Technology

He did ask them to make the rocket pointy so it looks like the rocket in Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Dictator".

And they complied.

Detonate is actually more precise, implying an explosion that accelerates at or faster than the speed of sound, often causing a visible blast wave in air that is humid and dense enough as the pressure wave compresses the air and squeezes it into visible semi cloud like formations momentarily.

RUD is a general term that can cover any number of events which cause a craft to generally lose structural integrity in a small amount of time.

For example, a craft could hit max q either at a non optimal angle, or due to structural integrity flaws, more or less violently tear itself apart.

Or, a craft could enter the atmosphere at a non optimal angle, or at too extreme a velocity, and be ripped apart, again, violently and quickly. This is generally referred to as 'Burning Up'.

Or a craft could have a parachute or landing system related problem and impact the ground at such speeds it disassembles itself. Jokingly referred to as 'lithobraking'.

Or, a craft could have an accidental triggering of some kind of abort system that results in the craft tearing itself apart.

Or, at any point while airborne, a problem with either the integrity of a fuel tank or the fuel pumps and plumbing could cause a rupture, which could then cause the craft to crumple, deform, and then rip itself apart /without/ the loose fuel igniting, or perhaps /with/ the loose fuel igniting, which may merely conflagrate or detonate depending on other factors.

While many of these more specific chains of events have more specific terms to describe them... they are /all/ Rapid Unplanned Disassemblies.

All that that term means is for some reason your craft went from being more or less one piece to more or less a large number of pieces very quickly.

For example the Challenger disaster was a RUD. But not a detonation. Detonation is more specific and I used the term for a reason.

Well, the booster exploded below the Karman line (EDIT: Yep, 90km max alt. and detonation, Karman line is 100km), and the orbiter blew up or tore itself apart above the Karman line.

And no, the orbiter did not self destruct as part of some kind of intentional action or design by SpaceX.

It was seen on camera disintegrating before SpaceX even realized they had lost contact with it.

They probably did not engage a self destruct system on the orbiter while they were still claiming it was at a nominal trajectory when they hadnt even realized it had already disintegrated, taking multiple minutes to even realize they'd lost contact with it as pieces of it were already burning and tumbling in the upper atmosphere.

My prediction for 3 is that again at least part of the craft will blow up below the Karman line.

The full static test fires they recently did damaged the craft because the test stand wasn't designed for that the amount of force, nor for the duration they're currently testing with it, and because for some baffling reason they are not using a flame trench or proper diversion channels.

My guess is that, combined with the defects and flaws seen from the first two launches, these full power static fire tests will have damaged the craft more than they are able to repair properly in time to follow Musk's recklessly fast launch timetable, and the whole thing will blow up or have significant trajectory problems from multiple non catastrophic engine failures before the hot staging, and/or when the booster tries to do the belly flop maneuver, the fuel tank(s) or lines will rupture as happened last time, and if the abort system engages properly it'll then basically fall to the ground, or if it doesn't, it'll detonate spectacularly in midair again.