Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD (1)  (Read 1541184 times)

Offline hans_ober

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Somewhere
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #160 on: 09/01/2016 01:53 pm »
Transporter Erector seems okay. Smoke billowing from the base of the pad. No rocket in sight.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #161 on: 09/01/2016 01:54 pm »
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.

Interesting... Has there been any talk of any of the recovered cores having a test fire today?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #162 on: 09/01/2016 01:56 pm »
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.

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.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #163 on: 09/01/2016 01:57 pm »
Transporter Erector seems okay. Smoke billowing from the base of the pad. No rocket in sight.

There would only be duralinium confetti left of most of the vehicle; the octoweb and core engines might still be intact and on the pad though.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline MrEarl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Baltimore MD
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #164 on: 09/01/2016 01:57 pm »
WESH is reporting two explosions.  One 20 mins after the first.  Is that true?

Offline intrepidpursuit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 561
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #165 on: 09/01/2016 01:58 pm »
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.

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.

Yes. The TE can't erect a first stage on its own. That would indicate though that the payload wasn't attached which would be a very good thing.

Offline Blizzzard

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #166 on: 09/01/2016 02:00 pm »
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...

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #167 on: 09/01/2016 02:02 pm »
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?

That is strongly dependent on the root cause of the explosion. Any conclusions would be highly speculative at this point.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #168 on: 09/01/2016 02:02 pm »
Is 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...

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #169 on: 09/01/2016 02:03 pm »
Reports of multiple explosions might indicate that some of the pad tankage was compromised by the initial blast and let go.  Which wouldn't mean anything re the initial failure, but would additionally complicate the work of getting the pad back on line.

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #170 on: 09/01/2016 02:03 pm »
They're taking a firefighter out by air medivac per KSC emergency radio  :'(

They asked the helicopter to land and pick one up so he could see the fire from above.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #171 on: 09/01/2016 02:04 pm »
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!
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
  • Pet Peeve:I hate the word Downcomer. Ban it.
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #172 on: 09/01/2016 02:04 pm »
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...

The only silver would be if there was no satellite on-board. Blowing up another rocket for another reason, is not good. No way they get to launch again until another drawn out investigation.
"And now the Sun will fade, All we are is all we made." Breaking Benjamin

Offline Jet Black

Is 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...

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. Additionally I'd expect that GSE stuff can be modified (e.g. thicker tank walls) with fewer ramifications.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #174 on: 09/01/2016 02:06 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2016 02:07 pm by cscott »

Offline Jet Black

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!

upright isn't the same as intact though. It may not be usable any more.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline Elvis in Space

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Elvis is Everywhere
  • Still on Earth
  • Liked: 771
  • Likes Given: 6319
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #176 on: 09/01/2016 02:08 pm »
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.

So could they move to LC-39 until the mess is cleaned up?
Cheeseburgers on Mars!

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #177 on: 09/01/2016 02:09 pm »
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.

That's not much of a consolation if you consider that the payload is up in the air on the rocket about the same length of time (30 min) as it is on the pad actively being loaded with all kinds of fluids.

Offline MarekCyzio

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.

So could they move to LC-39 until the mess is cleaned up?


Cleaning up the mess may be way faster than the necessary investigation and design changes.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - AMOS-6 - (Pad Failure) - DISCUSSION THREAD
« Reply #179 on: 09/01/2016 02:11 pm »
upright isn't the same as intact though. It may not be usable any more.

Agreed. The discussion about the T/E likely shouldn't be about how "intact" it is, but perhaps how "salvageable".

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1