A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket has exploded at Cape Canaveral • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #173

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the $2b custom government bird refers to the space shuttle. Of which we have, in fact, lost more than one.

The shuttle was a vehicle with vastly different capabilities, and technical challenges to overcome, compared to a Falcon rocket. There have been 133 successful shuttle launches, and 2 failed ones. There have been 27 successful Falcon launches, and 2 failed ones.

All that was intended by my comment was to shed light on what the parent comment probably was intending to say.

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

#232

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #214

skadamat wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty well documented that people at SpaceX work 80+ hours a week consistently: https://www.quora.com/How-many-hours-a-week-does-a-typical-S... http://spacenews.com/op-ed-3-things-to-know-if-you-want-to-w... https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/25ixxq/is_spacex_wo...

Thank you. So they are paid overtime for this, is that correct?

Not if they're salaried, which most of them probably are.

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

#233

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #101

TFortunato wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of the manufacturer of the top of my head, but there are definitely off-the-shelf options. They are used on the LN2 tanks and dewars you see at a lot of electronics (and I'm sure other) manufacturers, and I'm pretty sure are standard kit for any cryogenic vessel. I think the bigger issue, as one commentor alluded to, is that you might not want to vent whatever is in the rocket straight to atmosphere.

LN2 isn't combustible. LN2 isn't stored at the high pressures that cryogenic LOX and RP-1 are. RP-1 has a flashpoint of 110f, liquid oxygen would turn pretty much every spark into a party including turning a lot of materials which are not normally combustible under atmospheric levels of oxygen highly combustible. Basically once the cryogenic fuel starts to warm up you have to launch or to empty the tanks, the tanks a…

liquid oxygen would turn pretty much every spark into a party including turning a lot of materials which are not normally combustible under atmospheric levels of oxygen highly combustible.

Nickel and steel would combust during tests of the SSMEs. (Space Shuttle Main Engines) Even increasing the fraction of gaseous oxygen in the atmosphere can turn all sorts of surprising things combustible. (Like living human flesh!)

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

#234

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #102

ars wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> of a commercial satellite (AMOS-6) According to wikipedia this is related to the AMOS-2 staelite leased by Facebook to provide internet coverage in part of Africa. An interesting clause in their contract is: "The parties have agreed to the right to terminate the contract if Amos-6 and the ground gateways in France, Italy and Israel are not ready for service by January 1, 2017" So this fire could have wider repercus…

Unless they happen to have a backup satellite already built, nothing SpaceX can do is going to accomplish this mission in 2016. There's no chance whatsoever that IAI is going to crank out a new satellite in just 3 months.

All of SpaceX's launches are likely on hold for a few months, anyways.

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

#235

Post by gumby » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

X-Istence wrote: post #182

abduhl wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like SpaceX just killed multiple deals for this company. Could someone who knows about this kind of stuff (I assume this subset of the population is small) comment on whether there is recourse against SpaceX for losing the payload?

Unfortunately accidents happen, I have a feeling that some insurance company somewhere is going to end up paying for the damages...

It's possible to insure against business risk as well as asset risk, though it's usually not worth the premium. Though I've never been in the space business I would be surprised if it were not common for launches.

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

#236

Post by gist » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #160

gist wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. "Sad" is the PC thing to say when something like that happens. In most people's lives it's a big "who cares". [1] The fact that you were downvoted (at least when I saw your comment) indicates people don't agree with what you are saying and is an example of trying to enforce a particular type of thinking on someone else as far as what they should think or feel. [1] Of course I wouldn't say "who cares" directly…

You wouldn't say it directly to someone involved in the project, but you'll say it in a public forum where there's a decent chance some of those people will see it?

Exactly. That is the problem with the entire PC thing. You have to walk around on eggshells being worried that you will offend someone and never say what you think. I mean seriously. Be worried that someone who worked on a rocket project for SpaceX might be offended by what I say? I am supposed to not say anything because of that?

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

#237

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

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...

What's sad about it? They have insurance, it's just hardware. Nobody died or was even injured, so it's merely an invoncenience.

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

#238

Post by mikeash » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

gist wrote: post #236

mikeash wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't say it directly to someone involved in the project, but you'll say it in a public forum where there's a decent chance some of those people will see it?

Exactly. That is the problem with the entire PC thing. You have to walk around on eggshells being worried that you will offend someone and never say what you think. I mean seriously. Be worried that someone who worked on a rocket project for SpaceX might be offended by what I say? I am supposed to not say anything because of that?

There's nothing wrong with softening your language a bit just in case someone who happens to be involved sees what you write. If not being a jerk means you can't speak what's on your mind, then that says more about your mind than it does the world.

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

#239

Post by _puk » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #109

nateberkopec wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know nothing about space - why are they doing tests, where the rocket could possibly explode or fail, with the payload on board?

They do the tests to validate that this rocket won't turn into a cruise missile, headed for the nearest residential area. Not an impossible scenario. Lots of energy stored up in one of those rockets. Just like when we test software, they want to have everything as close to what they would expect on launch day as possible (2 days from now). All the stresses, the structure, etc. That means putting stage 2 and the paylo…

Could they not have mocked the payload?

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

#240

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #154

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...

This disaster may have bigger implications for Spacecom. They were in the middle of being acquired by Beijing Xinwei and the successful launch of Amos 6 was supposed to be a factor in closing the deal[1]. I have no idea what blowing up on the pad means for the merger. 1. http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2016/08/24/spacecom...

It's irrational to argue that you would pull out of a merger because a 3rd party's rocket failure delayed a launch. Contracts almost invariably include escape clauses to avoid liability for matters that are outside the control of the parties. If the launch was already scheduled at the time of the merger agreement (which seems likely, a rocket launch is not the sort of thing you arrange at the last minute) then Beijing Xinwei would be expected to factor the risks into its pricing calculations.