
Implication of sabotage adds intrigue to SpaceX investigation - zonotope
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html
======
knowaveragejoe
Interesting comments about this on reddit, namely:

> If SpaceX had ANY and I mean ANY suspicion of foul play they would have
> called the FBI. The company is not stupid enough to potentially contaminate
> criminal evidence by running their own investigation along that line. So IF
> SpaceX was thinking along those lines. It would be the FBI requesting access
> to the roof. As such I think foul play can be safely removed from the list
> of possibilities. This is likely just the case of an employee not thinking
> though the potential PR headache the request would cause.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/55at14/spacex_asked...](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/55at14/spacex_asked_to_look_at_ula_roof_which_has_field/)

~~~
Iv
If you suspect criminal foulplay, you call the FBI. If you suspect blackops by
a foreign government, you call the CIA. And they may keep quiet about it.

I like how Stratfor's leaked glossary presented the FBI:

"Federal Bureau of Investigation, aka the Downtown Gang. Very good a breaking
up used car rings. Kind of confused on anything more complicated. Fun to jerk
with. Not fun when they jerk back."

~~~
maxerickson
It used to be that the CIA had no authority to run operations inside the US.
Has that changed?

Do they routinely ignore their lack of authority at the request of private
entities?

~~~
andyidsinga
I just watch Sicario last night - pretty good movie actually - a central
element to the story is how they operate in US borders.

~~~
maxerickson
Is it based on official documents obtained from the CIA? Or is it a made up
story?

~~~
sprafa
made up but plausible. A large part of the plot is how they need to work with
local agents so they are not "technically" CIA. They are working in some way
as consultants in a very dangerous operation.

------
aresant
Two fascinating theories from the comment section @ Wapo ->

"A large stationary target like a rocket is a simple shot for a sniper with a
50 cal rifle from a mile away. . . It was something discussed 30+ years ago:
to have Special Forces snipers punch holes in the missiles on mobile launchers
that would not be discovered until preparing for launch. Instead of destroying
the system the enemy would have wasted time and effort moving to a launch
location only to find out that they were incapable of launching."

and

"What the article doesn't mention is that ULA buys its engines from Russia and
is a vital part of the Russian rocket program. As a part of ULA's activities,
there are Russian engineers with military training in the country legally
right now. "

~~~
topspin
Something like a .50 BMG round has a large report and the flight time is just
under 2 seconds at a mile, so anything recording audio in the neighborhood
would pick up the distinct crack of a rifle prior to the pad explosion. Some
of the noise can be suppressed with a big enough suppression device but the
sonic boom is unavoidable. Subsonic ammo is simply not workable at these
ranges; that's called 'artillery' and it doesn't have sufficient precision to
ensure hitting the rocket.

You can listen to the explosion here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6isMuPfxcI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6isMuPfxcI)

I hear birds chirping. No rifles.

update: yes, I know Elon mentioned the 'quieter bang' sound and it could well
be related, but it doesn't sound anything like the crack of a rifle round.

~~~
ryanmarsh
I don't know anything about fluid dynamics but I know something about shooting
and being shot at. I agree with your comment. I would only add that rifle fire
sound can be somewhat directional and depending on the temp, density,
humidity, height above ground, and reflectivity of the ground much of the
impulse can be dissipated or distorted.

Surely sensors would have picked up the impact a .50 makes. Although I don't
know why one would need a .50. It's a heavy round with lots of drop and it's
not like the rocket is armored. From what I've read of the relative fragility
of rockets you could get by with a very small round in just the right spot.

~~~
Someone
But you will need accuracy to hit "just the right spot", and to get accuracy
at long distance, you need a heavier bullet
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifle#Maximum_effecti...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifle#Maximum_effective_range):
_" The recent trend in specialized military sniper rifles is towards larger
calibers that offer relatively favorable hit probabilities at greater
range"_), don't you?

~~~
ryanmarsh
True, but "heavier bullet" does not always mean "larger caliber". Also there's
no telling at what distance a sniper team would have to be. Maybe they could
be inside of 1km?

Also "just the right spot" could be huge on a rocket. The thing is as wide as
a barn.

------
laurencei
"SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then
a white spot on the roof of a nearby building belonging to ULA"

"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"

So they are simply exploring what the white spot/shadow could be? I dont think
that necessarily leads them to think it was "sabotage" \- just a possible clue
in their investigation...

~~~
api
I smell media sensationalism and click bait.

I'm sure the possibility of sabotage or terrorism is being looked at as part
of a larger failure tree, but I see no evidence it's a leading contender.

~~~
Jabbles
Maybe Bezos (owner of WaPo and Blue Origins) is trying to stir it up? /tinfoil

------
sehugg
If you want more intrigue, the Swiss Space Systems CEO was kidnapped and
severely burned just a few days before the SpaceX incident. Not necessarily a
correlation, but points out that you can make enemies in any occupation.

[https://www.thelocal.ch/20160905/swiss-space-firm-boss-
left-...](https://www.thelocal.ch/20160905/swiss-space-firm-boss-left-badly-
injured-in-violent-attack)

~~~
paul
" A leader in space technology, S3 aims to make space more accessible by
creating low-cost, reusable satellite launchers, a development not welcomed by
all in the industry.

Last year the company’s base in Payerne was broken into and equipment damaged,
said the Tribune."

Scary! Is there any more info on these attacks?

~~~
bfe
Looking for more, Paul. This from a Swiss news site says he had previously
reported threats to the police, S3's data center was broken into and flooded
with a fire hose, and that he remained in the hospital in serious condition
with burns on his torso, arm, neck, and face, and would likely need
transplants:

[http://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/patron-s3-sauvagement-
ag...](http://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/patron-s3-sauvagement-
agresse/story/13258075)

This one speculates on a connection with the SpaceX explosion, but has no new
info:

[http://www.bilan.ch/techno-plus-de-redaction/pascal-
jaussi-u...](http://www.bilan.ch/techno-plus-de-redaction/pascal-jaussi-un-
entrepreneur-derange-secteur-aerospatial)

Swiss Space's web page's last press release is from 2014. There are threads on
reddit and nasaspaceflight also just with speculation and no new info:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/518zy3/pascal_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/518zy3/pascal_jaussi_the_startup_s3s_ceo_savagely/)

[https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31278.140](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31278.140)

~~~
eps
So their plans for 2016 is to "open a spaceport" and for 2017 - "assemble a
shuttle". Sounds like either a money laundering setup or a massively overhyped
startup. Combine with the fact that they have Russian version of the site and
it might be safe to assume that the guy had a run-in with unhappy "investors".

PS. The 24heures news article says that his car was stopped when he was
driving through the forest, severly beaten, douzed in gasoline and set on
fire. Now _that_ is pretty damn close to how they settled fiscal disputes back
in post-Perestroika times. I'm pretty damn sure he just took money from wrong
people and didn't deliver what he promised.

------
Symmetry
This seems to be something that happened a while ago, before they traced it to
the upper stage helium tank.

[https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/23/falcon-9-rocket-
explos...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/23/falcon-9-rocket-explosion-
traced-to-upper-stage-helium-system/)

So yes it's something they considered but there wasn't any actual sabotage -
it was just a tangent in the investigation.

~~~
brudgers
From the linked article:

 _The inquiry, led by SpaceX with assistance from government and industry
experts, is still looking into the cause of the breach, which may be only a
symptom and not the root of the Sept. 1 mishap._

That doesn't mean that the root cause is sabotage nor does it mean it isn't.
It just means that root cause analysis has not been completed.

~~~
Symmetry
The root cause isn't known but the fact that they can trace it to a failure of
the helium containment system nearly rules out sabotage as a contributing
factor.

~~~
MertsA
Why do you suggest that rules out sabotage? What better way to cause a rocket
to explode than to rupture a high pressure tank inside the oxidizer tank right
after it was fueled.

------
HillRat
I think it's safe to say that Lockheed and Boeing didn't conspire to blow up a
rocket on federal property -- but damn if the idea of Russia infiltrating
spetznaz into the US defense industry for sabotage aimed at ensuring their
control over the Western world's launch systems isn't a seductive piece of
fiction.

~~~
api
No conspiracy is needed.

The whole thing is very unlikely, but if true I'd say the most probable actor
would be a lone disgruntled employee or other nutbar with a gun. It would fall
in alongside the epidemic of lone nut shootings over the past year only the
victim this time was a rocket.

I'd guess the requisite kind of gun and ammo could easily be obtained from
among all the military surplus and other serious kit available on the gun show
circuit.

~~~
XorNot
This is an oddly victimless crime though. If you know enough to do it, then
you know the pad is clear.

It's almost exactly the type of stupid Putin might go in for if it felt
deniable.

Conversely there have been telescope lenses that needed to be bullet proofed
in transit to stop idiots shooting at them too.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
I know you mean that 'nobody died', which is great, but the loss of a 200
million dollar satellite, a 50 million dollar launch vehicle (both
representing tens of thousands of person-hours of work), and several further
person-hours of time wastage investigating this incident, and months of delays
in future launches... all this could hardly be called 'victimless'.

------
FLUX-YOU
>“Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds
before the fireball goes off,” he wrote on Twitter. “May come from rocket or
something else.”

They should be able to sync the audio/video and figure out where the quieter
bang came from. I can't imagine there was only one camera on the pad. Even
easier if they actually sync the video timestamps with a common time signal.

~~~
hueving
>I can't imagine there was only one camera on the pad.

It's not like this was the launch. It was very possible that most cameras were
not recording.

~~~
phpnode
It's a full dress rehearsal, the only difference between static fire and a
real launch is that they do not release the hold-down clamps and shut down the
engines instead. The cameras would have been rolling.

------
gist
Entirely possible that this is a leaked PR spin being used to try and cast a
more favorable light on the accident by placing blame on an uncontrollable
third party and not SpaceX.

~~~
R_haterade
My priors have this as the most likely scenario.

------
smoyer
If I was any SpaceX competitor other than ULA I would definitely shoot from
the ULA facilities. But I also don't think a trained sniper would be so
obvious.

------
taf2
This is good context
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0)
for the tension between ULA and SpaceX - it's also nice before an election to
checkout the hearings on CSPAn to get a better understanding of the type of
people being elected...

------
tschiller
For those of you wanting to analyze the current evidence yourself, we've got
an analysis board up at: [https://www.opensynthesis.org/boards/6/what-caused-
the-space...](https://www.opensynthesis.org/boards/6/what-caused-the-spacex-
falcon-9-explosion/). Sabotage by a non-employee is currently the most
consistent explanation

Open Synthesis is currently invite-only while we figure out moderation. Send
me an email or apply via the form on the homepage.

There's also an instance you can add/edit information to without an invite or
providing your email: [https://open-synthesis-
sandbox.herokuapp.com/boards/6/what-c...](https://open-synthesis-
sandbox.herokuapp.com/boards/6/what-caused-the-spacex-falcon-9-explosion/)

~~~
SubiculumCode
nice! That is really useful for me to put together the basic facts as now
known without sensationalism.

------
jgrowl
If you're going to go conspiratorial, I'd say that the payload may be the key
here.

------
drudru11
A lot of comments here seem to be fixated on a sniper firing a bullet. What
about a laser?

~~~
aidenn0
If they had IR cameras, then an IR laser would show up, and everyone would
have seen the reflection from a visible light laser strong enough to damage
metal at range.

------
danblick
Newspaper promotes improbable scenario to boost readership

------
pmcollins
If this is the result of sabotage, it puts SpaceX's previous launch failure in
a different context: any entity willing and able to take a shot at and destroy
a rocket from within the confines of Cape Canaveral might also have been able
compromise a strut provided by an outside entity.

I find SpaceX's predicament to be deeply troubling, maybe because if this is
sabotage, it casts a pall on the humanity's ability to make progress.

~~~
sunstone
As I recall, the company that made struts was not testing them properly and
there was more than a few that did not meet the design spec. Tesla went to a
different strut supplier after that.

------
happyslobro
Sabotage seems totally plausible, considering that one company is making
surprising progress towards us becoming a space faring species. Aliens also
seems totally plausible, for the same reason.

If we're going to go nuts over pure speculation, I would prefer that we focus
on aliens. They are much more entertaining.

~~~
davidw
< comic book guy voice > It is clear that you are a shill for the time
travellers who are obviously the ones who are really behind this. < /comic
book guy voice >

~~~
R_haterade
Worst. Shill. Ever.

~~~
hyperbovine
Do not be dissuaded by the downvotes -- as usual around here, they signify
that your comment was genuinely funny.

~~~
jerf
In the 20th century, humorologists thought that the knew the worst kind of
humor, humor so bereft of actual humor that it almost wasn't humor. They
thought it was the "pun".

The 21st century has proved them wrong. There is in fact a lower form of "for
lack of a better category, I guess we'll reluctantly file that under humor".
It is the "reference".

Mere references, lacking any other point of interest, do not do well around
here. I am comfortable with this.

~~~
noonespecial
The reference, once achieving a certain obscurity, elevates itself to the
"inside joke" and is often used as a form of social signaling to promote in-
grouping and comradery.

~~~
happyslobro
xkcd.com/794

------
hbt
ULA has a 100% success rate. [http://www.space.com/30738-united-launch-
alliance-100th-rock...](http://www.space.com/30738-united-launch-
alliance-100th-rocket-launch.html)

Why does spacex have occasional failures? Do they run their experiments with
customers cargos?

Note: I know nothing of the space industry.

~~~
samcat116
1\. Both of the rockets ULA currently uses(Delta IV and Atlas V) are much,
much older than the rocket that SpaceX is launching. These rockets are on
their 4th and 5th iterations, so they've had time to work out basically
everything and aren't really pushing the limits of what they can do. Early on,
these rockets did not have a 100% success rate. 2\. I wouldn't call these
experiments. In the past, all experiments(such as the landing attempts) were
conducted after the customer payload was delivered so it posed no threat to
them. Recently, they started performing static fires with the payload already
integrated to save a couple days between the static fire and the launch. I
suspect that they will stop after this anomaly.

------
kevin_thibedeau
I guess SpaceX will be installing ShotSpotter at all of their critical
infrastructure now.

~~~
R_haterade
I wonder how well that would work given the background noise from rocket
exhaust.

------
r3pl4y
Spacewars, chapter one

------
jjallen
Would really like to hear the sound he refers too. Also to see it graphed on a
decibel chart. Anyone know if it's posted somewhere? Will go and look and
EDIT, but I doubt I'll find it.

EDIT: here I googled that for myself:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maRTEzlSBLk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maRTEzlSBLk)

~~~
obituary_latte
Here is a video with some audio analysis

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhF3QNC8o8&feature=youtu.be](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JHhF3QNC8o8&feature=youtu.be)

------
zwieback
Or maybe it was a bug in the computer simulation that runs us all?

~~~
Filligree
Look, no. That code is _totally solid_ , trust us a little will you?

~~~
rbanffy
We also run on checkpoints. If a bug happens, we roll the simulation back to
the last checkpoint and you never experience the bug and can enjoy a perfect
universe.

You're welcome.

------
kilroy123
I heard... the Israeli's might not be happy about an Israeli company going to
the US for launching their satellites.

Personally, I'm highly skeptical that this was anything but a mechanical
problem with a new rocket.

~~~
simonh
Where else is a Israeli company going to go to do their launches? It's not
like Irael and Russia are bestest buddies, and Israel has a lot of political
and financial support from the US. That makes no sense whatsoever.

~~~
grkvlt
Well, they could launch in Israel? At least for small (500-800kg) payloads
there's the Shavit [1] civilian version of their Jericho ICBM.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavit)

~~~
simonh
For some uses maybe, but they only launch one every three years or so, in
retrograde low earth orbit only and they're reserved for military and
government projects. And as you say, cant lift this payload anyway.

------
lucb1e
The article clearly paints SpaceX as the newcomer and underdog who is trying
to compete with the big monopolists. I wonder if there is another side to the
story, though. Is anyone involved in the industry who can tell more, or point
to good sources?

~~~
andreasley
SpaceX IS the newcomer and underdog, but one that's advancing very quickly.
The big monopolist in this case is ULA, the "United Launch Alliance", which
was created in 2006 as a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Space Systems and
Boeing Defense, Space & Security.

For years, ULA was only option for US government launch contracts. They had
more than 100 launches – all of them successful except one single minor
anomaly [1].

SpaceX tried and succeeded [2] to get into the lucrative government contract
business, arguing that their launches are five times cheaper (90M vs 460M
USD).

Before that, an interesting meeting of the U.S. Committee on Armed Services
took place [3], discussing ULA's dependency on russian-made RD-180 rocket
engines for their Atlas V launch system.

[1] [http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/ula-traces-atlas-v-
ano...](http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/ula-traces-atlas-v-anomaly-to-
malfunctioning-valve)

[2] [https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/27/spacex-cleared-to-
laun...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/27/spacex-cleared-to-launch-u-s-
national-security-satellites/)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ff_5jF_3QU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ff_5jF_3QU)

~~~
lucb1e
> SpaceX IS the newcomer and underdog

Woah, sorry. I never said they weren't.

> which was created in 2006

That sounds rather new to me, considering that space tech has been around
since what, the 60s? If someone told me SpaceX was originally started in 2006
I'd be only slightly surprised, but I'd figure it just took years to attract
expertise and set the whole thing up before we start hearing about it.

All I'm asking is for the other side of the story. ULA is being painted as
evil here and no matter how true every word from SpaceX's side is, I would
always like to read ULA's comments on the matter.

~~~
Sphax
ULA may be new but Boeing and Lockheed Martin are not.

------
vamur
It's called rocket science for a reason. Looking into sabotage usually
indicates that they have no clue what happenned and are looking into saving
face.

Hopefully, Emdrive or a similar technology works out - otherwise, spacefaring
is going to be a risky and overly complicated endeavour for a long time.

------
supergirl
I will just say it without any proof. I think spacex is not competent enough
to solve this. Rocket science is still hard. That is the impression I got when
they said they do not know the cause yet. Rocket exploding on the launch pad
is pretty big fuck up in my mind, but I am not a rocket scientist. They will
learn from this but this is a reality check. Without major breakthroughs they
are no better than russians launching soviet era rockets.

------
sakabaro
I think it's worth noting that we live a post-Snowden world where the worst
conspiracy theories about mass surveillance were indeed true. I wouldn't be
surprised if our own government did this to the advantage of the ULA.

