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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"we cannot retrieve the item referred to in section #.#.#.# in the timeframe specified in section #.#.#.#, please follow previously agreed upon contingency plan #.#.#.#"?
SpaceX has tons of dealings with both, though. I highly doubt it's something SpaceX could just do on their own, but it seems completely reasonable that they would have the channels to the correct people to arrange it, especially given the dangers they'd outlined that it posed.
SpaceX probably did not request an air strike. This might be a case of weird rules for dealing with range safety. That is making sure the area around the rocket range is safe. As this was a military launch, the US Air Force Space Command was in charge of range safety[0]. Since the Air Force was responsible for range safety, they were also probably responsible for dealing with the navigation hazard the rocket presented.
The Eastern Range would certainly have processed the making safe of the un-safed booster. I am sure this scenario was in the Debris Risk Analysis or some other preflight documentation, required by the range.
I believe the 45th is responsible for range safety at the Eastern Range for all launches, regardless of mission or customer.
Elon was probably having a beer with some Air Force brass and they were like “hey you really want to pay for disposal of that thing? Or... I’m sure some of our boys would love to use that for target practice.”
Dude, if you asked the lowest airman "Hey, we have this awesome thing and we need you folks to blow it up. How do we do that?" that request would go up the full command chain at supersonic speed.
The military moves like lightning when it's 1) something they really want to do or 2) something egregiously stupid.
"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.”
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..."
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.
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?
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
They absolutely could've landed the booster. They chose not to because it was an old model (block 3, iirc) and they wanted data on a more-efficient landing technique.
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.
Take a look at all of the failed landings[1], even after they land on the barge they still go boom(or RUD if you prefer that term) when the structural integrity is lost.
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.
You’re right, but it’s still under incredible pressure. You’re talking about liquified cryogenic fuels, so the remainder has greatly expanded over time. Even a small amount of remaining fuel must be vented to render it safe. Volumetric expansion is a bitch!
They would have understood that it was a hazard from the get-go, but presumably believed that they could render it safe, destroy it themselves, or tow it back intact. It would seem that they realized how unfeasible civilian EOD would be, and that necessarily ruled out any option save destruction.
According to Musk, "This rocket was meant to test very high retrothrust landing in water so it didn’t hurt the droneship, but amazingly it has survived." I suspect they never really thought about what it would take to tow it back, and when they did realized they didn't really want to.
I don't think it's negative PR at all. Blowing stuff up is cool as long as nobody gets hurt. Also, people understand that bits and pieces of rockets need recovering or destroying. There's a lot of precedence for this.
Different launch. This wasn't the Falcon Heavy core, this was a previous rocket that was intended to crash (for testing purposes). There wasn't a barge out there to catch it (unlike the Heavy).
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?
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.
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.
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!
