Fallen Debris from SpaceX Satellite Launch Crashes on a Farm (space.com) 95
180 miles east of Seattle, "A pressure vessel from a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket stage fell on a man's farm in Washington State last week," reports the Verge, "leaving a '4-inch dent in the soil,' the local sheriff's office said Friday."
Space.com reports: Although Falcon 9 rocket successfully delivered 60 Starlink satellites to orbit last month, the rocket's second stage didn't deorbit properly after completing the mission. The second stage is the smaller, upper part of the Falcon 9 rocket that separates from the main booster to take satellites to their intended orbit. While the main booster returns to Earth for a landing (so SpaceX can refurbish and reuse it on future launches), once the second stage has completed its role in the mission, it is either intentionally destroyed or left to linger in orbit.
Typically it conducts a "deorbit burn" that sends the craft on a safe trajectory to burn up in the atmosphere above the Pacific Ocean. But this time, something went wrong: According to Ars Technica, "there was not enough propellant after this launch to ignite the Merlin engine and complete the burn. So the propellant was vented into space, and the second stage was set to make a more uncontrolled re-entry into the atmosphere." So, instead of burning up over the ocean, the rocket stage ended up breaking up in the sky over the Pacific Northwest — the fiery display visible not only from Washington but also from surrounding states and parts of Canada — just after 9 p.m. local time on Thursday, March 25, or midnight EDT (0400 GMT) on Friday, March 26.
Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, calls it "a bit of a puzzle" that the stage wasn't de-orbited under control back on March 4, telling the Verge that it "looks like something went wrong, but SpaceX has said nothing about it. However, reentries of this kind happen every couple of weeks. It's just unusual that it happens over a densely populated area, just because that's a small fraction of the Earth."
Space.com reports: Although Falcon 9 rocket successfully delivered 60 Starlink satellites to orbit last month, the rocket's second stage didn't deorbit properly after completing the mission. The second stage is the smaller, upper part of the Falcon 9 rocket that separates from the main booster to take satellites to their intended orbit. While the main booster returns to Earth for a landing (so SpaceX can refurbish and reuse it on future launches), once the second stage has completed its role in the mission, it is either intentionally destroyed or left to linger in orbit.
Typically it conducts a "deorbit burn" that sends the craft on a safe trajectory to burn up in the atmosphere above the Pacific Ocean. But this time, something went wrong: According to Ars Technica, "there was not enough propellant after this launch to ignite the Merlin engine and complete the burn. So the propellant was vented into space, and the second stage was set to make a more uncontrolled re-entry into the atmosphere." So, instead of burning up over the ocean, the rocket stage ended up breaking up in the sky over the Pacific Northwest — the fiery display visible not only from Washington but also from surrounding states and parts of Canada — just after 9 p.m. local time on Thursday, March 25, or midnight EDT (0400 GMT) on Friday, March 26.
Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, calls it "a bit of a puzzle" that the stage wasn't de-orbited under control back on March 4, telling the Verge that it "looks like something went wrong, but SpaceX has said nothing about it. However, reentries of this kind happen every couple of weeks. It's just unusual that it happens over a densely populated area, just because that's a small fraction of the Earth."
Re:Real fun begins when StarLink itself deorbits.. (Score:5, Informative)
The Starlink satellites are tiny compared to the second stage. And they're designed to burn up on reentry. Even in an uncontrolled reentry, nothing should reach the ground.
Re: Real fun begins when StarLink itself deorbits. (Score:1)
Yes, there's just no basis for that statement.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From 2 years ago:
A revised design means dead satellites will burn up completely in the atmosphere [ieee.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Real fun begins when StarLink itself deorbits. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the Boring Company can find some dirt to fill the hole.
Re: (Score:2)
They will fully burn up. (Score:5, Informative)
The deployment of satellites with this feature was delayed until they could design demisable optics, as well as reducing the cost of the laser links. The first working satellites with optic links were launched late last year, as a batch of 10 going into a polar orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if built in explosives with both remote and heat sensitive triggers would be the appropriate solution there. Just blow the optics into tiny, tiny pieces. This just seems like one of those circumstances where having a self destruct mechanism makes a lot of sense.
Re:They will fully burn up. (Score:5)
About 48 tonnes of meteoroids hit the earth every day.
A few lenses make an infinitesimal difference.
Humans need to stop being such wussies. Our collective pusillanimity is holding up progress.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: They will fully burn up. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a great long-term goal. We're just not there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, but people are not willing to accept that danger, slim as it might be. You can see it right here on Slashdot how hostile many people are to Musk and SpaceX. If something they made falls out of the sky and actually kills someone, some people will be screaming for their blood. So they need to do what they can to avoid that. Also, this sounds like a regulatory requirement.
Also, seriously, isn't it just kind of nice for there to be a legit reason to have a self-destruct mechanism?
Re: They will fully burn up. (Score:1)
That "burn up in the athmosphere" is just a convenient lie, NASA et al have been telling the public since day one.
Of course it doesn't always burn up 100%.
There have been video tapes that surviced the crash and were still playable!
Especially light things. And stuff too light or aerodynamic to turn into gas (or dust), or on a bad trajectory.
It's just that it's still a non-issue anyway.
I'm fine with it. But some very annoying people wouldn't. So you keep using that little lie.
Well, yes, you can get a tape to survive... (Score:3)
The pressure vessel this post is about is an interesting case - it was protected inside the tankage of the original rocket stage. The stage consists of a heavy engine attached to light tanks. It would quickly orientat
Re: They will fully burn up. (Score:1)
Hey, do you know what I would do for one of those lenses that they are throwing away??
That stuff's worth its weight in gold! If not more!
Re: (Score:1)
"SpaceX has said nothing" (Score:1)
'Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, calls it "a bit of a puzzle" that the stage wasn't de-orbited under control back on March 4, telling the Verge that it "looks like something went wrong, but SpaceX has said nothing about it. However, reentries of this kind happen every couple of weeks. It's just unusual that it happens over a densely populated area, just because that's a small fraction of the Earth."'
Two possibilities, either of which I can see being t
Re:"SpaceX has said nothing" (Score:5, Informative)
Since Musk seems to cultivate a "cult of personality"
Absolutely true
He can't admit to failures, no matter how minor.
Absolutely bullshit.
https://www.republicworld.com/... [republicworld.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since Musk seems to cultivate a "cult of personality"
Absolutely true
He can't admit to failures, no matter how minor.
Absolutely bullshit.
It's his cult that can't admit to anything wrong.
I read many comments demanding NASA and Boeing be dismantled after the shortened SLS core stage hot fire a couple monthes back, while saying that Spacex's recent regression and showering the launch area with debris was no problem because "we got good data" and other similar comments.
Now I do believe that Musk was being irresponsible when he demanded that FAA get out of the way - "Unlike its aircraft division, which is fine, the FAA space division has a
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the explosion of a new test vehicle in a safe area is time to push the panic button yet. If one explodes over a populated area, we can push the panic button.
Re: (Score:3)
While a lot of technology regulations are written in blood, many of them aren't. Because we don't have to wait for specific applications of technology to kill a lot of people before we regulate them, if we know from relevant studies and experiments that they have such destructive potential.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any evidence of SpaceX trying to do anything that's going to kill people. They're testing in the middle of a big empty for good reason. They have not proposed moving their test launches to a populated area.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get to a 24 hour pharmacy and refill your prescription immediately. You turn into a troll when you're off your meds.
Re: (Score:2)
First you say the single dumbest thing I've seen on this site in a long time, and then you call me a troll?
Mirror mirror on the wall...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the explosion of a new test vehicle in a safe area is time to push the panic button yet. If one explodes over a populated area, we can push the panic button.
This is kinda like thinking that we should have our brakes checked after we drive off the cliff.
But here's the issue about that. Spacex is encountering launch fever.
They have a problem in the fuel +oxidant tanks. They've been trying to overcome it with pressurized helium, which isn't going to work. Video of the failed Starship 10 issue shows one of the engines wasn't working on the landing.Which resulted in a hard landing, a bounce and a bent leg. It probably got a dose of helium - note there seemed to
Re: (Score:1)
As long as they do it in an unpopulated area, it's their money.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they do it in an unpopulated area, it's their money.
Port Isabel and South Padre Island are around 5 miles away. So I guess for some definitions, they aren't unpopulated areas.
Re: (Score:1)
I strongly dislike Musk, because of his manners that are strongly suggesting he's a functioning psychopath. But I wouldn't wish him any harm, because within his limits, he isn't a bad guy
I think the word you meant was "sociopath", since "psychopath" per definition means someone who intentionally causes harm, so that would make him a "bad guy".
"Grandiose narcissist" probably fits better, since that implies not being able or willing to see the word from other people's POV, which diminishes empathy, which causes sociopathic tendencies. These are strongly individualistic persons who think the world revolves around them, and who think they know what's best for everyone else. Their overconfidence
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I strongly dislike Musk, because of his manners that are strongly suggesting he's a functioning psychopath. But I wouldn't wish him any harm, because within his limits, he isn't a bad guy. He tries his best. Who am I to rain on that?
No - Musk is forward thinking and willing to do something positive with his money rather than just try to accumulate more. I find him likable, if a little weird. But hey, I'm just as weird, and nowhere near as likable. I wish him success. I do think all of the worship he is getting lately might be causing some issues with his development though.
It's people nowadays, seeking deities to follow. Third party lives to project themselves into. And defend like a god because it's really themselves they think they are defending. Same thing as sports fans, people who follow gossip about celebrities and royalty, and fans on Twitch, YouTube, Patreon, TikTok, SnapChat, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, you name it.
I think you are right. Musk, is only a human, and that worship is not a good thing for humans. People often turn on those they worship, and those they worship may so
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same with Tesla. Waymo demonstrates a safe, reliable self driving car and Tesla fans say it will never scale, the hardware is too expensive and it can never go beyond Portland. Meanwhile even after 5 years of missed deadlines Tesla is right on the cusp of releasing a software update that enables full self driving robotaxis, although any failures of the autopilot system are down to the user.
The cult is very real and far, far worse than the Apple one ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same with Tesla. Waymo demonstrates a safe, reliable self driving car and Tesla fans say it will never scale, the hardware is too expensive and it can never go beyond Portland. Meanwhile even after 5 years of missed deadlines Tesla is right on the cusp of releasing a software update that enables full self driving robotaxis, although any failures of the autopilot system are down to the user.
The cult is very real and far, far worse than the Apple one ever was.
I had stood up for Tesla for years, for technical reasons, while the cult was developing. Now, I kinda feel dirty about it.
And I still believe that support of EV's and even experimental rocketry is good.
But the cult that has developed is seriously toxic. I suspect that it has also affected Musk as well. It is hard to endure people worshipping you and telling you that even your failures are somehow successes, and like some in here have claimed that uninvolved people's deaths are just the price they n
Re: (Score:1)
I am surprised the Muskrats haven't started attacking the farmer on social media.
Re: (Score:1)
He can't admit to failures, no matter how minor.
That's by the far the dumbest thing I've seen you type in twenty years; starting to lose your edge??
Re: (Score:2)
For that particular flight, 2nd stage don't have enough propellent to do a deorbit burn. So they have to let gravity to do that for them. Had they do a control burn, they'd be aiming for Point Nemo in South Pacific.
Maritime law? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's junk. SpaceX doesn't have any use for it. Neither does the farmer. SpaceX can dispose of it properly. Or the farmer could put it on display, perhaps at his booth at local farmer's markets. SpaceX is just glad this hit the ground and not a building or person.
Re:Maritime law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Junk? Put it on EBAY and someone will pay big $$ for a piece of space history. That's if some government bureaucrat doesn't try to steal it first.
Re: (Score:1)
It's junk. SpaceX doesn't have any use for it. Neither does the farmer..
Ignoring the ITAR rules, are you sure ESA or Roscosmos might not be interested? Worst case, auction it off on eBay. Someone will pay an outrageous amount to own a piece of legitimate space junk.
Unfortunately, maritime law does not apply. (Score:2)
So, in this case, SpaceX was required by law to clean up the remains of the spacecraft, if that was necessary.
As to a legal case - no, it would not be interesting. The law on bits of spacecraft are unambiguous.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Outer Space Treaty, the country of origin of any space vehicle is responsible for it and has ownership of it and is liable for for any damage caused by a spacecraft.
Of course, since its a United States launch that landed in the United States, they would probably pass the cost on to SpaceX and their insurance.
Re: (Score:3)
now own the rights to the salvaged "shipwreck"
He doesn't need to keep the wreck.
He can just take a photo and sell it as an NFT.
It was a spectacular sight (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It was a spectacular sight (Score:4, Funny)
One of the cooler things that I have seen in my life
If thousands of kelvins are cool to you, I wonder what's hot. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh... your mom?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I happened to be buying propane in a suburb west of Portland, OR standing outside my car looking at the sky
Am I the only one who read this as
(I happened to be buying propane in a suburb west of Portland)
OR
(standing outside my car looking at the sky )
Re: (Score:2)
I happened to be buying propane in a suburb west of Portland, OR standing outside my car looking at the sky
Am I the only one who read this as (I happened to be buying propane in a suburb west of Portland) OR (standing outside my car looking at the sky )
Well I was doing both so it still a true statement, but you make a good point.
Wow (Score:2)
From the article, the really cool thing is how intact the pressure vessel is for something that literally fell out of space. It looks still serviceable, not that anyone would ever be dumb enough to try it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, yes. If SpaceX launches enough rockets, and a small percentage of them explode, eventually a piece is going to fall on someone on the ground and not rural land or ocean, and they will die.
But they are launching more rockets. Cult or not, it's more than NASA was launching, or private satellite providers. This is forward progress. And kinda by definition, to do something cheaper you have to take risks.
Wow-Alimony testers. (Score:2)
And kinda by definition, to do something cheaper you have to take risks.
Here's a hat off to all the guys that took a bullet for us so we could have cheap condoms.
Re: (Score:2)
And kinda by definition, to do something cheaper you have to take risks.
Here's a hat off to all the guys that took a bullet for us so we could have cheap condoms.
Do you remember the accidental allergen lube fiasco? It was tough work, but someone had to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget guys who took bullets so women could have tampons.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up history of that specific tool, and what it was developed for.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, yes. If SpaceX launches enough rockets, and a small percentage of them explode, eventually a piece is going to fall on someone on the ground and not rural land or ocean, and they will die.
But they are launching more rockets. Cult or not, it's more than NASA was launching, or private satellite providers. This is forward progress. And kinda by definition, to do something cheaper you have to take risks.
So your rationale is that some people have to die for Elon, but that's a risk he is willing to take.
By the way - explain this forward progress that makes you willing to die for it. Just cheaper is dumb, and given that the numbers of re-using rockets isn't readily available. we have to take Spacex's word of it. Does their reuseability savings overshadow the cost of their recovery fleet? https://spacexfleet.com/fleet [spacexfleet.com]
But back to your declaration that you encourage death as a fine price of progress - sorr
Re: (Score:2)
Is Boeing allowed to make jets? Is NASA allowed to fly the space shuttle? Is Airbus allowed to make jets?
It is literally impossible to make an aerospace machine that flies over populated areas and not occasionally have something wrong. It's just rare. NASA had the space shuttle break up once and debris fell on populated areas. The main reason it didn't happen more often was not that NASA was safer than SpaceX, it was that NASA only did 135 total flights. There have been 115 falcon 9 flights and they ar
Wow-hit by a monopoly. (Score:2)
Well actually blame it on the incumbents that have made getting decent affordable broadband nearly impossible. It's shouldn't have taken a billionaire and a LEO constellation to break through the back of a monopoly. Lord knows the American people have paid them enough to put up something usable. So if anyone gets hit just say, "those damn incumbents and their pizza analogy, as well as 10Mbps is good enough".
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually blame it on the incumbents that have made getting decent affordable broadband nearly impossible. It's shouldn't have taken a billionaire and a LEO constellation to break through the back of a monopoly. Lord knows the American people have paid them enough to put up something usable. So if anyone gets hit just say, "those damn incumbents and their pizza analogy, as well as 10Mbps is good enough".
So now there will just be a new incumbent. I was wondering - are all the spacex sats radiation hardened? A new Carrington even might happen in the middle of a porn download, and the customers might be overcome.
Re: (Score:2)
> I guess the Cult will just say " That's the cost of the incredibly important work we are doing."
What do YOU think?
Steel, farming, bridges, skyscrapers, houses, fishing, solar panels?
Is anything important enough to incur risk?
How about getting Internet to everybody on Earth? What if it's all done with fiber optics on telephone poles? Don't forget about the loggers.
Perhaps the most insidious cult we have is the Cult of No Risk. That's the one currently plaguing our society (mostly because the schools
Re: (Score:3)
> I guess the Cult will just say " That's the cost of the incredibly important work we are doing."
What do YOU think?
I know there is a world of difference between working on a project, understanding the risks, and people saying that "Your life is forfeit, and our need for internet is an acceptable tradeoff for your death, so suck it up and know you might die for our internet, and our landing on Mars in 3 years."
If you don't understand that I do not want to be killed for people's ability to download shemale midget scat porn - well you are enlightening us to the mental state of the cult.
Steel, farming, bridges, skyscrapers, houses, fishing, solar panels?
Is anything important enough to incur risk?
You are having an argument that I
Re: (Score:2)
One in a Million? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A boat wouldn't sink, a plane on the ground would need some repairs. A plane crashing into it as it fell would suffer damage, but that would be really unlikely - there's a lot of air between each plane - and could be serious. But even then, I'd give the plane a good chance to land - a strike in most places wouldn't prevent the plane from landing.
Re: (Score:3)
Orbital objects these days are usually disposed of safely, either by deorbiting them over the Pacific and into the Spacecraft Graveyard [wikipedia.org] or sending them into a graveyard orbit beyond geosynchronous orbit, but sometimes things go wrong, as happened here. Other options have been studied including lunar impact and heliocentric orbit, though I'm not sure either has been used. Starlink and OneWeb at least have the option of being moved into a disposal orbit where their orbits will naturally decay and they'll burn
Re: One in a Million? (Score:2)
Re:One in a Million? (Score:5, Interesting)
I always wonder about the odds of something like this. Yes, usually space junk falls into the ocean, and sometimes it hits unpopulated land, but sometimes it must hit populated land. Seems like this farmer doesn't really have any damages (debris just hit the ground and left a small impression) but what would happen if this hit a plane or a boat? Certainly it would crash/sink the vehicle immediately killing everyone on board. What are the odds of something like that happening?
There have been some scary moments when Space debris returns to earth. The Kosmos 954 nuclear reactor largely survived re-entery in 1977, and landed in the Canadian wilderness, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] note, this guy does lighthearted stuff, but his stuff is good.
And now we can sort of understand why some people get a little skittish when they launch payloads with reactors in them. Case history.
Does he get to keep it? (Score:1)
Dang it, now everybody will want some space debris.
Does he get to keep it?-Weather balloon. (Score:2)
Good thing I don't live in Roswell NM.
Re: Does he get to keep it? (Score:1)
We're all star dust.
Sorry... my bad... (Score:1)
Was the stage using full self driving mode? (Score:1)
Debris falling from space (Score:2)
I've just started watching the series
If I was SpaceX... (Score:1)
I'd give the man a new roof, fix everything, and give him a really nice "We're sorry" gift.
For SpaceX that'd be peanuts. For the farmer it would mean a lot. And a PR issue could he turned into positive news.
I think everybody gets that this was not intentional. Everybody makes mistakes. That is not the problem The problem is what you don't do after.
Hey, if costs allow it, in the future, it could become "If our debris falls onto your house, you get a free ride to space!". People would actively want it to happ
Correction: (Score:1)
Damn, it didn't even hit is roof. Should've read TFS.
(BTW: The reason seasoned /. veterans usually don't, is because truly honestly, 90% of the time the news is so predictable, it really isn't even necessary. :)
Re: (Score:2)
They will send a guy with a shovel full of dirt to make amends.
Manipulative language (Score:2)
> So, instead of burning up over the ocean, the rocket stage ended up breaking up in the sky over the Pacific Northwest
Atmospheric reentry physics doesn't depend on whether there's land or sea 100km below. The 2nd stage has no idea either. Therefore, the sentence should've been: "So, instead of breaking up and falling into the ocean, the rocket stage ended up breaking up in the sky over the Pacific Northwest".
I didn't believe in clean, evaporative burning of heavy machinery before. Basically, it can happ
4" dent (Score:2)
I'm a bit surprised by the whole story. First, the tank looks really intact. Second, the dent in the ground is practically perfect, like the tank fell vertically out of the sky and landed side on (I would have expected it to free fall on its end), and didn't bounce.
Re: (Score:2)
South Pacific (Score:2)