
Air Force Strike Takes Out SpaceX's Floating GovSat Booster - mikeash
http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/
======
theBobBob
How does one go about requesting an airstrike from the USAF? Is there a form
that you need to fill out? Asking for a friend. Seriously though, it would be
interesting to know how that conversation went.

~~~
drewpc
There actually is a form. It's called a Joint Tactical Airstrike Request
(JTAR). That request is put through the appropriate approval process and then
added to the Air Tasking Order (ATO) cycle that allocates aircraft and
munitions to conduct the strike. After the aircraft and munitions have been
allocated, then the detailed planning occurs to ensure the aircraft are in the
appropriate location to conduct the strike at the time requested.

An example of the form is shown in the below link, which is an excerpt from
Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-23 "Offensive Air Support":
[https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/...](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcwp/3-23/appc.pdf)

~~~
jonwachob91
>>> All U.S. Armed Forces use the JTAR Request Form (DD Form 1972) to request
CAS

SpaceX isn't a branch of the US Armed Forces, and neither is NASA...

~~~
ChuckMcM
But both the Coast Guard and the Navy are, and either may have been the
'sponsor' of removing something, with the owner's permission, that was a
hazard to navigation or sea operations.

And rather than SpaceX asking, I wonder if the conversation was more, "Are you
going to go get that or not? Because if not we're going to sink it." And when
the drone recovery vessel returned to port with engine troubles (cited in the
article) SpaceX would have reported "Our equipment is down so we're not going
to get it right away." And the decision may have been taken out of their
hands.

~~~
drawnwren
All correct, although one other angle might have been the protection of US
space technology. Even though SpaceX is private, I believe their technology is
not exportable.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I did not even think about the ITAR issue, but yeah it isn't like there aren't
people out there that would love to pick up a booster with 9 re-usable engines
in it.

I've always been amused at the bureaucracy getting ITAR licenses to "export"
rockets into orbit. But that was when their destruction was assured when they
returned.

~~~
tbabb
> people out there that would love to pick up a booster with 9 re-usable
> engines in it.

Makes me think of the early Keyhole spy satellite program, which returned
exposed film to Earth in a capsule. The capsule was to be caught mid-air, and
if the catch failed, the capsule would float for five minutes and then sink,
with the intent of destroying the sensitive data.

It was discovered that Russian subs were circling under the drop zone.

------
ISL
One of those days when it must be darn fun to be a combat aircraft pilot,
ground crew, and wing commander.

Flying, check. Expending ordnance, check. Highly explosive target, check. Not
killing anyone, check.

~~~
aidenn0
Nobody shooting back at you, check.

------
petecooper
Link not working for me, archive.org mirror:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20180208154713/http://www.america...](http://web.archive.org/web/20180208154713/http://www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-
force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-booster/)

------
consumer451
This has been denied by SpaceX

"SpaceX says no, the Air Force did not destroy one of its rockets in the
Atlantic Ocean"

“While the Falcon 9 first stage for the GovSat-1 mission was expendable, it
initially survived splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean. However, the stage broke
apart before we could complete an unplanned recovery effort for this mission.
Reports that the Air Force was involved in SpaceX's recovery efforts are
categorically false,” wrote SpaceX communications director John Taylor in an
email.

The statement does not specify how the rocket broke apart or whether it was
intentional. But AmericaSpace, citing anonymous sources, now claims, “the Air
Force was, instead, initially considered to take care of the job, but a
commercial company of demolition specialists was eventually hired to safely
destroy the hazardous booster.”

[http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/technology/article199527...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/technology/article199527789.html)

------
dfischer
Interesting decision. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the decision
happened. "We should probably ask the Air-force to destroy this. It may blow
up on itself..."

~~~
jonwachob91
Explosives are routinely destroyed in controlled explosions, controlled
detonations allow for us to choose when and where the ordnance detonates,
minimizing collateral damage. Towing it is too dangerous when you don't know
when it will detonate (imagine it detonating in port, even at sea it could
kill the ship crew), and allowing it to just sit at sea leaves it at risk for
detonating in the vicinity of an unsuspecting vessel.

------
ChuckMcM
It is a good example of how hard these landings can be, they didn't have the
barge out for GovSat because they didn't think they could land it, and they
did for Falcon Heavy because they thought they could. I'm not sure what the
take away should be from an operations standpoint, always leave equipment on
site?

The other question is that given the number of these that have landed or
nearly landed they have _always_ come down within a few 100 yards of their
intended landing point. When does range safety open up the rules about
stationing personnel on ships down range?

~~~
Hextinium
I don't know about the restrictions in specifics but I would say that even if
they come down in the same area the restrictions are not for protection of
people from the rocket but the rocket from people. Aircraft have been taken
down by small arms fire and a boat can cover distance rather quickly

------
vermontdevil
I would think the port authority would have told SpaceX not to tow it back to
the port for safety reasons.

So where else could SpaceX take it to if a tow was successful.

This would be logical to do if it's true.

------
protomyth
So, SpaceX figured that the booster was actually a hazard and asked the Air
Force to fix the problem. The Air Force is referring all questions to SpaceX
and we really don't know what happened since there is no video or photographs
of the strike.

~~~
Kelbit
More likely it was a floating ITAR export risk than a major threat to marine
safety.

~~~
IntronExon
Large pressure vessels are essentially bombs; in this case a very large bomb.

~~~
michaelt
Hasn't most of the energy been spent at that point? I was under the impression
space launches were miserly with fuel for weight reasons?

~~~
Kubuxu
Fuel in SpaceX rockets (and other working gases) are cryo-cooled, after tanks
warm up, even small amount of liquid gas stored in a tank evaporates into a
lot of gas which can create very high pressure.

~~~
akira2501
Cryogenic oxygen has something like a 700:1 expansion ratio when it is warmed
into a gas.

------
synctext
broken link. This works for me:
[https://t.co/zY26IgXKMA](https://t.co/zY26IgXKMA)

~~~
xPhobophobia
Broken too :(

------
sailfast
It would make a lot of sense to turn over the booster as a potential live
targeting run, but I'd think naval aviation assets would be better suited, and
it would be better training.

Most any reserve unit out of Jacksonville or Pensacola could handle it no
sweat, I'd think.

Free target drone, good will with a primary customer, and a risk avoided?
What's not to like?

~~~
toomanybeersies
My wild guess is that SpaceX has a lot more contact with the USAF (launching
from Vandenberg AFB etc), so it would've been faster and easier to just the
USAF.

~~~
dtparr
Not just Vandy, the Eastern Range is run by the AF's 45th Space Wing, and
SLC-40 is on Cape Canveral Air Force Station, an AFB.

------
cyberferret
I wonder if the Air Force will invoice Mr. Musk for fuel & munitions expended?
(vis a vie [0]) Or does this come out of their training budget?

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16293421](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16293421)

------
pasbesoin
One of my first thoughts about this was, to prevent recovery by another
entity. I imagine it would make for interesting and informative study.

------
bob_theslob646
Website is down.

------
ceejayoz
If they did, I _really_ hope there's video.

------
pensivemood
Who paid for this? Just wondering...

~~~
jfoutz
I would guess taxpayers. But keep in mind the military has a huge budget for
training exercises. I would guess they just cancel one of those and go blow
this up instead.

I doubt it's costing us anything 'extra'. Also I'm not super enthusiastic
about corporations being able to purchase airstrikes, or really any kind of
military operation.

If someone's complaint is the military budget is too big, i'd agree. But this
specific thing seems like it's in everyone's best interest, and a good use for
resources we'd spend anyway.

~~~
drivingmenuts
I dunno. The military could really clean up if they created Airstrikes As A
Service.

Select reason:

[X] Loose equipment [ ] Tuesday [ ] There's oil there [ ] Won't sell resources

[Click here to Accomplish Mission][Cancel]

~~~
knieveltech
I kinda feel like this is already a thing.

------
gaius
Link is just a blank page?

~~~
Ajedi32
Here's Google's cache:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g0mFwV...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g0mFwVo3H-wJ:www.americaspace.com/2018/02/08/air-
force-strike-takes-out-spacexs-floating-govsat-
booster/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

------
AdmiralAsshat
That's quite the antiquated error page:

[https://imgur.com/a/au5hT](https://imgur.com/a/au5hT)

Feel like I haven't seen one of those since IE6 days.

~~~
swozey
Good ole IIS6 I'm guessing

------
simonh
SpaceX rockets are switched to autonomous control before take off right? They
launch and fly themselves, including landing. Are we sure we want to initiate
hostilities against beings with the potential to rain death on our cities? I
for one welcome our new Falcon 9 overlords!

