SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Dog Star said:
Elon isn’t happy -
“ Unfortunately, launch is called off for today, as an aircraft entered the “keep out zone”, which is unreasonably gigantic.”
You missed off the important bit where he again blamed safety regulators “ Unfortunately, launch is called off for today, as an aircraft entered the “keep out zone”, which is unreasonably gigantic.”
"There is simply no way that humanity can become a spacefaring civilization without major regulatory reform. The current regulatory system is broken."
We've all seen with Boeing what can happen if you allow commercial interests steer safety regulators, people die. The man really comes out with some moronic comments at times for someone so intelligent.
I think in this case we can interpret that his argument is that the exclusion zone is overly large as it's based on the old type of rocket which rained parts of itself down as it dismantled itself enroute to orbit. Whereas SpaceX rockets fly themselves back and land and also have automatic flight termination.
You don't have a NOTAM excluding all traffic beneath the entire flightpath of the average 787 just in case it explodes.
Granted there's slightly more chance of a rocket exploding, but pragmatically you could have an advisory NOTAM - "If you fly in this area, there is a 1 in 100+ chance you might end up underneath some debris from an exploding rocket" rather than a mandatory exclusion zone (which was partly because in the olden days you were definitely going to be underneath falling rocket stages - not just the left overs from an explosion - and partly because the range needed to be sure it could track the rocket for flight termination).
It's less an argument for reducing safety and more for being proportionate, I feel.
You don't have a NOTAM excluding all traffic beneath the entire flightpath of the average 787 just in case it explodes.
Granted there's slightly more chance of a rocket exploding, but pragmatically you could have an advisory NOTAM - "If you fly in this area, there is a 1 in 100+ chance you might end up underneath some debris from an exploding rocket" rather than a mandatory exclusion zone (which was partly because in the olden days you were definitely going to be underneath falling rocket stages - not just the left overs from an explosion - and partly because the range needed to be sure it could track the rocket for flight termination).
It's less an argument for reducing safety and more for being proportionate, I feel.
I was more concerned that said the currently regulatory system is broken. He narrative is always to blame regulators and to try and remove safety margins where they hurt his financials. I know it’s only Twitter and the guy shoots from the hip all the time but he comes across as a bit of knob.
If he feels the safety zone is too large for his products then he should provide the evidence and work with the regulators to slowly reduce that safety margin rather than just blame them for being cautious, it’s not like he’s only just started launching rockets is it?
If he feels the safety zone is too large for his products then he should provide the evidence and work with the regulators to slowly reduce that safety margin rather than just blame them for being cautious, it’s not like he’s only just started launching rockets is it?
Perhaps he has been working with them and been told "This is how it has always been done, and always will be done, put up and shut up."
I remember Ben Rich in "Skunk Works" writing about building a prototype ship for the US Navy and getting embroiled in endless bits of stupidity, such as IIRC them demanding it have a paint locker. Now, there are good safety reasons for a ship to have a paint locker (paint is pretty flammable). But this was a prototype stealth boat made out of materials that no-one was going to be painting!
I remember Ben Rich in "Skunk Works" writing about building a prototype ship for the US Navy and getting embroiled in endless bits of stupidity, such as IIRC them demanding it have a paint locker. Now, there are good safety reasons for a ship to have a paint locker (paint is pretty flammable). But this was a prototype stealth boat made out of materials that no-one was going to be painting!
Perhaps they should stick with the same exclusion zone, but be more realistic about when they call a scrub. I.e have an inner zone and also take into account what rocket is actually launching.
For instance, it’s a Falcon 9, not a massive Saturn V. There’s also no solid boosters that could potentially go zooming off if the rocket broke up. The Falcon 9 also uses an automated flight termination system which would detonate the rocket as soon as it started going off script. All things that would reduce the potential debris area.
The outer zone would still be policed by Space Force and the Coast Guard as normal and offenders potentially prosecuted as per current rules. That means fines of up to $100k, a year in prison and loss or suspension of licence. But it would mean a rocket isn't scrubbed because some joyriding t
t is hovering their helicopter on the edge of zone. That’s just ridiculous.
For instance, it’s a Falcon 9, not a massive Saturn V. There’s also no solid boosters that could potentially go zooming off if the rocket broke up. The Falcon 9 also uses an automated flight termination system which would detonate the rocket as soon as it started going off script. All things that would reduce the potential debris area.
The outer zone would still be policed by Space Force and the Coast Guard as normal and offenders potentially prosecuted as per current rules. That means fines of up to $100k, a year in prison and loss or suspension of licence. But it would mean a rocket isn't scrubbed because some joyriding t
t is hovering their helicopter on the edge of zone. That’s just ridiculous. Edited by Beati Dogu on Tuesday 29th June 23:10
Flooble said:
Perhaps he has been working with them and been told "This is how it has always been done, and always will be done, put up and shut up."
I remember Ben Rich in "Skunk Works" writing about building a prototype ship for the US Navy and getting embroiled in endless bits of stupidity, such as IIRC them demanding it have a paint locker. Now, there are good safety reasons for a ship to have a paint locker (paint is pretty flammable). But this was a prototype stealth boat made out of materials that no-one was going to be painting!
Matelots need things to paint for when they've finished mopping the decks and polishing the brass.I remember Ben Rich in "Skunk Works" writing about building a prototype ship for the US Navy and getting embroiled in endless bits of stupidity, such as IIRC them demanding it have a paint locker. Now, there are good safety reasons for a ship to have a paint locker (paint is pretty flammable). But this was a prototype stealth boat made out of materials that no-one was going to be painting!
Beati Dogu said:
Perhaps they should stick with the same exclusion zone, but be more realistic about when they call a scrub. I.e have an inner zone and also take into account what rocket is actually launching.
For instance, it’s a Falcon 9, not a massive Saturn V. There’s also no solid boosters that could potentially go zooming off if the rocket broke up. The Falcon 9 also uses an automated flight termination system which would detonate the rocket as soon as it started going off script. All things that would reduce the potential debris area.
The outer zone would still be policed by Space Force and the Coast Guard as normal and offenders potentially prosecuted as per current rules. That means fines of up to $100k, a year in prison and loss or suspension of licence. But it would mean a rocket isn't scrubbed because some joyriding tt is hovering their helicopter on the edge of zone. That’s just ridiculous.
Was it a joyriding helicopter? I read it was a US Navy 737 For instance, it’s a Falcon 9, not a massive Saturn V. There’s also no solid boosters that could potentially go zooming off if the rocket broke up. The Falcon 9 also uses an automated flight termination system which would detonate the rocket as soon as it started going off script. All things that would reduce the potential debris area.
The outer zone would still be policed by Space Force and the Coast Guard as normal and offenders potentially prosecuted as per current rules. That means fines of up to $100k, a year in prison and loss or suspension of licence. But it would mean a rocket isn't scrubbed because some joyriding t
t is hovering their helicopter on the edge of zone. That’s just ridiculous. Edited by Beati Dogu on Tuesday 29th June 23:10
New livestream link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSiuW1HcGjA
I was just looking up why rockets throttle down at Max Q and the answers didn't satisfy.
Now matter how fast you're accelerating, Max Q remains the same i.e. the maximum aerodynamic pressure which is related to your speed not acceleration.
But I suppose the acceleration is pushing up from the bottom at the same time that Max Q is pushing down from the top, so reducing thrust does reduce the overall compressive stress on the rocket body. Or have I missed something?
Now matter how fast you're accelerating, Max Q remains the same i.e. the maximum aerodynamic pressure which is related to your speed not acceleration.
But I suppose the acceleration is pushing up from the bottom at the same time that Max Q is pushing down from the top, so reducing thrust does reduce the overall compressive stress on the rocket body. Or have I missed something?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff