Did the US Air Force commit to an air strike on a Space X booster?

a reply to: seasonal

The problem was that since it wasn't meant to survive, there wasn't a team in place to recover it. There aren't many companies that can recover something that size. Meanwhile, the booster was floating closer and closer to busy shipping lanes.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I imagine you joined these forums for your own reasons, and I won't fault you for them. I, for one, am livid that intense skepticism is not applied to every new post. So the scenario you're positing is that the pre-heavy launch(which indicates that it was still attached to the payload) which demanded a US Military airstrike to sink it, was a training exercise, and not an operational need. I don't fault the people who needed it to be sunk. I just hate being lied to. And all of us do. Those of us who joined the forums hate it especially. Let's deny ignorance, shall we?

a reply to: Zaphod58

That makes more sense.

since it missed the landing pad and ended up in the ocean I suspect that it was cheaper for elon to have the air force destroy it (at tax payers expense) than it was for him to pay to have it towed back to shore.
it`s always about money, the tax payers pay to have it sunk and destroyed and elon saves money by not having to tow it back to shore. it`s probably cheaper for him to build a new one than it is for him to have one that has been submerged in saltwater and suffered structural stress cracks towed back to shore and refurbished. isn`t elon and tesla the king of government subsidies?
it`s always about money.ALWAYS!

So what happened is they launched a load heavy enough into an orbit that didn't allow for a return trip downrange (heavy sat to geostationary). They didn't have enough delta-v for that launch profile. Normally they would just let it reenter. For this occasion, they decided to see what would happen if they tried a three engine rapid decel (normal ops for Falcon 9 uses one longer burn). In theory a short three engine deceleration uses less fuel than one long burn (but really stresses the rocket structure). So they figured instead of just dropping it into the ocean, why not try a three engine burn and see what happens. They would get good, real-world data on the stresses involved and how much fuel it burns, etc. They fully expected to lose the stage, but it actually survived the water landing.
Towing something that isn't designed to float and be towed is difficult. Rockets aren't designed to float evenly and take the pressures involved. So rather than leave a navigation hazard at sea (or chance someone else deciding to try to pick it up) and deal with the fact that you don't know if tanks vented or are at pressure and damaged (danger), they made sure it sank. The way they thought it was going to do in the first place.

a reply to: Zelun

So because you are positing a different theory I'm expected to just believe they're lying? There was no payload still attached to this rocket when it landed. If there had been it would have sank.

What I am saying is there is no reason to think they are lying other than you not trusting the reasons given. The booster wasn't meant to survive, and did. They weren't ready to recover it, because of that, and it was becoming a hazard. I have seen no reason other than "I don't trust this" to believe otherwise.

originally posted by: bluechevytree
since it missed the landing pad and ended up in the ocean I suspect that it was cheaper for elon to have the air force destroy it (at tax payers expense) than it was for him to pay to have it towed back to shore.
it`s always about money, the tax payers pay to have it sunk and destroyed and elon saves money by not having to tow it back to shore. it`s probably cheaper for him to build a new one than it is for him to have one that has been submerged in saltwater and suffered structural stress cracks towed back to shore and refurbished. isn`t elon and tesla the king of government subsidies?
it`s always about money.ALWAYS!

Tax payers helped build it too. Musk is very good at getting govt hand outs.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Then why the delay? Why the cover story?

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: RadioRobert

Then why the delay? Why the cover story?

What delay and cover story exactly, pray tell?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, you tell me what was the payload of that launch and I'll STFU. Promise. That's an internet promise so you know it involves a public apology.

Fairly far fetched.

It was the 1st stage, without a payload. Not exactly something classified that needed to be destroyed. Also as Zaph pointed out, this booster would be floating into shipping lanes. Without a retrieval team in place to recover something they didn't expect to recover, an opportunity presented itself.

a reply to: Zelun

It was a communications satellite for Luxembourg.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What?! Wasn't that near NATO headquarters??!

awwww I wanna see footage of it getting bombed.

a reply to: Zelun

NATO is headquartered in Brussels. Luxembourg is a NATO member. What does that have to do with it?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

You've got a point there, cowboy. Why isn't there footage of this supposed training exercise? Seems pretty awesome event to leave to the imagination?

WARNING:

Conduct your discussion in a civilized manner.

Insults are unacceptable.

Post bans are fixing to be handed out.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: Zelun

there probably is footage somewhere and Iiiiiii wanna see it! kaboooooom!!!!