SpaceX Reusable Rocket Prototype Explodes Over Texas

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:50:41 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:04:09 PM UTC-5, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 1/10/15 3:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote :
The latest Falcon 9 successfully launched today, but the SpaceX attempt
at a first stage barge landing failed

I know there is no good video of the crash because of fog and poor
lighting. But does anyone know where we could see a video even of very
poor quality?


space x must not have planned a success, or lighting etc would of been better


Or perhaps they were just more interested in rocketry than
cinematography.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

as the shuttles proved, excellent photos help diagnose in flight faiures

On 01/12/2015 9:49 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:04:09 PM UTC-5, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 1/10/15 3:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote :
The latest Falcon 9 successfully launched today, but the SpaceX attempt
at a first stage barge landing failed

I know there is no good video of the crash because of fog and poor
lighting. But does anyone know where we could see a video even of very
poor quality?

space x must not have planned a success, or lighting etc would of been better

Or perhaps they were just more interested in rocketry than
cinematography.

Perhaps, but that would be a bad choice on their part. No humans has
ever gone much beyond the Moon with rocketry. With cinematography, just
captain Kirk has gone to I don't know how many star systems :-)


Alain Fournier

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 12:19:27 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:50:41 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:04:09 PM UTC-5, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 1/10/15 3:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote :
The latest Falcon 9 successfully launched today, but the SpaceX attempt
at a first stage barge landing failed

I know there is no good video of the crash because of fog and poor
lighting. But does anyone know where we could see a video even of very
poor quality?


space x must not have planned a success, or lighting etc would of been better


Or perhaps they were just more interested in rocketry than
cinematography.


as the shuttles proved, excellent photos help diagnose in flight faiures


But real telemetry is even better than mere pictures.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Good photography historically ansewers many questions when failures occur.

NASA got careless on shuttle launch videos and photos, poor out of focus columbia foam loss, which cost us a crew.......
if management had better images, and followed its own flight rules nasa had a chance to save a crew, ala apollo 13....

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 11:51:20 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


Good photography historically ansewers many questions when failures occur.


'Good enough'. Not 'good'.


NASA got careless on shuttle launch videos and photos, poor out of focus columbia foam loss, which cost us a crew.......


What a stupid remark!


if management had better images, and followed its own flight rules nasa had a chance to save a crew, ala apollo 13....


Does the word 'horse****' evoke any images for you?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Its all in the safety report....
The root cause of the accident was management pushing schedule too hard

NASA was ordered to improve launch imaging, the system was poorly maintained and the crews life may have been saved IF thefoam strike info had been better.''

At least the crew could of tried, and had a chance to say goodbye to their familys

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 12:55:56 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 11:51:20 PM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


Good photography historically ansewers many questions when failures occur.


'Good enough'. Not 'good'.


NASA got careless on shuttle launch videos and photos, poor out of focus columbia foam loss, which cost us a crew.......


What a stupid remark!


if management had better images, and followed its own flight rules nasa had a chance to save a crew, ala apollo 13....


Does the word 'horse****' evoke any images for you?


Its all in the safety report....
The root cause of the accident was management pushing schedule too hard


Which has nothing to do with your prior claims.


NASA was ordered to improve launch imaging, the system was poorly maintained and the crews life may have been saved IF thefoam strike info had been better.''


Nope. Bobbert, government reports ALWAYS have to recommend some
action to try to prevent things, even if they have to make it up.


At least the crew could of tried, and had a chance to say goodbye to their familys


Wrong.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Fred its sad you know so little

NASA was ordered by the columbia safety board to upgrade the launch cameras. some werent working all all, others were out of focus.

So now your claiming the requirement to upgrade imaging wsnt necessary? How about all the other upgrades? like redsigns to minimize foam loss? and recertify systems? since most were never designed to run basically forever?

One day a ISS saftey board will investigate after a big ISS accident the never ending extensions of life certifications..............

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:04:09 PM UTC-5, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 1/10/15 3:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote :
The latest Falcon 9 successfully launched today, but the SpaceX attempt
at a first stage barge landing failed

I know there is no good video of the crash because of fog and poor
lighting. But does anyone know where we could see a video even of very
poor quality?


space x must not have planned a success, or lighting etc would of been better


Or perhaps they were just more interested in rocketry than
cinematography.

More specifically, they are more interested in completing the primary
mission in a timely manner since that is what pays the bills. The
landing tests for the first stage are a secondary concern. The main
point of this landing test was to gather data. I'm certain they
accomplished that goal even without video.

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 Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:04:09 PM UTC-5, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 1/10/15 3:22 PM, Robert Clark wrote :
The latest Falcon 9 successfully launched today, but the SpaceX attempt
at a first stage barge landing failed

I know there is no good video of the crash because of fog and poor
lighting. But does anyone know where we could see a video even of very
poor quality?


Alain Fournier


Elon has released some images of the landing attempt via his twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...625025/photo/1

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...859840/photo/1

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...975296/photo/1

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/...227072/photo/1


Bob Clark

Video clip of the landing attempt he

SpaceX Just Dropped This Incredible Vine Of Their Rocket's Explosive Near-Landing.
JESSICA ORWIG
JAN. 16, 2015, 12:41 PM 6,447 4
http://www.businessinsider.com/space...ng-vine-2015-1

Bob Clark

In article ,
says...

Video clip of the landing attempt he

SpaceX Just Dropped This Incredible Vine Of Their Rocket's Explosive Near-Landing.
JESSICA ORWIG
JAN. 16, 2015, 12:41 PM 6,447 4
http://www.businessinsider.com/space...ng-vine-2015-1

Awesome video. More data for the engineers at SpaceX. Since the grid
fins failed and went "hard over", I'm not surprised it didn't come down
vertically. But, it did come down exactly where it should (right on the
deck of the drone barge). The upside to all this is that the tanks are
almost empty when it attempts a landing, so as long as it impacts where
it should, damage on the ground is minimized.

This test should help SpaceX make the case to the Air Force that they
should be allowed to build a couple of landing pads at Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station. For a Falcon Heavy, I would think that you would
want two landing pads somewhat near the launch site for the boosters.
This would free up the drone barge to handle the downrange landing of
the core's first stage (which flies higher and further downrange than
the boosters).

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 Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 8:52:37 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Video clip of the landing attempt he

SpaceX Just Dropped This Incredible Vine Of Their Rocket's Explosive Near-Landing.
JESSICA ORWIG
JAN. 16, 2015, 12:41 PM 6,447 4
http://www.businessinsider.com/space...ng-vine-2015-1

Awesome video. More data for the engineers at SpaceX. Since the grid
fins failed and went "hard over", I'm not surprised it didn't come down
vertically. But, it did come down exactly where it should (right on the
deck of the drone barge). The upside to all this is that the tanks are
almost empty when it attempts a landing, so as long as it impacts where
it should, damage on the ground is minimized.

This test should help SpaceX make the case to the Air Force that they
should be allowed to build a couple of landing pads at Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station. For a Falcon Heavy, I would think that you would
want two landing pads somewhat near the launch site for the boosters.
This would free up the drone barge to handle the downrange landing of
the core's first stage (which flies higher and further downrange than
the boosters).

Jeff
--

Actually, not *exactly* where it was supposed to be. You can tell from the images taken of the barge the next day, the damage was near the edge of the barge, indicating this is where the stage impacted. The video and photos of the landing attempt also show all of the position, angle, and velocity were off. All of these could be corrected if the rocket had the capability to hover.

Bob Clark