Did the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blow up due to sabotage?

[qubit]

There's footage of suspicious activity on a nearby roof of a competitor's building just before the explosion. No hard evidence yet and footage has not been released.

It would be pretty ugly if this sabotage were true and I suspect it is. There are enough challenges to getting into space as it is and crap like this risks lives and retards mankinds advancement into space.

www.sciencealert.com/speculation-is-building-that-the-recent-spacex-explosion-was-the-result-of-sabotage

UPDATE

Here's a tasty update: now they're arguing over who's gonna lead the investigation! Thanks for the tip @dorsetknob

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_wants_control_explosion_investigation/

ANOTHER UPDATE

Looks like it was just a change of procedures which had unintended consequences, see post 32. Thanks @CAPSLOCKSTUCK for the tip.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

On the day there were reports of a drone hitting the rocket.

 

[dorsetknob]

There's footage of suspicious activity on a nearby roof of a competitor's building just before the explosion. No hard evidence yet and footage has not been released.

Was this building a book depository and near a grassy knoll

On the day there were reports of a drone hitting the rocket.

See pic 2 and 3

 

[dorsetknob]

The investigation into a dramatic Falcon 9 rocket explosion earlier this month at Cape Canaveral has determined a “large breach” in the launcher’s upper stage helium pressurization system led to the destruction of the booster and its $200 million satellite payload, SpaceX said Friday.

More at https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/23/falcon-9-rocket-explosion-traced-to-upper-stage-helium-system/

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Carrying an Israeli payload probably had nothing to do with it.

 

[Mussels]

the 'drone' was clearly a bird or bug closer to the camera (which clearly has a telescopic lense, and is zoomed in heavily) you CAN see the 'blob' fly past, but the way it moves makes it clear its much closer to the camera than the rocket is.

 

[slozomby]

this is clearly the work of (pick 1 or more) aliens/Russian hackers/the illuminati/nascar fans.

 

[natr0n]

!

 

[rtwjunkie]

I hope you all are being funny. Rockets still blow up with frightening regularity, no matter what country or private entity the space agency is in. Getting an object or people into space is always a crapshoot.

Indeed, every time people successfully make it into space it should be regarded as a failed suicide attempt.

 

[Easy Rhino]

A sound track for your theory

 

[Nosada]

every time people successfully make it into space it should be regarded as a failed suicide attempt.

Pure sig gold!

 

[Athlon2K15]

A sound track for your theory

You realize more than half of the people here have never heard of that song or the Beastie Boys.

 

[cadaveca]

You realize more than half of the people here have never heard of that song or the Beastie Boys.

Then they have never lived a real life.

@qubit Man, really? This seems fairly on par for you, but I fail to see the relationship with this thread and the forum's title. That was tech powered down dramatically, not powered up.

When you think the shuttles were basically foam-wrapped metal cans, it really is no wonder why they don't send people into space often, and why Mars has yet to be colonized. Musk's idea to do such things are definitely an interesting take on the matter, but you're still strapping a big huge explosive to your butt no matter which way you look at it.

 

[qubit]

@qubit Man, really? This seems fairly on par for you, but I fail to see the relationship with this thread and the forum's title. That was tech powered down dramatically, not powered up.

When you think the shuttles were basically foam-wrapped metal cans, it really is no wonder why they don't send people into space often, and why Mars has yet to be colonized. Musk's idea to do such things are definitely an interesting take on the matter, but you're still strapping a big huge explosive to your butt no matter which way you look at it.

Not sure what your issue with this is. You might also wanna vote in my poll to make your opinion on this incident clear.

EDIT: Caps, that video is amazing. The explosions just kept on coming!

 

[cadaveca]

Not sure what your issue with this is.

There is no science present. The video is cool though, albeit a bit old. It's so last month. ROFL.

 

[qubit]

There is no science present. The video is cool though, albeit a bit old. It's so last month. ROFL.

Well, it's tech, innit. c'mon Cad, lots of diverse sciencey / techy things are discussed in this section and I think this qualifies. The article I've based my post on is actually dated today as the foul play angle seems to be new, which is the point of my thread.

Here's this Register story of the explosion which tends to think that a sniper shot from the ULA building is highly unlikely and I agree with them. I also agree with Mussels that the thing flying across is most likely a bird which is much closer to the camera. Personally, I have no idea if it was foul play or not, but can only go by the news reports. Since SpaceX suspect it from an unaired second video discussed in the article, I'm going with a maybe in my poll.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_searches_for_falcon_rocket_sabotage

 

[cadaveca]

Nah, you know, it's just a bit leaning on conspiracy. No one "involved" is really even interested in such "theories", even by the articles you posted yourself. So here you post "could it be?", and then post "nah, it ain't". And I don't mean you posting it directly, but the articles you linked.


So the question remains, why post about it in the first place? Trying to see who will bite?

Therein lies why I kind of see it as a problem. It's not science. It's not tech. It's a conspiracy theory.

Makes me wonder, you work for the register now, or what? ROFL.

(remember, just because I don't agree with your posting doesn't mean I'm not interested. Just not likely in the way you'd think about it, given your stance on many a subject.)

I mean ,you might as well say that SpaceX rigged it to happen so they could make an insurance claim.

 

[qubit]

Seriously Cad, I think you're just overthinking it. Look, I'm actually quite simple (cue butt of jokes lol) and what you see is what you get with me. I see an article that looks interesting (and possible sabotage of a rocket is interesting) so I post about it to share with others here. There really isn't any more to it than that. I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist.

So, in this case, SpaceX themselves say it looks suspicious and give a reason why, hence I just go with it as the most likely explanation in the absence of any other evidence, that's all. This is an ongoing situation which will hopefully be resolved one way or the other soon.

 

[cadaveca]

LoL. Seems like simple miss-direction if you ask me, and marketing. A common tactic at such levels of business. IF you actually read the articles you posted, Space-X doesn't think it was anything but an internal fault. One article does say that "three people" suggest it might have been sabotage, and gives a reason, but that's like one of my kids saying "Not me!"

Then said article says "we don't buy it."

While it's technically just possible, Occam's razor would suggest that there is a more prosaic explanation for why the Falcon (and Facebook's internet satellite) went boom last month. But that's not going to stop the conspiracy theorists going nuts on this one for a while.

It almost seems like you bought it. ROFL.

Elon Musk is a very intelligent person. But he ain't no Iron Man. People that listen to this, tend to then buy into his rhetoric, and SpaceX's vision remains intact, and they are not in question for sloppy work. Obfuscation at its best.

So, I amnswered your poll, with "other". There's my "other", ma boi @qubit

 

[Mussels]

You realize more than half of the people here have never heard of that song or the Beastie Boys.

anyone who watched the latest star trek movie has heard it, even if they did not recognise it (and personally i dont think it fit the scene well)

 

[qubit]

@cadaveca Of course I read the article and I don't see what you have a problem with here.

To paraphrase the first three paragraphs of the article, "unnamed industry sources" say there's footage showing something suspicious going on and SpaceX is keeping its cards close to its chest at the moment and not saying anything. If I was them, I'd do the same thing. You also seem to have missed my caveat in my OP, "No hard evidence yet and footage has not been released", so you're not seeing my trumpeting some supposedly definitive evidence at all. As I said before, you're reading too much into it.

Thanks for voting.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter seeking ‘support and advice’ as the investigation continues, calling the event ‘the most difficult and complex failure’ the firm has ever had.

And addressing claims that a mysterious object may have hit the rocket, Musk said they ‘have not ruled that out.’

Musk also wrote on Twitter that he was 'particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off'

May come from rocket or something else,' he added.

Earlier this week, Musk said that finding out what went wrong is the company's 'absolute top priority'.

'We've eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there,' he said.




Bill Ostrove, an aerospace and defense analyst at Forecast International, said SpaceX's reliability with the Falcon 9 is 93%, which is "right in the ballpark" of the industry average of 95%.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-reliability-1472754973-htmlstory.html

 

[cadaveca]

@cadavecaI don't see what you have a problem with here.

Look at the date of the Elon Musk Twitter posts... September 9th. Someone is spinning old news as new.

Musk also wrote on Twitter that he was 'particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off'

Yep. He did. Nearly a month ago. So what new info makes this news-worthy today?


Everyone misses this tidbit:

Since then, SpaceX, which is leading the investigation with help from the Air Force, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration, said it is narrowing down on the cause of the explosion, focusing on a breach in a second-stage helium system.

So... sabotage? Nope.

The real new news is that "members of Congress" are now questioning SpaceX's Falcon9's reliability. THAT is why its being talked about now.

Origin:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...b60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html (September 30th)

This week, 10 Republican House members, many friendly to ULA, told NASA that SpaceX should not be leading the investigation and that authority should be turned over to the federal government

So, SpaceX WAS/IS in charge of the investigation, but it is being pushed to be NOT in charge of the investigation. The Register has failed you. That's my problem with it all. No big deal.

 

[dorsetknob]

Everyone misses this tidbit:

So... sabotage? Nope.

Not everyone see post #4
in case you do not wish to scroll up

The investigation into a dramatic Falcon 9 rocket explosion earlier this month at Cape Canaveral has determined a “large breach” in the launcher’s upper stage helium pressurization system led to the destruction of the booster and its $200 million satellite payload, SpaceX said Friday.

More at https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/23/falcon-9-rocket-explosion-traced-to-upper-stage-helium-system/

 

[cadaveca]

Not everyone see post #4
in case you do not wish to scroll up

I thought I saw someone post it, but I missed it when I went to scroll up to quote it. my bad!