A SpaceX Rocket Just Exploded At Cape Canaveral In Florida

While SpaceX has yet to release significant further information (and probably will not do so until they have confirmed a root cause, which could take some time), consensus speculation seems to be focusing on the Falcon 9's second stage and associated ground support equipment.

It is worth noting that the second stage was also responsible for the Falcon 9's only other all-out failure, which occurred on the CRS-7 mission. SpaceX traced the cause of that failure to a metal strut supporting a helium tank. The tank, which was mounted inside the second stage, was used to pressurize the oxygen tank. The strut failed and caused a leak in the helium pressurization system, which led to a highly pressurized tank which exploded. While SpaceX thought the issue had been resolved, it is possible that they were either wrong or that something else inside the stage failed.

Since March of 2016, SpaceX has been flying a model of the Falcon 9 they call the Falcon 9 Full Thrust. This model of the Falcon 9 uses cooled RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosene) and liquid oxygen as propellants. Cooled propellants are denser than warmer propellants, which allows the rocket to carry more propellant without changing the size of the fuel/oxidizer tanks. Supercooling the propellants increased the complexity of ground support operations for the rocket and caused a number of scrubs and headaches when it was first implemented earlier this year. Although it had seemed that SpaceX had gotten a handle on these issues, it is possible an issue in the ground support equipment caused the explosion of the rocket.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: drphilxr
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The payload type IS very important. That is - if it was worth destroying. By someone.

Sure -- but the payload was just equipment that could be replaced.

However, if the flaw in the launch system is found to be an inherent design flaw in the Falcon 9 vehicle or a design flaw in the launch procedure, then the use of the Falcon 9 for launching a human crew to the ISS, which is currently scheduled for next year, could be delayed indefinitely.

I think that an indefinite delay is highly likely. American manned launch vehicles have traditionally fueled the rocket, confirmed the safety of the vehicle, and only then allowed the crew to go to the launch pad and enter the vehicle. Because the current model of Falcon 9 uses cooled, dense propellants, there is only about a 20 minute window after fueling is completed when the rocket can launch, otherwise the propellants become too warm.

Due to this short window, SpaceX's prospective launch procedures for a manned Falcon 9 mission using a Dragon 2 capsule with crew had called for putting the crew into the capsule BEFORE the vehicle was fueled. I think the failure today is going to give NASA pause before they allow anything of the sort to happen.

GRRR... Its been a while since I was last on, posting. I was watching the video of the rocket and noticed something. 4 seconds in ..top right hand corner of the screen. There is a fast moving object heading towards the rocket!!! Next second BAM! I have saved the video to my computer..

www.cnn.com...

Though. Oh a bird... Then I realized it moved so fast it couldn't be. Drone? Missile?

I think someone wanted that missile grounded.

originally posted by: PhloydPhan

SpaceX traced the cause of that failure to a metal strut supporting a helium tank. The tank, which was mounted inside the second stage, was used to pressurize the oxygen tank. The strut failed and caused a leak in the helium pressurization system, which led to a highly pressurized tank which exploded. While SpaceX thought the issue had been resolved, it is possible that they were either wrong or that something else inside the stage failed.

Even if they find that the strut had failed again, the strut failure may not be the actual problem, but a symptom of the problem -- i.e., something else unknown occurred that causes the strut to fail.

I think that an indefinite delay is highly likely. American manned launch vehicles have traditionally fueled the rocket, confirmed the safety of the vehicle, and only then allowed the crew to go to the launch pad and enter the vehicle. Because the current model of Falcon 9 uses cooled, dense propellants, there is only about a 20 minute window after fueling is completed when the rocket can launch, otherwise the propellants become too warm.

Interesting; thanks for this. I didn't realize there was such a difference between SpaceX's proposed manned launch procedure and traditional NASA manned launch procedures.



I was also wondering if this might delay NASA's entire CCtCap (Commercial Crew Transportation Capability) contract, including the proposed Boeing manned launch of its CST-100 crew vehicle to the ISS in 2018. Then again, Boeing is using a tried-and-true launch vehicles such as the Atlas V or the Delta IV to launch the CST -- and they would be doing so through the United Launch Alliance (a Lockheed-Boeing joint venture) which has a long record of successful launches.

I wonder if SpaceX has contingencies that allow for the Dragon V2 manned crew vehicle to be launched by something other than a Falcon 9 -- say a Delta IV. However, that's assuming that SpaceX even wants to do that, considering the success of the Falcon 9 and SpaceX's future launch vehicles are just as important as the success of the Dragon V2. Maybe they feel the two are programmatically inseparable (even if they technologically may be separable).

I suppose I'm wondering if SpaceX feels that the development of Dragon V2 under NASA's CCdev and CCtCap contracts NEEDS to go hand-in-hand with the continuing development of the Falcon 9.

originally posted by: Dizak
Though. Oh a bird... Then I realized it moved so fast it couldn't be. Drone? Missile?

I think someone wanted that missile grounded.

This has been mentioned by others in this thread.

I have no way to confirm what it was, but it could easily have been an insect flying near the camera.

Something relatively close to the camera would pass through the field of view of the camera (a field of view that gets smaller as one gets nearer to the camera) so quickly that it would look to be moving very fast relative to the entire far-off background -- even if it was only moving a normal bug speeds.

Could it have been a missile or an alien craft farther away from the camera? I suppose it could have been (it's within the realm of possibility, if we are to include ALL possibilities), but my point is that there is no reason to say "it couldn't be a bug". I mean, Florida is swampy and has lots of bugs.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I was also wondering if this might delay NASA's entire CCtCap (Commercial Crew Transportation Capability) contract, including the proposed Boeing manned launch of its CST-100 crew vehicle to the ISS in 2018. Then again, Boeing is using a tried-and-true launch vehicles such as the Atlas V or the Delta IV to launch the CST -- and they would be doing so through the United Launch Alliance (a Lockheed-Boeing joint venture) which has a long record of successful launches.

I doubt this would delay CST-100. As you point out, the Boeing and SpaceX systems don't share rockets or any other major components. Boeing is baselining an Atlas V for CST-100, and that booster has hands-down the best safety record in the history of spaceflight.

I wonder if SpaceX has contingencies that allow for the Dragon V2 manned crew vehicle to be launched by something other than a Falcon 9 -- say a Delta IV. However, that's assuming that SpaceX even wants to do that, considering the success of the Falcon 9 and SpaceX's future launch vehicles are just as important as the success of the Dragon V2. Maybe they feel the two are programmatically inseparable (even if they technologically may be separable).

Boeing has pointedly made their CST-100 to be what they call "vehicle agnostic," meaning it can launch on any rocket with enough get-up-and-go to send it to LEO. I suspect that Dragon V2 could be made to do the same. However, I doubt it would be practical. Even if SpaceX wanted to use the same flavor of Atlas V as CST-100, they would need to modify the launch complex to support Dragon V2, which would probably be more trouble than it is worth.

We'll see what the accident investigation says. It is possible that there will be a simple fix, and SpaceX can continue with preparation to launch a crewed Dragon V2 from LC-39A in relatively short order. My bet, though, is on Boeing and CST-100 beating Dragon V2 to the ISS by a wide margin.

a reply to: AbesOldHat

Oviously, a major malfunction.

The anamoly people are seeing in the video.

It's a fly.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

close to the camera the fly would be so blurred that it is nearly invisible

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

close to the camera the fly would be so blurred that it is nearly invisible

That depends on how close and what focus that camera was using. I'm talking about a couple feet away, not necessarily a few inches away or directly on the lens. If you mean motion blur, then that would also depend on the camera's frame rate.

There are lots of videos in which bugs are visible a couple of feet from a camera. Not only that, but the object in the video IS slightly out of focus.

So this is a fly?






One of those wingless shiny disc flies was it?
Darn pests, i get them in the garden all the time..........

originally posted by: playswithmachines

So this is a fly?...

...One of those wingless shiny disc flies was it?

We can't tell, because if it were a bug, then it would be relatively close to the camera and therefore slightly out of focus (just like the object in your images is slightly out of focus).

And being slightly out of focus means that the wings would probably not show up.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
So this is a fly?

One of those wingless shiny disc flies was it?
Darn pests, i get them in the garden all the time..........

In all fairness each frame of the object makes it look like a different object. Although when you Zoom in, it looks like a shiny unidentified flying object!!

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

It looks like a Bald Eagle. You can see the white head in the first frame. It changes because it's flapping.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

It looks like a Bald Eagle. You can see the white head in the first frame. It changes because it's flapping.

Okay, if that's what you say, who am I to argue?

Ah, If that's it's white head in the first frame then it's flying backwards, the object moves from right to left!
OK so it's out of focus, so is the tower, that indicates they are roughly at the same distance.

If we conservatively rate this video as being taken at 30 fps you will notice that it's only in these 3 frames, in other words it took 1/10 of a second to cross the entire window.

So that makes it a very rare eagle indeed, one that can fly backwards at 600mph..........

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Yes i noticed that. I also notice a very slight halo around it.
In many 'ufo' films, they appear to be changing shape, this is purely a side effect of the intense gavitational field, which tends to warp light, like hot air does on a runway etc.
Analysis of some of the area 51 craft shows that in some frames they even become transparent, you can see right through the whole ship.

Now i'm not saying this is definitely a UFO but it does have a shiny disc look, it's moving in a perfectly straight line (so it's NOT a fly) and it's gone in 0.1s
Fly or eagle, it's moving way too fast.
And it is adjacent to the rocket (behind it?) at the exact moment it explodes.
Too many coincidences there, i don't believe it's natural.
I can have these analysed by experts if you want, it may prove interesting after all.

ETA: The pics are not in the right order, top one is the second frame by the tower, second smaller pic is from the first frame, last pic is just as it passes the rocket (seen below it)

Had the camera been running .02 seconds slower, it might have caught the object passing the tower, then we would have known if it was a small object passing in front or (as i think) a much larger object behind the tower.

Something very similar happened on 9/11, only then it was definitely a delta shape, typical hypersonic military recon drone. Kind of gives the game away, i see it as a slap in the face from TPTB

I guess the first thing is to find out WHY it blew up, if it was another strut fault, or the fuel warming up too fast, then it's just more stupidity on the part of the engineers.

We also need a MOTIVE for destroying it in the first place.

Maybe someone in Africa does not want an Israeli satellite overhead?
Maybe someone in Washington or Moscow doesnt....

So we need to find out more about Amos 6 & what 'extras' it may have been carrying.

A note about the rockets, i see a lot of discussion about the NASA ones & the private ones.

The big difference is the new Aries ones can put 40 tons* in orbit, thats way more than the private ones.

IMHO it's all a waste of time, we already know how gravity works, how it can be manipulated, negated even.
And please no more physics quotes, once you remove mass from the equation, none of Newton's or Einstein's laws apply. It's that simple.

* could be 50 tons, can't remember.

a reply to: playswithmachines

The white head is possibly light reflecting off of a flys wing(s) when they are close to its body.

a reply to: Tjoran

I was not, in fact, suggesting anything of the sort. For a start, although what I said about the point at which one would expect problems to occur is accurate, when you consider that we still place payloads atop what is essentially a bloody great big bomb, in order to get them to loft, you realise that there are lots and lots of things that can go wrong, and any one of them could result in a failure.

However, I find it interesting that the failure did not occur during the fully ignited phase of the launch sequence, where the most dangerous part of the on the pad process is taking place. When you think about the complexity of rockets, the sheer number of parts involved...put it this way...spacecraft are very prone to entropic interference.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You mean they are big, powerful, scary things?

I agree.