SpaceX Falcon 9 : GovSat-1 (SES-16) : Jan 31. 2018 - Discussion

[su27k]

Allegedly, it's been sunk by Uncle Sam!

Whatever the case, trusted anonymous sources have confirmed to AmericaSpace that the U.S. Air Force carried out an air strike to blow up the floating booster.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/

The term 'trusted anonymous source' always makes me twitch. Personally, I'll wait until someone is willing to go officially on the record about this.

IMHO, it would be more reasonable for divers working for private salvage engineers to blow holes in the tanks with small charges to flood them and cause the core to sink, if that's the direction that SpaceX chose to go.

Yeah, that's insane, I had to check if I was in the party thread. But on the other hand using weapons make sense if they were not able to safe the booster, you don't want COPV to accidentally blow up while divers are around the core.

[ClayJar]

Whether it was an air strike or whatever, I suppose the circumstances work out for sinking it.  The boat out from the Bahamas likely would have had the people and gear they'd need to recover the hard copies stored on the stage (SD cards in the cameras or whatever).  Abandoning the stage to the deep would be consistent with the speeds we saw as everyone sailed home (i.e. faster than you'd expect to see a legged F9 being towed).

[speedevil]

Yeah, that's insane, I had to check if I was in the party thread. But on the other hand using weapons make sense if they were not able to safe the booster, you don't want COPV to accidentally blow up while divers are around the core.

It might also make for good video, which can't be discounted as a motive.

[Demidrol]

Allegedly, it's been sunk by Uncle Sam!

Whatever the case, trusted anonymous sources have confirmed to AmericaSpace that the U.S. Air Force carried out an air strike to blow up the floating booster.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/

The term 'trusted anonymous source' always makes me twitch. Personally, I'll wait until someone is willing to go officially on the record about this.

I shouldn't have posted that? It didn't seem so insane to me. Uncontrolled stage is very dangerous in inappropriate conditions. Or no?

[Mongo62]

Whatever the case, trusted anonymous sources have confirmed to AmericaSpace that the U.S. Air Force carried out an air strike to blow up the floating booster.

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/

Color me skeptical until there is some independent verification of this story, from named sources.

[RonM]

Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

[Jet Black]

Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

it's more than a hazard to navigation though, it is a floating opportunity to get around ITAR restrictions, and so has military implications.

[curtquarquesso]

Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?

[SWGlassPit]

Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

On the other hand, if it fulfills a training objective that they were going to have to do anyway to maintain proficiency, why not?  If you have to fire a missile, and you have a choice for it to do something useful or not, you might as well make it useful.

[somepitch]

Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

On the other hand, if it fulfills a training objective that they were going to have to do anyway to maintain proficiency, why not?  If you have to fire a missile, and you have a choice for it to do something useful or not, you might as well make it useful.

This. Plus if there's no USCG vessel close by it's the cost of an the ship, crew, and fuel for however long it takes to reach the booster instead of likely <1 hr for a pilot/plane there and back. Ships are slow.

[pb2000]

Sounds silly to me. Getting rid of a hazard to navigation would be a job for the Coast Guard. A few rounds from a machine gun would be cheaper than an airstrike.

Except it would sink intact, or worse yet actually blow up and rain shrapnel on the coast guard boat. On that note though, lets hope the airforce found a rusty old  bomb to drop instead of some quarter million* $ gps guided gadget.

_{*random cost guesstimate}

[RonM]

An airstrike would be effective, but expensive. Of course, that would be the way the US government operates. Choose the most expensive option available. 

Coast Guard cutters could use .50 BMG, 20mm, or even 57mm depending on the standoff distance required for safety.

Coast Guard assets are deployed in the area, so no extra cost to send one over.

Coast Guard personnel need training too. Air Force has been evolved in combat operations for the past 16 years.

Once again, no love for the Coasties. 

And this discussion should move to https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36807.msg1785788;topicseen#new

Edit: link to the discussion thread instead of update.

[docmordrid]

Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Was it destroyed by SpaceX, or the Air Force?

Presumably, someone with access to missiles or large bore deck guns. Don't want to get too close in case of a RUD.

[RonM]

A Coast Guard cutter firing deck guns would have been a better and cheaper option.

[docmordrid]

A Coast Guard cutter firing deck guns would have been a better and cheaper option.

If it were close enough. Ships are slow  and use a lot of fuel, planes already scheduled to be on a training flight are faster.

[RonM]

An airstrike would be effective, but expensive. Of course, that would be the way the US government operates. Choose the most expensive option available. 

Coast Guard cutters could use .50 BMG, 20mm, or even 57mm depending on the standoff distance required for safety. From what we've seen in failed booster landings, use the biggest deck gun available.

Coast Guard assets are deployed in the area, so no extra cost to send one over.

Coast Guard personnel need training too. Air Force has been evolved in combat operations for the past 16 years.

Once again, no love for the Coasties. 

[HMXHMX]

Memory is hazy, but I do recall that a first stage from a Gemini-Titan II launch was found floating downrange, and had to be sunk by naval gunfire as a hazard to navigation.

This photo may be of a different GTII mission.

[envy887]

Confirmed.  It was destroyed.  There was no safe way to tow it back without risk to land, sea, and people.

Does the Range Officer pressing the FTS terminate button count as the "Air Force carrying out a strike"?

Assuming the AFTS has a manual terminate option, and that it works over the horizon via relay or something.

[JamesH65]

An airstrike would be effective, but expensive. Of course, that would be the way the US government operates. Choose the most expensive option available. 

No more expensive that any practice run that airforces do all the time.  In fact, this could have saved them money since they didn't have to shoot something they had the launch in the first place. Good target practice.

[jgoldader]

Not sure the AFTS battery and electronics would be good after several days in the salt water.