kerbiloid Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: One thing that is perhaps relevant here is that climbers are generally very much in control of their risk I see. Up to 25% deaths per success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 17 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Mountain climbing and space travel actually have very few similarities, as far as I can tell. (I have climbed mountains. I have not travelled in space.) Ditto, albeit mine have not been terribly technical, only a few roped highly exposed sections on mountains that were otherwise scrambles (or top roping in a few locations around the state). 17 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: One thing that is perhaps relevant here is that climbers are generally very much in control of their risk. This is unlike being a passenger in a plane, and more like being the pilot of the plane. Yeah, though climbing deaths are probably heavily weighted to "climber error," there are more random ways to die climbing, which is maybe more like equipment failure deaths in spaceflight. Climbing errors tend to be lag events, too. The error was deciding to climb that day, or to keep climbing instead of turning around, not so much a technical error like you might see flying. The latter is maybe just more acute, you fail to notice what is actually happening with the aircraft, and fly it into the ground (that Air France flight over the south Atlantic thinking they stalled because the pitot tube ice resulted in them being told that—in spite of the other instruments showing normal flight). For passengers in the "tourist" sense, spaceflight needs to be pretty safe for there to be a market. It might not have to be modern airline safe, but at least 1960s airline safe probably. Most people have zero ability to realistically assess risk. Spaceflight risk could be at about the same population level as "accidental death" separated from car deaths (~46:100,000) and they'd want to stay home (auto deaths are ~11:100k). As a result, I think it has to be insanely safe for there to be any chance of acceptance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: I see. Up to 25% deaths per success. You're talking about 8000m peaks as if all climbing is the same. You might as well suggest that wingwalking is the same level of risk as flying commercial. Or that going to Mars is the same level of risk as riding a New Shepard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Would you really want your gateway to another world to be named after a god of dread, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 34 minutes ago, cubinator said: Would you really want your gateway to another world to be named after a god of dread, though? An easy way to say "We landed on Deimos!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: An easy way to say "We landed on Deimos!" Not that it's so hard to land on Deimos anyway...the real trick is keeping from flying off again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Starlink seems to now be Wednesday. Wow, and Transporter 1 is Thursday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 How long until we see a morning launch from LC40 and an afternoon launch from 39A? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 2 hours ago, cubinator said: Would you really want your gateway to another world to be named after a god of dread, though? It perfectly describes the passenger emotions during the launch. Another vessel should be Phobos. *** But when they start flying to Pluto, they'll call their boat Charon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) Holy flarp look at that thing. We are truly living in the future Edited January 19, 2021 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) Also Edited January 19, 2021 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 9 minutes ago, tater said: Seems like the wind isn't cooperating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 Why is wind a constraint for a static fire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 48 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Why is wind a constraint for a static fire? The man-lifts they use to work on Starship have a maximum safe wind speed. If they can't use those, static fire prep can't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 On 1/18/2021 at 3:58 PM, YNM said: I suppose it's not really useful for space travel though, unless we're talking stuff like the pressurized compartment or the electrical system etc. For the engines and the manoeuvres it's more useful to count it against the number of occurrences it happens. Airplane-level seems to need like another decade or more... As in 1935 level safety in 2035 if they nail it well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, magnemoe said: As in 1935 level safety in 2035 if they nail it well. In those years they have mostly flying boats still... If something goes bad you can always land anywhere. Maybe more like airship safety than airplane safety in 1935. (Hindenburg was 1937) Edited January 19, 2021 by YNM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said: The man-lifts they use to work on Starship have a maximum safe wind speed. If they can't use those, static fire prep can't happen. Also the engines don't like fluctuating/different pressures on the windward side vs leeward side. Even if they didn't mind, the data gained will not necessarily be applicable since you wouldn't be launching in those conditions anyways. Edited January 20, 2021 by Meecrob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 17 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said: Also Offshore solve many of the noise and other regulatory issues but it raises a serious amount more issues. Yes sealaunch used an oil ring but an smaller rocket and rare launches. Statship aim for many launches as in weekly to daily who SpaceX don't think it will be easy to get at Boca or the Cape. You would obvious need an pad, the simplest part. You need an landing pad and an transporter to pad or hangar. And yes you need an beefy hangar if you get an hurricane. its needed anyway for maintenance and cargo integration. You need an tank farm who can handle daily launches. You could probably pipe methane and cool down to liquid and make LOX at site but you still need huge tanks for tanker refueling missions. You need an way to lift starships and superheavy from a ship and lower them onto the ship this can also be used for caro. Finally crew quarters. This is an major issue as worse case fail for superheavy is measured in kiloton. You can armor against an failed landing pretty easy but not against superheavy shutting down 100 meter up N1 style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 29 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Finally crew quarters. This is an major issue as worse case fail for superheavy is measured in kiloton. You can armor against an failed landing pretty easy but not against superheavy shutting down 100 meter up N1 style. Everyone on a boat, and go watch the launch from 5 miles away. (Or whatever distance is considered safe). That will do for the initial testing phase. Long term they probably want a better solution, but for Superheavy's initial test phase, 1 hour or so to evacuate everyone is simpler than trying to design something that would allow the crew on the rig to survive a worst case launch failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Super Heavy BN2 is in production, with its forward dome being spotted: The dome has a weird 'shelf' on it which we didn't see on BN1. Maybe this is extra structural support for Starship to be mounted on top, or maybe for grid fins? (images from @bocachicagal on the NSF forums) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 5 hours ago, AVaughan said: Everyone on a boat, and go watch the launch from 5 miles away. (Or whatever distance is considered safe). That will do for the initial testing phase. Long term they probably want a better solution, but for Superheavy's initial test phase, 1 hour or so to evacuate everyone is simpler than trying to design something that would allow the crew on the rig to survive a worst case launch failure. Agree, however the test phase is not the real problem to do on land as I understand the real problem is regular launches. Its kind of the difference between doing rock blasting for construction and an artillery training range. Also during testing it will be lots of modifications to the rockets so doing that on an ocean platform will be double hard and you have to build the platform first who will take lots of time even if converting oil platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Starlink stream is live. 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.