Launch Pad Explosion during Static Test Fire - Sept 1 2016

[SteveG3]

Elon's has removed tweets in the past.

for future reference, in addition to this tweet today,

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 16h16 hours ago
Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off. May come from rocket or something else.


Elon also tweeted,

In reply to AJ
Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 15h15 hours ago
@ashwin7002 @NASA @faa @AFPAA We have not ruled that out.

in response to:

AJ ‏@ashwin7002 15h15 hours ago
@elonmusk @NASA @faa @AFPAA there are some videos on YouTube claiming something hit the rocket. Any reality there?

 

[Grendal]

But ... if that's a thing (this strut you speak of ... I barely have any sense what the word strut means), then I have no prejudice against it failing again despite its design being fixed before. If anything, there's less potential of the fixed thing being broken, but more potential that something that needs fixing still needs more fixing.

If the helium tank let loose then there should be data sent out to give SpaceX the info needed to determine this. The other thing about a strut failure, a bullet rupturing a tank, or just a failure of a fuel tank would be showing signs of an escaping gas cloud. There is none of that. If one of the tanks lost pressure from a rupture then that to should be noticeable from the information they have. So far we only know that there is a small bang a few seconds prior to Boom. The explosion was immediately energetic. There had to be a potentially explosive mixture of flammables on hand for that immense combustion. If it takes a mixture of RP-1 and LOX then there had to leak in the RP-1. I think there is a high concentration of LOX being bled off which is the normal gas leakage we see. Someone else asked this question already, could LOX alone create such an energetic explosion?

Remember that last time there was a spike in pressure which told SpaceX that the internal strut had failed and crimped the fuel lines. There is a lot of data coming into SpaceX at all times.

 

[mediocreguy]

But ... if that's a thing (this strut you speak of ... I barely have any sense what the word strut means),

It is my understanding that there is a (smaller) helium tank mounted inside the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank that maintains tank output pressure as the LOX in the tank is consumed. The helium tank is mounted to the top of the tank via metal struts that extend from the outside wall of the helium tank to the inside walls of the LOX tank. The cause of the last accident was determined to be due to one of these struts failing and allowing the helium tank to come loose and over-pressurize the LOX tank - leading to the structural failure of the LOX tank and eventually the rocket itself.

However, even then, there was no real explosion like in this case - it looked more like a "rapid disassembly" as Elon likes to say. Just speculating - but in this incident, It seems like if it was a LOX tank failure a leak would have been seen before the explosion and that the RP1 tank would have to be breached as well. However, the rattling sound heard just before the first explosive concussion really sounds a lot like something rattling around inside a tank of some sort - again, just speculation.

If it was a repeat failure, it will look bad for the company and possibly hurt their reputation with NASA - which could be detrimental to the future of the company.

 

[weak_pig]

Is it possible a detonator or bomb is implanted deep within the satellite payload and set to be remotely detonated? Any chance that the bomb was not detected by spacex personal during inspection?

 

[Nikxice]

Hope they get a solid lead soon and that the fix won't be too complicated. Elon's provocative tweets today have generated quite a bit of interest. I'll admit that I rank low on the sabotage scale. Reality is usually not nearly as exciting as fiction. Although there's probably a few grassy knolls in the vicinity of the Cape, just can't envision any of them sharing the same fate as what lingers over Dealey Plaza.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Hope they get a solid lead soon and that the fix won't be too complicated. Elon's provocative tweets today have generated quite a bit of interest. I'll admit that I rank low on the sabotage scale. Reality is usually not nearly as exciting as fiction. Although there's probably a few grassy knolls in the vicinity of the Cape, just can't envision any of them sharing the same fate as what lingers over Dealey Plaza.

I look at it this way:

Any sort of combustion requires 3 things: oxygen, fuel, and ignition source. We know there was plenty of oxygen (both cryogenic being loaded, and ambient in the atmosphere), as well as fuel in the 2nd stage. What's unknown is how the initial fire ignition occurred. After a week of investigations, SpaceX has not found any source of ignition from sensor data on the rocket or the launch pad and equipment. This doesn't mean that something in the rocket or launch pad wasn't the ignition source, since the sensors could have failed to collect the data, but it does lower the likelihood that they were the source.

If the rocket and launch hardware didn't cause the ignition, something outside must have caused it. Perhaps it was a Klingon Bird-of-Prey that can fire while cloaked. A bullet striking metal components would throw off tiny sparks, which could ignite fuel and oxygen. The Falcon 9 is a big target and would not be difficult for a trained shooter to hit. It's an unproven theory, but one that could fit the facts. If there are crazy loons out there who will shoot power grid transformers, or shoot people in a nightclub, or shoot up a school, I think it is not out of the realm of possibility that someone could shoot at a spacecraft.

The UFO stuff I mostly discount though.

If starfaring aliens wanted to attack Earth, I expect that they'd go for power grid and command & control infrastructure first, rather than a rocket carrying no military assets.

 

[adiggs]

If starfaring aliens wanted to attack Earth, I expect that they'd go for power grid and command & control infrastructure first, rather than a rocket carrying no military assets.

There you go, getting all pragmatic and reasonable and stuff.

 

[malcolm]

Dibs on the Hollywood version starring John Travolta and Tom Cruise.

 

[Yggdrasill]

lols, yes it is a big if. that's why I italicized the "if", and suggested we can compare our perceptions as to whether or not the objects in question are flying in front of or behind the rockets/towers. if there is some sense that the object is behind, it pretty much rules out birds, insects, etc. if the assumptions about frames per second are correct. if it's not a bird or bug (or any type of animal)... I start to wonder more.

It's definitely birds. You can see them flying back and forth before the explosion:

 

[ggr]

Dibs on the Hollywood version starring John Travolta and Tom Cruise.

Tom Hanks is the one you never want to travel with...

 

[SPXMike]

Just wanted to share this editorial by Greg Autry in SpaceNews. Elon tweeted the link. Mr Autry clearly Gets It. Thank you Sir.
Op-ed | Despite SpaceX setback, future of private space exploration is bright - SpaceNews.com

 

[SteveG3]

It's definitely birds. You can see them flying back and forth before the explosion:

looking at the video in post 108, how sure are you that the object coming from the lower left at :46 seconds is passing in front of the tower and rocket rather than behind it? to my eyes it appears to pass behind (which would make it being a bird very improbable). of course, that appearance to my eyes doesn't mean it is so (there may be explanations having to do with the camera etc. that give a false appearance of not passing in front of these other objects), but it makes me wonder how it appears to others...

 

[Yggdrasill]

looking at the video in post 108, how sure are you that the object coming from the lower left at :48 seconds is passing in front of the tower and rocket rather than behind it? to my eyes it appears to pass behind (which would make it being a bird very improbable). of course, that appearance to my eyes doesn't mean it is so, but it makes me wonder how it appears to others...

You can see the bird in front of the explosion as it passes over the less bright areas. (Two frames at 1:02-1:03 and one frame at 1:07.)

When the bird passes in front of the very bright (overexposed) areas of the explosion, no detail can be discerned due to the overexposure. The exposure time would need to be set differently to be able to see the bird.

Edit: "Overexposed" is the word, not "oversaturated". My bad. See for instance: Missing Crosshairs - Moon Landing Hoax Truth

 

[SteveG3]

You can see the bird in front of the explosion as it passes over the less bright areas. (Two frames at 1:02-1:03 and one frame at 1:07.)

When the bird passes in front of the very bright (oversaturated) areas of the explosion, no detail can be discerned due to the oversaturation. You would need a filter on the camera to be able to see the bird.

thanks Yggdrasill.

your point about the very bright areas of the explosion making details indiscernible is the sort of thing I've been wondering about.

as to frames 1:02-1:03 and frames 1:07, to me it strongly appears that the object in question is not visible in any of those frames. I do see what I'm quite confident are other objects in those frames very close to the rocket (i.e., what appears to be something that blew off from the rocket near the top of the rocket in frame 1:07), but I am skeptical that these are the object in question.

I can see why Elon tweeted that they want any footage available. they've not found a convincing theory yet of any kind after a week of scrutiny.

I'm not sure if you saw the tweet where Elon commented, "We have not ruled that out." in response to being asked, "there are some videos on YouTube claiming something hit the rocket. Any reality there?" that really go my attention yesterday.

 

[Yggdrasill]

thanks Yggdrasill.

your point about the very bright areas of the explosion making details indiscernible is the sort of thing I've been wondering about.

as to frames 1:02-1:03 and frames 1:07, to me it strongly appears that the object in question is not visible in any of those frames. I do see what I'm quite confident are other objects in those frames very close to the rocket (i.e., what appears to be something that blew off from the rocket near the top of the rocket in frame 1:07), but I am skeptical that these are the object in question.

This is where the bird is:

I can see why Elon tweeted that they want any footage available. they've not found a convincing theory yet of any kind after a week of scrutiny.

I'm not sure if you saw the tweet where Elon commented, "We have not ruled that out." in response to being asked, "there are some videos on YouTube claiming something hit the rocket. Any reality there?" that really go my attention yesterday.

As long as they haven't found a cause, nothing is ruled out. It could be something like the space shuttle accident where a piece of insulation detached and broke a ceramic tile, causing the shuttle to be incinerated on reentry. Generally, these sort of incidents fall under the category FOD "Foreign Object Damage/Debris". It's one of the more common causes of faults.

 

[SteveG3]

This is where the bird is:

View attachment 193914
View attachment 193915
View attachment 193916

As long as they haven't found a cause, nothing is ruled out. It could be something like the space shuttle accident where a piece of insulation detached and broke a ceramic tile, causing the shuttle to be incinerated on reentry. Generally, these sort of incidents fall under the category FOD "Foreign Object Damage/Debris". It's one of the more common causes of faults.

appreciate your taking the time to do that. the frame at 1:07 is somewhat suggestive to me of the object being in front of the smoke. I can't see anything in 1:02 or 1:03 (though I believe you are sincere in saying you see a bird there).

as to FOD... something from the outside of the rocket would have had to have had a sufficient mass/velocity combination to due sufficient damage to lead to the explosion (i.e., I'd imagine that piece of insulation detaching and hitting the tile while the shuttle was stationary on the launch pad would not have cracked the tile). not saying Elon's tweet means that something hitting the rocket from an outside source is their lead theory, but in my gut, I do think it is something they are considering.

 

[HVM]

...the space shuttle accident where a piece of insulation detached and broke a ceramic tile...

Not a tile, but a carbon-carbon leading edge of the left wing. Shuttles were missing multiple tiles with out problem before.

Both reason for STS accidents were visible in the recovered hardware, as missing tiles for ice/foam strikes and venting O-rings in SRBs. And were dismissed as non mission threatening...

Does any one remember a news of O2 (LOX?) tank/bottle mishap at McGregor?

November 27, 2013

"On Wednesday morning, SpaceX officials issued a statement saying the explosion occurred during a “slosh baffle test” and that work had returned to normal at the facility. “SpaceX will identify the root cause of the incident and make any adjustments necessary to avoid this kind of disturbance to the McGregor community going forward,”

 

[Cobbler]

Maybe someone hit the rocket by accident with an rc drone/camera setup for an exclusive YT video? Any street recordings of the surrounding area available? Or someone fired a bullet towards it?

 

[Bobfitz1]

Reviewing the Youtube video slowed to 1/100 speed shows a total of four times a black object moves across the field of view.
The 1/100 clip starts earlier than the 1/250 clip, so it captures two more movements which the 1/250 does not.
Unlike the slower clip, the 1/100 has additional frames which are not shown when video is stopped and draged showing row of selectable frames. To freeze and capture the frames below, you must play the few seconds around each movement multiple times, hitting pause until it stops on the right frame. The frame times listed are from the 1/100 clip which shows as 24:32 long.

Three of the four sequences show the objects do appear to be birds captured flying between the rocket/launch pad and camera position.
While there doesn't seem to be a frame in these clips clearly showing the object seen as explosion begins is also between camera and rocket, that seems very likely. If expanding the image just around the black object shows it's vertical height is varying frame to frame, that would prove this one too was a bird.

1. 0:36 - 0:38; A black object moves left to right, low and fast. Screen capture shows it mid frame just below the left diagonal arm.

2. 1:40 - 1:41 ; An object moves right to left nearer to middle of frame. Appears to be between Falcon and camera.

Apologies but I'm getting an error uploading rest of the screen captures. Check the 1/100 clip at the listed time.

3. 1:59 - 2:00 Object moves from right to left passing the two lightning towers, then just over the rocket.
No frame captures the object in front of towers. In the 1/250 video, there does seem to be
frame by frame changes in object’s apparent height, suggesting wing beats.

4. 2:02 - 2:04 Just as explosion is growing, object moves left to right diagonally, is obscured by fireball then emerges and continues upward path.

 

[ecarfan]

The "objects" being discussed are certainly birds. If an external object struck the second stage and caused the explosion, it would be a very high speed and relatively small projectile moving incredibly fast. You would not see it in a video taken by an observer miles away, and you likely wouldn't even see it in one of the many high quality videos SpaceX was running at the time.

I am not ruling out the possibility of an external cause for the event, only saying it is a low probability and that obsessing over tiny dots in the videos available to the public is not a useful exercise. But feel free to carry on...