tater Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 3:12 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Well - one certain way to kill innovation is to regulate it to death. Expand They have to evacuate people and stuff, I don't think you can do them on a whim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 5:24 PM, tater said: Expand Gosh I didn't get that they are THAT close, it doesn't seem too intelligent, as one ship's RUD may cause the RUD of the other one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 5:24 PM, tater said: Expand 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 5:51 PM, 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. Expand 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clamp-o-Tron Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 Also, only 1 will be fueled at a time, so no real risk of total RUD of both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 11:26 AM, 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 ? Expand 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 (edited) On 1/30/2021 at 9:03 PM, magnemoe said: Potential destructing as in using the self destruct system? Who most orbital rockets have. Expand 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 January 30, 2021 by YNM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 9:49 PM, YNM said: Does the SNs have self-destruct ? Expand Starship prototypes do have a flight termination system, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 (edited) On 1/30/2021 at 9:53 PM, RealKerbal3x said: Starship prototypes do have a flight termination system, yes. Expand 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. On 1/30/2021 at 6:00 PM, 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. Expand 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 January 30, 2021 by YNM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 9:47 PM, 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. Expand 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Another fine product from the nonsense factory (drone landing pad) (i need a t shirt of that) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Reveal hidden contents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 7:44 AM, kerbiloid said: Reveal hidden contents Expand Starships remind me more of squids than of penguins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/30/2021 at 3:46 PM, 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. Expand Reuters have now picked up on it, and a few others, but they're both still quoting TheVerge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 3:41 AM, tater said: (drone landing pad) Expand For the guys filming it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 4:19 PM, YNM said: For the guys filming it ? Expand Maybe I assume Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 5:07 PM, tater said: I assume Expand *cut scene to SN9 landing on it* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Static fire on Starlink F9 for Tuesday launch happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted January 31, 2021 Share Posted January 31, 2021 Unlimited altitude TFRs have been posted for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. No idea if that means they've got approval to launch from the FAA yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 Elon apparently "liked" that tweet ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 SH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 On 2/1/2021 at 3:19 PM, tater said: Expand As far as I know that's the entire LOX section. And it's larger than a Starship tank section, on its own. Wow. Reveal hidden contents Sorry SLS... 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.