SpaceX Falcon 9 ? Possible Explosion

SpaceX Falcon 9 ? Possible Explosion
Posted on 2013 September 30
http://www.zarya.info/blog/?p=1595

Oops. I'd read earlier that the second stage failed to re-light after
payload separation, but no other details were given at the time. This
is something that should *not* happen. SpaceX is going to have some
explaining to do...

Seriously though, stages should not explode while in orbit. It makes
the orbital debris problem worse. If de-orbiting the upper stage wasn't
possible, it should have vented its propellants to prevent a possible
pressure build-up.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

SpaceX Falcon 9 ? Possible Explosion
Posted on 2013 September 30
http://www.zarya.info/blog/?p=1595

Oops. I'd read earlier that the second stage failed to re-light after
payload separation, but no other details were given at the time. This
is something that should *not* happen. SpaceX is going to have some
explaining to do...

Seriously though, stages should not explode while in orbit. It makes
the orbital debris problem worse. If de-orbiting the upper stage wasn't
possible, it should have vented its propellants to prevent a possible
pressure build-up.

Pictures which show a "space cloud" presumably caused by the Falcon 9's
upper stage:

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewto...p?f=1&t=122495

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 10/1/2013 11:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is something that should*not* happen.

What should not happen?

SpaceX is going to have some explaining to do...

Explain what?

In article ,
says...

On 10/1/2013 11:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is something that should*not* happen.

What should not happen?

SpaceX is going to have some explaining to do...

Explain what?

The latest I heard is that SpaceX is saying that the second stage did
*not* "explode". In the technical sense that statement may be true.
But, the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the stage is now
in several pieces and that it vented its fuel in a spherical pattern.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

The latest I heard is that SpaceX is saying that the second stage did
*not* "explode". In the technical sense that statement may be true.
But, the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the stage is now
in several pieces and that it vented its fuel in a spherical pattern.

Here is an article for reference:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/lau...o-upper-stage-
explosion-after-falcon-9-v11-launch-spacex-says

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff Findley wrote:
The latest I heard is that SpaceX is saying that the second stage
did *not* "explode". In the technical sense that statement may be
true. But, the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the
stage is now in several pieces and that it vented its fuel in a
spherical pattern.

So, instead of F9v1.1 falling down, going boom, it is a case of second
stage flying up, going pop?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 10/1/2013 4:11 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

The latest I heard is that SpaceX is saying that the second stage did
*not* "explode". In the technical sense that statement may be true.
But, the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the stage is now
in several pieces and that it vented its fuel in a spherical pattern.

Here is an article for reference:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/lau...ch-spacex-says

Jeff


How 'bout those amateur astronomers?
Love that photo, good catch...

Dave

David Spain wrote:
On 10/1/2013 4:11 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/lau...ch-spacex-says


How 'bout those amateur astronomers?
Love that photo, good catch...

Did SpaceX say anything about why a halo? Is that supposed to be from
the controlled venting, or is the insulation they suggested fell-off
expected to make a ring like that? Or is it supposed to be simply an
atmospheric effect?

rick jones
--
Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that. - Anonymous
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:35:08 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
wrote:

David Spain wrote:
On 10/1/2013 4:11 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/lau...ch-spacex-says


How 'bout those amateur astronomers?
Love that photo, good catch...

Did SpaceX say anything about why a halo? Is that supposed to be from
the controlled venting, or is the insulation they suggested fell-off
expected to make a ring like that? Or is it supposed to be simply an
atmospheric effect?

That's what venting has looked like in other launches, too. There have
been many "UFO" reports which ended up being upper stages looking just
like that one.

Brian

Jeff Findley wrote on 10/1/2013 :
In article ,
says...

On 10/1/2013 11:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is something that should*not* happen.

What should not happen?

SpaceX is going to have some explaining to do...

Explain what?

The latest I heard is that SpaceX is saying that the second stage did
*not* "explode". In the technical sense that statement may be true.
But, the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the stage is now
in several pieces and that it vented its fuel in a spherical pattern.

I guess this isn't a reusable stage.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)