A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

Post by twic » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

Gracana wrote: post #122

ygra wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do the tests to validate that this rocket won't turn into a cruise missile, headed for the nearest residential area. In that case the rocket has a flight-termination system, though, which should activate as soon as it veers too far outside the planned/expected parameters of the flight.

This discussion reminds me of the failure of the first Ariane 5 launch. The flight-termination system was activate erroneously, and the payload was not insured. Ouch. http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet87/cavall87.htm https://around.com/ariane.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_%28spacecraft%29

Post by dalke » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

cstross wrote: post #135

Phlarp wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For more context, all (edit: American!) rockets for decades have had onboard self destruct systems and a "Range Safety Officer" on the ground whose entire job is to determine if and when to deploy this self destruct system. The cruise missile scenario is highly unlikely as the rocket itself would be destroyed soon after leaving its intended trajectory.

Not all rockets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_708 (China, CZ-3B, Intelsat 708 payload, the launcher flew off-course and crashed on a village in 1996: by some estimates 200-500 civilians were killed.)

Post by blackguardx » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #74

This type of hardware failure makes me glad to do software where the most damage that can happen is an unhappy customer, not a huge explosion. Also why I was glad to give up a chemistry career after nearly poisoning everyone in the building when the hood system failed.

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #95

Symmetry wrote: post #62

The payload was apparently on the rocket at the time[1]. A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. [1] https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/771352977315684352...

> A $200 million loss there, which sucks for the insurance company but better than losing a $2b custom government bird. In fairness, when did the government last lose a bird? Doesn't the ULA have a '100%' success rate (where success is getting payload to space, though some payloads fail to make it to the planned orbit)

Post by AdrianoKF » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #144

mtkd wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On any project like that many engineers involved will have invested more than regular hours and pushed their work life balance - losing it all a couple of days from launch into space - that's harsh dude

Can you prove any of this? Knowing how smart and methodological Musk is, I wouldn't be surprised if the rule at the office is actually to leave your desk and go home at 5pm sharp. You are prone to make more mistakes when you tired and overworked and I cannot imagine more important place not to make mistakes, than building a rocket.