An illuminating series of tweets from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed
that the company has not ruled out an 'unknown object' as the cause of
their recent rocket explosion.

In a remarkable display of transparency, the billionaire entrepreneur
detailed how the mysterious Falcon 9 disaster constitutes "the most
difficult and complex failure we have ever had in 14 years."

He explained that there are a number of aspects surrounding the
explosion which have left the company baffled.

According to Musk, the incident occurred during a routine operation to
supply the rocket with fuel and that "there was no apparent heat
source."

Additionally, he told his Twitter followers that the company was
"trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the
fireball goes off" and that they are not certain what produced the
distinct sound.

The event has proven to be so puzzling that Musk actually publicly
asked NASA, the FAA, and the Air Force for their help solving the
mystery.

He also requested that anyone with additional footage of the explosion
to submit the material to SpaceX for further study.

But what may be most eyebrow-raising comment among Musk's tweets was
his response to a query regarding the online videos that claim
"something hit the rocket."

Although the question did not invoke the dreaded 'UFO' acronym, it was
clearly an allusion to the conspiracy theory which has percolated
since the event.

Asked if there was "any reality" to the idea, Musk cryptically
replied, "we have not ruled that out."

While some may simply see this as SpaceX being diligent about
exploring every possible cause for the explosions, conspiracy
theorists will likely see a slew of potential implications from Musk's comments.

If a UFO were actually responsible for the disaster, it's highly
unlikely that SpaceX would reveal that to the world, given their deep connections with a number of government agencies.

However, the incident bolters the idea that private space exploration
may ultimately be responsible for unraveling the enigma once and for
all, since hiding the truth about UFOs may become impossible as more
and more people are able to venture into the cosmos and potentially
see for themselves.

Source: Daily Mail


---
# Origin: LiveWire BBS - Telnet://livewirebbs.com (1:2320/100)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

* In a message originally to Allen Prunty, alexander koryagin said:

When they built rockets in 1950s rockets also blew up without visible reason. So statistic is needed. It's like in mathematics -- for calculating of the a trajectory they need at least three points. If you have just one point you can have as much trajectories as you wish.

Considering that Space-X has a great track record so far this one is
a mystery... it blew up, from what I understand, when they were
putting the fuel in the rocket. It wasn't when it was fireing up or
anyhing... no source of heat. Then there's the mysterious POP sound
before the main explosion.

If you ask me I think sabotage is more the culprit here than anything
else. I am sure there's a lot of government officials who don't want
space x to be successful.

Allen


---
# Origin: LiveWire BBS - Telnet://livewirebbs.com (1:2320/100)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

Hi, Allen Prunty!
I read your message from 28.09.2016 19:16
about Space X Rocket's Mysterious and Unexplainable Explosion.

But what may be most eyebrow-raising comment among Musk's tweets was
his response to a query regarding the online videos that claim
"something hit the rocket."

Although the question did not invoke the dreaded 'UFO' acronym, it was clearly an allusion to the conspiracy theory which has percolated
since the event.

When they built rockets in 1950s rockets also blew up without visible reason. So statistic is needed. It's like in mathematics -- for calculating of the a trajectory they need at least three points. If you have just one point you can have as much trajectories as you wish.

Although there are some electrical events that are still mystery for people. For instance, ball lightning. Nobody knows where does it come from, but it can cause severe problems. Their own light is very week, so they can be invisible in sun light, for instance.

Or, a more probable reason, is software errors. Many people remember very much as SAS system had been turned on during launching one American rocket. AFAIR, that the rocket on the launch pad had covered itself with landing parachute, because of shame. ;)

Bye, Allen!
Alexander Koryagin
UFO 2016

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
# Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

* In a message originally to Allen Prunty, alexander koryagin said:

It's not necessary. In any way it will be too much to make a perfect rocket from scratch. Experience always comes from overcoming errors. Similarly, it is impossible to create software free of blunders at
once.

A wise old person once told me that "Experience is the Master of
Teachers".

Allen


---
# Origin: LiveWire BBS - Telnet://livewirebbs.com (1:2320/100)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

Hi, Allen Prunty!
I read your message from 29.09.2016 04:25

When they built rockets in 1950s rockets also blew up without
visible reason. So statistic is needed. It's like in
mathematics -- for calculating of the a trajectory they need at
least three points. If you have just one point you can have as
much trajectories as you wish.

Considering that Space-X has a great track record so far this one
is a mystery... it blew up, from what I understand, when they were
putting the fuel in the rocket. It wasn't when it was fireing up or anyhing... no source of heat. Then there's the mysterious POP sound
before the main explosion.

Well, on Earth hundreds of homes blow up every year because of stoves working on natural gas. It is very typical sound when we have a blow of gas mixture. As

for safety, we can look at an article form February:

-----Beginning of the citation-----
03.02.16
SpaceX Keeps Aborting Liftoffs Because Rocket Fuel Is Tricky

SPACEX IS, DEPENDING on how you count, on its fourth or fifth attempt to launch

the SES-9 satellite. The first two launches both got scrubbed because of the fickleness of superchilled liquid oxygen, which SpaceX is betting will give its

rockets an edge. Except when it comes to reliable launch schedules, it seems.

The company debuted its upgraded Falcon 9 rocket with not just liquid but superchilled liquid oxygen in December, which also ran into liquid oxygen hiccups during launch. The Falcon 9 carries kerosene as fuel, but kerosene needs oxygen to combust--and there's no oxygen in space. Rockets have to bring their fuel and their oxygen.

Liquid oxygen, cooled to just below the element's boiling point of -297.3 degrees Fahrenheit, is already standard in high-powered rockets that launch spaceships and satellites. Liquid oxygen is a thousand times denser than gas, so its advantages are obvious--like a thousand-fold obvious. "It makes the tank

a lot smaller," says Angela Faulkner, an aerospace analyst with Faulkner Consulting. Packing the oxygen in more densely means more room for both oxygen and fuel, which in turn means a bigger payload traveling further into space. "You want the most energy possible because you want to boost up payloads," says

Faulkner.

But liquefying oxygen adds complications, too. Now you need to insulate the tank. You need a vent to allow any oxygen that heats up to boil off so it doesn't blow up the tank. (All that swirling white "smoke" before a launch is actually the cold liquid oxygen venting out and condensing water vapor in the air1.) And you need to continuously top off any oxygen that does escape before launch.

SpaceX is making it even harder on themselves--cooling the oxygen down another 40 to -340 degrees F. The tradeoffs here are less obvious. Once oxygen is already liquid, the density gains from cooling aren't as dramatic, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent based on the properties of oxygen. (SpaceX declined to comment on specifics.) Keeping the oxygen at -340 F, on the

other hand, obviously has presented some challenges to SpaceX.

But the company has reason to squeeze every bit room it can out of supercooling

oxygen. To achieve the dream of reusable rockets, those rockets need extra fuel

to steer themselves on the way down. Supercooling the oxygen may just give it the rockets that edge. The satellite in this upcoming launch needs to get especially far from Earth, depleting more fuel than in December's launch with the successful landing. Tune in Friday to see how it goes--weather and liquid oxygen willing.

1UPDATE 1:20 PM EST 3/2/16: This story has been updated to clarify what liquid oxygen causes water vapor to condense into visible white "smoke."

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/spacex-keeps-aborting-liftoffs-rocket-fuel-tricky/
----- The end of the citation -----

If you ask me I think sabotage is more the culprit here than
anything else. I am sure there's a lot of government officials who
don't want space x to be successful.

It's not necessary. In any way it will be too much to make a perfect rocket from scratch. Experience always comes from overcoming errors. Similarly, it is impossible to create software free of blunders at once.

Bye, Allen!
Alexander Koryagin
UFO 2016

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
# Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)

Hi, Allen Prunty!
I read your message from 30.09.2016 14:02
about Space X Rocket's Mysterious and Unexplainable Explosion.

It's not necessary. In any way it will be too much to make a perfect
rocket from scratch. Experience always comes from overcoming errors.
Similarly, it is impossible to create software free of blunders at
once.

A wise old person once told me that "Experience is the Master of Teachers".

Teachers give only old information. But if you do something new, for instance new rocket engines, new SAS system you cannot do it perfecty at once. So, software developing looks very similar. When you start a new project you cannot

see the project in all details. More of that, as a rule, the best programs are the product of evolution.

Bye, Allen!
Alexander Koryagin
UFO 2016

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
# Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
* Origin: LiveWire BBS - Synchronet - LiveWireBBS.com (1:2320/100)