SpaceX rocket explosion. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 08:34:36 pm
content: SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Explosion.@ 1:10http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/explosion-at-spacex-launch-site_us_57c8360de4b078581f114eef?section=&Alexander.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 09:07:45 pm
content: what a show.I am happy that the facebook bird didn't make it.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 09:19:17 pm
content: They've invented a re-usable rocket system but with a slight design flaw, - it blows itself to smithereens most times.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 10:58:28 pm
content: No problem. It's a REUSABLE rocket. Just refuel it and it'll be ready to explode again!

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 10:59:36 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on September 01, 2016, 09:19:17 pmAFAIK, this one wasn't the reused one yet, that was to be the next launch in September.http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-explosion-live-spacex-explosion-did-not-involve-a-1472743403-htmlstory.htmlThe kaboom has supposedly happened during fueling, so probably some human error or maybe even just an unfortunate spark at exactly the wrong moment ...However, it is the second major accident involving a total loss of payload and vehicle in two years (not counting the crash landings on the barge, as those were expected), that doesn't sound good for their reputation.I guess Musk will have to slow down and go back to basic engineering principles - like making sure that things not only work, but that they do so repeatedlyand safely. With the recent Tesla Autopilot issues it is starting to feel like they are moving too quickly, trying to reach overly ambitious goals on unrealistic deadlines. Accidents do happen, but when they are attempting to fly before they can walk and neglecting "unimportant" bits like human factors in the process, thenpreventableaccidents start to happen. Also the approach that when something goes south they blame the user (Tesla) doesn't help.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 11:22:15 pm
content: No great loss. If it had been successful then Zuckerberg would have been free to broadcast his edited version of the internet to the third world.For someone who has no respect for other people's privacy, he shouldn't be allowed to push his political propaganda onto another 10 billion people. .

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 11:35:03 pm
content: What does static fire mean? Fire caused by ESD?

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 11:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on September 01, 2016, 11:35:03 pm"Static Fire" means it's done without the vehicle moving--locked to the pad.Worth noting that this is the only kind of vehicle where it's perfectly normal to trust phenomenally expensive payloads to a vehicle that has never even been started before. SpaceX does full flight-duration static fires in Texas, with a pre-launch static fire before each launch. That's actually unique.A real sign that the industry has made it out of it's infancy, would not just be reusability, but that a vehicle can't even get a tail number and be officially "in service" until it's proven it can fly.A shakedown cruise, if you will.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 11:52:22 pm
content: Very curious as to what caused this. LOX, while supporting combustion vigorously, is not itself flammable. The fuel, which is Kerosene doesn't vaporize into a combustible gas/air mix really well, so the whole thing would have to be pretty leaky for that to be the initial source of combustion. It does look (to me) that the explosion was somewhere between the strongback and the vehicle's second stage, and of course the incident actually happened during fueling. The vehicle might not be to blame at all. Recall the strongback mounted fuel-loading lines had a bit of an incident during the very first Falcon 9 launch.See that hose coming loose with all the fire right after liftoff? Not supposed to do that.They use triethylborane (which is pyrophoric) for the ignition system. Anybody know if that is pumped in just before launch? A leak ofthatwould certainly cause fire...

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2016, 11:54:02 pm
content: it was a matter of time to see a space-x explosion... every rocket sooner or later explodes..

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 12:16:56 am
content: QuoteYeah, vast conspiracy,

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 12:28:05 am
content: I'm going with they have to spin up a turbopump or an APU or something prior to launch and somehow it blew it's ass out, rupturing the second stage fuel tank and KABOOM. Uneducated guess.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 01:06:03 am
content: to the engineers who built that tower

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 01:09:57 am
content: From youtube v=_BgJEXQkjNQSeems a bit odd that anything much would be happening up around the 2nd stage, during a static fire of the first stage. I hope the cause is determined.More than a few people (and States) will be pleased Zuckerberg/Faceplant/Israel didn't get their spy/propaganda satellite this time. Me included. Whether such feelings had anything to do with the 'test anomaly', who knows.Here's a thought: now that the Equation_group/NSA penetration toolkit is in the wild, and (not coincidentally) there's a sudden surge in the number of 'hacked files' leaks, I wonder whether SpaceX uses net-connected PCs of any kind in their launchpad control systems? Someone calling payback for STUXNET perhaps?Btw, only loosely related: for some reason my YTD youtubedownloader install stopped working at all. Uninstall, reinstal, no change.It always says "Failed(2) The video you have requested is not available."Even if I'm simultaneously playing the same video in a browser window, demonstrating it certainly is available. I love it when software lies to me.Not finding anything sensible via google on this fault. Plenty of mentions, but all rubbish.Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just something with my system? Tried two different PCs, same.There's a frame or two earlier in the explosion, but I can't get the in-browser player to pause on them. And can't download the video atm.

author: ChunkyPastaSauce
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 01:47:06 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on September 02, 2016, 01:09:57 amMusk said the failure occurred during a fuel transfer to the second stage

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 01:52:05 am
content: That'll buff out???

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 02:16:35 am
content: Quote from: ChunkyPastaSauce on September 02, 2016, 01:47:06 amWow, fueling up the second stage, for a static fire test of the first stage, sounds like being a bit OCD.Or maybe the launch software only has one sequence, and that 2nd stage refueling is in there?Well, I guess they need to tighten up that leaky pipe joint and start from the beginning again.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 02:23:40 am
content: Can't get much detail from that footage - but here's my best shot.3 Frames surrounding the initial explosion - 1 before, 2 immediately after. The third panel is a composite, taking the lens flare of the third frame as an indication of the centre of the explosion, with cross hairs to show where that point is.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 02:58:55 am
content: Brumby, very cool!May I tweet that?It does seem external to the vehicle!

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 03:02:04 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 02, 2016, 02:23:40 amX marks the spot

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 03:07:17 am
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on September 02, 2016, 02:58:55 amGo for it.Please let people know it where it came from.

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 03:32:47 am
content: "Last thing on the checklist..." Tick, tick, tick, "Here it is...""Flight computer, meet Facebook"

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 04:51:57 am
content: Brumby: Done!Can be found under #SpaceXExplosion, plus Dave reweeted it.Note, it's tweeted under my real name.No, my parents didnotname me HP-ILnerd. Anyone who knows me finds this odd, but the Universe is odd.

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 05:55:44 am
content: Well, too bad, Aeon Flux. :/

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 07:22:39 am
content: Interesting info how these things are insured -https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/01/here-what-we-know-about-the-spacex-explosion/Apparently "marine cargo" is the way to go, could it have similar survival rate?

author: john72
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 08:07:50 am
content: See they are back to producing flopits again!

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 01:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on September 02, 2016, 02:58:55 amThat could very well be the spot where the various umbilicals carrying the fuel attach to the rocket. If there was a sudden leak, then all it takes is a spark from static electricity or because a piece of metal scraped some other metal and things go BOOM.Quote from: TerraHertz on September 02, 2016, 02:16:35 amCould well be that in order to have the correct mass for the test fire the upper stage must be fueled too. Otherwise the rocket could be too light and the bolts/tethers would not be able to hold it down. But that is only my speculation.

author: ChunkyPastaSauce
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 02, 2016, 02:49:20 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on September 02, 2016, 01:03:31 pmI'm sure there are many reasons.... one of them is to check for resonance issues... highly dependent on mass and position of masses...everything must be setup exactly how they would be during actual launch.... fuel, payload, and all.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2016, 12:28:22 am
content: Last seen at the scene:

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2016, 01:05:00 am
content: For better gloa... um, analysis, here's a slo-mo video.http://9gag.com/gag/aGDGKE0

author: EmmanuelFaure
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2016, 03:47:37 am
content: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2016, 09:23:57 am
content: Quote from: EmmanuelFaure on September 03, 2016, 03:47:37 amthat puppy doesn't run on jet-fuel, it uses RP-1 for 1st stage - it's a slightly different stuff - but still can't melt steel beams !

author: ajm8127
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2016, 02:01:08 pm
content: That is one hell of an explosion. You can see the camera shake when the concussion wave of the main explosion hits it. Looks like the camera is about 2.5 miles (4 km) away.The sound is obviously delayed quite a bit, but there seems to be a popping sounds about 4-5 seconds before the first sound of the explosion makes it to the microphone. It's at approximately 1:18 in the video.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 10:11:45 am
content: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/09/falcon_fireball_investigation_is_spacexs_biggest_challenge_yet_says_musk/Elon Musk says SpaceX Falcon 9 fireball investigation is 'biggest challenge yet''Anomaly' wasn't rocket engine's fault, he claimsMusk tweet:QuoteAlso:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/01/spacex_rocket_suffers_anomaly/Edit to add:Btw, I foundhttp://keepvid.com/works very well for downloading copies of youtube videos.http://www.uslaunchreport.com/are the people who recorded the hi-res video of the explosion, and that video is here: youtube.com/ watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQUsing keepvid to download it, you can get the full 720p version. 49.5 MB. Then use VLC player or whatever to single-frame step through it. The explosion starts around 1:11.Now the interesting thing is, that I'd seen some sites claiming there was an 'object' caught flying across the visual field for a few frames at the time of the explosion. I'd assumed it was either an insect near the camera, or arseholes tampering with the video and/or posting shopped stills.Well guess what. In that original hi-res copy direct fromwww.uslaunchreport's youtube channel, there really is an 'object', and it's visible in 7 frames around the time of explosion start, traveling in a regular line, uniform and very fast speed from right to left in the frame. How interesting. Could still be a near insect I suppose, but that's an exceptional timing coincidence.I've made a GIF animation of it, athttp://everist.org/pics/misc/SpaceX_object.gif900KB(Animated GIFs don't seem to work via eevblog image attachments.)Also note the object is traveling in a straight line before the segment when the explosion occurs, and a slightly different straight line in the rest of its path. The thought of recoil from something being fired from the object, altering the object's path, suggests itself.And then there's this:http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2108.htm(Yes, I know, one of the freakier sources. Still interesting background details.)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 03:19:07 pm
content: Don't you just love a good UFO or conspiracy theory....If you look more closely at the GIF frames, you will see that the flight path deviation of the object actually occurs after the explosion has begun. Remember, the frames only capture a single point in time - and the exact instant the explosion commences occurs between two frames - in the interval before the flight path deviation.As for what the object is, I have a very simple theory - which anybody who has watched a number of countdowns or outdoor video of the facilities will have noticed.... Birds. I have often seen them circling in the sky - and it's not outside the realms of possibility that one flew across the scene going from point 'A' to point 'B'.To prove my point, if you pick up the video at 1:40, you will see a large bird come in from the right, do a loop to the right of the engulfed tower and then continue off to the left. It's speed is comparable to the 'object' under suspicion - and if you're not convinced it's a bird .... then tell me what this is:Sorry ... but unless it was an eagle with an aerial bombing inclination, it has no relation to the explosion .... IMHO.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 11:17:06 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on September 10, 2016, 03:19:07 pmHa ha, yes I do. Especially when the potentials include both of those (and birds, insects and tampering.) This is why I bothered to dl the original video and single step it. Because of some things I'd read. Expecting it to be rubbish.QuoteOh really, do you think I don't know that? Obviously, the line of flight change, if it was sudden, may be anywhere in that segment marked 'Explosion'. I just drew the lines between the captured points so I could see any trend. I'm mostly surprised the camera used had such a high shutter speed. Framerate is normal, but the short shutter time to capture that movement without motion blur is impressive.QuoteI'd noticed that bird. Demonstrating that the camera resolution is fine for resolving birds. Also there are a few things I think _are_ insects at other points in the video.I'd expected the thing people were talking about would be a bird (distant) or insect (close to camera.) It could still be an insect. Bird is out, since the object shape is not at all birdlike, has no sign of flapping wings in any of the 7 frames. 'High speed vehicle' is also not ruled out, especially since there's no way to tell if it's closer or further than the rocket and towers.Another thing I want to get around to, is timeshifting the audio to match the visuals. (ie remove sound travel delay.) To see if the 'pop sound' that's been mentioned as pre-explosion, coincides with the moment the 'object' passes. Supersonic shockwave? If it's coincident, the timing may give some indication of the object's range.Speaking of sound, hats off to the camera man. I recall that youtube channel is operated by US army disabled vets (because they have the time and skills to do these long onsite video recordings, and need the money.) Whoever did that recording was very chill, and kept his mouth shut to not mess up the audio. You can hear a slight intake of breath when he sees the explosion start, but that's all.Currently I'm looking for confirmation of that information about the Israeli company that owned the satellite, and the deal to sell it to a Chinese company, contingent on successful launch of the satellite. Because that really does make it politically contentious, ie motive.Edit: Btw, anyone interested should dl & examine the original 720p video, not my anim-GIF. For one thing, the GIF has a quantized color table, so has lost some information.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 11:28:01 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on September 10, 2016, 11:17:06 pmScott Manley has already done that, and analyzes the progress of the fire:

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 01:51:08 am
content: Quote from: helius on September 10, 2016, 11:28:01 pmNice video, but that's not quite what I meant. I want to do it precisely over just say 20 frames, with visual alignment of the sound envelope to the frame series. Use the explosion start (timing uncertainty being the inter-frame interval) for sync.Then look at the sound envelope in the few frame intervals before the explosion. Might be subtle, or nothing.I don't have the tools to do this yet, since I'm not normally interested in such things.I'm keen to do it, because of another instance where an audio recording with a video DID contain something extremely significant. The video of Fukushima Unit 3 exploding.http://everist.org/Fukushima/20110314_Fuku3_explosion.flv(And the significance:http://everist.org/Fukushima/20120430_Message_of_Fuku3.htm)In that one though, the key detail could be heard by ear (the 3 bangs), so I never did the resync. Still would like to though, so now I've two instances motivating me to find software tools/method to do the resync.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 02:03:47 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on September 10, 2016, 11:17:06 pmBird is not out ... not in my book, anyway.Gliding birds don't flap wings - and you won't see a recognisable bird shape from a side view without a lot better resolution. I had to step through the frames to get the best shot of the bird that was banking.A couple of other things fit with the object being a bird. The first is the course. It's the same as the one at 1:40, without having thrown in the loop. The second is straight line velocity ... they are pretty much the same.What would really be good is some closer imaging and/or some taken from another direction.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:24:49 am
content: I think it was Dave flying by, saying "don't turn it on - take it apart"

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 08:06:31 am
content: I am sure there were high speed security cameras allover the site. They are standard equipment (here anyway) on sites with large quantities of explosive material, such as explosive factories. I don't see a NASA launchpad being any different. Their purpose is to record any explosions fast enough to see clearly where it originates from.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2016, 01:06:55 pm
content: just in case this was missed:"At the time of the loss, the launch vehicle was vertical and in the process of being fueled for the test. At this time, the data indicates the  originated around the upper stage liquid oxygen tank"

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2016, 05:52:41 pm
content: Quote from: bitslice on September 21, 2016, 01:06:55 pmLO2 is non-flammable. There still had to be a fuel leak somewhere.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 23, 2016, 02:05:39 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on September 22, 2016, 05:52:41 pmTrue - but ANYTHING combustible in normal air will burn explosively in a pure O2environment.Perhaps that provided the thin end of a very sharp wedge.Besides, the statement cited refers to alocation- it does not state that it was initiallyinvolved, even if there is that inference

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2016, 03:30:11 am
content: My pet theory:There was a small leak in a fuel line. It vaporized or was atomized enough to fill a fair amount of the free space inside the craft. Because of the non-conductive fluid flow, a static charge was built up in either the fuel volume or on insulated surfaces. Eventually enough charge built up to cause an arc, igniting the fuel.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2016, 11:22:00 pm
content: Yes, that's a highly likely one. Though what is visible in the first frame of the explosion sure looks like it was centered in the space between the rocket and the tower.I was wondering if somehow they may have managed to contaminate some fueling line with the other kind of fuel. Producing an initial explosion in one of the pipes between the tower and craft.Another one - presumably while pumping liquid fuel and liquid O2 into the rocket tanks, there has to be some venting of gas from the empty tank space. Same as filling an LPG cylinder. Surely, they didn't just vent both O2 and fuel fumes into the air around the rocket? That's so stupid I can't imagine they could possibly do that. But how does it work? Are there bleed removal pipes to the tower?Also, if the cause was some goof like forgetting to turn on a bleed extraction pump, would spaceX admit it? I wonder what the insurance and payload contracts say about screwups, as opposed to true accidents?

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2016, 03:27:14 am
content: Helium - who would have guessed (and nobody did)http://www.geekwire.com/2016/spacex-launch-pad-blast-helium/And here I thought it was Dave flying over and yelling "take it apart". Umm maybe Dave was taking helium, can you imagine what he would sound like ?

author: eevbstedt
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2016, 05:40:19 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 23, 2016, 03:09:54 amThanks Dave! Thunderfoot delivers the goods.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2016, 11:22:53 am
content: In retrospect, a helium COPV fail would explain how this had such a percussive start. I.e., it didn't appear to start with a little plume of fire somewhere which propagated, it just abruptly went FOOM. A COPV bursting would have busted all sorts of stuff in one go, allowing the RP-1/LOX to mix quickly.In happier (and exciting news) first pix of the SpaceX test-firing the Raptor rocket motor:https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/780275236922994688and a pretty one with shock(Mach) diamonds:https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/780278836860628992

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2016, 06:27:45 am
content: http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/implication-of-possible-sabotage-adds-conspiratorial-twist-to-drama-of-spacex-rocket-explosion/news-story/ebb8f76c96c423d9b9555e37ed902805Implication of possible sabotage adds conspiratorial twist to drama of SpaceX rocket explosionOctober 3, 2016I'm not saying *anything*.

author: Len
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2016, 04:13:36 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on October 04, 2016, 06:27:45 amThat's pathetic. "A big kid did it!"

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2016, 02:06:12 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on October 04, 2016, 06:27:45 amAccording to the Washington Post (owned by Bezos, a competitor), SpaceX wanted to examine the roof of a competitor's building nearby. Air Force investigators examined the roof and didn't find anything relevant or suspicious.https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

author: GreggD
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2016, 03:03:37 pm
content: SpaceX founder and chief executive Elon Musk told CNBC last month that investigators believe they have narrowed the likely cause of the Sept. 1 mishap to a problem during filling of the rocket’s second stage with super-cold liquid oxygen.The explosion occurred about eight minutes before the Falcon 9’s engines were to ignite during a hold-down test.The oxygen likely froze solid and caused a high-pressure helium tank to burst, blowing the upper stage apart almost instantly, and leading the rest of the rocket to collapse in a fireball. The helium is used to pressurize the second stage’s propellant tanks for flight.Musk said engineers believe they can fix the problem with a change in fueling procedures, avoiding major hardware changes that would have kept SpaceX missions grounded longer.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2016, 07:11:58 pm
content: There's been some pretty interesting analysis based on the pattern of damage to the strongback frame and piping. Generally coming to the conclusion that Space-X had a nubie accident with LOX, in which insulation around the main oxygen charging pipe became saturated with oxygen (condensing from both the air and the oxgen venting.)LOX and thermal insulation equals an explosive, that can even spontaneously ignite. It blew parts of the strongback apart, blasting the shrapnel through the rocket.It's interesting Space-X hasn't said anything about that theory. Maybe because it's such a basic goof, they might risk insurance payouts or something like that?I've been collecting links:20161105Spacex Explosion; Before and After - Seems to Reveal the Cause - Falcon 9 (AMOS-6) LossEarly Shrapnel Tells a Story - Spacex Pad Anomaly Explosion Mechanism and the COPVsSep 28, 2016Strongback Explosion Destroyed the Falcon Rocket - The Evidence (So Far) - AMOS-6Spacex Exploding Strongback Shrapnel, and it's Destruction of the Falcon 9 Rocket20161122Exact Falcon Explosion Conditions - Illustrated by JCSAT Mission - Revealing Cause and Prevention

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 06:14:52 pm
content: Well, there's an F9 sitting safely on a barge in the Pacific right now, and the second stage is on its way to LEO with ten Iridium satellites. It's only a first step towards getting back into a good cadence, but it's a step!

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 05:07:04 am
content: Yeah, congratulations to them. They are planning a bunch more in the near future. Keeping up the pace will be an issue for them.

author: Bryan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 07:03:23 am
content: If you are over 40 you will get it.