Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 560 posts

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#131

Post by api »

Shanea93 wrote: post #99
yigitdemirag wrote: post #86

What happens when payload is lost at such an event due to SpaceX related failure? Obviously they have to reschedule but does SpaceX cover partial losses etc?

Aon International Space Brokers ( http://www.aon.com/singapore/risk-services/products-services... ) covers liability for the payloads to be delivered, however, SpaceX shoulders the financial burden of losing the rocket itself, as only the contents are insured.

It will also likely increase the cost of insuring SpaceX launches. I'm sure it's like car insurance. Of course SpaceX is so much cheaper than their competition that it may not matter, and reuse is about to make them cheaper still.

Short term setback, but probably not so awful long term. Also glad nobody got hurt. It's just money.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#132

Post by throwanem »

harshreality wrote: post #57
krisoft wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That confirmation is so strange. Why would you confirm something with the screenshot of notepad "officially" when you have a twitter account?

He's a space news reporter at Ars Technica. It makes sense they'd be one of the first to get the SpaceX news release. It has too many characters to fit in a tweet, and even if it could fit, embedding an image of the text sets it apart from the tweeter's introduction and makes it more readable. It's standard practice on twitter to use images for blocks of text.

> It's standard practice on twitter to use images for blocks of text.

Yep. The best of 1997, Web 2.0 style.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#133

Post by timdiggerm »

300bps wrote: post #105
db48x wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money didn't disappear, it paid the people working on the project all the way down to the miners who dug up the minerals and the fast-food workers who made the cheeseburger that engineer bought that one time. It did fail to earn a return, however.

You're advocating the Broken Window Fallacy. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...

Even if they are (which is apparently disputed), pointing out that someone is using a fallacy does not make them automatically wrong. Next time, you should try saying something more substantive than "Fallacy!"

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#134

Post by mitchty »

dmix wrote: post #123
ygra wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason anyone else does tests: Find potential and actual issues earlier than in production. The static fire they were doing is sort of a short integration / smoke (pun not intended) test whether the rocket as a whole (whether the payload is attached already depends on the customer; it reduces time between test and launch, though) works properly. Other tests are part of sort of a pre-flight checklist directly bef…

Is launch pad designed to take a hit like this? Or do you think it would have caused a lot of damage to Cape Canaveral.

Unlikely, it wouldn't be much of a launch pad if it couldn't handle failure modes for rockets (aka bombs with a hole in one end). Compare to this Saturn V launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKtVpvzUF1Y

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#135

Post by cstross »

Phlarp wrote: post #125
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.

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.)

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#136

Post by ygra »

dmix wrote: post #123
ygra wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason anyone else does tests: Find potential and actual issues earlier than in production. The static fire they were doing is sort of a short integration / smoke (pun not intended) test whether the rocket as a whole (whether the payload is attached already depends on the customer; it reduces time between test and launch, though) works properly. Other tests are part of sort of a pre-flight checklist directly bef…

Is launch pad designed to take a hit like this? Or do you think it would have caused a lot of damage to Cape Canaveral.

Launch pads usually are not built for rockets exploding on them, but as the pad itself is mostly a concrete plane it should be mostly fine. Controlled burn of the propellant, a.k.a., a launch, is obviously fine as well ;-)

Facilities and other things on the pad may not like it, though.

They already said that their Horizontal Integration Facility (where the rocket is put together prior to erection) is intact, as are the tanks on site. But the strongback looks mangled and may well be destroyed. It's also right beside the rocket, so the most likely casualty in such an explosion. Other pads and facilities are most likely far enough away that the only concern is debris from the explosion landing there.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#137

Post by FiatLuxDave »

tomjen3 wrote: post #61
artursapek wrote: post #51

Looks like they had a payload go with it. Sad. > "SpaceX confirm Amos-6 was aboard the Falcon 9 and was lost in the explosion." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77135388623807283...

There were no personal injuries, so I can't really be sad about a piece of electronics.

I think it's unfair that you are getting downvotes for this statement.

All you said was that it is good to have some perspective. Yes, it sucks to lose the rocket and the satellite. But to put it into perspective, the husband of the lady sitting next to me as I type this (and a friend of mine) is currently sitting in the shelter at the launchpad. He texted her to let her know he was alive. He can't give out any more details.

Have some perspective people.

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#139

Post by tarsinge »

ars wrote: post #66
tomjen3 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were no personal injuries, so I can't really be sad about a piece of electronics.

Tell that to the people in Africa who will soon have no internet access once AMOS-2 fails. This payload, AMOS-6, was a replacement for the soon to fail AMOS-2 which among other things is part of a Facebook initiative to provide internet access in parts of Africa. I am not aware of any replacement in the works for it, so that service may just shut down, and who knows if it will ever start back up. So while this might…

> provide internet access in parts of Africa

If you mean internet.org wheter it's a loss or not is debatable

Re: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral

#140

Post by ygra »

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.)

All rockets launched in the US have to have one, though :-)
Post reply on HN