Musk Confirms That Something May Have Hit The Rocket

>>8333527
>twitter
>>>/pol/

File: SpaceX_Falcon_9_Amos_6_1.9.16.jpg (22KB, 634x384px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 634x384px

In Israel, some informed sources suggest that the reason for the destruction is far from technical and may never come to light. For the Lord has given the command, and he will smash the great house into pieces and the small house into bits. (Amos-6-11) They cite the only previous SpaceX failure, which occurred in June, 2015, when a Falcon 9 rocket carrying supplies to the International Space Station exploded just a few minutes after launch. The company set up an inquiry team composed of 11 staff members which never released details of its findings.

>>8326676

>>8333527
This was my first thought when I heard about it.
Just saying, but there's a lot of people happy about SpaceX being grounded.

Well these rocket launches are totally open areas, no real secrecy or security, and its an extremely easy thing to disrupt

If it was sabotage I don't think they would publicly announce it.

>>8333725
>If it was sabotage I don't think they would publicly announce it
why not?

Inb4 all competitors rockets blow up as retaliation.

>>8333527
finally a thread on this. surely the collective efforts of people on 4chan could find some unseen footage from a different angle, yes? i don't even know where to begin to look. does anyone know if there's satellite photos/videos of the explosion? old surveillance camera footage from a new angle?

>>8333716
Are you sure it was SpaceX they were after? there are a lot of state actors that do not want a facebook satellite disrupting their propaganda.

>>8333761
No way to be sure, really.
Maybe they hit two birds with one strike.

>>8333761
>facebook disrupting propaganda
that's not how it works, kiddo

>Conspiratards could be right for once.
ahahahaha. Are you sure Musk didn't simply got tired of his rockets turning into fireworks and he resorted to shift blame so his budget won't get cut?

>>8334037
There have only been two failures, both very suspicious.

Individual strut testing is not standard in aerospace. Nobody who puts in a strut that's three times as strong as it needs to be, from a reputable aerospace provider, checks each one to make sure that one in a thousand isn't only a quarter as strong as it's supposed to be. Anyone who got passed bad struts by their supplier could be expected to suffer a catastrophic failure eventually.

SpaceX's post-incident policy of individual strut testing is not normal quality control, it's an anti-sabotage measure.

This new failure is just as bizarre and suspicious. This was a routine tanking procedure, which SpaceX has done hundreds of times (they do this repeatedly with each rocket during qualification and testing). The only special thing about this time is that there was a valuable payload on top.

>>8333693
>the reason for the destruction is far from technical

Why does defenseindustrydaily.com and others call Amos-6 a 'dual-use' satellite? The term usually points to technology that can be weaponized in some way or another. "Spacecom has already sold capacity on the satellite, including a $20 million lifetime contract from the Israeli government, who will receive a beam in an agreed-upon frequency band.."

Could you secretly blow up a rocket with a ultraviolet, infrared, or microwave laser? Just how detectable or how much forensic evidence would such a thing leave behind? Also what's it's range?

>>8333527
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPv0VZcvm4Q

Wanna place bets on whether he's right on the cause?

>>8334319
Oh my god, stop spamming links to t00t's shit. He blathers on for 20 minutes of shitflinging and hides a one-liner wild guess somewhere in the middle, so if you blink, you'll miss it.

He doesn't even guess about the ignition source, he doesn't talk about the known facts of the Falcon 9's internal structure, he just supposes that it had something to do with kerosene freezing and that this somehow breaks a pipe full of liquid oxygen, allowing the two to come in contact.

Now, lox and RP-1 are not any more soluble in each other than oil and water. RP-1 is basically non-volatile, so they won't form a gaseous mixture either. And RP-1 is fairly difficult to ignite (the engine start-up involves TEA/TEB, a very hot-burning fuel which bursts into flame on contact with oxygen, as starter fluid). These are some of the reasons the lox/RP-1 combination is popular (relating to kerosene's use as a jet fuel, where the difficulty of ignition is also a key selling point for safety), and some of the reasons lox/methane hasn't yet been tried in an orbital launch vehicle (lox/methane is miscible, a mixture of the two can be triggered to detonate by things like exposure to light, they're liquid at the same temperatures, and both boil at low temperatutes).

Even if the lox and RP-1 got exposed to each other because the barrier between the two tanks broke down somehow, the explosion needs a lot of explaining. That's the kind of thing you'd expect to be noticed, and then they'd just stop everything, open the vents, and let the lox boil off. This is another benefit of the lox/RP-1 combination: the liquid oxygen will boil off fairly quickly if you just leave it alone.

/x/ here

Get fucked, nerds.

>>8334308
The manner of the rocket exploded makes sense if you consider it was caused by a leaser. It wasn't even an explosion, it was a really quick burn. Like something cut a hole in the fuel tank (laser) and then ignited the fuel as it was escaping the fuel tank. (again, laser)

It's a huge stationary targets sitting in a field with nothing around it for miles. It's the perfect target for this kind of attack.

>>8333527

Were there any Samsung Galaxy Note 7's in that thing?

>>8334361
Powerful lasers are not something that you can just transport in a van or w/e
And you lose power through the atmosphere fast...

And a laser would need to be pointing at the target for minimum several seconds before its heated up enough to burn through & ignore shit. This would be visible.

>>8334379
ignite*

So anyways, highly doubtful it was any sort of laser attack.

>>8334074
>from a reputable aerospace provider
That's the thing though, aren't they all about cost reduction?

>>8334406
They didn't go out and find some dodgy no-name struts, if that's what you're implying.

SpaceX cuts costs by vertically integrating anything they think is overpriced (in other words, making it themselves, starting from whatever stage is not overpriced), not by throwing a rocket together from factory seconds and old engines found in a barn.

>>8334406
while companies are legally bound to make money, engineers are legally bound to make shit work.

>>8333527
>le free market
>can't even make rockets that don't explode

File: spacex8.gif (1MB, 300x309px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x309px

here it is boys

>>8334356
kek. you were right for once /x/

>>8334308
You could just shoot it with a rifle...

File: plasma_orb.jpg (3KB, 142x142px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 142x142px

>>8335269
paranormal sabotage

File: infinite-monkeys.jpg (118KB, 556x369px)

118KB, 556x369px

>>8334356
if you randomly blurt out sounds, every once in a while you are likely to articulate an actual word of some actual human language.

that doesnt, however, make you an intelligent conversationalist

>>8335269
So something exploded

>>8334379
>And a laser would need to be pointing at the target for minimum several seconds before its heated up enough to burn through & ignore shit. This would be visible.
What would be visible? The laser itself? Because it could just be in the infrared range and therefore invisible.