spaceX

Told you so

Posted on October 4, 2016October 4, 2016

Remember that ~~static fire anomaly~~ SpaceX explosion? Of course you do.

Well now, suddenly, it turns out that sabotage might be the cause of the big bang. You’ll recall that we’d already hinted that there was more to the incident than met the eye, with our in-depth investigation into errant punctuation being a possible catalyst for the unfortunate and unplanned detonation of the rocket.

Thanks, Jerm.

But we were just joking.

This might be for real. Gosh. James Bond eat your heart out (not literally).

While reviewing footage of the unexplained explosion, unnamed industry officials report that SpaceX saw an “odd shadow and then a white spot” on the roof of a nearby building just before the blast – a building that’s owned by long-standing competitor United Launch Alliance (ULA).

Just to be absolutely clear here, and to hopefully absolve 6000 miles… from any threat of legal action from the United Lunch Alliance, who are particularly litigious between about 12 and 2pm, we’re not suggesting that they might be behind the cause of the explosion, we’re merely pointing out that someone else is suggesting that there may be a suggestion that they might be behind the cause of the explosion.

One of those stories that’s definitely worth watching…

Was This The Cause Of The SpaceX Explosion?

Posted on September 3, 2016

Remember just yesterday when I shared the video of the SpaceX Falcon vehicle exploding on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral?

I got a screenshot from that video, and I think I may have worked out exactly why the explosion took place:

Look – there, just below the explosion site:

Yes. A stray apostrophe.

I’ve been doing some rudimentary research and while I couldn’t actually find any instance in which a space vehicle had been destroyed by an errant semi-colon or exclamation mark, no investigation I found (Challenger, Discovery, Soyuz 11 et al.) implicitly stated that poor or incorrect use of punctuation wasn’t to blame, either.

Telling stuff, hey?

Elon Musk and Space X have always been very open about their successes and failures, inviting us to join in their programme, enjoy their triumphs and commiserate with them on their disappointments. This is, therefore, a watershed moment. Will they admit that appalling grammar caused this massive explosion or will we be fed some lies about a tube coming loose or a faulty valve or some such?

We’re watching, Elon. We’re watching.

Note: This realisation came to me on Cape Town’s elevated freeway today, above which was a dot matrix sign reading:

No if’s. No but’s.
Always buckle up.

I may have left out a hashtag somewhere – I was so shocked at the grammar, I almost crashed.

Static Fire Anomaly

Posted on September 2, 2016September 2, 2016

A “Static Fire Anomaly”. That’s what they called it. Technically, I have no doubt that they are absolutely 100% correct. Technically correct is generally what rocket scientists do best. But as a way of describing what happens in the video below, “Static Fire Anomaly” would come some way down my list of options.

No, there are “tr”uckload of better candidates ahead of it.

But then understatement seemed to be the order of the day, as this tweet from SpaceX boss, Elon Musk, indicates:

If they’re really unsure what caused the loss of the Falcon vehicle, might I be the one to suggest that it was the multiple massive explosions and the big fire?

I’m quite interested to discover what caused the multiple massive explosions and the big fire, though.

In the meantime – knowing that no-one was injured in this incident, and that Elon Musk has enough money not to be troubled too much by the loss of a rocket – I can’t stop watching this amazing video.