It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket explodes 2014

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
A reminder of the complexity of space program and it's high risk.. no less than 100% success is needed for manned launch.




SpaceX's rocket program suffered a setback today, with one of its three engine Falcon rockets exploding in mid-air during a test flight in McGregor, Texas. The company says it triggered the action after onboard systems detected that something was wrong. Nobody was injured, local Central Texas news station KXXV reports.

According to SpaceX, the rocket's systems detected "an anomaly" that led to an automatic termination of the test. A company spokesperson added that it's analyzing the data for more information on what the anomaly was, and how it occurred. "With research and development projects, detecting vehicle anomalies during the testing is the purpose of the program," a SpaceX spokesperson told The Verge. "Today's test was particularly complex, pushing the limits of the vehicle further than any previous test."


www.theverge.com...




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   



edit on 23-8-2014 by drneville because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
As with all things exploding, it's nice to see the actual footage: www.youtube.com...

Looks like a beautiful airburst



Falling debris: www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
awww thats a shame, i had (literally) high hopes for space-x

Well i hope that their next launches go better



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Maybe Russians getting back at US for all those suspicious failings that Russia launched



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
I wonder what the anomaly was. I hope it wasn't something stupid like a bug on the windscreen or something.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
that thing sounded impressive, such a shame i hope they have better luck in the future



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I don't understand why they would destroy the entire thing over an anomaly. It seems like such a waste



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
ouch



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

it looks like it starts to topple over before it goes boom. better that than coming down in large chunks down range somewhere



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
thats why its called 'test' flight




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Because that keeps it from going off course and out of control, possibly into an area they don't want it to go.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. It would be a bad day for Space X if the Falcon 9 crashed into a populated area (not to mention a bad day for the people in that populated area).



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
It was bound to happen at some point. From a 2013 TEDx talk by Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's President and COO:


So we’re 5-for-5 testing on this Grasshopper. But, but that means we’re not pushing hard enough. We’ve got to tunnel one of those vehicles into the ground by trying something really heard. So now our challenge to our test team is you’ve got to push hard enough that we’re going to see something happen. A spectacular video.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

I'm actually surprised it HADN'T happened prior to now. That says a lot about the development team.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TimeAfterTime
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Maybe Russians getting back at US for all those suspicious failings that Russia launched


what is with this US vs Russian thing that keep popping up on every thread that have no relation at all ?

this is not about russian rocket technology which is known to be superior to US rockets, this is about a private company trying hard to enter the space business. The road is long and the risk is high , and for a manned launch they will have 100% reliability and they must do all these while still profitable.. after all , this is business



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
ALL RIGHT, rockets. Good job. You stay old school, and i will be new old school. A step ahead of your time. What i'm saying is, WHY rockets ? Thats all thy got. Thats there new tech. Today you can buy a 5 or 6 stage rockets with camera ,gps tracker and parachute and make it yourself, launch yourself with igniters and elecrical wires and a battery. When it comes back to earth you can veiw the whole trip. I use to make and launch rockets alot when i was a kid. I made homemade and bought rocket kits. A couple of times some of my rockets went bonkers. What exciting times thy were. Rockets. he,he,he.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MontyMoleClone

you mean like this?
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
it is strange that NASA let their rocket technology atrophied like this.. maybe it is time for other nations to take lead into space..



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: buntalanlucu
it is strange that NASA let their rocket technology atrophied like this.. maybe it is time for other nations to take lead into space..

It isn't accurate to say it's "NASA's technology". NASA has rarely designed and built any launch system itself, but has almost always instead relied on technology made by commercial companies/the private sector. Almost all of the major hardware NASA has ever used, including its rocket engines, were built by commercial companies -- not by NASA itself.

Plus, NASA does not build the Atlas and Delta rockets used to launch satellites into space. Those rockets are designed and built by the United Launch Alliance (ULA), which is a company that is jointly owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

The Atlas family of rockets (the Atlas III and the Atlas V), which are among the more popular rockets used today used in the U.S. to launch payload into space, are the ones that use the Russian-built RD-180 engine. The Atlas rocket itself is manufactured by United launch Alliance (ULA), which, as I said, is jointly owned by Boeing and Lockheed. ULA has been testing a new engine that will replace the Russian-made ones, and the new engine should be ready before ULA runs out of its inventory of Russian RD-180.

So basically the reliance on the Russian-made RD-180 to power the Atlas rockets was not NASA's doing, but rather the doing of the people who make the Atlas rocket -- ULA, which is Boeing and Lockheed.

The Delta family of rockets (also made by ULA) are also popular for launches in the U.S., and they use engines made by Rocketdyne Corporation(liquid propellant) and ULA(solid propellant).



As for NASA itself, even it has almost always relied on commercial corporations to make its engines. Most of NASA's liquid-propellant engines over the years had been manufactured by Rocketdyne Corporation. Thiokol Corporation and ULA make the solid-propellant boosters used by NASA. Rocketdyne has made the engines for the Apollo Saturn V and for the Space Shuttle main engines. Bell Aerospace and TRW made the engines for the Lunar Module, and Aerojet Inc made the main engine for the Apollo command module.

NASA has historically used commercial companies to make its hardware. The three stages of the Saturn V were each designed and made by three separate corporations -- Boeing, North American Aviation, and Douglas Aircraft -- and all three stages used engines made by Rocketdyne. The Command Module was made by Douglas, the Lunar lander was made Grumman Aerospace, and the Lunar rover was made by General Motors and Boeing. Centaur rockets, which have been used as the cruise stage for far-earth heavy missions such as the Mars Curiosity Rover, was originally designed made by General Dynamics/Convair, but Boeing has since acquired that technology.


NASA's new family of rockets (the SLS family) will be mainly powered by liquid-propellant engines made by Rocketdyne and solid-propellant engines made by Alliant Techsystems.. Other companies that are in competition to make some of the SLS engines are Aerojet and Dynetics.

So the new arrangement NASA has with private companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Services is not the first time NASA has used the private sector to design and build its rockets. However, this new arrangement is unique in the fact that these new companies are providing an entire launch system and launch services to NASA, rather than the old way where NASA was just buying the pieces of the spacecraft from the commercial companies/the private sector.


edit on 8/25/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join