Talk:SpaceX CRS-7

Abort Error
I just heard a rumour that the 'counter-intuitive' cause of the explosion was a mistaken abort - perhaps someone over-cautiously pressed the red button because of the overpressure? Is there any source to verify this? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No flight termination system destruct signal was sent, per post-flight press conferences. Wwheaton (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Flight termination single *was* sent, but only 70 seconds after the rocket was destroyed. Any time a rocket blows up they eventually push the big red button "just in case". It's standard airforce operating procedure, and they wouldn't deviate from that. I suspect the reason for this is for things like the solid rocket boosters, where sometimes they'll keep going for a while after the rest of the rocket goes kerbal. So they push the button, and Kerplosion! of any remaining boosters or anything.


 * That said, that wasn't what destroyed the F9. Too early to say what the root cause was, but as far as anyone outside SpaceX can tell, the second stage sprung a leak and the Dragon went tumbling off the top. Don't know what the order of those events was. Dragon snapping loose might have been what wrecked the second stage. Can't say until SpaceX releases more data. The first stage survived all of this havoc and debris just fine (kind of surprisingly), and kept firing normally right up until the rocket initiated its auto-destruct sequence (independently of ground control) after recognizing a critical flight issue.


 * The Dragon apparently survived (even without a launch abort system installed on this model 0_0) for quite some time, and kept transmitting. It eventually just smacked into the ocean at 300 kilometers per hour because its parachutes are (prudently) not armed until it's time for reentry. Wouldn't want a bumpy ride to activate them mid-launch. &mdash; Gopher65talk 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What “airforce”? Your assertion that “they wouldn't deviate from (it)” is specious.  Perhaps you meant to say that it was a requirement imposed upon them?  08:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesEG (talk • contribs)


 * AIUI range safety for US launches of space rockets is handled by the USAF whoever owns the rocket. 151.227.216.195 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly, if the self-destruct mechanism was still 'live' after the spacecraft broke apart, you'd want to trigger it if possible in order to avoid danger to anyone subsequently retrieving up the debris. That's a pretty good reason for activating the flight termination system even after it's self-evident that the craft has already disintegrated. SteveBaker (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Timing of disintegration, from video
Based on timing of launch video from, lift-off first movement was @video 0:31, def T=0. Then first evidence of LOX leak @video 2:50, ie, T+2:19; first stage normal and stable on-course for another ~9-10 sec, until video @02:59, so blow up and disintegration at T+2:28 ff. NO FLIGHT TERMINATION SIGNAL SENT, per press conferences. By stepping through the video, timings appear accurate to ~1 sec. I suppose this may be considered WP:OR, so I have only put it into a comment, pending feedback from other users. Wwheaton (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dragon apparently survived somewhat after the incident, per the reports of telemetry from Dragon after the breakup... is there any more on that? Then we could add something more than a statement about telemetry from Dragon after breakup; and it was a breakup and not a range safety officer destroying the vehicle? (reports seem to be unclear about that; with various sources differeing) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

References inaccuracies
There's no mention of "Of Course I Still Love You" in the 19 reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes78 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you click open the photograph of the vessel, you'll see "Of course I still love you" painted in five foot high letters across the deck! Wikipedia doesn't require references for facts that are not likely to be disputed (like: "The Sky is Blue" or "2+2=4") - and I think this falls into that category. SteveBaker (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a source to the statement, a picture of the vessel doesn't prove that it was planned to be used in this case. Winner 42 Talk to me!  21:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpaceX CRS-1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SpaceX CRS-7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814205532/http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Documents/Configuration-Changes-post-CDR-public-revA.pdf to http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Documents/Configuration-Changes-post-CDR-public-revA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)