SpaceX News

[mvanwink5]

Military laser test?

[hanelyp]

Military laser test?

I'm not eliminating something like that yet, but SpaceX does well not to speculate openly in that direction without supporting evidence.

[JoeP]

Very doubtful. Blatant act of war to do something like that.

[Maui]

Boeing makes laser weapons right?

[DeltaV]

Stabilized video from nasaspaceflight.com

Right-click brings up playback speed options. There is a 'spot'.

[DeltaV]

About one minute before the break-up (near T + 1:14) there are a few seconds of 'illumination' near the solar panel covers.
This could just be condensation trails off of the panel covers (commonly seen on jets in humid climates at low altitudes).

Or not. If it was a laser hitting the back side, the geometry seems reasonable for the ship's location at that time (maybe just "dialing-in" prior to the high-g portion later). A laser would have to be on target for several seconds before weakening any structure.

[mvanwink5]

I wonder if that is in the decision tree?

[Maui]

Having a hard time deciding whether you guys are seriously contemplating the laser theory, or if this is a joke.

Anyway, it sure seems to me a pretty significant coinkydink that the mating problem that delayed the launch involved the area just barely above that O2 tank. Just look at the 2nd pic here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/ ... 7-mission/

I'm putting my money on that there is a connection...

[mvanwink5]

From my part, I am not serious, but only because I don't think the capability is there, not the evil intent and poor judgement.

[mvanwink5]

As was pointed out, they were at max-Q. Also, if it was a stuck pressurization valve, pressure should have ramped up and been easy to spot. As the data is being parsed in milliseconds, the event had to have been super quick, perhaps structural failure. I go back to my mantra, "it is never, ever, the one thing," so, perhaps the combination of end of first stage, yielding to lowest temperature of the oxygen tank, coupled with a heavy payload (more oxygen used so even colder), plus max-Q, and perhaps an oxygen tank fabrication defect, crack, boom.

Whatever the failure path that led to the Falcon 9 demise, it is super good fortune to happen now as failure is the only path to final success and there is so much ahead with added complications that could make analysis more difficult.

[DeltaV]

They were well past max q. They were near max g at break-up.

[DeltaV]

If I were King, I would order the US Navy to intercept and search Maersk Wolfsburg before they unloaded.

If nothing was found, I would order an underwater search for shipping containers along their route.

[mvanwink5]

Not to worry, even with my hubris I'm not serious with outthinking the SpaceX failure analysis experts. Further, my access to even the simplest information is limited given I have trouble finding where in the ascent the failure took place. On top of those points, Musk did say the failure was counterintuitive, and that's likely an understatement.

[DeltaV]

If anyone knows where to get reasonably accurate and detailed trajectory/route data for CRS-7/Wolfsburg, we could try to reconstruct the (alleged) beam-target geometry, range, power on target, etc.

Would give us something to do while fusion research creeps along and WW3 gears up.

[Tom Ligon]

I did an article for Analog a year or so back in which I pointed out the correlation between Max Q and loss of spacecraft. For the aerodynamically uninitiated, Q is shorthand for dynamic pressure, the force you feel when you stick your hand out the window at highway speed. It goes up with velocity squared, but drops off when the rocket gets to sufficiently low density atmosphere. The launch crews sound calm when the launch director calls out "Max Q", but they're likely all holding their breath.

Both of the shuttle accidents happened due to damage experienced within a few seconds of Max Q, and there was also a crosswind shear component at those points. For Challenger, it opened a failing o-ring in an SRB, while for Columbia it dislodged ice-laden foam.

As was pointed out, they were at max-Q. Also, if it was a stuck pressurization valve, pressure should have ramped up and been easy to spot. As the data is being parsed in milliseconds, the event had to have been super quick, perhaps structural failure. I go back to my mantra, "it is never, ever, the one thing," so, perhaps the combination of end of first stage, yielding to lowest temperature of the oxygen tank, coupled with a heavy payload (more oxygen used so even colder), plus max-Q, and perhaps an oxygen tank fabrication defect, crack, boom.

Whatever the failure path that led to the Falcon 9 demise, it is super good fortune to happen now as failure is the only path to final success and there is so much ahead with added complications that could make analysis more difficult.