Spacex explodes another rocket

Why are Americans always exploding instead of making it into space?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36593855
hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-bags-deals-to-launch-68-foreign-satellites-12-of-them-from-us/story-GK5MdrfHw0Uv03GKU8pFAM.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
youtube.com/watch?v=UBzigaTSPZY
spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/china-national-space-administration/chinas-long-march-4c-booster-suffers-suspected-launch-failure/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ummm, we were the first on the moon so try again sweetie :)

30 years ago, try again mate

its more exciting

Space exploration was just a prank.

One of Kubrick's best, but when are you going to do it for real?

>Kubrick
I hate that overrated fuck. If outer space was like the movies he made then all astronauts would die of boredom.

Why is Australia all about drinking, clubbing and doing drugs?

Are there any Australian inventions?

Haha totally right bro! Upvoted!
Nolan's the best! xD

>2016
>believing the space program is real

>his country has no space industry

>implying Rockets, especially those in development, don't sometimes fail
>implying Australia has a right to criticize the space-faring activities of another nation

don't you learn in school about the Nedelin Catastrophe or that cosmonaut swearing out the Politburo as his piece of shit spacecraft plunged to earth in flames? no, of course you don't.

I'm sorry, what?

Actually that wasn't a launch, just a preflight readiness firing. On the other hand, China just recorded the first orbital launch failure of the year.

Closer to 50.

They sabotaged Brazil's space program and now their own space program is exploding. Karma is a bitch eh USA?

>brazil
>space program

saw a post about this on fb and the top comment with 900+ likes was complaining about wasting tax dollars

education in this country has failed

Pfft, they said the same thing about the Apollo program back in the day. SJWs gonna SJW.

wifi
car radio
refridgerator
medical application for penicillin
the list goes on...

the falcon isn't even using tax dollars, it's a private company

wtf

They tried to run a marathon

>make webm
>come to Sup Forums to laugh at lolmericans
>thread already created

fucking shit

Elon Musk is redpilled and blew up the rocket on purpose to combat the jewish NWO.

list of argentina accomplishments in space.txt

I see what they did wrong there, the explosion is pretty close to the top of the rocket. If you want the rocket to go up you'll want the explosion to be right at the bottom of it.

Silly Americans.

Internet.org creeps me the fuck out and he promotes it as some sort of humanitarian venture. He's building a database on literally the entire developing world. The doublethink is amazing.

The blast clearly starts in the second stage but it's difficult to tell at this early point what happened.

Even watching it in super slow motion is inconclusive.

And this is exactly why I think it's so much more dangerous to put a crew on SLS than a crew on either commercial crew vehicle. Atlas V and Falcon 9 have lots of non-crew launches to find problems before crews are put on them. SLS does not.

Complete nonsense. Please show me where launching fewer times has resulted in greater chance of loss of vehicle.

first to the moon (and back) were soviet unmanned probes :^)

Most rocket failures always occur early in the program, Shuttle notwithstanding.

What was the first successful Venus probe? What country has launched like 30 Mars probes and every last one failed? :^)

What about Proton, Delta, Taurus XL, Soyuz...

>clubbing
that's canada

When the number of failures is small (one would hope) compared to the number of launches, of course statistics make it likely that for some launch vehicles the failures come after a number of successful flights.

The question to ask is this: wasn't Shuttle safer after Challenger than before? And wasn't Shuttle safer after Columbia than before?

You could ask the same about Delta II and Taurus XL failures -- in each case, changes were made that should prevent similar failures in the future. There's no doubt in my mind that if Delta II and Taurus XL continued to fly the flights after their failures would have a lower failure rate in the long term.

The Russian failures may be an exception -- there's been an apparent decline in quality, probably related to political and economic issues. I don't see any reason to think the same would happen at ULA or SpaceX in the forseeable future.

You can ride SLS if you want. There's no way I'd choose that over a commercial crew vehicle for myself, my friend, my family, or anyone else. And I think the reasons for that are sound.

Does SpaceX pay for the lost satellite? Or do they need insurance?

the epicenter of the fireball may or may not be the source of the explosion, but if it is, the pixel at the center of the fireball appears to correspond exactly with the LOX umbilical attachment point.

Or maybe the common bulkhead?

Lusat 1
MuSat
Nahuel 1A
Nahuel C1
Nahuel C2
SAC-A
SAC-B
SAC-C
SAC-D
SAC-E
SAOCOM 1A
SAOCOM 1B
Pehuensat-1
CubeBug-1
CubeBug-2
ARSAT-1
ARSAT-2
ARSAT-3

I'm going out on a limb here, but...

...COPVs composite matrix cracks form due to normal pressure cycling from any pressurisation event, like acceptance testing. LOX infiltrates these micro cracks and thus LOX or cold GOX is now in contact with a fuel source (carbon fiber and epoxy). Normally it is in equilibrium, not having an ignition source available, but something (static electricity from mechanical motion of tank wall due to filling?) provides a suitable ignition source. (Of course, ignition source is always considered to be "free" in these cases.)

COPV fiber ignites and burns, taking a few seconds, and then tank bursts abruptly as hoop fibers burn away. This overpressure event fails the common bulkhead and stage sidewall since the vent can't possibly keep up with the massive release of helium into a LOX tank with perhaps 1-3% of ullage. Mixing of propellants occurs and we see first evidence of explosion.

Personally, I think this is what happened in the in-flight failure as well, but I lack the data to make the argument persuasive. This time, SpaceX may be able to recover sufficient debris to make a determination.

List of islands successfully conquered by Argentina.txt

I conquered your mum

delet this

>On March 1, 1966 the Venera 3 Soviet space probe crash-landed on Venus, becoming the first spacecraft to reach the surface of another planet.

>The first to contact the surface were two Soviet probes: Mars 2 lander on November 27 and Mars 3 lander on December 2

I find the "shape" of the detonation interesting as it has more in the horizontal than the vertical component...

crashing doesn't exactly count as a success

1. Mariner 2 was the first successful Venus probe, four years prior to Venera 3

2. Mars 2-3 failed and returned no useful data even though the second did reach the surface.

Not at all. If you'd look at footage of almost any rocket explosion, the blast goes outward rather than up and down because of the tank walls being thinner.

ZERO FAILURES. WHY IS INDIA SO BASED?????

mariner 2 was a fly by, it didn't land in any way shape or form

India launched 20 satellites at once. SpaceX can't even launch 1 satellite at a time.

bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36593855

hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-bags-deals-to-launch-68-foreign-satellites-12-of-them-from-us/story-GK5MdrfHw0Uv03GKU8pFAM.html

really makes you think

It wasn't intended to land, but the argument was only what the first successful Venus probe was.

Very true. India got a probe to Mars on the first attempt.

also both mars 2 and 3 reached the surface

Why do people come here making threads when a rocket explodes but not when it launches successfully and in space x's case even comes back Earth and lands?

check this, it has a plenty of american faults too
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars

Watch the video carefully. You can see that the explosion starts in the LOX tank and the RP-1 spills out of it. There seems to be very little propellant mixing.

got to love people not knowing how shitty cameras are/were, especially when they were not film based... really shows how young people are now.

1) Elon Musk is a massive cunt and a salesman more than actual engineer
2) Elon Musk steals ideas and gets all the credit for them
3) Somehow, with modern computing, testing methods, etc, and billions in funding, SpaceX still managed to fuck up before even launch.

So, basically we had two Mars probes lost in launch failures in the first 30 years of space exploration as opposed to the multitude of disastrous Russian failures. Read up on the April 1969 accident. They were trapped inside the launch center for several days until a rain came and washed away the toxic propellant spilled on the ground.

you are silly
their cameras were very good, very good optics, high quality film, digital photo could compete with film only recently

Russians don't know their own history, just propaganda.

The Apollo landings used a slow scan camera with 200 lines and 10 fps because a full 480i 60 fps NTSC signal would have required too much bandwidth.

SUPERPOWER BY 2020
SCAT SAT!!!!!!!!!

and 5 failures in 90ss, lol

Do you think the range safety destruct charges accidentally went off?

both of those were quotes from wiki, silly

try to lick your masters' butt better

getting into space is hard, which is why Australia has never done so

Would they be able to do it in 60fps 4k today?

There were nine Mars missions in the 90s and only three successes, all our probes. Japan had one malfunction en route and you tried one but the rocket failed and it didn't leave LEO.

As opposed to licking your butt at gunpoint for 50 years?

>not realizing the entire world was tracking the craft to the moon including the USSR who coincidentally enough would have loved to have shown that it is fake.

The US government can't even create a balanced budget, but somehow can perfectly fake a moon landing and create a 9/11 hoax that fooled the whole world

Today yes, but 1960s technology wasn't able to transmit a full NTSC signal at lunar distances.

No. RSO charges split the side of the tanks open.

youtube.com/watch?v=UBzigaTSPZY

This was an accidental RSO destruct.

Digital kind of competes with film.
its easier to work with
its cheaper
its smaller

but film is quality, there will be a point where film is non viable as digital is in every way its equal, but that time isn't now.

and back then, remember bright lights on tv and how they would burn in the cameras? now imagine what happens when you have almost no radiation filter for that burning in.

The event is so sudden, instantaneous really, that it makes me think the most likely cause is failure of the common bulkhead with instant mixing of the LOX and kero. What is the pressure differential between the tanks?

That wouldn't cause a bang in and of itself - this stuff is well below ignition point. There would first be a spray of stuff outward like we saw with the S2 launch failure. This time the "bang" seems to happen first.

...and it must have been at or near the bottom of the RP-1 tank for it to lose its contents downwards like that.

Again, rewatch the video. The explosion obviously starts in the LOX tank and it wasn't a rupture of the common bulkhead. If the Common bulkhead ruptures we won't see it right away but allows the fuel to mix to setup a scenario for a kaboom. Then there just has to be an ignition source.

I don't think so, just to give you an idea, the ISS got Internet connection just in 2010..

>Noise

>Apart the Sun and the problem of distance, two other noise sources interfere with telecommunications : cosmic rays and thermal noise generated by the receiver.

>The signal strength or noise level estimation, also known as the "dB below W" or dBW, is a measurement of the absolute power expressed in watts, and no more a power ratio like could be the decibel.

>Knowing the signal power and the noise level at the source, at the distance of the Orbiter, we can estimate the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) according to the bandwidth used.

>Like in radioastronomy, in space communications, engineers estimate that a noise level of -215 dBW/Hz at 10 GHz is acceptable for the large ears of the DSN network.

>For a bandwidth of 100 kHz and a signal close to 2x10-16 W or -157 dB (-157 dBW) at reception, the S/N is only 8 dB. It can be twice as higher if the bandwidth is ten times shorter but this configuration is almost unusable in practice excepted in some digital transmission modes.

>But 8 dB means that the DSN can theoretically receive such a signal without using error correction protocols, DSP systems or any BPSK or alike mode (although it does). In such conditions the transmission rate is relatively fast, up to 21 KB/s (166 kbit/s). It is this kind of "small budget" configuration that was used until 2005 by space probes like MGS and other Cassini.

If it was NASA then it would be peinfull to watch, but since it's spaceX I'm actually quite happy. Space based companies only sound like trouble. Don't get me wrong, space commerce like airlines and hotels are fine but I fear that someday a Wayland Yutani type of company will fuck shit up badly.
Also Honduran Space Program when?

Try, try, try and try again

In some ways I hope for SpaceX's case that is was some sort of subtle vehicle failure--one they can catch and design-out, not a GSE failure. I say this because there hasn't been a non-engine related pad explosion of an American launch vehicle since...uh...Kennedy was president? There've been well over 1000, and possibly over 2000 liquid fueled rocket launches since then, without any of them blowing up on the pad due to GSE issues. So having a pad systems failure actually makes SpaceX look a lot less professional than if it was a subtle design flaw.

On the what actually happened, it still really looks like the failure started inside the stage, not an external explosion that happened to rupture the tanks. That's not objective fact, and I may be misreading it, but that's what it looked like from the video. I just don't see some sort of "both umbilicals leaked in just the right way to also catch a spark" sort of scenario as being realistic. It's wild speculation, but I still think something to do with the common bulkhead did it.

People keep pointing out that it didn't look like the CRS-7 overpressurization, but that was a much slower event caused by a tube breaking, which meant you would've had choked flow out of a small diameter line. If you had a more rapid overpressurization event, it might look totally differently. A COPV failing more dramatically for instance might happen much. much faster, especially if it ruptured the common bulkhead. If say a dome came off of a COPV, it would probably be going fast enough that the whole bulkhead would be ruptured in less than one frame of the video. And the energy from that sort of a failure would not only mix the propellants, but could also quite possibly ignite the mixed propellants.

cuck

>getting mad at a company that actually tries to bring space exploration to the 21 century

>If the Common bulkhead ruptures we won't see it right away but allows the fuel to mix to setup a scenario for a kaboom. Then there just has to be an ignition source

Severed electrical wiring could definitely do that. A spark from a broken power line could definitely ignite the propellants.

I know. There have been several threads about this, but no mention of how China lost a satellite yesterday.

spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/china-national-space-administration/chinas-long-march-4c-booster-suffers-suspected-launch-failure/

>not wanting to lick your master's butt at gunpoint

are you even into masochism?

there is no Chinese posters to laugh at them

Propellant tanks have almost no wiring inside them and nothing in the common bulkhead. However, if an explosion happens and lots of stuff is disintegrating and flying around, the chance of a spark occurring are greater.

Mainly because China is very silent about this sort of things and well, it's China. Failure is somewhat expected. This is SpaceX, the guys with full on advertisement about how they will bring space to everyone etc. For them to fail is a somewhat painful set back.

Conduits outside the tanks and maybe electrical interfaces with the t/e. Conductive liquids, flying metal and sheared wires.

The liquids in this case are non-conductive and hundreds of degrees F below ignition point. I suspect it was likely a plumbing or pressurization issue.

O2 overpressure alone doesn't make a kaboom, just a pop. There has to be a mixing of fuels an an ignition source in order to cause an explosive boom like we saw. That is what we are trying to explain. Elon already confirmed the problem was in the S2 O2 tank, that is not in question.

>I say this because there hasn't been a non-engine related pad explosion of an American launch vehicle since...uh...Kennedy was president?

Atlas-Centaur 5 blew up on the pad in 1965 but I can't think of any other pad explosions until the Antares failure in 2014. The Soviet/Russian program had at least a dozen pad explosions in that time some of which got a lot of people killed.

Rockets blowing up isn't really that uncommon.

AC-5 failed due to a stuck engine valve which counts as an engine-related failure to me. Otherwise, I'm almost positive there hasn't been an on-pad explosion of a US launch vehicle not caused by the propulsion system since the very early days.

Is it really a fireball we see at first? Could a stuck lox-venting-valve cause an overpressure explosion? I mean they are near oxygen freezing temperatures which could form solid oxygen that plugs some venting valve. Once you have a overpressure explosion the rest you see happens.

...