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

241–250 of 560 posts

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

#241

Post by blktiger »

dr_zoidberg wrote: post #120
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?

The Apollo 1 accident[0] was during a similar test (a "plugs out test", which tests the spacecraft independent of all the support systems on earth to verify that it works correctly on its own). The rationale behind all this tests is "better have a problem on the ground, where we can fix it, than have the spacecraft fail in space". If you get interest in this stuff, the HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon" has…

I haven't seen it in a long time, but +1 on the recommendation. I need to go borrow the DVDs from my parents and watch it again.

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

#242

Post by anigbrowl »

dogma1138 wrote: post #166
Patrick_Devine wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a deal breaker most likely, the terms of the deal were based on AMOS-6 becoming operational by march 2017. There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage th…

Your legal and technical claims sound highly questionable to me. Satellite operators are not responsible for the successful operation of the launch vehicle, and one would expect their contractual arrangements to reflect that. That would be like firing someone because their commuter train derailed and they were late to work as a result.

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

#243

Post by JaRail »

gist wrote: post #158
ars wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was downvoted for only looking at first-order effects: People harmed during the fire. And ignoring second-order effects: People harmed because of the results of the fire. The second group of people is not less important than the first.

Why is it necessary to feel sad and to even consider all of that? That is my point. What bothers you bothers you and what doesn't is fine, less to think about. You can't go around being bothered by everything 'bad' that happens in the world to someone else. I don't think that is healthy in any way. By "bothered" I don't mean indicating in words that something is sad. I mean actual concern as if it impacts you or some…

> I can't relate to this type of tragedy at all

This was a major part of a charitable initiative to bring free internet access to Africa.. That's a lot of lost opportunity for business, education, health care..

From a technical perspective, the laser-based communications network being developed by FB for Africa is super cool. I'm sad to see this delayed. Even though it doesn't affect me directly, it hits my inner nerd right in the feels.

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

#245

Post by psahabu »

matt-attack wrote: post #191
timdiggerm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

> using a fallacy does not make them automatically wrong I thought that is precisely what using a fallacy makes you. It's what the word fallacy means. It essentially means a "false statement".

This line of reasoning is itself a fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html

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

#246

Post by daave »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #137
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.

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…

How close is the shelter to the tower? That's gotta be terrifying. I'd have thought people would need to be pretty far away just to avoid permanent hearing damage in an event like this.

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

#247

Post by anigbrowl »

abduhl wrote: post #175
dogma1138 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a deal breaker most likely, the terms of the deal were based on AMOS-6 becoming operational by march 2017. There has been high level of criticism in Israel about the deal as many seen this as giving up it's sovereignty over its space platforms even tho under the deal the all operations of spacecom platforms would be still handled from Israel proper, I'm sure the r/conspiracies is already booming with sabotage th…

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?

For crying out loud, have you never heard of insurance? All satellite launches are insured and contingencies like this are allowed for in contracts because rocketry is an inherently risky endeavor. I know HN is a tech rather than a business community but the concept of insurance is an elementary one and something every literate adult should be aware of.

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

#248

Post by mhandley »

trothamel wrote: post #228

Here's good video of the test/failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s

The frame rate isn't high enough to tell for sure, but it looks like the initial explosion might be between the strongback and the second stage, followed less than 1/30 second later by the second stage exploding. Certainly the initial explosion spreads out vertically much more than horizontally in the first 1/30 second, perhaps implying that the explosion was in vapour outside the second stage.

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

#249

Post by dandelany »

dogma1138 wrote: post #222
dandelany wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, venting LOX is very common and easily visible in the lead-up to nearly every Falcon 9 launch. Google "falcon 9 lox vent" for plenty of videos/photos.

The "venting" you usually see isn't LOX, it's condensed water vapor, there are small bleeder valves in the LOX tanks and the fuel line but they are not designed or used for emergency pressure relief.

The cloud is water vapor. But it's not like water vapor is onboard the Falcon and being vented. Boiled-off oxygen is vented, and it's cold enough to cause the water vapor in the surrounding air to condense.

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

#250

Post by manarth »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #227
ProAm wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you always build two.

This was my first thought but then again I don't know how expensive the one was and if they built one and it launched successfully, what would they do with the second one? Seems like a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't scenarios.

The payload was reported at $200 million.

Although whether it would cost an additional $200 million to build a second is another question, but I doubt there would be that significant an economy of scale for just one extra unit.

Post reply on HN