Elon tweeted:
"Loss of Falcon vehicle today during propellant fill operation. Originated around upper stage oxygen tank. Cause still unknown. More soon." [1]
SpaceX tweeted:
"At approximately 9:07 am ET, during a standard pre-launch static fire test for the AMOS-6 mission, there was an anomaly at SpaceX's Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40 resulting in loss of the vehicle.
The anomaly originated around the upper stage oxygen tank and occurred during propellant loading of the vehicle. Per standard operating procedure, all personnel were clear of the pad and there were no injuries.
We are continuing to review the data to identify the root cause. Additional updates will be provided as they become available." [2]
[1] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1127274-REG/nikon_264...
Edit: Helps if I multiply properly. 12 seconds * 340m/s == 4080m.
[Edit] Pre and Post explosion: http://imgur.com/a/IIzg2
It's a massive long metal tube full of extremely flammable things...what seems more likely: drone with projectile entering a highly restricted piece of airspace, or as rockets are want to do, it blew up by itself.
p.s. skip forward to 1m21s to see AMOS-6 burn (in case you dislike facebook _very_ much).
What's exploding in the first boom and what in the second?
Then, about 12 seconds in, the "nose" is falling down and causing a 3rd explosion. Why hasn't the nose "co-exploded" already with the 1st or 2nd explosion?
The 'nose' falling is payload and its protective fairing. The idea of a fairing is to protect the the satellite from aerodynamic, heat and acoustic stress. It explodes because the satellite has propellant in it - certainly for its rcs system for attitude adjustment and station keeping, and it might have a main engine to help it reach orbit.
First explosion related to second stage (upper). Second explosion related to first stage's fuel igniting (I was expecting some much bigger, but likely there was already little oxygen left in that area and why it burned for so long. Third Explosion was the satellite's internal fuel (Hydrazine or something like it) detonating due to the fall damage and contact with the rest of the flame.
This video is also insanely high quality. Thanks!
1:23 you can see the sat fairing fall from the stack, and then a secondary explosion when it hits the ground (presumably sat propellant)
3:24 second explosion with a fairly fast projectile coming out the top. Any clue as to what that is?
You're thinking of hypergolic propellants like hydrazine and nitric acid. This is kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen. Not particularly toxic, just hot as hell.
The deluge system in shuttle launches was for the flame trench and sound dampening to avoid the air pressure from the noise damaging the vehicle, not fire extinguishing.
You can see the launch tower get charred black, that's the fire protective paint.
It's not really possible to fight rocket fuel fires, just mitigate the damage.
> "SpaceX confirm Amos-6 was aboard the Falcon 9 and was lost in the explosion."
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77135388623807283...
1. http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2016/08/24/spacecom...
There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage theories.
But yeah it's not great for spacecom in general, Facebook also will now withdraw from their contract with them for supplying internet to Africa as AMOS-6 was supposed to replace AMOS-2 and enhance the coverage over Africa and the Middle East. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Amos-6-K... Israel is one of the few countries that is pushing satellite coverage in the area, AMOS-6 was supposed to grant up to 20gbps of bandwidth to Africa over the leased Ka band which was desperately needed.
Just like when we test software, they want to have everything as close to what they would expect on launch day as possible (2 days from now). All the stresses, the structure, etc. That means putting stage 2 and the payload on top of the main rocket before the test starts. They probably did a lot of tests before the payload was on board as well, and those didn't reveal whatever flaw has caused this issue.
Yes, it sucks that the payload was lost but there will have been insurance to cover the loss. No human lives lost, no cruise missile scenario, no out of control fire... this is the best case scenario for a rocket failure.
There's a lot of testing, both in isolation and in integration with other components. The risk of the rocket exploding should actually reduce with each test. Note also that in this case the malfunction was most likely with the pad equipment, not the rocket, so not doing static fires would in this case probably just have meant that you'd have an explosion at launch time one day.
EDIT: The static fire is more of a test for launch procedures, apparently:
“The goal of the static fire is to provide a dress rehearsal for the launch team, culminating in a three second firing of all nine of the first stage Merlin 1D engines to validate the health of the rocket.” (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09/falcon-9-explodes-am...)
Makes sense in that the rocket itself is tested quite a bit beforehand already.
If you get interest in this stuff, the HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon" has an episode about Apollo1 (and the series as a whole, though slightly dated on the FX side, is amazing).
Nope.
>Elon Musk has stated that because the rocket didn't intentionally ignite for launch, the loss of payload is not covered by launch insurance.
All you said was that it is good to have some perspective. Yes, it sucks to lose the rocket and the satellite. But to put it into perspective, the husband of the lady sitting next to me as I type this (and a friend of mine) is currently sitting in the shelter at the launchpad. He texted her to let her know he was alive. He can't give out any more details.
Have some perspective people.
This payload, AMOS-6, was a replacement for the soon to fail AMOS-2 which among other things is part of a Facebook initiative to provide internet access in parts of Africa.
I am not aware of any replacement in the works for it, so that service may just shut down, and who knows if it will ever start back up.
So while this might be "nothing" to you, it has actual repercussions for people.
Not to mention the effects on the Israeli company that made the payload. Insurance may or may not pay for the satellite itself (I don't know), but even if they do, they were also relying on income generated from running it.
Actual humans working for that company may now be impacted.
The fact that you were downvoted (at least when I saw your comment) indicates people don't agree with what you are saying and is an example of trying to enforce a particular type of thinking on someone else as far as what they should think or feel.
[1] Of course I wouldn't say "who cares" directly to someone involved in the project in some way then you extend your condolences.
A static fire without the payload on the rocket was already done in Texas several weeks ago. This is the final dress rehearsal before launch. I always thought of these tests as low risk, but I guess nothing in rocketry is low risk.
[1]https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352...
EDIT: Did some research, it seems that those tests (without the payload) already ran successfully, and that this accident happened during the fueling stage at T-3 minutes... that's super unlucky :/
In fairness, when did the government last lose a bird? Doesn't the ULA have a '100%' success rate (where success is getting payload to space, though some payloads fail to make it to the planned orbit)
SpaceX test-fire the first stage motors before each launch. If this was a test firing that went spectacularly wrong, it's embarrassing -- but there won't have been any human beings within blast range and it's better to fail in test than to fail in flight with a payload on top.
(If it was a catastrophic failure during fueling/de-fueling ops, that's another matter entirely, and far more serious -- and an explosive test failure is serious enough as it is.)
(Note that fueling operations for Falcon 9 got a whole lot trickier when they switched to use of super-cooled fuel and oxidizer, to increase density -- if that stuff gets warmer, its volume increases to more than that of the tank, but it's still liquid, so you can't just vent it off.)
According to wikipedia this is related to the AMOS-2 staelite leased by Facebook to provide internet coverage in part of Africa.
An interesting clause in their contract is:
"The parties have agreed to the right to terminate the contract if Amos-6 and the ground gateways in France, Italy and Israel are not ready for service by January 1, 2017"
So this fire could have wider repercussions if SpaceX doesn't get a new launch ready in time. (Unless that same contract also has a clause about SpaceX failure vs IAI failure.)
> but it's still liquid, so you can't just vent it off.
You can vent off liquid to keep the pressure down, but since it's heavier than air it will just add to the fire. Unless maybe they have some sort of piping system connected to the vent to route the extra fuel elsewhere.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/50n5cl/rspacex_cape...
This article has some information on the new characteristics:
- Although considered to be an iterative upgrade from the Falcon 9 v1.1 that preceded it, the modifications to the Full Thrust version have increased the vehicle’s published liftoff capabilities by as much as 30 percent.
- A key component of this performance increase is the use of “densified” propellant. By chilling the liquid oxygen to minus 340 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 207 degrees Celsius) and the RP-1, a highly-refined form of kerosene used as rocket fuel, to 20 degrees Fahrenheit ( minus 7 degrees Celsius), SpaceX has demonstrated the capability to store more oxidizer and fuel in a given volume, as well as increase the flow of propellant through the turbopumps on the first stage’s nine Merlin 1D powerplants and on the upper stage’s lone MVac.
Having an additional phase change doubles the risk factor along the whole pipeline that it flows through, the container, the valves, the pipes, the chambers, whatever. Liquid to gas can be dissipated quickly. How bad can uncontrolled solid to liquid expansion be?
Edit: uncontrolled liquid to gas venting is equally volatile and dangerous.
Live link:
[0] I live in and am in the Big Bend area, so the news, tweets, emails, and texts about the storm are a bit ... much.
http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar_lite.php?rid=MLB&produc...
The first couple of images have cycled out now, but they showed that blob expanding from nothing right where it starts in the current sequence.
(it starts at 1246 here: http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/RadarImg/N0R/MLB/ Not a great view without the map underneath.)
I really hope they can root cause this failure and get the flight schedule back up and running quickly.
What do you know? Turns out SpaceX invested $165M in Solar City last year [1].
[1] http://fortune.com/2015/08/07/this-is-why-elon-musks-spacex-...
https://twitter.com/TroyLeeCampbell/status/77135367764276019...
Has audio from the local police, who seem to be evacuating the various nearby beaches, due to the danger from the plume.
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504/photo/1
The deflection / explosion reaches the sensors at different times, and with precision timing, it enables you to reverse pinpoint where it must have originated: the failing strut.
As a sibling mentioned, there will be lots of telemetry about what was going on with various systems during the incident. That data may indicate a few specific points to start, but it will mostly be useful for putting other facts into context. In parallel would be an effort to comb over the pad, recover as much as possible of what remains of the rocket, and try to identify what parts are what. There may be some obvious forensic evidence of parts to concentrate on, but in all likelihood the analysis will be guided by a combination of analyzing the telemetry and the damage patterns on the remaining pieces. Hopefully the combination will narrow the probable causes down enough to concentrate analysis on a couple-three theories.
Once plausible and probable theories are identified, teams will start to drill down into what event chains could cause them and look for evidence to confirm or reject those. Some of that will involve destructive analysis of the wreckage; you can glean a surprising amount of information from high-magnification images, x-rays, and sections of what otherwise looks like a twisted hunk of scrap metal. Some will involve modeling; no doubt the engineers who designed the engines have some sort of model they used to test it, and the parameters on that model can be varied to create various out-of-spec conditions. Some will be design analysis, to see if some previously-unseen corner case could have caused an otherwise-conformant system to fail catastrophically. Test data on the involved systems will be analyzed to look for any anomalies that might have been passed off at the time but that might be significant on hindsight.
Assuming possibilities still exist and are not sufficiently firm, or even just to be extra thorough, a few possibilities may be tested in practical (and possibly destructive) tests. In other words, try to blow up (or simulate blowing up) another engine in a controlled manner. That may or may not be possible, depending on what the root cause is; a parts tolerance issue, for example, would be practically impossible to recreate unless it were possible to manually change affected parts to match the suspected tolerances that caused the failure.
I'm sure an actual rocket scientist will come along and provide more detail. My work was limited to exploding caps and FETs.
The basic link is: http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html
Start at chapter 2, on page 27. Highlights: "lock the doors" (page 44), the hunt for debris (page 45), reconstruction (page 47, 72, 74ff). It's really an amazing engineering detective story.
The fault tree analysis methodology is on page 85ff.
Source: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-ses-10-satellite-on-re...
source: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/27935/20160901/space...
Bad karma
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77134295079838924...
UPDATE: payload lost. https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/771352111657385984
>Elon Musk has stated that because the rocket didn't intentionally ignite for launch, the loss of payload is not covered by launch insurance.
Very sad. I wonder how this will affect future launches from SpaceX.
This is why we test, this is why we test, this is why we test.
It is especially important to repeat this mantra around management types who want last minute builds before going in front of important customers, because the light blue button looks SO much better then the dark blue button...
Short term setback, but probably not so awful long term. Also glad nobody got hurt. It's just money.
p.s. are you involved with Metaculus in some way? All of your recent postings appear to mention metaculus.com.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/01/spacex-rocket-explodes-at-cap...
EDIT: apparently it happened at t:-3m so nobody was around
Based on previous comments, the most likely failure scenario seems to be related to the new use of super-cooled LOX - and I have to ask, was the temperature at the pad, at the time of the launch, significantly higher than during previous launches involving super-cooled LOX? If so, is there a possibility that the higher temperature differential could have been a contributing factor in the cause of the failure?
(Kind of the exact opposite of the case of the Challenger, where low temperatures were a critical causal factor of the failure)
(Via Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/live/xix3m9uqd06g/updates/fcbc544a-70...)
(There was already an explosion or fire before this one given the smoke in the air).
Absolute huge bummer.
Israel needed AMOS-6 more than anyone else because communication satellites are important for national security and are used by military and national defense agencies.
Even if somehow your crackpot theory had merit delaying the launch would have been an easier and cheaper way of tanking the deal than sabotaging a rocket.
This wasn't an Iranian spy satellite, Israel has no interests in hurting it national security, economy, and reputation by blowing their own shit up, I don't even understand why people would think they blew it up.
We try to avoid that kind of tone here, regardless of the merits of anyone's comments.
Why would they want to do it in such a way when they could have stopped it just with formalities.
I know Israel isn't right all the time but there is little reason to believe they are stupid.
Contact (1997): "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"
I'd argue: at less than twice the price.
Maybe I'm overthinking your comment.
The comment was essentially stating that Facebook should have built two of the satellites, as a contingency plan. Rocket science is hard. Having a backup is easier.
