight.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 09/01/2016 01:54 pmQuote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/01/2016 01:53 pmAlso from Doug Ellison of UMSF fame, who was at the Cape today:Doug Ellison@doug_ellison@NASASpaceflight I drove from CAFS to KSCVC at about 8am - looked like 1st stage only was erected.Interesting... Has there been any talk of any of the recovered cores having a test fire today?It would have been the first two stages, not just the first stage.
Perhaps a pointless thing to say at this time, and assuming the issue has come from the rocket itself - but had this been a flight-proven Falcon 9 - would this have happened?
Is it possible that it was a problem with the loading side of things rather than the rocket itself?
They're taking a firefighter out by air medivac per KSC emergency radio
Perhaps a pointless thing to say at this time, and assuming the issue has come from the rocket itself - but had this been a flight-proven Falcon 9 - would this have happened?Very slight silver lining - might actually add more weight to using recovered stages...
Quote from: Jet Black on 09/01/2016 01:50 pmIs it possible that it was a problem with the loading side of things rather than the rocket itself?What difference does it make? It's an integrated system, one cannot function without the other. Having this failure be down to GSE doesn't make it any better. On the flip side, this is certainly going to be an interesting data point for pad abort risk assessments, blast overpressures and the like...
Latest photos show that the T/E strongback seems intact! This is bizarre; I'm thinking that it must have been a tank top cap failure that directed most of the explosive force vertically upwards to avoid any collateral damage in that way!
Not a NASA payload==>not a NASA investigation. The SpaceX investigation need not be drawn out (unless it needs to be because the root cause is elusive). As pointed out above, it's likely that the pad reconstruction is going to take longer than the investigation.
The difference is that if it is GSE side, there would be fewer concerns relating to the rocket once it is fuelled and up in the air.
Quote from: cscott on 09/01/2016 02:06 pmNot a NASA payload==>not a NASA investigation. The SpaceX investigation need not be drawn out (unless it needs to be because the root cause is elusive). As pointed out above, it's likely that the pad reconstruction is going to take longer than the investigation.So could they move to LC-39 until the mess is cleaned up?
upright isn't the same as intact though. It may not be usable any more.