Total Members Voted: 434
Voting closed: 01/19/2016 05:45 pm
Forgotten I had voted in this thread until it just popped up in my unread list. Looks like it may be time for me to change my middle name to "Nostradamus". Hopefully they can turn it around in 2017.
When might the next year's poll open? be nice if it was closed early in January.
IIUC if the engines start and the computer aborts that doesn't count as a launch but if it blows up on the pad instead that counts as a launch. ISTM that blowing up should not make something into a launch. I would change the definition of a launch slightly by requiring liftoff, i.e. an intact rocket starts accelerating upwards.
A "launch" in this case means:- The liftoff of a launch vehicle from the pad
Seems pretty clear to me from Lar's rules that if the vehicle has not left the ground, it is not a launch.
Correct. The release mechanism has to activate and it has to move some amount.
The launch does not have to "succeed".. if the engines fire with intent to launch, that's enough.
Quote from: Lar on 12/13/2016 11:19 amCorrect. The release mechanism has to activate and it has to move some amount.I was going off of the following text, which suggests engine start is sufficient:QuoteThe launch does not have to "succeed".. if the engines fire with intent to launch, that's enough.Maybe you should add something about release to the quoted text?
Perhaps rather than going round in ever decreasing circles about when a launch is not a launch, and because there is no prize for being right (other than a self congratulatory pat on the back), Lar can make the call, if there is a mishap, whether it is a failed launch or not.
The relevant point to define is the point of no return. The point where if something bad happens, you are going to lose the mission, vehicle and/or payload. The way Falcon 9 launches currently work, that is when the release clamps open while the engines are running. By that logic, if the engines are running normally, but the release mechanism fully fails and the launch is aborted, it's not a launch. If the launch mechanism partially fails and the rocket leaves the ground but wildly skews off course, it's a horribly failed launch.
Perhaps. But this being NSF we like to figure it all out in advance if we can. I think rocx is on to something... if the clamps release but the vehicle doesn't leave, doesn't fall over, and they reengage the clamps and safe the vehicle... not a launch. But if same exact scenario, the vehicle is destroyed, launch. Maybe?
Only one in seven on this poll think there will be less than 10 SpaX orbital launches in 2017. A company that is grounded for half a year again now. I sense there's some unwarranted optimism around here. 9 launches would be great.