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

SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#91

Post by Dylan16807 »

libria wrote: post #87
squeaky-clean wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 747 isn't a spacecraft travelling at supersonic speeds, so it's not really the type of craft relevant to the discussion. Cars, buses and boats also aren't loaded with self-destruct mechanisms for obvious reasons.

Obvious enough that I had assumed craft = aircraft as well since you can "take the keys out" of ground/water vehicles. I was challenging the thought that every aircraft needs self destruct, as I suspect it's a minority. If as you say supersonic capability is the threat threshold, fighter jets/rockets would have them but a C-5 Galaxy and Blackhawk might not (I don't know, I'm speculating).

The threshold is more "Is it an unstable flying fuel tank* ? y/n"

*or solid block of fuel

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#92

Post by ejr »

libria wrote: post #87
squeaky-clean wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 747 isn't a spacecraft travelling at supersonic speeds, so it's not really the type of craft relevant to the discussion. Cars, buses and boats also aren't loaded with self-destruct mechanisms for obvious reasons.

Obvious enough that I had assumed craft = aircraft as well since you can "take the keys out" of ground/water vehicles. I was challenging the thought that every aircraft needs self destruct, as I suspect it's a minority. If as you say supersonic capability is the threat threshold, fighter jets/rockets would have them but a C-5 Galaxy and Blackhawk might not (I don't know, I'm speculating).

In this context, I meant craft = spacecraft. Our current space launch technology relies on extremely volatile and dangerous fuel. Until that changes, a self destruct will be found in all large launch vehicles[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_vehicle

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#93

Post by lutorm »

kome wrote: post #5

The Falcon 9 explodes again? ...While the European Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads, but much more versatile of the Falcon 9[1]) is 3 success out of 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket The political will to create a private market for rockets is strong in US. So strong that a lot of American public money has been used to save SpaxeX from failure, multiple time. But concretely, what's the point…

This is so incorrect it's almost funny. For the record:

First: Falcon 9 so far has 11/11 successful launches. This was not a Falcon 9, this was a test flight of a sub-orbital development vehicle (F9R-"Dev").

Second: "Vega rocket (aimed at the same size of payloads...". Your Wikipedia link says maximum payload to LEO is 1,963 kg, while Wikipedia quotes Falcon9's maximum payload to LEO is 13,150 kg.

And how much do they charge for those 1963kg? Wikipedia quotes 32 million euros per launch, or $42M, corresponding to $21,000/kg, for the Vega, and $4,109/kg for the F9...

Re: SpaceX rocket explodes during testing over Texas

#94

Post by AustinDev »

lutorm wrote: post #86
githulhu wrote: post #72

Huh. Why did the explosion produce two distinct, different-colored smoke clouds? Also, what's the environmental impact of this kind of accident?

The rocket has two tanks, one with kerosene, one with liquid oxygen. I bet the black fireball is the kerosene burning, the white cloud is the liquid oxygen vaporizing. Environmental impact is likely small, the kerosene would have burned anyway and there are little other hazardous chemicals on board. (Unlike for example the Proton failure linked by kryptisk above which is fueled with really nasty hypergolic fuels.)

To add to that. I'm sure Space X attempts to collect all the debris that falls to the ground.
Post reply on HN