News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX returns to flight with Falcon 9 rocket launch by nrjdhsbsid on Saturday January 14, 2017 @04:14PM (#13400587)
There's a lot of speculation around the design and a third lightly reported COPV explosion that happened unexpectedly during testing.

The strut failure is what SpaceX reported but it could have also been a COPV explosion.

Two confirmed COPV explosions and a third possible explosion. SpaceX itself mentioned that an improved design will be done in the future because they had to modify their fueling schedule to increase the safety margin in the things.

Re:SpaceX returns to flight with Falcon 9 rocket launch by mikeash on Saturday January 14, 2017 @06:57PM (#13401395)
"The strut failure is what SpaceX reported but it could have also been a COPV explosion."

It also could have been a sandwich left in the LOX tank, or malware planted by Nigerian scammers. If you don't accept the information provided by the relevant parties then the possibilities are basically unlimited. That's not to say that you must accept what they say, but if you don't then why would you focus on this particular possibility out of millions?

Re:SpaceX returns to flight with Falcon 9 rocket launch by nickik on Sunday January 15, 2017 @02:22AM (#13402815)
Damn. That's where I left my Sandwich. Do you think it might have survived the explosion?
Re:SpaceX returns to flight with Falcon 9 rocket launch by mikeash on Sunday January 15, 2017 @09:11AM (#13404030)
There's always a chance. You should get in touch with SpaceX and see.
Re:SpaceX returns to flight with Falcon 9 rocket launch by nickik on Sunday January 15, 2017 @06:04PM (#13406954)
I did. The it was intact after the explosion, but the sniper shot it in flight.
Re:SpaceX returns to flight with Falcon 9 rocket launch by mikeash on Monday January 16, 2017 @11:35AM (#13410952)
Sounds like a coverup to me. I bet Elon ate your sandwich.
Re:SpaceX returns to flight with Falcon 9 rocket launch by JshWright on Saturday January 14, 2017 @05:36PM (#13400990)
'Unexpected' failures during testing is why testing is done...

The strut failure is consistent with the data, and the accepted conclusion of the report.

They are modifying their procedure because their prop loading procedure was _very_ aggressive (pumping liquid helium into the COPV and allowing it vaporize, absorbing more heat from the environment, resulting in the formation of solid oxygen). They exceeded the tolerances of the COPV, and paid for it. In the future their designs will account for the lower temperatures. Until then, switching to the more conservative prop loading method addresses the issue.