Still working on the Falcon fireball investigation. Turning out to be the most difficult and complex failure we have ever had in 14 years.
Important to note that this happened during a routine filling operation. Engines were not on and there was no apparent heat source.
Support & advice from @NASA, @FAA, @AFPAA & others much appreciated. Please email any recordings of the event to [email protected].
Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off. May come from rocket or something else.
A small drone perhaps some idiot trying to get a close up video, misjudges & slams it into the Falcon. Bang goes your launcher especially if it was one of the more pro models which are quite weighty.
2. Assuming the bullet pierced the tank, why wasn't any venting visible before the explosion?
Quote from: Eerie on 09/09/2016 12:22 pm2. Assuming the bullet pierced the tank, why wasn't any venting visible before the explosion?Something like this? http://tinyurl.com/h9k5xh7
Quote from: RedSky on 09/09/2016 10:02 amWell, now that the bullet theory has been brought up, you don't need someone on land lurking nearby. Might as well go full conspiracy: Do they close off boating traffic offshore for a static test? If not, someone should check if any Russian trawlers or small pleasure craft were "fishing" just offshore. Just joking, but at this point...Why would they need to use a firearm? Since we're playing full conspiracy, why not a small shaped charge with an incendiary mounted to an innocuous and easily missed spot on the strongback? The origin point of the explosion for this whole incident is perfectly positioned to shred the bulkhead separating the S2 fuel tanks and mix them.
Well, now that the bullet theory has been brought up, you don't need someone on land lurking nearby. Might as well go full conspiracy: Do they close off boating traffic offshore for a static test? If not, someone should check if any Russian trawlers or small pleasure craft were "fishing" just offshore. Just joking, but at this point...
Can't the second stage really explode like it did without kerosene and LOX mixing? Because I don't see how a piercing bullet can cause them to mix.
Quote from: xanmarus on 09/09/2016 12:28 pmQuote from: Eerie on 09/09/2016 12:22 pm2. Assuming the bullet pierced the tank, why wasn't any venting visible before the explosion?Something like this? http://tinyurl.com/h9k5xh7Can't the second stage really explode like it did without kerosene and LOX mixing? Because I don't see how a piercing bullet can cause them to mix.
Bullets release a shower of hot shrapnel and a massive shockwave when they go through a metal wall, especially into liquid. Kinetic anti-tank penetrators don't contain any explosive, but the conversion of kinetic to mechanical/thermal energy is enough to cause a massive explosion.
The theory around somebody shooting at the F9.In theory a .50 caliber or something around in this category could reach out 2+miles and hit such a large target like a F9. A external suppressor could mute the sound so much that it would not be audible at such a extreme range. With a semi-automatic weapon multiple rounds could be fired.
Since this is the wild and wacky thread, and since we are talking about a very high tech industry, any chance of some kind of directed energy weapon first being used to drill a small hole in a feeding hose or tank, letting it leak for a while, and then being used to ignite the cloud once it had spread out sufficiently?