Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • We just completed a significant update, but we still have some fixes and adjustments to make, so please bear with us for the time being. Cheers!

Launch Pad Explosion during Static Test Fire - Sept 1 2016

JRP3

Hyperactive Member
Aug 20, 2007
19,432
42,585
Central New York
Tin foil hat warning:

How hard would it be for a competitor with billions at stake to employ someone to sabotage a SpaceX launch in an undetectable way?

If you want to get very tin foiley slow it down and watch closely around the 1:10 mark, a bird/drone(?) flies right over the rocket as it explodes...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SteveG3

deonb

Active Member
Mar 4, 2013
4,057
4,208
Redmond, WA
Let's just get terminology straight...

In SpaceX terms, this isn't an explosion. It's a Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly:

From June:

RUD.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Model 3

rsquared99

Member
Jan 10, 2008
238
44
Surprise AZ
Is the escape system that was tested last year (?) only for the manned Dragon capsule? The payload sat there for some measurable time before toppling to the ground. It appeared to me that an escape system might have saved the payload.
 

Stoneymonster

Active Member
Jan 8, 2013
1,787
1,064
Aptos, Ca
Is the escape system that was tested last year (?) only for the manned Dragon capsule? The payload sat there for some measurable time before toppling to the ground. It appeared to me that an escape system might have saved the payload.

The escape system is an integral part of the manned Dragon, yes. As this was a standard payload, it was not on Dragon, but in a fairing on the second stage. The cost/benefit probably doesn't make sense right now for a complex escape system for non-human payloads.
 

dpeilow

Moderator
May 23, 2008
9,151
888
Winchester, UK
Not to mention would a satellite take being accelerated at high g, tossed around, somehow being lowered to the ground and probably tumbling over on impact and come out in a useable state? Extremely unlikely. We have to be careful shipping them on trucks and planes not to exceed shock limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabar10

Pando

Member
Apr 3, 2016
380
628
Sandy Ego
Yeah but do you need the additional risk of fueling the second stage with the customer's payload onboard?

The alternative would be to install the customer's payload to the top of a fully fueled vehicle. Since this would need personnel on-site, it's probably too risky for human lives.
 

Grendal

SpaceX Moderator
Jan 31, 2012
5,683
6,836
Santa Fe, New Mexico
In a fundamental sense this is what a static test fire is for. The sad thing is that the payload was lost along with the rocket.

It is incredibly hard to determine, but from watching the video in slow motion, it seemed to be something that began at the connection point. How flammable is supercooled LOX? Would a small spark have caused something like this or something larger? What would it take to get such a significant initial explosion?
 

Grendal

SpaceX Moderator
Jan 31, 2012
5,683
6,836
Santa Fe, New Mexico
So the engines were not firing when the explosion occurred. So something happened during propellant loading.

It's a real blow, but SpaceX will figure it out and make sure it doesn't happen again. No doubt the launches scheduled for the rest of this year will be rescheduled.

As you are already aware. yes. I am curious to know how much this will affect their launch schedule. Since the problem seems to be external to the rocket would there need to be any significant delays? Certainly SLC-40 needs the damage repaired before a launch can happen out of that location. The next launch is scheduled out of Vandenberg. I suppose I'm hoping for something positive.
 

adiggs

Active Member
Sep 25, 2012
4,177
11,401
Portland, OR
I'll be interested to see if this has any affect on Vandenburg operations. I can make a case in my head either way. If they proceed more or less as planned, I wonder if part of their recovery, they can speed up the cadence at Vandenburg as a partial offset to the presumed delay on further launches in Florida.
 

miimura

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2013
5,989
5,567
Los Altos, CA
Figuring out what happened to the rocket is one thing. Rebuilding SLC40 is another. If they can quickly figure out what happened to the rocket, they could proceed with the Iridium Next flight scheduled at Vandenburg. Does anybody know if the pad being prepared for Falcon Heavy is compatible with Falcon 9? Maybe finishing that one would be faster than rebuilding the damaged one.
 

AndreN

Member
Feb 22, 2012
119
145
Redmond, WA
How flammable is supercooled LOX?
Oxygen, liquid or gaseous, is not itself "flammable". Oxygen is what allows other things to be flammable (for combustion to occur). But yes, liquid oxygen can make anything flammable burn extremely quickly. Search YouTube for "barbecue liquid oxygen" (link). Someone pours liquid oxygen on a barbecue with already-lit charcoal briquettes in it, and the charcoal burns entirely in a few seconds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sillydriver

Grendal

SpaceX Moderator
Jan 31, 2012
5,683
6,836
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Figuring out what happened to the rocket is one thing. Rebuilding SLC40 is another. If they can quickly figure out what happened to the rocket, they could proceed with the Iridium Next flight scheduled at Vandenburg. Does anybody know if the pad being prepared for Falcon Heavy is compatible with Falcon 9? Maybe finishing that one would be faster than rebuilding the damaged one.

LC-39A is designed for both FH and F9. It's probably going to take an equal time to finish LC-39A as it will be to repair SLC-40. What a tragedy...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Mike1080i

KZKZ

Member
Jun 17, 2016
272
10
Calif
Yeah but do you need the additional risk of fueling the second stage with the customer's payload onboard?

Agreed, it's very odd that a 1/4 Billion dollar payload was onboard during a static fire test.

Zuckerberg must not be very happy with Space X. His satellite didn't need to be present for the test.
 

bxr140

Active Member
Nov 18, 2014
2,623
3,285
Bay Area
I'll be interested to see if this has any affect on Vandenburg operations....I wonder if part of their recovery, they can speed up the cadence at Vandenburg....

VAFB and CCAFS launch to different orbits. They're for two completely separate and not interchangeable missions.

This will absolutely will stop vandenberg launches. They need to determine the root cause before doing anything, then implement a corrective action. Since this was clearly a rocket or a ground equipment problem, it affects both sites. Few if any causes coukd be site specific.

If it's a smoking gun problem with an obvious solution, vandenberg could come back online relatively soon. Unfortunately, there aren't many commercial customers that want to launch something on a heavy-ish launcher to a polar orbit, so for now even if they did try to shift focus to more vandenberg launches, there wouldn't be anyone to launch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: e-FTW and Mike1080i

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top