sh1pman Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: They will hop for 150 m, so the nose will be at 200. Then it's already flying at 50m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: They will hop for 150 m, so the nose will be at 200. 3 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Then it's already flying at 50m Did they have to bury the lower 30m during the 20m hop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Then it's already flying at 50m Unlikely the paper tells what to measure 150 m from. Probably they just allow a 150 m ascent. So, while the legs are legally at 150 m, the nose is as promised, at 200. They should also equip it with an expandable antenna on top, just to guarantee, Edited August 26, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Here's the permit. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/150 m hop Permit Order Mod_08_23_2019.pdf Prop load is 30 metric tons. It's AGL, so I would assume it is indeed measured from the lowest point on the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Unlikely the paper tells what to measure 150 m from. Probably they just allow a 150 m ascent. So, while the legs are legally at 150 m, the nose is as promised, at 200. They should also equip it with an expandable antenna on top, just to guarantee, Also, Starship is 55m high. Starhopper is 20m or so. So there you go, Musk lied again! Did I mention that he still has no proof that reusability works? Edited August 26, 2019 by sh1pman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 I think part of the rationale for the alt reduction is to keep it under 500 feet, which might change the regulatory environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 30 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Also, Starship is 55m high. Starhopper is 20m or so. So, my advice about the antenna is still actual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 2270 meters for the safety zone seems very specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: 2270 meters for the safety zone seems very specific. Probably it's 7450 ft. They are fond of steampunk units, those Americans. P.S. Probably, it's a normative from 1930s. Nobody wanted to be the renegade who rounds this from feet to meters, P.P.S. Probably originally it was 7500, but after some incident some bureaucrate made it 7450 to show significance of his job by implementing a 50 ft safety margin. Edited August 26, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 You'll note that the FAA document is entirely in real units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 OMG, Musk used "ft" in his post. Such regressive units! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 41 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: OMG, Musk used "ft" in his post. Such regressive units! He uses pounds of thrust, too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Just now, tater said: He uses pounds of thrust, too He's a witch! Burn him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 So here’s an actual question... how come there’s no ice buildup on Starhopper? There’s no internal tanks or insulation, as far as we know, right? So with the whole thing full of cryo shouldn’t it be covered in white ice like a F9? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimumSky5 Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Maybe because they've only just started to load, so the skin hasn't yet cooled down enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: So here’s an actual question... how come there’s no ice buildup on Starhopper? There’s no internal tanks or insulation, as far as we know, right? So with the whole thing full of cryo shouldn’t it be covered in white ice like a F9? I think its because of the stainless steel/tinfoil/whatever layer that is on the starhopper tank to make it look shiny(?). I think that in the previous hop that layer de-wrinkled which could mean that the ice was forming between that layer of shiny stuff and the actual tank. not too sure about it though. Edited August 26, 2019 by NSEP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Just over 6 minutes and counting Holding at T-2:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Poor Tim. His equipment loves to crap out just at the last minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Here we go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 lol hold AT 0.80 SECS abort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 Just now, Flavio hc16 said: lol hold AT 0.80 SECS It aborted at T+0.8, when the rocket was getting ready for ignition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted August 26, 2019 Share Posted August 26, 2019 GAH really? So close! I wonder what happened that made them abort just as it was about to take off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.