tater Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 Interesting: Leg? That's a lot of Raptors to throw away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 Might have been scrubbed because of a helicopter near where people were already at to watch the launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuessingEveryDay Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 32 minutes ago, tater said: Might have been scrubbed because of a helicopter near where people were already at to watch the launch. Yeah there were 2 that were flying around. One was Navy, the other was civilian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 (edited) Wouldn't something on the outside meant to be a leg, be better suited shaped as a fin than a beam? Certainly it will add drag either way - so does the shape matter? Also - does SX need permission to attempt a ground landing rather than merely ditch in the ocean? Or are we speculative about a drone ship landing attempt? Edited June 30, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Maybe it's a fin placeholder? They had fins that looked like that on the test rig thing they put the nosecone in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 8 minutes ago, tater said: Maybe it's a fin placeholder? They had fins that looked like that on the test rig thing they put the nosecone in. Looks to me like something similar to the jig they use to weld the fin mounts on. Retractable leg mount maybe? I thought they’d be fixed, if anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 There's a closeup on NSF... inside the metal framework is a COPV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 10 hours ago, tater said: Given that the FTS terminates the vehicle automatically if it slightly deviates form the flight path, the hazard area need only contain the actual volume where debris are possible. The areas are 10+ nm on the narrow sides, I doubt debris would be a problem past several hundred meters on either side of the flight path. The launch hazard areas might still be the same as they were when range control had to decide "manually" to terminate a flight. 10nm is not unreasonable for lateral separation. It's a big planet, and we have lots and lots of airplanes, and they have all learned to stay separated. I find Musk's repeated whining about safety rules to be troubling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 7 hours ago, mikegarrison said: 10nm is not unreasonable for lateral separation. It's a big planet, and we have lots and lots of airplanes, and they have all learned to stay separated. I find Musk's repeated whining about safety rules to be troubling. I took that statement as an expression of frustration from someone embracing a fail-fast philosophy encountering real-world processes that do not support that philosophy. I am sure it does not help that it is probably expensive to scrub when otherwise ready to launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 6 hours ago, mikegarrison said: 10nm is not unreasonable for lateral separation. It's a big planet, and we have lots and lots of airplanes, and they have all learned to stay separated. Yes, but if a NOTAM is issued, who should be responsible? Seems like you could have some zone far closer to the actual danger area which results in a scrub, and another wider area that results in a stiff fine or some sanction for the violator. If the actual plausible danger area is 1-2 nm wide, that's the scrub area, anyone enters that, and scrub. If anyone enters the wider separation area (whatever it might be called), they have endangered themselves, and are subject to a fine, possible loss of license, etc., but the launch proceeds. Note that these would be set so the actual chance of a poor outcome is incredibly unlikely. This is already in place to some extent, as the hazard areas end not that far downrange, at which point the vehicle could still rain down debris if there was a RUD, it's just incredibly unlikely to hit anything. 6 hours ago, mikegarrison said: I find Musk's repeated whining about safety rules to be troubling. In this case we don't know what the actual issue was, though it seems to have been a helicopter operating very close to where crowds of people were watching the launch anyway—presumably a safe location. More importantly, I would assume that the hazard areas are sized as a function of not just rocket debris danger area, but also aircraft velocity. The area is not variable in time, it's a shape that is static during the launch, because a plane could enter the area at the beginning of the launch someplace that there is ZERO risk at liftoff (say 50nm downrange) but then be a real problem as the plane continues to violate towards the flight path of the rocket some seconds after launch when the rocket is then above the aircraft. You can't give planes wobbly NOTAMs that vary in real time, though, too confusing. In this case, if it was a hovering helicopter, it seems like there's zero chance that it could possibly be at risk due to it continuing to move into the flight path of the rocket. You could look at the trajectory of the aircraft on a radar track, and compare vs rocket flight path the same predicted value in the future and rule out risk in real time to allow a launch. On the current track the helo might move a few hundred m towards the flight path before liftoff, and it's still well outside any actual hazard area, so "go" for launch (helo gets fined for violating restricted area). Downrange a jet enters the very edge on a flight path that has it crossing the rocket path XX seconds after launch with current track moved forward those XX seconds from launch and IS at actual risk. Scrub. Seems like it's more rule of thumb based now than data based. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Perhaps the time honored routines need updating, instead of the (paraphrased) binary approach: "Payload?" - "Go!" "Vehicle?" - "Go!" "GSE?" - "Go!" "Range?" - "Range is RED. Repeat, Range is RED!" Perhaps Range could use a more real-time risk-assessment approach. But when lives are on the line, changing what is known to work is inherently risky and must be considered very carefully indeed. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFUN Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 It took me way too long to parse that "nm" in this context is "nautical mile". Kept wondering why barely-measurable lengths were relevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 14 minutes ago, NFUN said: It took me way too long to parse that "nm" in this context is "nautical mile". Kept wondering why barely-measurable lengths were relevant I went to nautical miles because it was in the post I was replying to (and might very well be the FAA requirement for units). In a space context real nm have very little utility outside wavelengths, hehe. Also: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 31 minutes ago, NFUN said: It took me way too long to parse that "nm" in this context is "nautical mile". Kept wondering why barely-measurable lengths were relevant Yes, this can be a confusion issue. I often use nmi, for that reason. I guess I didn't this time, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Launch pushed to 19:31 UTC due to weather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 I'm a little late, but the stream is live now. Liftoff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Liftoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Max Q Stage sep Boostback complete HOLY that landing footage! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernplain Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 RTLS is the best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Sooooo nice Crossed Cuba fast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 I love RTLS so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 Wow. Son and I were out to lunch and watched it at the burger joint on my phone. Fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 By the way, more news on booster 3 and 4: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 30, 2021 Share Posted June 30, 2021 We should have some recognition of the heroes operating the cameras for those views! 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.