Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Well - one certain way to kill innovation is to regulate it to death. 

They have to evacuate people and stuff, I don't think you can do them on a whim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Elthy said:

That looks a bit to close for my taste. One launched stone from a static fire could puncture the other one, even when everything goes to plan.

There probably won't be any static fires with both at the pad - hopefully SN9 will be flying next week.

Besides, they're pretty vigilant with removing debris from the pad. As long as the martyte covering under the launch stand doesn't break (and they learned that lesson with SN8), the only thing that will get thrown up will be dust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, YNM said:

I do have to ask, previously most destructive (or potentially destructive) mid-air testing has to be carried out in certain restricted areas. Perhaps this wasn't in the list that the FAA can actually license ? Or maybe their requested bound limits were actually not large enough for that ? Like apart from the military-industrial complex mid-air destructive testing hasn't really been a thing, and Boca Chica is only mere tens of miles away from neighboring countries. FAA might've had a call to their offices from the authorities next door ?

Potential destructing as in using the self destruct system? Who most orbital rockets have. Add that all other rockets outside falcon 9 and new Glen will crash downrange who will give an explosion because of leftover fuel and oxygen but sure kinetic energy is higher. 
Now landing they hold much less fuel and should be treated more like experimental airplanes as they are under control and if they crash you should have an pretty good knowledge on there they might crash. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A standard call on F9 stage 1 landings is "FTS safed," so the FTS is not on for landing anyway.

A RUD on the way down (even if caused by FTS) seems unhelpful, as it just means 200 tons of shrapnel falling over a wide area, vs a small one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Potential destructing as in using the self destruct system? Who most orbital rockets have.

Does the SNs have self-destruct ?

Also, does launches from CCSFS result in temporary evacuation for Cape Canaveral ? Maybe from LC-46 (Minotaur) in the past, or LZ-1 or LZ-2 when used for landing ?

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Starship prototypes do have a flight termination system, yes.

Good then.

But yeah I'll say that the condition in Boca Chica is slightly different than in Vandenberg or Cape since it's pretty close to the US-Mexico border (a mere 3 mi / 5 km from the last border on the river mouth, not sure where the territorial water goes from there and territorial waters extend out to 12 nmi from MLW). There's a chance that the neighboring authority might want to make a call or something.

4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Besides, they're pretty vigilant with removing debris from the pad. As long as the martyte covering under the launch stand doesn't break (and they learned that lesson with SN8), the only thing that will get thrown up will be dust. 

I notice that one of the stands seems to be higher than the other, due to the ground level being different but the stand itself being the same ?

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

A standard call on F9 stage 1 landings is "FTS safed," so the FTS is not on for landing anyway.

A RUD on the way down (even if caused by FTS) seems unhelpful, as it just means 200 tons of shrapnel falling over a wide area, vs a small one.

 

This makes sense, adding more fuel only cost an longer tank and more fuel. 
However Musk forget to mention that an higher TWR let you get second stage up to speed faster so your boost back can happen faster and less downrange so it cost less fuel.
But yes twitter and long explanations don't mix well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, tater said:

That verge article is garbage (probably because the verge is garbage). Literally the only reason to read it would be to read how SpaceX violated their launch license. Which of course is not in the clickbait article.

 

 

 

Es7NFSLU4AAnPQ6?format=jpg

Reuters have now picked up on it, and a few others, but they're both still quoting TheVerge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...