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.

 

Did the US Air Force commit to an air strike on a Space X booster?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I'm speechless... Here is a report which indicates the US Air Force performed an Air Strike upon a Space X booster after splashdown. Supposedly the reason was that it could not be safely towed back to port. Here's the link:

www.thedrive.com...

So what really happened?

Was it CYA to eliminate an American space asset? As we all know, the Falcon Heavy famously launched recently, but this is an event from January. Thus a single booster represented the launch of one payload. The Falcon 9 is capable of multiple payload delivery, but they're stacked like you'd expect. What were they destroying?




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

??? They scuttled the Falcon 9 1st stage. It's in the article and confirmed by NASA. In other words they sunk it because it was to large to safely tow in and it was a hazard.

What really happened? They scuttled it for safety reasons.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

I wonder what the real pay load was, that was in space x? If the Air Force is in on it, then it could be an "eyes and ears" payload.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun


Too large to tow? Right. Perhaps a failure in the rocket and it was sinking or it isn't designed to be towed in the water?


The Army's Biggest Tug Boat Can Haul an Entire Aircraft Carrier
It can tow "any vessel in the Army inventory," Stars and Stripes declared. "And can even pull an aircraft carrier." And with a service range of more than 5,000 nautical miles, the Nathanael Greene sextuplets can do so virtually anywhere in the world. [US Army - Global Sec - Stars and Stripes - Wiki 1, 2 - Hazy Grey - Google Books]
gizmodo.com...



edit on 8-2-2018 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

With respect, super moderator, do you believe the recovery wasn't planned months before the launch? Why the sudden need to scuttle?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

No, it was an Air Force asset, otherwise the they would not have taken an interest.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

No. It stinks to high heaven. Clearing commercial shipping lanes doesn't ring true. There is no way the Air Force is involved in sinking detritus. Unless they have an interest, that is.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Because it was supposed to land upright on their drone ship and come back on it. It didn't, and fell in the water.

ETA: It looks like this one wasn't supposed to land on the ship. The payload was a satellite for Luxembourg. They probably couldn't get anything into position to recover it, so they sank it.

It wasn't supposed to survive.

edit on 2/8/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/8/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

And who else is going to? The Air Force would jump at the chance and use it as a training exercise.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

SpaceX wasn't going to use it again, so it didn't matter if it was recovered or not.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, and yes. I thought about that. It still doesn't make sense. The exercise reads as a matter of contingency, not opportunity. I think you underestimate the function of training. Training is not ad hoc. Sinking this buoyant structure was an operation.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

I know exactly what training is and how it's planned , thanks. Training is normally planned well in advance, but there are times when opportunities come up unexpectedly.

This booster was on its second flight, so it wasn't going to fly again. It was testing a new type if landing. They fully expected it to not survive the attempt. It did. They couldn't get a recovery team to it to get it back to shore. An unexpected opportunity for training came up.
edit on 2/8/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

sorry, are you admitting direct knowledge? I think it would be cool if the military were coopting commercial opportunities, but then again you couldn't possibly, right?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

I'm saying that sometimes the military gets an opportunity that they didn't plan for and use it for training. Most training is planned well ahead, many times years ahead, but every so often an opportunity does come up. I've seen it happen before and it will happen again.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
No, it was not an Air Force asset; it was a SpaceX asset. However, according to international treaty, all launch vehicles are the legal responsibility of the nation from whose soil they are launched. So, a booster first stage that's unexpectedly floating around in international waters (when it was supposed to have been recovered on a barge) posed a legal liability for the US government.

Hypothetically, it may have been physically possible to tow the floating first stage back to shore, but there was no good reason to do so. The SpaceX boosters are designed to be recovered and reused IF they successfully perform a soft landing on a hard surface. If, instead, the booster is dumped into salt water in an uncontrolled manner, it becomes practically useless for reflight. So at that point, the value of the booster became zero, and the cheapest thing to do was obviously to sink it. Since the US government had a legal liability in the matter, the Air Force could be officially tasked to deal with the matter.

a reply to: Zelun



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

I would imagine a wealth of info on wear went down with the falcon. if the landing would have went as planned the rocket would have been dissected and studied for improvements and quality.

Lots of valuable info was also lost, and all we can do is guess why it was sunk.


...
edit on 8-2-2018 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   

edit on 2/8/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

This particular one wasn't meant to survive it turns out. They tested a high energy landing system that used three engines instead of one. They were actually surprised it survived.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Right, and the info from the structure of the rocket and it's mechanical would be invaluable.

Something either stinks or a decision had to be made and this was the outcome of the military seeing everything as a nail and they are the hammer.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join