Implication of sabotage adds intrigue to SpaceX investigation

[Steven P. Administrators]

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 leased by 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.

 

The interaction between SpaceX and ULA has not been previously reported. It is the latest odd development in the mystery surrounding the explosion of SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket on Sept. 1. The rocket blew up while it was being fueled ahead of an engine test fire, creating a huge fireball that charred the launchpad and rattled buildings miles away.

 

Continued...

[flyingskippy]

This is all part of your standard fault tree analysis. You take all possibilities one by one,  eliminate them one by one, and whatever is left over is your most likely cause of the incident. This just happened to be one of the limbs of the fault tree. Reminds me of a Spock quote.

 

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” -  Spock in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, 1991

[ramesees]

17 minutes ago, flyingskippy said:

This is all part of your standard fault tree analysis. You take all possibilities one by one,  eliminate them one by one, and whatever is left over is your most likely cause of the incident. This just happened to be one of the limbs of the fault tree. Reminds me of a Spock quote.

 

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” -  Spock in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, 1991

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

 - Arthur Conan Doyle
 

[flyingskippy]

Thanks for the correction. Guess I prefer Star Trek over Sherlock Holmes.

[Unobscured Vision]

Yep, all of us Aerospace Enthusiasts who read about this particular branch of the "fault tree" aren't paying much attention to this one. It's just ... rude.  The implications if it were actually in the realm of possibility.

 

This one goes in the "whatever" pile. Sabotage of a competitor?? Nonsense ....  ... would never happen .... heh ... ahhh, good one .... what's that funny little red dot? 

 

[DocM]

This whole branch of the fault tree being public started with the dreadful, conspiracy laden Washington Post story last week. WaPo being a traditional "paper of record" everyone else climbed on board and it became clickbait across the internet.

 

Who owns the Washington Post? 

 

Jeff Bezos

 

When was it published?

 

A week before Blues big test.

 

2 + 2 = gamesmanship

Edited October 6, 2016 by DocM

[SALSN]

How retarded would you be to shoot down a competitors rocket from the top of your own roof, and even if you had done it, what are the chances you would have left evidence?!
I don't buy it either.

[flyingskippy]

Don't get me wrong,  I am not or ever will say that it was sabotage.  I just think that SpaceX saw a possibility and just collected info to eliminate any possibility of it happening.  

 

ULA now has a media source in their back pocket,  great.... 

[DocM]

Yup, ULA buying Blues BE-4 engine  for their Vulcan launcher is the nexus.

[Bryan R.]

8 hours ago, flyingskippy said:

This is all part of your standard fault tree analysis. You take all possibilities one by one,  eliminate them one by one, and whatever is left over is your most likely cause of the incident. This just happened to be one of the limbs of the fault tree. Reminds me of a Spock quote.

 

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” -  Spock in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, 1991

 

7 hours ago, ramesees said:

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

 - Arthur Conan Doyle
 

Data in Star Trek TNG also said it in his episode where he played out a holodeck simulation of a Sherlock Holmes mystery 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

I glanced at the topic titles this afternoon and thought that, tonight, I would be tracking down a spammer or the usual suspects missed the conspiracy section by a tad.

 

The usual members have known, since CRS-7 and likewise this occurrence, any of the other science/technology specific sites on line have a specific policy...No talk of the C word...warning or a ban could occur, primarily to allow due process and keep the C people out of a peer respected investigative approach.

 

Within 15 minutes of the Amos-6 incident, youtube was littered with the usual alien orbs, military drones, lone gunman, angry garden gnomes with slingshots...you know the drill. Shortly after that, the usual garbage blogs have created a series and eventually it gets to the MSN, who invariably have a sub par technical understanding of the events. The veteran members of the science section know the drill, and as usual acted in the professional manner that they always do.

 

The mainstream public, at times has it's flat earthers, moon landing hoaxers, ISS staged implications, aliens on the moon, battlestars near Jupiter...etc...etc... and no amount of logic will keep these conspiracies at bay.

 

So, on cue, no further comment from me until the actual hard evidence is analysed.