Implication of Sabotage Adds Intrigue To SpaceX Investigation (washingtonpost.com) 182
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: The long-running feud between Elon Musk's space company and its fierce competitor United Launch Alliance took a bizarre twist this month when a SpaceX employee visited its facilities at Cape Canaveral, Fla., and asked for access to the roof of one of ULA's buildings. About two weeks earlier, one of SpaceX's rockets blew up on a launchpad while it was awaiting an engine test. As part of the investigation, SpaceX officials had come across something suspicious they wanted to check out, according to three industry officials with knowledge of the episode. SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The SpaceX representative explained to the ULA officials on site that it was trying to run down all possible leads in what was a cordial, not accusatory, encounter, according to the industry sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The building, which had been used to refurbish rocket motors known as the SMARF, is just more than a mile away from the launchpad and has a clear line of sight to it. A representative from ULA ultimately denied the SpaceX employee access to the roof and instead called Air Force investigators, who inspected the roof and didn't find anything connecting it to the rocket explosion, the officials said. This week, ten members of Congress sent a four-page letter to several government agencies about the SpaceX explosion, raising the question as to whether or not SpaceX should be leading the investigation. Elon Musk said the investigation into what went wrong is the company's "absolute top priority." He added, "We've eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there. So what remains are the less probable answers." SpaceX aims to resume flights in November.
Insightful (Score:3, Interesting)
Elon Musk said "We've eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there. So what remains are the less probable answers."
Solving a rocket failure is a complex task, on the order of magnitude of building a rocket from scratch.
Generating theories that pseudo-government entities utilize sabotage devices from a mile away seems a bit John Nash [wikipedia.org].
Re: Insightful (Score:5, Interesting)
We call those mysterious devices "guns", "rockets", and "drones". And if you think that a company wouldn't stoop to shooting a sniper rifle at a competitor's product when there are billions of dollars at stake, you are completely out of touch with reality.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The fact that SpaceX thought of ULA, from a mile away, sabotaging their launch shows that SpaceX has thought about how to sabotage a rocket launch from a mile away.
ULA better watch their back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean like ADAM and ATHENA [lockheedmartin.com], from a company called "Lockheed Martin"?
Re: (Score:3)
Though William of Ockham would have used a sniper rifle, that would have left physical evidence that a laser would not.
Re: (Score:3)
True. It's amazing what you can put together after even an explosion. One charred and warped, but mostly intact panel with a hole consistent with a .50 cal anti-materiel round would be pretty conclusive.
Of course, if you know how rockets are generally constructed, you might be able to put a round somewhere that isn't as easy to conclusively prove was from a rifle.
Still, given all the things you have to do just right to enable space flight with rockets, I'm still going to regard this as pretty unlikely. T
Re: (Score:2)
I think the concept that ULA itself would have hired a sniper to shoot out a SpaceX rocket to be beyond absurdity. However, the concept that a ULA employee might happen to be a bit unhinged, as well as good with a gun? Not nearly so much.
It would of course depend on how good ULA's security procedures are. Do their employees need to go through a metal detector or anything that could have stopped them from taking a gun to work? Honestly, I doubt it, but if so it'd hinder that possibility.
It's interesting
Re: (Score:2)
Cough, cough, the US War Industries, staged an entire war based upon lies, killing thousands of US service personal in the process, blowing over a trillion dollars of tax payer money, so they could profit in the billions. Those lies proven and yet not one prosecution for mass murder ie war based upon fraud and all those who die as a result of criminal activity are legally considered murder victims, not even a hint of justice for that high crime. Could those same corporations start sabotaging projects, even
Re: (Score:2)
Even ignoring the issue of whether a shock can make LOX react with aluminum (it can) or composites (it can very easily), the failure was in the helium system. The high pressure helium system, which stores all of the pressurant for the launch. Yes, if you shoot a pressurized COPV, it most definitely will release its pressurant in very short order.
That's not to back up this shooting hypothesis. But concerning whether a bullet could have caused the failure if present, I don't think there's any question abou
Re:Insightful (Score:4, Insightful)
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier"
I'm just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That assumes humans are infallible and will not misclassify the possible as impossible.
Re:Insightful (Score:4, Funny)
"I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible." -- Dirk Gently, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Re: (Score:3)
"Generating theories that pseudo-government entities utilize sabotage devices from a mile away seems a bit John Nash"
Are you that blind to the technological capabilities of the world in this day and age? At a distance of a mile, a gun can easily reach target within seconds, or a 10+kW laser is more than enough to effectively fuck something up with a clear LOS.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't even have to be that powerful. So long as it can create a spot of differential temperature high enough to destabilize the contents of the rocket it would work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be done by a single person in theory (Score:2)
A corporate sabotage version is unbelievable. What if it comes out? Why do it from their own building?.. Won't believe it until an official admits in court they did it, and would doubt even then.
However, what about an employee going postal and acting on their own, out of envy, hatred, or fear of being laid off? It looks like it's possible to buy a suitable rifle in USA (I'm not a resident), so if only they could bring it to the building... And a ULA employee *should* be able to know when to shoot, and what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not saying this theory is true, but have you ever heard a rocket? Especially a space bound rocket?
Those things are -loud- -- Even when sitting on the pad and going through pre-flight checks -- or anything where they're throttling the engines.
A .50bmg round wound sound like a chirp against all that background noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the dark spot on the video supposed to have to do with anything? I can't believe Slashdot even linked that thing. SpaceX is investigating seeing a shadow and white flash on a ULA building in a video that they have.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time of the explosion, there wasn't much noise. The engines were not lit, the rocket was being fueled, which uses pumps, that while loud, are nothing compared to an anti materiel rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things SpaceX had been investigating from the beginning was a bang heard in distance before the explosion.
I really doubt this is what happened. But if it did... my god, this would be one of the biggest scandals in the entire history of spaceflight. Even if it was an employee acting on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
"And a ULA employee *should* be able to know when to shoot, and what happens if LOX equipment is hit."
Hitting a target the size of a rocket isn't improbable, but hitting a sensitive area from a mile away without zeroing in the weapon would seem to require extraordinary skill or considerable luck. Perhaps marginally more probable would be a malfunction that somehow propelled a small component from the rocket or fueling gear toward the ULA building at many hundreds of meters per second -- fast enough to over
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a ULA employee be more likely to know how to shoot than - say - a tank-cleaner at the local sperm bank?
Even though there are approximately as many guns in America as there are people, it's still over two-thirds of the population of America who don't own a gun of any sort (and 50% of the weapons owned by something less than 5% of the population.
Or are all ULA employees required to pass sniping proficiency tests? Got a reference for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing workers have sabotaged their OWN PLANES in the past. What makes you think a nut job worker wouldn't do it? Two sources below
http://articles.orlandosentine... [orlandosentinel.com] http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/... [csmonitor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt that they've considered everything. For instance possible ignition sources should include static electricity from high atmospheric charge driven by enhanced solar wind conditions (coronal hole influence). They're smart enough not to launch in a thunderstorm, yet surprisingly don't seem to avoid a related condition.
You mean, on the rocket sitting between four separate lightning towers? Our are you talking about some other situation?
Re: (Score:3)
No, the act was to prohibit redlining, meaning that there would have to be fair criteria. The act did not require banks to loosen their criteria. They didn't have to make ninja loans. If the Federal government was pressuring banks to make bad mortgages in the seven years before 2008, that really wasn't Clinton's fault.
What implication? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They're not going to let us know the real cause, because of the "implication."
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - The "Implication" [youtube.com]
What's with the video? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Not only does the video link not match the description,
"video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building"
it's tantamount to a propaganda video of exactly the sort I'd pay for if I wanted to ridicule anyone conducting an actual investigation into my industrial sabotage. How the fuck did this get past Slashdot editors?
Did I watch a different video? (Score:1, Insightful)
Either a) the video shows a projectile about half a metre in size passing through and past the rocket (without impacting).
or b) Its a bee or similar sized insect about 30m from the camera (which is consistent with speed and size).
As to "industrial sabotage"... how? That would be a f**ing big bullet, and yet it continued on without being deflected. I mean it makes no sense because its nonsense.
Look, its always the same, stuff goes wrong with Musk rocket, cars or whatever and its a conspiracy! Remember the Ne
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing propagandistic about the video. The tone is derisive but the content is quite objective. It does some elementary math to conclude that the "odd shadow" is most likely an insect at short distance. If this was actually your industrial sabotage I'm sure you have better evidence to prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how Slashdot can include a video about conspiracy theories not being investigated, and by doing so imply that this is actually the core of the investigation.
The "UFO" has nothing to do with anything being investigated. The only thing present in that particular video under investigation was a sound heard shortly before the explosion. A different video (not public) showed a shadow and white flash on the roof of a ULA building.
Re:What's with the video? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only does the video link not match the description,
"video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building"
it's tantamount to a propaganda video of exactly the sort I'd pay for if I wanted to ridicule anyone conducting an actual investigation into my industrial sabotage. How the fuck did this get past Slashdot editors?
Amazing your post has been modded as flamebait. Really amazing that Slashdot is playing to the Alex Jones crowd.
The video, which I have watched dozens of times, doesn't show anything weird at all. One of the "UFOs" was a seagull, another probably a bug. There is a fellow who does Youtube videos who calls himself "thunderfoot" - yes - that thunderfoot, the anti-modern day feminist, but he puts together a pretty good analysis.
While not conclusive, he pretty much debunks this conspiracy theory of launchpad sabotage.
As well, anyone wanting to sabotage the second stage would find the easiest path would be during buildup of the second stage.
The breach almost certainly started at the interface between the second stage fuel and Oxidant tanks, which share a shell. Where in that area remains in question, but that's where it starts. There is an odd screech a second or so before the rapid disassembly that may or may not be connected to the event. The camera was some miles away, so a lot of things in between might make noise.
note: that screech, if related, sounds like what happens when an extremely cold substance comes in contact with warmer metal. You can duplicate this by putting a penny on a piece of dry ice. The penny will make wierd noises.
But don't the conspiracy folks have better things to do, like proving the moon mission was faked, or that Ted Cruz's father put the hit on John Kennedy, or that 9-11 was an inside job, or that electrical companies put the kibosh on perpetual motion?
Re: (Score:2)
Like the cry of a seagull?
Re: (Score:2)
Like the cry of a seagull?
One of many possibilities. To me it sounded like a very cold substance coming into contact with metal.
Re: (Score:2)
While not conclusive, he pretty much debunks this conspiracy theory of launchpad sabotage.
I assume you're saying that he tries to identify and explain the anomalies seen in the videos we have access to. That certainly does not debunk theories of launchpad sabotage, but only applies to those oddities in the video that apparently had nothing to do with the explosion.
So basically nothing's ever Musk's fault. (Score:3, Interesting)
Tesla crashes are always the user's fault, SpaceX explosions are sabotage...
Why ever worry about QC if you can blame all your failures on someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because NASA never ever blew up rockets on the pad and destroyed payloads. Even the Nazis blew up a ton of V2's on the pad before they got it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grassy knoll? (Score:5, Informative)
The link to the SpaceX "evidence" is an alien conspiracy video. Anyway, I'm guessing SpaceX is implying ULA had a shooter on the building? A .50 anti-material rifle like a Barrett [wikipedia.org] or a Tac-50 [wikipedia.org] with a single HEIAP [wikipedia.org] round could do the trick easily, space rockets are fragile little toys. Timed right it would look like a failure or the rocket and the chances of anyone finding any indication of what really happened after the resulting explosion would be pretty damn slim. Only things I could think of would be punctures opposite the force of the explosion and shell fragments (good luck finding those). Any residue from the shell would most likely be burned off (if you could find it to begin with).
But I don't think anyone with enough knowledge of rockets would be that stupid. If you didn't get it to explode immediately there's a good chance the damage would cause the rocket to veer off course. The range safety officer would initiate self-destruct or the rocket would finally explode at that point but either way you're putting other people and equipment at risk.
What is interesting is that SpaceX uses Pad 40 [wikipedia.org] and ULA uses Pad 41 [wikipedia.org] so taking out Pad 40 would not affect Pad 41 (insert ominous sound effect here).
Personally I'm now convinced it was aliens *cough*.
Re: Grassy knoll? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
(OP) Good to know about pads. Al-Li isn't combustible like pure Li (not sure if that's what you were concerned about). But yes, a standard jacketed .50 would probably do the trick. A smaller round would probably work as well. However, I figured if someone was going to go through the trouble of doing this they'd want to make absolutely certain there was an earth shattering kaboom :-).
As for the laser comment below. You'd need one hell of big laser to even puncture the skin and plumbing at that distance,
Re: (Score:2)
"As for the laser comment below. You'd need one hell of big laser to even puncture the skin and plumbing at that distance, it definitely wouldn't be man portable."
We've got 50+kW solid state lasers. They're plenty effective one mile away on a totally stationary target, and modular so easy to set up. Ever hear of Rheinmetall? They've got a 50kW that knocked out moving targets from 1.24 miles out. Lockheed Martin (ULA partner) has the same tech. It would be a somewhat trivial task to set one up on the roof, g
Re: (Score:1)
Lasers like that are freaking bright. Pretty sure we would have seen a big flare on the rocket, and a line of glowing dust and moisture pointing back to the source.
Captcha: stimuli
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
"Lasers like that"? Lasers don't have to have emissions in the visible spectrum, but since they are so dangerous to the eyes regardless, it's common to ensure they do. As a matter of fact, nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, Al-Li alloys are more resistant to impact ignition with LOX than pure Al. That said, the LOX will have burned up part of the aluminum. *That* said, I still would expect them to "most likely" recover a penetration hole if one existed.
Re: (Score:2)
The link to the SpaceX "evidence" is an alien conspiracy video.
A SATIRICAL conspiracy video... but yeah it seems awfully out of place.
=Smidge=
Re:Grassy knoll? (Score:4, Interesting)
When Musk tweeted earlier, "particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off", I was kinda hoping he wasn't implying something.
Re:Grassy knoll? (Score:4, Interesting)
When Musk tweeted earlier, "particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off", I was kinda hoping he wasn't implying something.
I doubt it. Immediately before the disassembly, there was a screeching noise, and then another noise. Whatever it was, it didn't sound like any firearm.
Commentary such as is is just people trying to put what pieces they can find together after the event. I'd like to understand those sounds as well. For the life of me, I can't imagine a competitor a-sniping.
Spacex has been having some issues with that second stage. This isn't surprising that issues come up. When dealing with candles, there is a big learning curve, and if anyone doubts it, NASA and before them NACA, had rapid disassembly events on the launchpad - a lot of them. They are all on Youtube for people to see.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> For the life of me, I can't imagine a competitor a-sniping. Then you're not a very imaginative person.
Oh - I can imagine. It just stops at the interface between Occams razor, and we never went to the moon, or the president was born in Kenya, or that there is something wrong with the earth's core and NASA is hiding it.
If you want to see everyone disallowed from using NASA's facilities, just try purposely causing a billion or so damage by destroying the other's ships. All of these companies have a vested interest in all of them functioning and functioning well. Why?
I'm pretty certain that if NASA had eve
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it.
If you're implying that Musk isn't implying anything... I don't know about that. Musk has demonstrated a propensity for hype in the past, most dramatically with the hyperloop, which is certainly not (and feel like I'm telling a five year old that Santa doesn't exist every time I say this) plausibly cost-effective or revolutionary in any of its proposed forms, even using the most generous of assumptions.
Anyone that can ride a pipe dream like that for as long as he had, despite the fact that it's vaccu
Re: Grassy knoll? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should further add, given the enormous pressure Musk must be under (SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity, etc.), I'm surprised the man hasn't gone complete bat-shit crazy. So for anyone waiting for Musk to blame aliens, just give him more time.
And I was modded down... (Score:3, Insightful)
The direction of their investigation was obvious from their previous release where they were talking about the breach in the helium system. They had a "large breach" that could not be explained, so what else fits the description better than a projectile? I was actually modded down [slashdot.org] for pointing that out (people saying you can't get within 8 miles of the launch etc), but, yeah, that's what they are looking at (among other things I assume). It is not that far-fetched I guess, I mean there are billions at stake here. And if you think about it, if you wanted to sabotage a rocket fueling would be the perfect time - low security compared to a launch (not to mention no bullet-time cameras etc rolling) and yet some activity that could be thought to be related to the cause. ;)
I'm not saying it was certainly sabotage, but, regardless of what Giorgio Tsoukalos might tell you, it is much more probable than aliens
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the previous malfunction was caused by a faulty strut attached to one of the helium tanks. This would be the second time that that part of the rocket malfunctioned.
It sounds like the Falcon 9 helium tanks need a lot more analysis and testing.
I would not put my money on the rifle theory, not unless they have found bullet fragments or suspicious-looking damage.
Re: (Score:2)
They've cleared the struts of any responsibility. Nor would that make any sense, as - being on the ground - there would be little force on the struts. Due to how buoyancy works, the more the G forces there are on the rocket, the more the helium tanks try to rise in the LOX, and the more load there is on the struts keeping them in place.
Note that the strength of the struts has nothing to do with the "helium tanks" (COPVs)
I doubt that they would consider this theory if there was any sort of other obvious ex
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the point is that the strut that failed in 2015 was directly attached to the helium tank that failed last month. There is literally a strong connection between the two. Perhaps there's a logical connection too.
I would suspect a flaw in the design process that lead to the design of that part of the rocket.
SpaceX says they've looked at all the obvious explanations, but they have probably only had time to look at the known obvious explanations. There could be 'unknown obvious' explanations, explanatio
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, SpaceX engineers only understand some of what they've created, the rest came together *very* last-minute while Charlie was drooling on the keyboard during a late night of drinking and designing - and oh boy, that guy does NOT like sharing with the rest of his design
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that no team of engineers have ever had a fully satisfactory understanding of a space launch system. Space launch designs have such tiny margins for error that some subtle phenomenon going on with the design could be serious enough to destroy the rocket.
The gunshot-sounding pop could easily have been the sound of the first thing to fail inside the rocket. That sound (and any other sounds from the launch pad) could have echoed off of the building. People are notoriously bad at recalling t
Re: (Score:2)
Not when you have multiple videos for triangulation, as well as internal sensors which are sensitive enough to - as in the case of CRS-7 - not only detect an impact, but internally triangulate where in the spacecraft it occurred based on how long it took to get to the individual sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
The direction of their investigation was obvious from their previous release where they were talking about the breach in the helium system. They had a "large breach" that could not be explained, so what else fits the description better than a projectile?
A pipeline breaking at a joint? A valve leaking through an inlet port? A seam coming apart?
Explain why a sniper would go after the second stage and not the first. Much larger target area, already lit.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "already lit"? This was during the refueling.
It was during a static firing test. Rocket held down to the pad, first stage engines running.
Re: (Score:2)
No they were not. The engines were not fired. It happened during fueling.
Re: (Score:3)
No they were not. The engines were not fired. It happened during fueling.
You are correct, the engines were not running. This happened before the static test. My confusion was based on it being part of the test. My bad for certain.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, as a general rule a second stage would be easier to penetrate, as they're usually built lighter (not sure the thickness on SpaceX's stages, but in general it works like that).
Re: (Score:3)
I'd bet that from now on SpaceX will have a Hi-Def camera mounted on every lightning tower, recording 24/7, whenever there is a rocket on the pad. Also, if possible, they might add a few more sensors to the upper stage if they can spare enough telemetry channels for the data.
I suspect they'll also voluntarily eat the cost of running the static-fire tests before integrating the payload for the next year or so, just to avoid higher insurance fees for their customers. (How long before they start offering verti
Re: (Score:2)
It was already up to the payload owner, not to SpaceX, whether or not the static fire was performed with the payload mounted. The first few Falcon 9s were all tested without payload. However, customers started opting for the post-integration test; it saved time (no need to take the rocket down again, attach the payload, and roll it back out). For people on tight schedules, it was deemed worth the risk; SpaceX had not, and still has not, ever lost a Falcon 9 stage due to engine failure*. I wouldn't be at all
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it has always been the customer's option, but it's not free. Moving rockets around costs money. A trifling amount, perhaps, compared to the overall launch cost, but a non-zero sum nonetheless.
I wouldn't put it past them (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the amount of money at stake, I wouldn't put it past them to engage in a little bit of industrial sabotage.
Re: I wouldn't put it past them (Score:2)
Doesn't need to be the companies actually knowing anything. One guy would be enough.
Re: I wouldn't put it past them (Score:1)
It's always one guy in the end. Saying that the companies did it just means that someone in the company was motivated enough to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I would be utterly shocked if ULA, as a company, made a decision to do this. Even moreso if it were done in a way that could lead back to them. On the other hand, a random angry employee with a gun? Gee, Americans shooting at entities that they're angry about, never heard of that happening before ;)
Break out the popcorn...
Re: (Score:1)
If a rocket made by Lockheed Martin and Boeing blew up during fueling, would you put it past Elon Musk to engage in a little bit of industrial sabotage? Or is St. Elon above all that?
Damn (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points for that one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not "fawning over Musk"; I don't like the guy. And I'm not "pointing the finger of blame" either. I am simply stating that industrial sabotage is a plausible possibility.
So? Where did I say it wasn't? How does pointing out that industrial sabotage is plaus
SMARF (Score:1)
Shadow was nothing (Score:2)
SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow
Which, as the linked video shows, was neither odd nor a shadow - I don't know why this was even included in the summary. It was never anything of interest to anyone but UFO kooks.
then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA
That would be the more interesting image to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, as the linked video shows, was neither odd nor a shadow - I don't know why this was even included in the summary. It was never anything of interest to anyone but UFO kooks.
As is this story.
the congressmen.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Congressmen in question here aren't exactly unbiased towards SpaceX, you'll note that they are all from places where ULA has major operations: Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Texas.
Now I wonder why would those folks have any interest in seeing SpaceX fail..hrmm.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government also has major space/defence-related operations in each of those states. Coincidence, or conspiracy? YOU BE THE JUDGE.
Imagine (Score:5, Funny)
They should be ashamed! (Score:2)
Musk; Conspiracy theorist (Score:1)
Your rocket exploded.
Deal with it.
Dig a hole and they will come. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're a bit confused as to how rockets work (hint: they don't need air to burn)
Something just occurred to me. (Score:2)
Any bullet striking the LOX tank would immediately turn into an incendiary bullet - even ignoring the hot/molten aluminum it would spray into the tank (which most definitely burns). Long-range bullets are going to be either copper or steel jacketed, commonly with a steel penetrator, lead core. While the lead is iffy, both copper and steel will ignite in LOX under high shock conditions (and if there's anything that's a high shock condition, it's a bullet impact).
Why is the investigation team controvrsial? (Score:2)
Sorry, but the protocols for this were established back in the 1950s for investigating aircraft crashes - the investigation is lead by the civilian agency from the country where the plane was registered ; plane manufacturer, airline, engine manufacturer, agency where the debris landed, agencies for the coun
Re: (Score:1)
or a SNIPER with MA DEUCE shooting at the OXYGEN TANK.
Re: (Score:2)
Lecture us now about why we still need AC posting on this site.
Re: SLASHDOT IS NOW DELETING COMMENTS - GNAA (Score:1)
It's not censorship to delete you copy pasta shitposts. It's still present on plenty of older articles. But most importantly, this site is private property.
They can delete anything and it isn't censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, they did pass the safety tests. There are a number of videos showing that.
The problem you are attempting to address is that there are no safety tests for driverless operation.
For there to be a safety test, there has to be multiple examples to identify what is safe and what is not.
Paypal is not a bank. If you want to call it a bank, then you ALSO have to call all credit card companies a "bank".
Credit card companies are frequently fronted by a bank, but the company itself is not.
Re: (Score:3)
I could picture Musk stroking a white cat in his underground lair.
Re: (Score:2)
I could picture Musk stroking a white cat in his underground lair.
Something like this [twimg.com]? Looks like it's in a private jet but close enough.