-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon Musk Verified account
@elonmusk
Still working on the Falcon fireball investigation. Turning out to be the most difficult and complex failure we have ever had in 14 years.
Elon Musk Verified account
@elonmusk
Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off. May come from rocket or something else.
@elonmusk
Still working on the Falcon fireball investigation. Turning out to be the most difficult and complex failure we have ever had in 14 years.
Elon Musk Verified account
@elonmusk
Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off. May come from rocket or something else.
That is very disturbing.
I really feel for Elon and the entire SpaceX team. After a week of intensive investigation it appears they have not been able to determine what caused the explosion. Until they do, and then implement changes to ensure it does not happen again, I am concerned that they cannot proceed with their launch schedule without their insurance costs going through the roof.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
How exposed is the launch site to a sniper?
A few years ago, a sniper took out some major electrical transformers with only a few shots.
I do not wish to encourage irresponsible speculation as to the cause of the explosion, but it seems to me that sabotage cannot be ruled out at this time. There is no shortage of crazy people with weapons, acting alone or under the direction of someone else.
It would likely be possible to sneak into the launch complex. The effective range of a modern sniper rifle is remarkable. According to Sniper rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia range is defined in units of MOA (minute of angle). For a trained shooter with a modern sniper rifle it would be easy to hit a huge target like a Falcon 9 from well over a mile away based on my reading of that Wikipedia page.
Would one bullet hit high up on the second stage, piercing the vehicle, then cause an explosion like the one experienced last week? I don't know. I do not know how much of a fuel tank pressure drop is needed for the pressure sensors to detect it nor do I know how rapidly tank pressure loss would occur in such a situation so I do not know if an alarm would have gone off before the explosion.
Sabotage seems improbable, but after a week of intensive investigation has apparently produced no explanations, I can't rule it out.
ecarfan: the 2nd time around, what you said made sense:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Has Elon Musk Just Hinted That Sabotage Might Be Behind The SpaceX Explosion?! - OfficeChai
Tightening the straps on my tin foil helmet.
Was this guy seen near the launch site?
I understood that reference.
Ok, I get the sniper theory (extra noise, focal initiation of the explosion, odd location?). When I was watching the videos earlier what struck me was I couldn't hear a sound prior to the explosion (which I was looking for to confirm a supersonic bullet, a subsonic bullet would not reach the rocket given the range needed), but admittedly my hearing is bad.
But what I don't get is how does the "detected an anomaly" fall into the picture. I took from that statement that they detected something before the explosion and evacuated personale before the explosion. Obviously I don't know how many people are in and around the pad when they are live testing the rocket so that may have not been a "true" evacuation that we would think of (like emptying a building).
Was that statement more of an acknowledgment of the explosion or did they actually pick something up earlier with time to evacuate personal? Maybe the anomaly they detected was a split second before the explosion? Guess we'll find out when the investigation is over.
Unfortunately my tin foil hat is really buzzing on my head right now with Elon's statement.
But what I don't get is how does the "detected an anomaly" fall into the picture. I took from that statement that they detected something before the explosion and evacuated personale before the explosion. Obviously I don't know how many people are in and around the pad when they are live testing the rocket so that may have not been a "true" evacuation that we would think of (like emptying a building).
Was that statement more of an acknowledgment of the explosion or did they actually pick something up earlier with time to evacuate personal? Maybe the anomaly they detected was a split second before the explosion? Guess we'll find out when the investigation is over.
Unfortunately my tin foil hat is really buzzing on my head right now with Elon's statement.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines applies here. The answer is _no_, they're just trying to figure out the triggering event.
Ok, I get the sniper theory (extra noise, focal initiation of the explosion, odd location?). When I was watching the videos earlier what struck me was I couldn't hear a sound prior to the explosion (which I was looking for to confirm a supersonic bullet, a subsonic bullet would not reach the rocket given the range needed), but admittedly my hearing is bad.
But what I don't get is how does the "detected an anomaly" fall into the picture. I took from that statement that they detected something before the explosion and evacuated personale before the explosion. Obviously I don't know how many people are in and around the pad when they are live testing the rocket so that may have not been a "true" evacuation that we would think of (like emptying a building).
Was that statement more of an acknowledgment of the explosion or did they actually pick something up earlier with time to evacuate personal? Maybe the anomaly they detected was a split second before the explosion? Guess we'll find out when the investigation is over.
Unfortunately my tin foil hat is really buzzing on my head right now with Elon's statement.
You misread it. The pad and surrounding area is always clear during static fire. I never saw anything about an evacuation. The explosion was a surprise when it happened.
3Victoria
Active Member
They no doubt have video of the site. They detected a pre-explosion soft sound. Could have been anything, eg gasket giving way, etc. A release of fuel or oxygen would have set up for a fire .. just needs a spark such as static discharge from fueling. Could be part of the rocket or part of the gantry and fueling system.
In a fundamental sense, SpaceX is a huge disruptor in the launch industry. The cost of orbital launches is enormous. Billions of dollars are at stake. There are a lot of foreign interests involved in this as well. People kill and murder for a lot less. So we can honestly say that there is motivation for someone to see SpaceX fail.
That said, I'd eliminate any of the crackpot theories based on the video about flying objects. No aliens or missiles are involved. Any of that would have easily been seen from some of the other cameras and video equipment that surrounds a launch. We would have already heard an announcement that someone fired a missile at the rocket.
However, and this is pure speculation, let's look at this from someone actually wanting to cause the anomaly we saw. We know there was an explosion. Would firing a bullet at the rocket from a mile away actually cause the explosion we saw? I would think that would need to be an extremely lucky shot. It somehow hit an area that caused a spark at just the right moment and time. That seems extremely unlikely to me. Possible, but unlikely IMO.
A small bomb on the other hand would need to be placed. This would involve pre-planning and preparation. I think this is only slightly more possible than firing a weapon at the rocket. The bomb would not need to be inside the rocket but placed on strongback. A timer would not be all that effective since timing for fueling is critical. So something that could receive a signal to explode. A small detonation that leads to the large explosion we saw.
All of this is extremely unlikely, but due to the massive monies involved should not be ruled out.
We can also speculate from the tweet that there is no obvious signs in the data. No loss in pressure and no device on the rocket had its signal suddenly cut out before the explosion indicating a failure to let investigators know what to look for. It is still most likely that something happened on the rocket or just outside of the rocket that caused this.
That said, I'd eliminate any of the crackpot theories based on the video about flying objects. No aliens or missiles are involved. Any of that would have easily been seen from some of the other cameras and video equipment that surrounds a launch. We would have already heard an announcement that someone fired a missile at the rocket.
However, and this is pure speculation, let's look at this from someone actually wanting to cause the anomaly we saw. We know there was an explosion. Would firing a bullet at the rocket from a mile away actually cause the explosion we saw? I would think that would need to be an extremely lucky shot. It somehow hit an area that caused a spark at just the right moment and time. That seems extremely unlikely to me. Possible, but unlikely IMO.
A small bomb on the other hand would need to be placed. This would involve pre-planning and preparation. I think this is only slightly more possible than firing a weapon at the rocket. The bomb would not need to be inside the rocket but placed on strongback. A timer would not be all that effective since timing for fueling is critical. So something that could receive a signal to explode. A small detonation that leads to the large explosion we saw.
All of this is extremely unlikely, but due to the massive monies involved should not be ruled out.
We can also speculate from the tweet that there is no obvious signs in the data. No loss in pressure and no device on the rocket had its signal suddenly cut out before the explosion indicating a failure to let investigators know what to look for. It is still most likely that something happened on the rocket or just outside of the rocket that caused this.
Ulmo
Active Member
It sounded like something inside a tank hitting the bottom of the tank. It had the reverberation of a sound in a tank with liquid in it.
That doesn't match the location of the visual start of explosion. Perhaps the explosion started at the bottom and burst out at top.
What's inside a rocket? Another tank? Maybe the top integrity of that inner tank fell to the bottom, clunked, reacted up out the new top weakness of the tank, positioning the initial visual output nearer the top of the whole rocket.
Just brainstorming.
So, musician audio file editors and scientists could do audio waveform signature comparisons to similar setups to find likely matches. Would need to duplicate exact setup of records; same mic and recorder, location, etc., like an ear drum.
Sounds fun!
Does anyone remember a few launches ago where the launch was scrubbed because the range wasn't clear? I recall the time when a Russian tug parked off shore to observe a SpaceX launch.
Found a link: Russian tug off Florida: supporting nuclear attack subs or observing SpaceX launch?
I sincerely hope nothing nefarious was the cause of the anomaly.
Found a link: Russian tug off Florida: supporting nuclear attack subs or observing SpaceX launch?
I sincerely hope nothing nefarious was the cause of the anomaly.
Similar threads
- Article
