Author Topic: What if the Cause of the Falcon 9 AMOS-6 Pad Failure is Never Uncovered  (Read 19175 times)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5481
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 679
In this case I am confident the investigation with SpaceX in the lead and with the full support of other involved organizations will find and develop a fix or fixes for whatever might have caused this. But in a totally hypothetical case, what if the most probable cause of some future wet-dress failure was that the vehicle had been struck by a meteorite? How would they fix that?
-- sdsds --

Online yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 12
In this case I am confident the investigation with SpaceX in the lead and with the full support of other involved organizations will find and develop a fix or fixes for whatever might have caused this. But in a totally hypothetical case, what if the most probable cause of some future wet-dress failure was that the vehicle had been struck by a meteorite? How would they fix that?
They would find the full statistical likelihood of it happening again (and there is actually data on how common meteorite strikes are for any given place on earth) and if the risk was high enough they would dig a hole and launch from a silo.

Offline Bynaus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • Scientist, Teacher, Writer, Family man
  • Switzerland
    • Final-Frontier.ch
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 271
The likelyhood of a meteorite strike is just astronomically low (approx 1 meteorite >100 g per 36'000 km2 per year*). Contrast this idea, e.g., with how many airliners you have to hit (statistically speaking) with a meteorite before you hit a rocket... No airliner has ever been hit by a meteorite, and there are thousands of them.

Also, a meteorite would just fall at terminal velocity, so about 100 m/s (so it would likely be in a few frames of the video - although perhaps not visible, depending on size). There might be other meteorites too, and (being stones) they would probably even survive the "fast fire" and be found among the debris.

*From: Bland P. A. & Artemieva N. A., 2006, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 41:607-631.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2016 02:33 pm by Bynaus »
More of my thoughts: www.final-frontier.ch (in German)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9314
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3138
  • Likes Given: 8749
No need to dig one, Challenger's remains are in LC-31 and the state of LC-32 I'm not sure of at this point. Unless this a really a concern to some... Just sayin'...
http://www.wired4space.com/launch-sites/cape-canaveral-afs/lc-32-launch-complex-32-at-cape-canaveral-afs
« Last Edit: 09/16/2016 02:44 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Falcon H

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 138
Maybe SpaceX should redesign their pressurization system completely at this point.......
"Sooner or later, we must expand life beyond our little blue mud ball--or go extinct" Elon Musk

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1922
  • Likes Given: 437
Maybe SpaceX should redesign their pressurization system completely at this point.......

How would they know what they have to avoid in the redesign, to prevent a recurrence of this fault if they don't find the root cause first? Simply hoping that a different design doesn't pick up the same inherent flaw? Or introduce another one?

Just because you redesigned something doesn't by itself make it better than the old solution.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2016 01:36 pm by ugordan »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5481
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 679
Maybe SpaceX should redesign their pressurization system completely at this point.......

[...] Just because you redesigned something doesn't by itself make it better than the old solution.

Maybe SpaceX should redesign their pressurization system acceptance test criteria at this point....

;)
-- sdsds --

Online Jet Black

In this case I am confident the investigation with SpaceX in the lead and with the full support of other involved organizations will find and develop a fix or fixes for whatever might have caused this. But in a totally hypothetical case, what if the most probable cause of some future wet-dress failure was that the vehicle had been struck by a meteorite? How would they fix that?

you wouldn't need to as you would have an unavoidable statistically improbable event.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9314
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3138
  • Likes Given: 8749
With the cause still unknown, as suspected NASA is considering buying more seats as I suggested they might...
yg1968 posted this article link:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37802.msg1592568#new
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/nasa-officials-mulling-the-possibility-of-purchasing-soyuz-seats-for-2019/?comments=1

« Last Edit: 09/30/2016 06:12 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Tags: