# Did the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blow up due to sabotage?



## qubit (Oct 4, 2016)

There's footage of suspicious activity on a nearby roof of a competitor's building just before the explosion. No hard evidence yet and footage has not been released.

It would be pretty ugly if this sabotage were true and I suspect it is. There are enough challenges to getting into space as it is and crap like this risks lives and retards mankinds advancement into space.

www.sciencealert.com/speculation-is-building-that-the-recent-spacex-explosion-was-the-result-of-sabotage

*UPDATE*

Here's a tasty update: now they're arguing over who's gonna lead the investigation! Thanks for the tip @dorsetknob 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_wants_control_explosion_investigation/

*ANOTHER UPDATE*

Looks like it was just a change of procedures which had unintended consequences, see post 32. Thanks @CAPSLOCKSTUCK for the tip.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 4, 2016)

On the day there were reports of a drone hitting the rocket.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 4, 2016)

qubit said:


> There's footage of suspicious activity on a nearby roof of a competitor's building just before the explosion. No hard evidence yet and footage has not been released.



Was this building a book depository and near a grassy knoll



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> On the day there were reports of a drone hitting the rocket.







See pic 2 and 3


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 4, 2016)

The investigation into a dramatic Falcon 9 rocket explosion earlier this month at Cape Canaveral has determined a “large breach” in the launcher’s upper stage helium pressurization system led to the destruction of the booster and its $200 million satellite payload, SpaceX said Friday.

More at https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/23/falcon-9-rocket-explosion-traced-to-upper-stage-helium-system/


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 4, 2016)

Carrying an Israeli payload probably had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 4, 2016)

the 'drone' was clearly a bird or bug closer to the camera (which clearly has a telescopic lense, and is zoomed in heavily) you CAN see the 'blob' fly past, but the way it moves makes it clear its much closer to the camera than the rocket is.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 4, 2016)

this is clearly the work of (pick 1 or more)  aliens/Russian hackers/the illuminati/nascar fans.


----------



## natr0n (Oct 4, 2016)

!


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 4, 2016)

I hope you all are being funny.  Rockets still blow up with frightening regularity, no matter what country or private entity the space agency is in.  Getting an object or people into space is always a crapshoot.

Indeed, every time people successfully make it into space it should be regarded as a failed suicide attempt.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 4, 2016)

A sound track for your theory


----------



## Nosada (Oct 4, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> every time people successfully make it into space it should be regarded as a failed suicide attempt.


Pure sig gold!


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 4, 2016)

Easy Rhino said:


> A sound track for your theory



You realize more than half of the people here have never heard of that song or the Beastie Boys.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 4, 2016)

AthlonX2 said:


> You realize more than half of the people here have never heard of that song or the Beastie Boys.


Then they have never lived a real life. 

@qubit Man, really? This seems fairly on par for you, but I fail to see the relationship with this thread and the forum's title. That was tech powered down dramatically, not powered up. 

When you think the shuttles were basically foam-wrapped metal cans, it really is no wonder why they don't send people into space often, and why Mars has yet to be colonized. Musk's idea to do such things are definitely an interesting take on the matter, but you're still strapping a big huge explosive to your butt no matter which way you look at it.


----------



## qubit (Oct 4, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> @qubit Man, really? This seems fairly on par for you, but I fail to see the relationship with this thread and the forum's title. That was tech powered down dramatically, not powered up.
> 
> When you think the shuttles were basically foam-wrapped metal cans, it really is no wonder why they don't send people into space often, and why Mars has yet to be colonized. Musk's idea to do such things are definitely an interesting take on the matter, but you're still strapping a big huge explosive to your butt no matter which way you look at it.


Not sure what your issue with this is.  You might also wanna vote in my poll to make your opinion on this incident clear. 

EDIT: Caps, that video is amazing. The explosions just kept on coming!


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 4, 2016)

qubit said:


> Not sure what your issue with this is.


There is no science present.  The video is cool though, albeit a bit old. It's so last month. ROFL.


----------



## qubit (Oct 4, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> There is no science present.  The video is cool though, albeit a bit old. It's so last month. ROFL.


Well, it's tech, innit.  c'mon Cad, lots of diverse sciencey / techy things are discussed in this section and I think this qualifies. The article I've based my post on is actually dated today as the foul play angle seems to be new, which is the point of my thread.

Here's this Register story of the explosion which tends to think that a sniper shot from the ULA building is highly unlikely and I agree with them. I also agree with Mussels that the thing flying across is most likely a bird which is much closer to the camera. Personally, I have no idea if it was foul play or not, but can only go by the news reports. Since SpaceX suspect it from an unaired second video discussed in the article, I'm going with a maybe in my poll.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_searches_for_falcon_rocket_sabotage


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 4, 2016)

Nah, you know, it's just a bit leaning on conspiracy. No one "involved" is really even interested in such "theories", even by the articles you posted yourself. So here you post "could it be?", and then post "nah, it ain't". And I don't mean you posting it directly, but the articles you linked.


So the question remains, why post about it in the first place? Trying to see who will bite?

Therein lies why I kind of see it as a problem. It's not science. It's not tech. It's a conspiracy theory.

Makes me wonder, you work for the register now, or what? ROFL.

(remember, just because I don't agree with your posting doesn't mean I'm not interested. Just not likely in the way you'd think about it, given your stance on many a subject.)

I mean ,you might as well say that SpaceX rigged it to happen so they could make an insurance claim.


----------



## qubit (Oct 4, 2016)

Seriously Cad, I think you're just overthinking it. Look, I'm actually quite simple (cue butt of jokes lol) and what you see is what you get with me. I see an article that looks interesting (and possible sabotage of a rocket _is_ interesting) so I post about it to share with others here. There really isn't any more to it than that. I'm certainly no conspiracy theorist.

So, in this case, SpaceX themselves say it looks suspicious and give a reason why, hence I just go with it as the most likely explanation in the absence of any other evidence, that's all. This is an ongoing situation which will hopefully be resolved one way or the other soon.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 5, 2016)

LoL. Seems like simple miss-direction if you ask me, and marketing. A common tactic at such levels of business. IF you actually read the articles you posted, Space-X doesn't think it was anything but an internal fault. One article does say that "three people" suggest it might have been sabotage, and gives a reason, but that's like one of my kids saying "Not me!"






Then said article says "we don't buy it."



> While it's technically just possible, Occam's razor would suggest that there is a more prosaic explanation for why the Falcon (and Facebook's internet satellite) went boom last month. *But that's not going to stop the conspiracy theorists going nuts on this one for a while.*



It almost seems like you bought it. ROFL.

Elon Musk is a very intelligent person. But he ain't no Iron Man.  People that listen to this, tend to then buy into his rhetoric, and SpaceX's vision remains intact, and they are not in question for sloppy work. Obfuscation at its best.

So, I amnswered your poll, with "other". There's my "other", ma boi @qubit


----------



## Mussels (Oct 5, 2016)

AthlonX2 said:


> You realize more than half of the people here have never heard of that song or the Beastie Boys.



anyone who watched the latest star trek movie has heard it, even if they did not recognise it (and personally i dont think it fit the scene well)


----------



## qubit (Oct 5, 2016)

@cadaveca Of course I read the article and I don't see what you have a problem with here.

To paraphrase the first three paragraphs of the article, "unnamed industry sources" say there's footage showing something suspicious going on and SpaceX is keeping its cards close to its chest at the moment and not saying anything. If I was them, I'd do the same thing. You also seem to have missed my caveat in my OP, "No hard evidence yet and footage has not been released", so you're not seeing my trumpeting some supposedly definitive evidence at all. As I said before, you're reading too much into it.

Thanks for voting.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 5, 2016)

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter seeking ‘support and advice’ as the investigation continues, calling the event ‘the most difficult and complex failure’ the firm has ever had.

And addressing claims that a mysterious object may have hit the rocket, Musk said they ‘have not ruled that out.’

Musk also wrote on Twitter that he was 'particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off'

May come from rocket or something else,' he added.

Earlier this week, Musk said that finding out what went wrong is the company's 'absolute top priority'.

'We've eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there,' he said.




Bill Ostrove, an aerospace and defense analyst at Forecast International, said SpaceX's reliability with the Falcon 9 is 93%, which is "right in the ballpark" of the industry average of 95%. 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-reliability-1472754973-htmlstory.html


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 5, 2016)

qubit said:


> @cadavecaI don't see what you have a problem with here.



Look at the date of the Elon Musk Twitter posts... September 9th. Someone is spinning old news as new.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Musk also wrote on Twitter that he was 'particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off'



Yep. He did. Nearly a month ago. So what new info makes this news-worthy today?


Everyone misses this tidbit:



> Since then, SpaceX, which is leading the investigation with help from the Air Force, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration, said it is narrowing down on the cause of the explosion, focusing on a breach in a second-stage helium system.



So... sabotage? Nope.

The real new news is that "members of Congress" are now questioning SpaceX's Falcon9's reliability. THAT is why its being talked about now.

Origin:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...b60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html (September 30th)



> This week, 10 Republican House members, many friendly to ULA, told NASA that SpaceX should not be leading the investigation and that authority should be turned over to the federal government


So, SpaceX WAS/IS in charge of the investigation, but it is being pushed to be NOT in charge of the investigation. The Register has failed you.  That's my problem with it all. No big deal.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 5, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Everyone misses this tidbit:
> 
> So... sabotage? Nope.


Not everyone  see post   #4
in case you do not wish to scroll up


dorsetknob said:


> The investigation into a dramatic Falcon 9 rocket explosion earlier this month at Cape Canaveral has determined a “large breach” in the launcher’s upper stage helium pressurization system led to the destruction of the booster and its $200 million satellite payload, SpaceX said Friday.
> 
> More at https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/23/falcon-9-rocket-explosion-traced-to-upper-stage-helium-system/


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 5, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Not everyone  see post   #4
> in case you do not wish to scroll up


I thought I saw someone post it, but I missed it when I went to scroll up to quote it.  my bad!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 5, 2016)

Yes there was a breach.....have they found the cause......no.

Who is "pushing" SpaceX out of the investigation? ULA ....their biggest rival.  (The grassy knoll people)

I never read or quote from the Register.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 5, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I never read or quote from the Register.



That bit wasn't directed at you, sir.


----------



## qubit (Oct 5, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> Look at the date of the Elon Musk Twitter posts... September 9th. Someone is spinning old news as new.


Yes, it's dated the 9th, but if you click on the article linked to in the Register article it refers to a "recent meeting", so there was something after that.

You seem to be really hung up / OCD on trying to convince me that this thread is pointless and "I shouldn't have made it" by pointing out this or that. Well, I disagree and I'm glad I posted it. No one else except you so far has a problem with this thread, either. I'm fine with you thinking I shouldn't have posted it, believe me I really am, but don't try to convince me otherwise as I don't think any of your arguments have merit and you're just grasping at straws.

And for a "pointless" thread, you've sure posted a lot in it, haven't you?  One would normally expect a thread that didn't interest someone to just be ignored, wouldn't they, but no you haven't done that.

Now, can we please make this the last post on this? If you really feel the need to talk more about it that's fine, but please take it to PM, as it's just going off topic all the time.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 5, 2016)

I hope they discover sabotage...it will prove it wasnt a failure of the launch system.

SpaceX currently has a success rate of 93% against an industry standard of 95%.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 5, 2016)

qubit said:


> Now, can we please make this the last post on this? If you really feel the need to talk more about it that's fine, but please take it to PM, as it's just going off topic all the time.


It's not off-topic. I responded to your poll with "other" and then explained why as you asked in the poll. You even asked me to respond to the poll, and now that I have, you don't like it? Make up your mind! Remember, public forum means you can't tell me to not post in a thread you made. I'll post here all I like. I also said, you likely don't understand why I have this point of view, but the real issue is not with you, it's with sites posting stuff that is the opposite of the truth, and people reading it and accepting it as fact. you've already stated you don't accept it as fact, so where's the problem?

I see no problem in your posting this stuff. It's not about you.

The problem is in that the register, which you linked, needs to fact-check their postings before making them public. I do this with my reviews, in a way. someone reads what  I write, edits the obvious problems, and then lets me know about what might b a problem, so I can fix it before the review gets posted. You posted an article that says SpaceX wants control of the investigation... they already have it. It's the other party vying for control. So that link is incorrect information.

Also, The Washington Post article, which was the source of the latest stuff IMHO, was also clear to point out that SpaceX was NOT accusing ULA at all, just that they noticed a problem, asked ot check it out, and ULA said no, but then ULA contacted authorities to check it for SpaceX (covering potential proprietary secrets).

It's a bit interesting that Elon said that maybe there was more to it at first, and even more interesting that there has yet to been an actual fault found, and there could be something weird there for sure, so like I said in my second post:



> (remember, just because I don't agree with your posting doesn't mean I'm not interested. Just not likely in the way you'd think about it, given your stance on many a subject.)



See, I read the business section of the Washington post and the New York Times, because that's what business-minded folks of my generation do, so I saw this last week. It is now very interesting to me to see it spread around the world, and then end up here on TPU, with a far different perspective given than the source article. Of course, if you wrote the article for the register, I'd understand why my opinion here might have you nonplussed, but if you didn't, why do you care what I think? (That's rhetorical ).

I said in the beginning, that this post didn't belong in this forum, because it didn't cover science nor technology. It covers the twist of an article over time in my books, and hence my little quote of myself up above. As far as I am concerned, since most sites are pretty clear on stating there is no sabotage just yet, this is a topic that intrigues me, since it says a lot about journalistic integrity. Given what I do here on TPU is journalistic criticism of products, it's a subject dear to my heart, and that's why I have interest in posting in this thread.

It's not because you made a shit post. It's because someone else did, and then you brought it here. I'd have the same response to it no matter WHO brought it up.  I think some of your posts are way out there for sure, but because they are, I like them, not hate them. You got it all wrong, brother. You make me laugh a lot, and laughing is good for the soul.

Take a tip from Tailor Swift... Shake it off!

ROFL.


----------



## qubit (Oct 6, 2016)

I didn't think I'd end up thanking your post, but reading it carefully I getcha now and - shockingly!  - I agree and appreciate it. 

I think I misunderstood the point you were trying to make and from back then, it looked like the things you were saying were off topic and hence I didn't want the thread shut down (you know how hot they are on staying "on topic" here) hence the pm suggestion (well, sorta pleading really, lol). I certainly do _not_ want you off my threads _evva!_ no matter how much we may disagree on some inane technicality.  I'm sorry if I gave you that impression, my bad. That's reserved for the trolls like you've seen recently and you most certainly ain't one of them buddy. 

Ok, so back to the post. Yeah, you know, this whole thing is so vague and woolly, with nothing confirmed and lots of denials to go, that perhaps The Register screwed up somewhere and you've spotted it. I dunno, it seems ok to me with all the caveats, allegedlies and asterisks and quotes all over the place to cover themselves, but perhaps you have a point. It's so vague, that it gets a bit confusing when I try to pick it apart in fine detail and follow all the links and links of links etc. So, does it belong in the forum? I say yeah, however imperfect it is, because it makes for great conversation and we can pick it apart, along with a poll for everyone to vote in. I can see why you'd think otherwise if the facts aren't up to scratch though.

Having written news for TPU and other sites, I get where you're coming from with journalistic integrity and can understand how the bar is set pretty high when reviewing products, like you do, to ensure accuracy and above all, lack of bias towards or against the product and manufacturer. It's certainly higher than the typical small 200 word news articles one reads, for sure.

However, when I make a forum post, my fact checking standards are considerably lower, hehe. I see something that's interesting, looks ok on a quick read and up it goes! If the article is a bit flawed, it'll come out in the wash lol, eg that 40% performance uplift one for Kaby Lake. At least the journalist put in a correction in the end, so there was no bad intention, just a bit of human error on his part that he fessed up to. Just a shame the thread got locked with all the bad behaviour from certain members. I had to reluctantly agree with sneeky that it was for the best for the sake of forum harmony. 

I'm glad I make you laugh - mission accomplished.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 13, 2016)

_It is also understood that SpaceX was testing modifications to the countdown sequence on the Static Fire Test for the previous Falcon 9 mission with JCSat-16 to introduce window management capabilities for the FT version of Falcon 9 that initially had to launch very shortly after propellant loading finished in order to avoid the chilled propellants warming up inside the tanks. These modified countdown steps include adjustments to engine chilldown as well as the propellant and pressurant loading sequence.


It is possible that, with these seemingly minor adjustments to the sequencing of events, SpaceX has inadvertently designed a chain of events that overstressed the Helium bottles._


*Read the full article........its an interesting insight.*
http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-...-testing-in-falcon-9-explosion-investigation/


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2016)

Oh no Caps, this is so much less exciting than a conspiracy! 

OP updated.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 22, 2016)

Investigators believe operational issues linked to fueling procedures, rather than a manufacturing flaw, likely caused a Space Exploration Technologies Corp. rocket to explode during ground tests last month, according to people familiar with the details.

Company officials have said it is too early to arrive at definitive answers, though one person familiar with the investigation said initial concerns about potentially substandard welds have been relegated to a low priority.

If testing bears out early findings focusing on problematic fueling practices instead of hardware flaws, SpaceX likely will avoid a major redesign effort or extensive quality-control checks that could drag on for months.


From here
http://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-probe-into-blast-focuses-on-fueling-issues-1477042203


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 29, 2016)

On Friday, SpaceX said the investigation has been further narrowed to one of the pressurized helium containers, located in the second-stage oxygen tank. 

SpaceX says it has managed to recreate a system failure in testing and that it can happen entirely through helium-loading conditions.


'Previously, we announced the investigation was focusing on a breach in the cryogenic helium system of the second stage liquid oxygen tank. 

'The root cause of the breach has not yet been confirmed, but attention has continued to narrow to one of the three composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the LOX tank. 

'Through extensive testing in Texas, SpaceX has shown that it can re-create a COPV failure entirely through helium loading conditions. 

'These conditions are mainly affected by the temperature and pressure of the helium being loaded.'


SpaceX’s efforts are now focused on two areas – finding the exact root cause, and developing improved helium loading conditions that allow SpaceX to reliably load Falcon 9, the firm added.

'With the advanced state of the investigation, we also plan to resume stage testing in Texas in the coming days, while continuing to focus on completion of the investigation.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 6, 2016)

I think we can safely put the conspiracy theory to bed.







Speaking on _CNBC_, Musk said “it basically involves liquid helium, advanced carbon fiber composites, and solid oxygen. Oxygen so cold that it actually enters solid phase.”

The supercooled liquid oxygen that SpaceX uses as propellant actually became so cold that it turned into a solid. And that’s not supposed to happen.

This solid oxygen may have had a bad reaction with another piece of hardware — one of the vehicle’s liquid helium pressure vessels. Three of these vessels sit inside the upper oxygen tank that holds the supercooled liquid oxygen propellant. They’re responsible for filling and pressurizing the empty space that’s left when the propellant leaves the tank. The vessels are also over wrapped with a carbon fiber composite material. The solid oxygen that formed could have ignited with the carbon, causing the explosion that destroyed the rocket.

SpaceX isn’t giving too many more details about the process, and the company declined to give further clarification about what Musk said on _CNBC_. Plus, it’s unclear what caused the solid oxygen to form. There’s speculation from the _New York Times_ that if liquid helium was used in the pressure vessels, which Musk seems to have indicated, it might have been cold enough to freeze the liquid oxygen into a solid. Liquid helium exists at -452 degrees Fahrenheit, a lot colder than SpaceX’s liquid oxygen propellant at -340 degrees Fahrenheit. And oxygen solidifies at -361 degrees Fahrenheit.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 7, 2016)

SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk said his space launch company is aiming to return its rockets to flight in mid-December.

Musk did not specify what mission would launch next, nor whether SpaceX would fly from a new launch pad at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, or from its West Coast site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The company has a backlog of about 70 missions, worth more than $10 billion.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Nov 9, 2016)

Mussels said:


> anyone who watched the latest star trek movie has heard it, even if they did not recognise it (and personally i dont think it fit the scene well)


I remember watching that video on MTV. Long time ago. Great song and video!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 3, 2016)

Considering the loss of Progress resupply mission to ISS, we have  encouraging news.



SpaceX hopes to return its Falcon 9 rocket to flight on Dec. 16, said Iridium Communications Inc, which plans to have 10 of its satellites on board for launching.

The launch is contingent on approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees U.S. commercial space transportation, Iridium said on Thursday.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 7, 2016)

SpaceX has been forced to delay the return of its rockets to flight until January.

The company had hoped to launch a Falcon 9 rocket on Dec. 16 to put 10 satellites into orbit for Iridium Communications Inc., but did not receive a required license to fly from the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees U.S. commercial space transportation.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 3, 2017)

In a statement, SpaceX said it expected to launch a Falcon 9 rocket from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base on Jan. 8 to put 10 satellites into orbit for Iridium Communications Inc .

SpaceX had suspended flights after the same model rocket went up in a blaze on Sept. 1 as it was being fueled for a routine pre-launch test in Florida.

The company statement said that accident investigators concluded that a canister of helium inside the rocket's upper-stage oxygen tank had exploded.

In the short term, SpaceX plans to revamp its fueling procedures so that the super-cold liquid oxygen will not build up between the helium tank's liner and its outer covering, it added.

SpaceX said accumulation of oxygen in a void or buckle in the liner most likely led to the explosion.

'In the long term, SpaceX will implement design changes to the (helium canisters) to prevent buckles altogether,' the statement said.







The company did not say when new helium canisters would be ready to fly, but that using warmer temperature helium and a slower fueling operation will prevent them from bursting.

'Iridium is pleased with SpaceX's announcement on the results of the September 1 anomaly as identified by their accident investigation team, and their plans to target a return to flight,' company spokeswoman Diane Hockenberry said in a statement.

SpaceX has not said how much damage the Sept. 1 accident did to its primary Florida launch pad, nor when a new second pad in Florida, located at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, will be put into service.

Last month, it was revealed that British satellite company Inmarsat will switch to using Arianespace from rival SpaceX to launch a new satellite to provide broadband connectivity to air passengers.



The firm has a backlog of more than 70 missions for NASA and commercial customers, worth more than $10 billion.


----------



## JunkBear (Jan 3, 2017)

The ancient astronauts theorists say Yes!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 10, 2017)

Bad weather has postponed SpaceX's plan to resume flights of its Falcon 9 rocket until at least January 14, the California-based private space firm said.

SpaceX had planned a launch on Monday of 10 Iridium NEXT communications satellites from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

'Launch moving due to high winds and rains at Vandenberg. Other range conflicts this week results in next available launch date being January 14th


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 11, 2017)

SpaceX details its plans for landing three Falcon Heavy boosters at once. As part of the process to gain federal approval for the simultaneous landing of its Falcon Heavy rocket boosters in Florida, SpaceX has prepared an environmental assessment of the construction of two additional landing pads alongside its existing site. The report considers noise and other effects from landing up to three first stages at the same time.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2017...-landing-three-falcon-heavy-boosters-at-once/


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 14, 2017)

Live stream of todays launch which is less than an hour away


http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html

OR


----------

