Launch Pad Explosion during Static Test Fire - Sept 1 2016

[Grendal]

A statement from SpaceX about the anomaly:

Anomaly Updates

"We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds."

"At this time, the data indicates the anomaly originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank."

 

[ecarfan]

Thanks Grendal. But I think many people already knew that.

Seriously, I am stunned there are thousands of data streams being collected on a rocket sitting on the pad. That is incredible. I would have guessed a few hundred at the most.

I am glad to see that SpaceX knows that it has a lot of fans who are anxious for information and wish only the best for the company.

 

[Nikxice]

Thursday's accident is reminiscent of the scene that featured multiple rocket failures in the movie version of 'The Right Stuff'. Those pad failures happened in the late 50's and early 60's. We now have some sobering images from 2016. I have to imagine that some at NASA are now thinking those SRB's they're going to strap onto the future SLS to launch the Orion capsules just got a little better.

I found this Op-ed piece a worthy read.
Op-ed: We love you SpaceX, and hope you reach Mars. But we need you to focus.
The author does not appear to have an agenda and he has some valid ideas as to how SpaceX might best proceed. I agree with his suggestion that the focus should stay on the Falcon 9 and that it is no longer a given that SpaceX will be the first private company to successfully launch humans into space. The duel for manned space flight between Boeing and SpaceX could turn out to be like the race between the tortoise and the hare. As a SpaceX enthusiast, I'm betting that SpaceX will put forth a renewed effort towards reliability and then safely demonstrate commercial crew capability.

 

[Pikachu888]

In the SpaceX anomaly update: Anomaly Updates, it mentioned a time period of 35-55 milliseconds:
"We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds."

And it seems to be referring to the time period that an object was flying by the Falcon 9. Below is the youtube video slowed down to 1/100 seconds. you can jump to 1:58, this object was flying so fast and in a straight horizontal line, and it appeared that the object set the rocket to explode, any idea what this object is? could it be just an insect or bat which flied very close to the camera so it appeared to be in very fast speed? but a bird or an insect or a bat can not fly in such a perfect straight horizontal line, right?

I hope SpaceX have multiple cameras in different angles, so that it can calculate the true speed and distance of the object. maybe installing 360 degree cameras around the rocket.

 

[jkn]

any idea what this object is? could it be just an insect or bat which flied very close to the camera so it appeared to be in very fast speed? but a bird or an insect or a bat can not fly in such a perfect straight horizontal line, right?

If UFO was as far away as rocket, it flew 140 m in 0.233 s -> 600 m/s. Almost mach 2. I guess it was very small and close to camera. Some birds and insects do fly straight.


I looked individual frames from USLaunchreport video:

A frame has nothing strange.
Next frame, 1/30 s later, has flames 1/3 of rocket high. In next frames fireball expands only horizontally. In about 6 frames it is as wide as tall.

So my speculation:

- There was a leak inside the rocked. Flammable mist or gas mixed with air and part of it leaked to outside of the rocket. This probably took several seconds.

- It ignited outside of the rocket and burned very quickly. I don't know if RP-1 can burn that quickly in air. I guess methane would. So what burned in first frame?

- 1/30 s or less later same air fuel mixture ignited inside rocket.
In almost closed space it caused an explosion which spread more fuel sideways.
first frame with flames 1:11.771

next frame 1:11.805

skip 3 frames 1:11.938 wider, but not higher


skip 3 frames 1:12.072 much wider than high.

 

[malcolm]

And if you look through the footage carefully enough, I'm sure you will see the face of Christ/Musk/Trump/Whoever in the fireball; appearing there as a deep, powerful and timely reminder that the human brain is hard-wired to see faces.

 

[Pando]

 

[Bobfitz1]

And if you look through the footage carefully enough, I'm sure you will see the face of Christ/Musk/Trump/Whoever in the fireball; appearing there as a deep, powerful and timely reminder that the human brain is hard-wired to see faces.

This is dodging the obvious question. What is it that appears to be streaking across the video frame coincident with the start of the explosion? Someone has posted another Youtube video slowed down to 1/250.

At :28 in the clip the black spec enters frame from the right. At :32 its much closer - appears to be moving very fast. At :33 it is closer still and since the previous frame the explosion has begun. At :37 the object seems to be passing over the rocket. At :39 it is nearly out the frame.

Next, what's the most likely cause of what the video shows? Something small moving across the camera's field at just
the right vertical height, but between the video cam and the rocket, very close to the camera.
I don't buy it is an insect very close to the camera for same reason as Pikachu88. Seems too straight and no variation in apparent height frame to frame. With video clip slowed to 1/250 I think we'd seem some.

A bat or bird 100+ feet from the camera is another story. Both can fly fast and straight. If the video cam's internal resolution was high enough, enlarging the image greatly might show some features of the black object that would show wings or wing motion. I think my video engineer friend would agree that the resolution the video cam stored is likely far higher than that of a uploaded clip. So only someone with access to the memory card would be able to enlarge as much as necessary.

The other option for determining how close object was to camera is to look at video taken by a second or third video cam located 30 to 60 + degrees from the camera taking this video. If no black spec on those videos then case closed.
With 3,000 separate channels of telemetry built into the Falcon 9, I would think they must have been recording more than one video of the rocket static firing, just in case this type of anomoly did occur.

If one or more do exist, why not make those public? Has anyone seen yet any posting from SpaceX on what's seen in the video?

 

[thegruf]

given the distance from the camer to the launch pad, anything eg a bug.bird significantly closer to the camera would be way out of focus.
The image resolution published is not great, so it is not possible to analyse further from this data alone, even if it is fun speculating.

No doubt Spacex will have a number of angles available to them, the chances of it being relevant however I suggest are vanishingly small.

 

[Nikxice]

Just took a look at the first few minutes of the video posted by Pikachu888. Another streaking object can be observed moving right to left at 1:40, almost 20 seconds prior to the accident. This was possibly just a tracer round fired from the alien Mother Ship.

Seriously, malcolm probably said it funnier, thegruf is tactful and polite, but I'd like to think a SpaceX employee can read these posts on TMC without thinking we've gone down the Truther road.

 

[Model 3]

If the video cam's internal resolution was high enough, enlarging the image greatly might show some features of the black object that would show wings or wing motion.

You don't need higher resolution. I can in this clip clearly see the wings "up/flat" and "down" positions.
And in an earlier video you see the same? similar? object flying the other direction - at an lower position - at an earlier point of time.
Edit: And @Nikxice beat me to it
I will not guess on if it is a bird, a bat or an insect, but whatever it is it flap it's wings

 

[bxr140]

Wait. Hold on.

There are flying animals in florida?

 

[malcolm]

Seeing is believing and believing affects seeing.

...well, that's what I choose to believe.

 

[JRP3]

SpaceX owes the satellite company? Owner of a satellite destroyed in the SpaceX explosion says it's owed $50M or a free flight
I'd assume that both SpaceX and the satellite company would have insurance.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Well, isn't that simply what SpaceX was charging for the launch? Ie. SpaceX either needs to refund the company, or launch another satellite...

 

[thegruf]

Have to assume that with no update from SpaceX yet, that diagnosing the anomaly is not going to be straightforward.
Quite possibly there is not much left after the fire, so they will have to rely on sensor and camera data for analysis.

 

[Grendal]

It all depends on what the contract states. I can't imagine that a contract on a launch guarantees the launch. However, if SpaceX had such wording in their contract then they would owe whatever they agreed to. Short of that, I'm sure that SpaceX owes them nothing and we'll find out the details soon. I can see SpaceX giving them a discount on a replacement launch or possibly and extremely discounted launch on a reusable booster for customer relations reasons. Accidents happen and that is what the insurance is for.

Have to assume that with no update from SpaceX yet, that diagnosing the anomaly is not going to be straightforward.
Quite possibly there is not much left after the fire, so they will have to rely on sensor and camera data for analysis.

"We are currently in the early process of reviewing approximately 3000 channels of telemetry and video data covering a time period of just 35-55 milliseconds."

Some of that is going to be video from various angles. A lot of it is sensor data. They will probably examine the same video that we are looking at too.

 

[bxr140]

It all depends on what the contract states.

There have been very pointed conversations and very direct questions regarding who's insurance covers the payload during a hot fire [if the payload is integrated].

I can't imagine that a contract on a launch guarantees the launch.

The uncomplicated answer is that it does. Insurance covers the rest.

It all rolls up eventually to a state vector. Orbital insertion outside some limits on that state vector typically constitutes a partial launch failure (assuming the spacecraft can still boost itself to its final orbit). Not getting to any orbit, obviously, is failure.

 

[Brovane]

It all depends on what the contract states. I can't imagine that a contract on a launch guarantees the launch. However, if SpaceX had such wording in their contract then they would owe whatever they agreed to. Short of that, I'm sure that SpaceX owes them nothing and we'll find out the details soon.

You are correct, a successful launch is not guaranteed but what is guaranteed is a launch attempt. Since the static fire was never a intent to launch, no launch has occurred. What this means is that SpaceX owes them another launch attempt at no additional charge or a refund of payments already made for the launch.

For example if the static fire would have been conducted with the payload off, the satellite would still be safe in the PPF. Would it be expected that the customer pay SpaceX for another F9 because a static fire test by SpaceX destroyed the vehicle? Of course not. SpaceX is under a obligation to make the launch attempt and they failed to meet that obligation when the vehicle was destroyed during ground tests. The same thing would be expected if for someone reason a stage had a accident a McGregor our a accident on the road will be transported to the launch site.

What usually happens for space launch contracts, is the customer pays about 20% down to secure a place in line, look at is at the deposit. Once they reach the point that fabrication stars the customer pays another 60%, the final 20% is withheld until the payload is verified that it is delivered to it's targeted orbit successfully. If the launch would have failed during the actual launch then SpaceX would have lost just the 20% fee paid for success. At this point the customer would have to pay for another launch our use their insurance to pay for another launch.

 

[Grendal]

You are correct, a successful launch is not guaranteed but what is guaranteed is a launch attempt. Since the static fire was never a intent to launch, no launch has occurred. What this means is that SpaceX owes them another launch attempt at no additional charge or a refund of payments already made for the launch.

For example if the static fire would have been conducted with the payload off, the satellite would still be safe in the PPF. Would it be expected that the customer pay SpaceX for another F9 because a static fire test by SpaceX destroyed the vehicle? Of course not. SpaceX is under a obligation to make the launch attempt and they failed to meet that obligation when the vehicle was destroyed during ground tests. The same thing would be expected if for someone reason a stage had a accident a McGregor our a accident on the road will be transported to the launch site.

What usually happens for space launch contracts, is the customer pays about 20% down to secure a place in line, look at is at the deposit. Once they reach the point that fabrication stars the customer pays another 60%, the final 20% is withheld until the payload is verified that it is delivered to it's targeted orbit successfully. If the launch would have failed during the actual launch then SpaceX would have lost just the 20% fee paid for success. At this point the customer would have to pay for another launch our use their insurance to pay for another launch.

I get the distinction. Thanks for the clarification. So, in this case, SpaceX does owe Spacecomm another launch.