This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Caught On Tape - Elon Musk's SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Explodes On Take-Off After "Anomaly"
Having been picked by NASA, and funded by US taxpayers, to ship a cargo capsule to the Space Station, Elon Musk's SpaceX 9 Falcon Rocket has exploded shortly after takeoff due to what is being called an "anomaly."
Everything was going well for 20 seconds.
.@SpaceX CRS-7 is on its way! pic.twitter.com/LlYyjDnLHz
— Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) June 28, 2015
- *SPACEX SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHES CARGO CAPSULE TO SPACE STATION
- *SPACEX FALCON 9 LIFTS OFF FROM CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA
Yay. Oh wait...
- *SPACEX FALCON 9 ROCKET EXPLODES DURING FLORIDA LAUNCH
- *SPACEX CONFIRMS `ANOMALY' DURING FALCON 9 LAUNCH
- *SPACEX: ANOMALY HAPPENED AFTER ROCKET REACHED `MAXIMUM STRESS'
Falcon 9 experienced a problem shortly before first stage shutdown. Will provide more info as soon as we review the data.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2015
This does not look "normal"
Nasa's unmanned @SpaceX rocket explodes at start of #ISScargo supply mission pic.twitter.com/ZmJ6cNJE2Q
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 28, 2015
#SpaceX #Falcon9 rocket explodes during takeoff. #NASA says there was a "launch vehicle failure" #7News pic.twitter.com/DNHjqdtLsX
— Kris Anderson (@KrisAndersonTV) June 28, 2015
On the bright side, the failure to take-off makes the failure to land issue null-and-void, call it bilateral nettting or something - it always works, just as AIG.
One wonders if The Fed's rate "Lift-Off" will look the same?
»
- 39175 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
We exploded some rockets.
(no really, there are explosives all over that thing, just in case it threatens populated areas)
you didn't destroy that
2 billion dollar contract, won over Boeing.
Boeing gangsta sabotage.
Elon's first choice to name the venture was "Plan 9 from outer space",but that had already been taken..
Oops! No Cheesey Puffs for the spacestation...
"Oh thats a Tesla - dude- oh shit!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIOGXcwYq1w
looks like second stage oxidizer tank blew.
Fail early and fail often to succeed sooner. Some posters here don't understand that.
The U.S. funded an egocentric arrogant guy who got lucky with Pay Pal. To send rockets into space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GAKOLOnfV4
This is the same guy's company who wanted MBA's for an accounts payable clerk.
The dude learned Rocket engineering from READING A BOOK! But won't hire people who need even entry level easy jobs because we couldn't afford an MBA.
There are real rocket scientists. I've met them before. They're the "dorky" people within the U.S. military and affiliates who like passed all of these chemistry/physics classes and actually worked on rocket fuel and the like. Some life maybe an hour and a half away. There are some that inhabit the U.S. military, NASA, Lockheed, etc.
Those too who have a preference for underrepresented minority clause in Affirmative Action.
And of course, their message board is flooded with:
"Rocket science is hard".
NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Any PRIVATE investor for these projects may have vetted the scientists to work on the project instead of using some inept nepotistic affirmative action rich chain of command for such the expensive project. Because, like - sometimes quality control yields results and profits and retained earnings to pay dividends with.
Sure it's "cheap" compared to a government program.
Not anymore.
So much for the beneficiaries of the failed New Trade Theory of nepotist beneficiaries paradigm.
the major cost of rockets is not that they you need to buy a new one.
reuseable rockets are STUPID FOR MAKING MONEY IN THE LAUNCHING BUSINESS
the only thing you need vertical landing rockets for is landing heavy payloads on the moon or mars. and HEAVY is the past .
HUMANS ARE NOT GOING TO MARS FOR 100 YEARS AND THERE IS ZERO REASON FOR THEM TO GO TO THE MOON UNTIL WE ARE EXPERTS AT SENDING SMALL INTELLIGENT ROBOTIC DRONES THAT CAN OPERATE BOTH AUTONOMOUSLY AND UNDER REMOTE GUIDANCE FROM EARTH ON THE MOON OR NEAR EARTH SPACE.
THE ISS SHOULD BE CLOSED IT IS A WASTE OF MONEY AND DOES NO GOOD SCIENCE.
IT'S TIME TO RETHINK OUR APPRAOCH TO SPACE .
the truth is most space missions are military in nature and unmanned sattelites. man does not yet have much of a place in low earth orbit let alone in deep space or other planetary bodies or the moon.
we have learned much about man in space and much about how far we can push miniaturization and telecommunications and AI. the future of space is UNMANNED .
assuming civilization remains on its current trajectory, we have a few hundred years of technology development ahead of us to master the unmanned presence of civilization in space. after that, we will begin visiting it ourselves.
it's funny how so many people who are space fanatics immidiately reject this notion while willing to entertain the notion that space aliens visiting earth are actually robots sent by their creators.
we are going to be the creators sending advanced robots out to do advanced activities all around our OWN solar system before too long. and it is going to be the biggest explosion of solar system science man will see. our understanding of the sun and the planets is going to increase tremendously as our intelligent robots become ever more capable of making detailed observations at closer and closer proximities.
That's sad. I really wish they can make that first stage land safely.
Better remove your SpaceX stickers from your Teslas before Monday morning.
Maybe the entire space program is full of shit and nothing more than a huge money grab.
That old apollo moon footage stinks like a bag of assholes. Space Shuttles were certainly for real, nearly all of their missions were military in nature, but that walking on the moon shit....rubs my fur the wrong way. I'm surprised Armstrong never confessed.
you are correct about everythin being military. but the moon landings are real, you can see the junk that is on the moon today still .
don't buy into the deliberately misleading moon hoaxer bullshit. that said, most space news is a hoax or skewed lie or half truth to cover over military missions that need expalanation.
A few weeks ago I said something involving ISS at the end of June would be part of of the battle royal between the East and West.
Did Putin tell Obama to withdraw the troops from Russia's border or never would another American astronaut see the inside of the ISS again?
What blew up the Space-X rocket? Khibiny, Tiangong, or old fashioned sabotage?
And why did Putin call Obama on Friday?
And it's gone!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjOU7E0WFZ0
So, how are the scientists aboard the ISS going to get their resupply of Skittles now?
SkittlesFUBAR.
oops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Anomoly on ascent, anomoly on descent. Looks to me like the fuckers just keep blowing up. I'm thinking the first stage didn't separate on the ascent one.
I guess Musk need some rockets from Russia. But the PR is ok as long as his stocks take off.
>>>
Explodes On Take-Off After "Anomaly"
<<<
_Anomaly_?
This is a very decent attempt to scale the heights of masterly understatement.
However, the frontrunner remains Emperor Hirohito [After 100,000 dead in one firestorm raid on Tokyo alone, and at the receiving end of the only two nukes used (so far) in warfare]:
"...the war has developed, not necessarily to Japan's advantage..."
Watson
Didn't we learn anything from the Space Shuttle .... about re-usable being way more expensive than disposable ?
Happy birthday Elon! DOH!!!
Kim Jong-un should send a cargo capsule full of Kimchi up to the space Station just to mess with Elon.
Musk Melon .... that's easier to say !
It was 6 times round trip,including the one where Tom Hanks duct taped the system together miraculously to make the 240,000 mile return trip. Since 1972, we haven't been more than 365 miles from the earth's surface. Hard to get unmanned rockets into space even with 2015 technology yet against incredible odds using computing technology less than in today's pocket calculator, we never had a failure in the Apollo missions to the moon. Except, of course, during testing when lead astronaut and NASA program critic Gus Grissom. Ed White, and Roger Chafee were burned to death on the launch pad, shortly after Grissom famously hung a lemon on the capsule. His family says they were murdered and no other astronaut spoke out again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
And, oh yes, the astronauts say you cannot see stars in space on the daylight side of the earth--and still do--despite NASA photos. Of course, that is why we never put astronomy telescopes on top of mountains--because you can't see the stars better with less atmosphere--do we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0TQ99bMrw
Elon,
Just claim it as another unintended consequence of Stuxnet and sue the b%"t*rds.
Should've waited until the 4th.
Elon has a new explosion-proof idea - a 100 mile high soda straw to suck spacecraft into orbit, TeslaLoopX.
NASA is a fraud, there is no "space station", no moon landings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nIRMTMMf84
Manned space travel is expensive and vain .... and citizens shouldn't have to pay for it .... everything can be done by robots .... and nano-robots can be sent up .... in "bottle rockets" .... NASA should learn from Drones .... think small .... cheap .... and fun !
Reminds me that Putin a few days ago called Obama..... We have ultra new electronic tools...
Payback?
The majority of my aerospace career at a large Pacific Northwest aerospace corporation in engineering design was in aircraft. I did work on several missile and rocket programs but I cannot discuss any specifics regarding programs. The Rockwell International SSME information is publicly available so I cite that herein.
The complexity, energies required to place payloads into orbit and the consequent angers involved escalate by orders of magnitude over military combat aircraft design. Rocketry is extremely intolerant of system faults and/or component failures.
When I first learned that commercial, self-funded corporations were entering the rocket launch field I was extremely skeptical that any would have the long time horizon and deep capitalization required to properly design and realistically test their engines. Forget structural issues like POGO, my initial thoughts were that they would face funding pressures to do far more than cut corners, they would just forgo the comprehensive engine and engine component test programs because of costs.
The SSME program test history was almost a full 6-years long of over 700 cumulative engine tests of over 140,000 seconds of operation. There were 8-major problems encountered with 14 problem events. This does not count testing at the assembly, sub-assembly, component, etc., levels. This is why really, really deep pockets are required in rocketry programs. Also, there is no career path in rocketry unless you include the unemployment line as part of your desired career path. It's a lot worse than the aircraft design business, though mass layoffs at program end are inevitable there, too.
There is a truism (I have personal corroborating experience for this truism, too.) in the aerospace industry that the least knowledgable contractor submits the winning bid in design competitions. That is because their corporate body of knowledge is insufficient in comparison to the competition, hence they can't foresee the known problems that the others account for in their proposals.
Problems fall into the known knowns category, the known unknowns category and the unknown unknowns category. Those unknown unknowns will wrap you around the proverbial axle and cause havoc with budgets, schedules and reputations not to mention becoming "program-termination" events.
For an impression of the power densities required in rocketry, consider the LOX/LH2 Space Shuttle Main Engine (of which there were three per shuttle):
• Full Power Level (FPL) 109%: 512,300 pounds (thrust)
• Rated Power Level (RPL) 100%: 470,000 pounds (thrust)
• Throttle Range: 65 To 109%
• Propellants: Liquid Oxygen (LOX), Liquid Hydrogen (LH2)
• Weight: 7000 pounds
• Width: 7.5 feet
• Height: 14 feet
• Design Life: 27,000 Seconds, 55 Starts
• At Full Power: 14,000 Seconds
• HPFTP turbine: 75,000 horsepower
• HPFTP flow rate (@ FPL): 17,000 LH2 gallons/minute
• HPFTP speed: > 36,000 rpm
• HPFTP weight: 775 pounds
• HPOTP turbine: 28,000 horsepower
• HPOTP flow rate (@ FPL): 7,500 LOX gallons/minute (main),
~750 LOX gpm (boost)
• HPOTP speed: > 30,000 rpm
• HPOTP weight: 574 pounds
Given only for comparison purposes, that is a smaller package, weighing less, than my entire 2014 Ford F-250 Super Duty Crew Cab, 6.7 liter diesel, 400-horsepower, 800 pound-foot torque, 4-wheel drive truck. Its engine alone weighs 1100 pounds including oil. The power density is 0.36 horsepower per pound. Compare that to the SSME HPFTP turbines ~100 horsepower per pound. But, my truck cost a lot less than an SSME!
The SSME high-pressure fuel turbo pump (HPFTP) is a three-stage centrifugal pump driven by a two-stage reaction turbine exhausting into the main combustion chamber. When operating at FPL, each of the three twelve-inch impellers develops over 60,000 feet of head rise at an LH2 flow rate of 17,000 gallons per minute and exceeds 36,000 rpm. The two-stage, eleven-inch diameter delivers 75,000 horsepower at greater than 80% efficiency and a pressure ratio of 1.5. With a total assembly weight of 775 pounds, diameter of 21.7-inches and a length of 37.8-inches it's power density was almost 100 horsepower per pound. The rotating mass weighs 130 pounds.
The SSME high pressure oxidizer turbo pump (HPOTP) consists of two pumps and a turbine on a common shaft rotating at almost 30,000 rpm. The main pump is a double-entry, single-discharge centrifugal pump with a built-in inducer on each side of the dual inlet impeller. It's overall diameter is slightly less than seven-inches and pumps up to 7,500 gallons per minute of LOX at a pressure exceeding 4,500 PSIA. The smaller five-inch boost boost pump is a single-stage impeller without an inducer, separately mounted on the bottom end of the turbo pump shaft. It supplies about 750 gpm LOX to the preburners while increasing pressure another 3,000 PSI. The eleven-inch diameter turbine delivers over 28,000 horsepower at almost 80% efficiency while operating a pressure ratio slightly over 1.5. The HPOTP diameter is 15.4-inches, length is 31.7-inches and weight is 574 pounds. That is a little over 48 horsepower per pound.
My check engine light has been lighting up for weeks, then going off for a few days, for months. But, it still runs properly and hasn't damaged itself. You don't get that tolerance to faults in rockets. A HPOTP fire may consume the entire pump, metal materials included, not to mention resulting in a failure to achieve orbit. In other words, the entire rocket blows up.
Instead of calling it Space X, maybe it's better to call it Space junk.
Something is up with this post. Not on this websites' behalf, but the Elon Musk post or BBC and / or NASA. This image was not the first image that I had, and perhaps others, seen: http://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/615168018365198336/photo/1
(This does not look "normal") The four panel pictures and the top left image was changed when I first viewed it.
There was no 'NASA' watermark on the original image, there was no border. The original image I saw had a dark spot in the smoke plume of the exploding rocket.
Here is a related video: https://youtu.be/j7oi3YADEwA
Build me... an interstate highway system exclusively for my robot cars and trucks.
Buck up, fucker.