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

361–370 of 560 posts

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

#361

Post by TrevorJ »

_puk wrote: post #239
mabbo wrote: post #109

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. 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?

It is possible to damage the rocket and systems when mating the payload in the faring, which would not become apparent without further testing and somewhat negates the purpose of this test itself.

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

#362

Post by TrevorJ »

Phlarp wrote: post #186
tamana wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance isn't magic pixie dust, it just moved the cost around.

If the organization underwriting the insurance is implicitly and explicitly insured (too big to fail) by the US govt, it might as well be magic pixie dust!

That really just highlights how scary fiat currency is.

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

#363

Post by mikeash »

elmigranto wrote: post #262
mikeash wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fallacy means faulty reasoning , not a false statement. It is possible to use faulty reasoning to arrive at a correct statement. For example, "The sun rises each day, because if it didn't then everyone would die." That's the fallacy of an appeal to consequences, yet the conclusion (the sun rises each day) is correct.

Well, everyone would die, though :)

Of course! The only incorrect thing in there is "because."

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

#364

Post by Keyframe »

dtornabene wrote: post #358
Keyframe wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's an established doctrine, yes.

Its not "established doctrine" and it literally almost brought down the govt. Maybe settle down a bit.

What makes you think I'm agitated or care at all? Read the question and my answer, that I wrote, again. Can we... yes, if...

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

#365

Post by dpcx »

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.

While true, NASA was able to have the shuttle program be so successful because of the things that they learned in the previous space programs. This is SpaceX's first space program. Don't compare a "senior" program to a "freshman" program.

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

#366

Post by jsmthrowaway »

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...

Private launches are required to carry insurance in order to receive a license; I looked it up when the Orbital rocket had a similar RUD, and the government had mandated something like $140 million or so between government property contingency and general liability, if I recall.

Edit: Yeah, here's Orbital's (I can't find SpaceX's): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/as... -- last two pages. It looks like they revised this license recently for their return to flight, too?

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

#368

Post by ChuckMcM »

karma_vaccum123 wrote: post #311
ChuckMcM wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anomaly at 1:10 in that clip, as a SpaceX fan its hard to watch.

You can just say explosion, we're not at the Cape.

Which is a sub-class of anomaly :-) it is really hard to scrub Youtube videos, and I (like probably a zillion others) was looking for root cause indicators; things like where exactly on the fuselage does it start? What equipment is there? How energetic was the explosion (oxidizer only? mixed with propellant? Etc. There are at least 30 frames between 1:10 and 1:11 (maybe 60). There are many things to rule out, was it a leak in the LOX hose? Was it a rupture of an internal tank? did the equipment detach prematurely? etc etc.

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

#370

Post by hyperbovine »

rattray wrote: post #210
dogma1138 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Israeli government has approved the deal with China, if they didn't want it to go through they would have blocked it, their MOD has oversight on virtually all exports and international dealings. Israel needed AMOS-6 more than anyone else because communication satellites are important for national security and are used by military and national defense agencies. Even if somehow your crackpot theory had merit delayi…

> Even if somehow your crackpot theory had merit We try to avoid that kind of tone here, regardless of the merits of anyone's comments.

Speak for yourself. The tone seems completely appropriate to me.
Post reply on HN