Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the first complete failure of a Falcon 9 launch - in one of the previous eighteen missions, the primary payload was deployed as planned but the failure of one engine 79 seconds after takeoff prevent the secondary payload from reaching stable orbit.
A reminder that using tons of extremely volatile fuel at hypersonic velocities into reach space means periodic failures.
Looks like Russians will need to bring the supplies up to the space station. Musk thought next flight will be delayed for months as they investigate what went wrong.
Its really surprising to me that after 50+ years of building rockets, and with what we've learned from previous failures, that somehow they still blow-up. I was really hoping for safe space travel by now.
Its really surprising to me that after 50+ years of building rockets, and with what we've learned from previous failures, that somehow they still blow-up. I was really hoping for safe space travel by now.
You have to appreciate the difficulty of lifting and then accelerating a million pounds of mass from the ground to orbit. A rocket is a controlled explosion, and the forces on all of this hardware is incredible between gravity and aerodynamic pressures it's a wonder that it doesn't explode every time. Sitting on top of a giant fuel tank and lighting a fuse is never going to be completely safe, all they can do is prepare for the inevitable failure. Just for historical perspective, many of our early attempts in rocketry were failures, especially when we began lofting things into orbit, I think back in the day they hit the launch button then crossed their fingers. Many of the recent failures usually lead to minute details of something that was missed. It is getting safer, in 50 years we really have come a long way.
Parts fail, glad there were no astronauts on board.
The only thing I don't get, the capsule survived and it's designed for re-entry. Why can't they just send a signal to pop the chutes? The only reason I can think of is monetary, better to take a total loss or the value of the payload isn't worth the cost to recover?
The only thing I don't get, the capsule survived and it's designed for re-entry. Why can't they just send a signal to pop the chutes? The only reason I can think of is monetary, better to take a total loss or the value of the payload isn't worth the cost to recover?
Probably since this scenario has never happened before, there was no contingency plan.
The only thing I don't get, the capsule survived and it's designed for re-entry. Why can't they just send a signal to pop the chutes? The only reason I can think of is monetary, better to take a total loss or the value of the payload isn't worth the cost to recover?
Another thing to keep in mind is that this failure occurred well past supersonic speed. Even though the capsule might have survived, the unplanned and massive G-forces involved at the time of break-up assures that very little inside the capsule can survive.
This failure occurred so high-up in the vehicle assembly (and so high in altitude) that the failure might have been payload related instead of launch vehicle related.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
