Is SpaceX Being Sabotaged?

What????

Conspiracy theories or CR4??

With the evidence destroyed, will we ever know?

There is a small dark object that moves rapidly across the field of view, from right to left, about 10% down from the top of the picture at the time of the explosion. There is no way it's a bird; there is no flapping of wings and it's moving too fast. It first appears during the 0:04 second mark between the SpaceX logo and the rightmost tower. It is just to the left of the middle tower when the explosion begins. And it is gone off the left side of the image before the 0:05 mark. It appears to be accelerating, since the distance it moves between frames increases.

I wonder what it is.

_{(comment edited to add photos)}

Could it have been a photon torpedo, fired from the UFO?

Look familiar??

https://www.wired.com/2009/04/new-killer-dron/

Or a phaser. It certainly converted some fuel from a liquid to a gaseous phase, so that must have been it. QED.

...or a smart bullet...

http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/meet-the-smart-bullet-that-literally-steers-to-hit-its-target/

Before I bother to look, how does that thing distinguish its target from whatever background, and what is there to actuate any steering mechanism?

Sorry that's classified....

Some people might be impressed by that stock evasion.

..." How the ammunition is designed to change direction in mid-air is classified. "...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO

Do you believe everything you read?

No, but I respect national security.....

Any charlatan can claim that.

Think what you want...it doesn't change anything...

It's hard to say. Somehow photon torpedos make a distinctive sound when fired in the vacuum of space. We don't what sound they make in air - but maybe that explains the odd boom heard just before the actual explosion.

I agree. I think those tweets from Musk were with the hope that some people were filming the launch with their cell phones and he could get some new perspectives on the accident.

Insect flying past the camera maybe, hard to get a depth perception if it fly's behind something or not.

Second camera angle would indeed help.

Could certainly be sabotage...but it might be tough to prove...What about the support structure that failed, never heard the full story on that....

http://pics-about-space.com/falcon-9-heavy-launch-schedule?p=1

A lot of info here...

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf

Or have the wrong units and apply the wrong conversion factor! We know all about that now don't we?

It could be someone that does not like Israel much is responsible, and maybe they have an even faster drone than a fighter jet. Can a missile reach speeds comparable to a bullet? Why not?

I wasn't going there but since the ice is broken, I was thinking either neo nazi or a white supremacist group. Being this payload was a joint adventure between Israel and Suckerberg. Or, maybe someone just didn't another nation being polluted by face book?

I still say for an endeavor this large, there is really no excuse to not have at least one high speed camera operating, since this can reveal much. It also has to have absolutely mighty optics, so that focus is super crisp, and depth of field as much as can be had.

It also requires very fast media (efficient, with few candles required to make an image).

"...no excuse to not have at least one high speed camera operating..."

What makes you think there was not?

Just because we haven't seen high speed video doesn't mean there isn't some.

That, sir, is my point precisely, and thank you for making it.

I would be willing to wager that much more is known than is being put to the media.

I also would be willing to wager that those responsible will need pucker wax for their bungholes.

I would agree.

There is WAY too much at risk to not document every aspect of everything with every available technology.

But this was a test burn - maybe it was decided that 100% coverage wasn't required.

Not to video a test burn? What were they testing. The 'ON' switch?

This is still our little conspiracy theory, right?

As far as sabotage, this country is target ripe.

so it begins

This is the kind of thing you can expect to see when software 'engineers' assume they also know something about real world engineering.

The term engineer is an insult to real world engineers when used by the entitled lounge lizards from Silicon Valley like Musk.

We saw it with Tesla when his cameras "couldn't tell the difference between a broadsided tractor trailer and the sky."

That's an actual quote if you can believe it.

Yet I do remember you defending that line of his.

The pea brained retards from Silicon Valley can't even get a computer sitting on my desk to run right, after years of being on sale.

Their answer is to issue more patches, keep running away from the problem and forcing yet even more unusable 'updates' on their PAYING customers.

They call their systems 'beta', expecting the world to buy in and sympathize with their pea brained notion that they can test their unfinished rough outline on the public, expecting their PAYING customers to find the faults for them, and then not even bothering to fix the said faults because "that technology is no longer supported" just a couple of years later.

And instead of wondering what could possibly have gone wrong when they're tangling with highly combustibles, precision engineering and rocket science, you want to acclimatize us all to the notion it was sabotage?

So instead of musing there might be a problem in the vacuous pea brains of the Silicon Valley 'engineers', you hope to steer everyone away from thoughts of incompetence by implying it was 'sabotage', right?

Give me an effing break ffs.

I myself would gave them a break.

My experiences is that if everyone that attempted something new that's never really been done before, and not fully realizing what it actually takes to accomplish it, they'd never would have attempted it in the first place.

Silicon Valley software 'engineers' don't know or don't want to know there is such a thing as due diligence when undertaking real world engineering endeavours.

NASA got to the moon first time, no trial and error there, they did their homework before testing it out in real life.

Can't say the same for Musk and his type.

"Tesla's Musk says new Autopilot would likely have prevented death"

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20160912/ANE/160919995/teslas-musk-says-new-autopilot-would-likely-have-prevented-death?cciid=email-ane-daily

Why didn't he look into that before?

Because he doesn't want to do the heavy lifting, he wants this customers to do that for him.

I think this must have been caused by static discharge and a leaking fuel coupling and/or oxygen leak....They probably have anti static devices installed, maybe something failed or bad connection, we have a terrific problem here with corrosion from the salt air...that's why I always recommend conductive grease on electrical connections, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure as they say...

http://www.shimadzu.com/an/hplc/support/lib/lctalk/14/14lab.html

Agreed that strange failures could come down to use of the proper anti-corrosive paste in the connections. Use the wrong stuff, and it's just no darned good what happens next.

I suspect this is where any high speed footage will be used (and enhanced by image operations (such as averaging the sum of images) to pinpoint the origin, and find the culprit item.

That is why I am still amazed things went so well with NASA's Saturn lift engine. Over one million parts in those launch vehicles, and they all had to be certified, verified, and checked off.

doesn't take much at all especially with the propellant, loose fitting, improper ground for static.

I was surprised that filling you car up with gas that static was a pretty big problem.

Had a 'of 2500HD Truck with cloth seats, I made it a point of discharging myself before filling

This sort of thing happens all the time but doesn't get a lot of press...

http://www.csb.gov/csb-finds-static-spark-set-off-fire-and-explosions-at-barton-solvents-des-moines-facility-investigation-finds-equipment-not-intended-for-flammable-service-or-properly-bonded-and-grounded/

http://www.wolfsonelectrostatics.com/01_hazards/pdfs/guidanceforplantengineers-staticelectricity.pdf

http://www.esdjournal.com/static/Static%20Explosions%201.htm

It very well could have static electricity that touched off the anomaly explosion. Or it could have been caused by a faulty "O" ring seal(s)? It's all speculation on our part. Wrenchtwirler, even if Elon Musk's primary experience is in computer software, I'm sure him and his software engineers are well aware of the hazards associated with static electricity. And I can guarantee NASA and and Space X ground crews made sure everything was bonded together and properly grounded before starting the fueling process.

Space X is still trying for certified for human transport flight, so they have NASA, FAA and a few other government agencies breathing down their necks and suffering stiff competition from Boeing.

They have too much at stake at this point not to get to the bottom of the cause. As with any mishap or abnormality in front of the public eye, they're not going to disclose anything till they have an idea as to what happened.

I'm sure him and his software engineers are well aware of the hazards associated with static electricity.

What makes you think he and his software engineers have any understanding of static electricity?

I work with numerous software engineers. While they might be excellent at writing code, many have no idea how electricity or computer hardware work, or any hardware for that matter. Of course, those tend to be the younger engineers.

The more seasoned software engineers actually were around when there was a lot of hardware knowledge needed to be effective at writing the software.

" I'm sure him and his software engineers are well aware of the hazards associated with static electricity. "

I wish I had your confidence in them, but I don't.

When your highly touted computerized control system for automated cars can't tell a broadsided trailer from the sky it reeks of sheer laziness or rank incompetence in the knowledge department.

I'm convinced their "let's suck it and see" approach to real world engineering is what's at fault here too.

Don't absolve the bosses, ever.

Companies are always run from the top down and their entire persona is the boss' doing, no matter what outsiders may think.

Here's my response to #37 and #38. "I'm sure him and his software engineers are well aware of the hazards associated with static electricity."

To start with, I am no fan of Elon Musk.

"What makes you think he and his software engineers have any understanding of static electricity?"

That statement in itself is an insult to any software engineer that helps host this website or any other software engineer that subscribes to CR4. I doubt they're idiots either.

Have either one of you even bothered to look into Musk's education? If not, read on: Elon Reeve Musk.

"Musk transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where, at the age of 24, he received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from its College of Arts and Sciences, and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from its Wharton School of Business".

I didn't realize the study of electrons or the motion of .... was dropped from the physics curriculum in 1992?

As far as Musk using John Q.Public as Guinea Pigs, he has too much at stake for a reputation like that to be labeled on him or his businesses.

There are numerous accidents associated with autopilot systems. With aircraft, the "autopilot system" is about the only system that does not require redundancy, as is not considered necessary for the safe operation of the craft, but it's use is associated with about 60% of aircraft accidents. Commercial aircraft autopilots are advertised and used as full autonomous autopilots, not only controlling direction, pitch, roll, altitude but also engine thrust, but it does not apply brakes while in flight. The driver/ pilot is still ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, period.

So, who's to blame, the engineers at the aircraft manufacture, the engineers at the company that manufactured the autopilot system? Or should you blame the driver/ pilot(s)?

I'll stand by my statement, "I can guarantee NASA and and Space X ground crews made sure everything was bonded together and properly grounded before starting the fueling process." These people are no idiots.

Bottom line is, shit happens- find out what happened, fix it and move forward

That statement in itself is an insult to any software engineer that helps host this website or any other software engineer that subscribes to CR4

Life is tough, do what a ME has to do and get a thicker skin address it and move on to solving the next problem.

That is true, but before trashing somebody at least try and find out something about that personight if you what I mean.

Damn auto-correct! ..... at least try and find out something about that personight person if you what I mean.

You might also insert "know" before "what".

He is having enough problems without "knowing" it.

So much for fart fones & auto screw ups

Since you're having a bad day, I'll over look that.

If anyone is insulted by my statement, "What makes you think he and his software engineers have any understanding of static electricity?", perhaps they are much too sensitive. I have a background in hardware and in software and did not insult myself.

Having a BS in Physics does not mean Musk knows anything about static electricity. He most likely was exposed to it in his studies, but that doesn't mean he remembers much, if any, of it.

I'm not sure that's even relevant anyway, does Musk review every design? His software engineers, if they are younger (younger than 45), may not have had much, if any, education regarding static electricity. My observation is that many 'coders' don't have a good handle on physics, but they are superb at writing code. It's not an insult...it's my opinion based on observation.