SpaceX Rocket Explodes After Launching

[Logical]

An unmanned cargo ship destined for the International Space Station blew up minutes after launching from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on Sunday morning, NASA said, raising serious questions about how the agency and its partners will continue keeping the station supplied.

It was first failure in 19 launchings of the Falcon 9 rocket built by Space Exploration Technologies of Hawthorne, Calif., better known as SpaceX.

This episode follows the failures of two other cargo rockets. In October, an Antares rocket, built by Orbital ATK, exploded on the launching pad in Virginia. In May, a Russian Progress rocket spun out of control, unable to reach the space station.

The six astronauts on the space station are not in any immediate danger, with several months of supplies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/science/space/spacex-rocket-explodes-during-launch.html

[hunter]

1. Well, shit.

As a bright-eyed kid excited about space flight and computers, things have turned out entirely different than my ten year old self expected.

These days I can divert a super-super-computer from the recycling bin and refurbish it for free using crap in my junkbox, I can buy a super-computer for $35, televisions have flat screens and are available in any size from wrist-watch small to giant billboards, better-than-Star-Trek cellphones are everywhere and cheap...

...but flinging stuff into space is still difficult, dangerous, and very expensive.

[Igel]

7. Yup.

Lots of energy needed to get that far out of the Earth's gravity well.

My kid likes the idea of space launches. I keep describing them to him as putting people and expensive stuff on top of a very, very large bomb followed by a barely controlled explosion.

Then again, I describe landing a commercial airliner as throwing 250 tons of metal, electronics, and people at the ground while hoping that nothing breaks.

[Logical]

8. So true! nt

[Warpy]

26. Yeah, until they figure out what dark energy is and how to use it

space travel is going to be dirty, wasteful, and extremely dangerous. The only way to get a handle on either dark matter or dark energy is from space, in all likelihood. Until we do, we'd do well to scale back our ambitions a bit.

(I'm disappointed there aren't bases on the Moon, too)

[aspirant]

2. Privatization of Space

maybe its time to rethink

[former9thward]

3. Yes, NASA did so well.

Killing 17 astronauts. How many has Space X killed?

[Logical]

9. 17? Is that including test flights, etc? nt

[former9thward]

11. If you include testing it is more.

The Columbia blew up on re-entry killing 7. The Challenger blew up on take off killing 7. Apollo 1 cabin ignited in preparation for its flight killing 3. That is 17.

Seven more died in test flights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

Of course that is not counting Russian deaths -- 8 that we know of including 3 that died while they were in space itself.

[Orrex]

14. How many decades has Space X been operating?

And you can't really lump the Russian space program in with a critique of NASA, any more than you can include in private aircraft crashes with Space X failures.

Also, since Space X has the benefit of 50+ years of NASA's experience, they shouldn't enjoy the same five-decade timeframe to bring themselves up to speed.

The whole point of the privatization of space exploration is the belief that it's cheaper and more efficient than NASA. Not simply that it's no worse than NASA.

[former9thward]

15. If you read my posts I did not try to include Russia.

I said 17. That does not include Russia or NASA test flights. I just made a general comment about Russia. I don't know the economics of Space X so I accept what others have said. I just reject the idea, promoted by some, that privatization means things are going to blow up. Especially since everything NASA ever built was done by private companies. NASA simply acted as the overall manager.

[Orrex]

18. Then somebody hacked your account and posted reply #11 in your name:

If you include testing it is more.

The Columbia blew up on re-entry killing 7. The Challenger blew up on take off killing 7. Apollo 1 cabin ignited in preparation for its flight killing 3. That is 17.

Seven more died in test flights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

Of course that is not counting Russian deaths -- 8 that we know of including 3 that died while they were in space itself.

See, by saying "that is not counting Russian deaths," it's saying "the 17 count would be even higher if we included Russian fatalities." Since your intent was to exclude the Russian deaths, it's even more unfortunate that the hacker posted this clear statement of inclusion. You should consider changing your password, and fast!

I just reject the idea, promoted by some, that privatization means things are going to blow up. Especially since everything NASA ever built was done by private companies. NASA simply acted as the overall manager.

Funny that private companies have stumbled so badly in the absence of NASA's oversight. Were the knowledge and experience lost once private companies started self-management?

One would almost be tempted to conclude that NASA's involvement was important somehow.

I just reject the idea, promoted by some, that privatization means things are going to blow up.

I equally reject the idea, promoted by some, that privatization means greater efficiency, dollar value or safety.

[former9thward]

19. Word salad.

At best.

[Orrex]

20. Yeah, that's the kneejerk defense anytime someone can't back up their own statements

It purports to excuse the poster from having to justify their own statements by accusing their opponent of nonsense.


Disappointing, but maybe you can blame your hacker for such intellectual laziness.

[former9thward]

22. I took my info from Wiki.

If you have better info give it to us.

[Orrex]

23. I'm not disputing the figures; I'm disputing your presentation.

Or rather, your hacker's presentation.

[former9thward]

24. Sorry, I don't have a professional writer doing these posts.

As I'm sure you do .....

[Orrex]

25. It doesn't take a professional

When you write one thing and then immediately claim the opposite, the reader is apt to question it.

Or the reader will give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that a hacker is responsible for such clear inconsistency.

[former9thward]

27. Of course I did not do that.

Everyone else could read the posts clearly but you. I think that says something.

[Orrex]

28. Possibly, but not what you think it does.

Everyone else could read the posts clearly but you.

Well, no one else called you out for it. That doesn't mean that your inconsistency made sense to anyone else.


Or maybe I'll just go with your approved tactic and cry "word salad" and leave it at that.

[backscatter712]

17. 3 on Apollo 1, 7 on Challenger, 7 on Columbia. n/t

[AZ Progressive]

4. Just like the privatization of U.S. intelligence

[LittleBlue]

5. NASA was paying 4x the amount Space X charges per launch

Even with this explosion, Space X is still much cheaper. Now if only they can land one of those rockets....

[philosslayer]

12. Exactly what I was thinking

Space travel and exploration is best left to government

[former9thward]

16. It has never been a government project.

Every rocket NASA ever used and every other piece of equipment was made by private companies. NASA simply said "We want to do this in this time frame". The companies did the rest.

[Major Nikon]

13. It always has been privatized to a certain extent

Now it's just a little more privatized. NASA and the military have more than their fair share of aborts as well.

[backscatter712]

21. SpaceX has been doing pretty damned well so far.

This is the first time that Falcon 9 has had a RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly) resulting in the loss of a payload.

Say what you will about the concept of privatizing space launches, but SpaceX has done a pretty damned good job of building a rocket that (until today) has had a great record of delivering payloads to orbit. On top of that, they've pushed the envelope, coming oh-so-damned-close to having a first stage land after separation in a condition where it could be refurbished and relaunched.

Space is hard. I'm sure they'll figure out what happened and create a fix.

[Mika]

6. Video here

[Logical]

10. Thanks for posting!! nt

[TeeYiYi]

29. Wow...

...Ground Control rendered speechless.

Thanks for posting, Mika.

TYY