Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5  (Read 176923 times)

Offline kaoru

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Ottawa, ON, Canada
    • Sculpt Science
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #600 on: 10/13/2017 02:43 AM »
Shuttle had FTS. Bob Cabana talked about it during the press conference when AFTS moved to primary on Falcon.

FTS is about public safety. Sure, killing the crew isn’t good. But having the rocket crash and kill many members of the public is considered worse. The general public didn’t sign up to sit on the rocket. The astronauts did.

Edit: added some additional thoughts
I agree that NASA astronauts signed up...  But BFS will transport regular public (eventually) like an aircraft of which FAA ensures safety for all.  Somehow I don't think the FAA will allow the guaranteed death of a hundred passengers to *probably* save an unknown quantity of people/things on the ground.  That's why aircraft don't have FTS...

How much experience do you have with how the US federal government promulgates regulations for new and emerging areas? If the answer is anything but "Lots," then I respectfully suggest you - and every other armchair amateur rocket scientist/lawyer - stick to regulations as they exist now, and technologies such as AFTS that exist now - rather than make blanket pronouncements about future PowerPoint vehicles servicing future PowerPoint economic markets that do not yet exist.
The discussion is about BFR/BFS launching out of Boca Chica and the requirements to do so safely.  If you want to speak about that great. However, I respectfully suggest that you don't speak about the people contributing to the discussion, good or bad.  Also, IMHO, when metal is being bent then it's not a PowerPoint project anymore.  SpaceX is building BFR/BFS now... 

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1970
  • US
  • Liked: 1380
  • Likes Given: 987
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #601 on: 10/13/2017 03:47 AM »
There are numerous BFR threads.  They would be a more appropriate place for that thought.

Not really, I was interested in the flight path of BFR specifically from Boca Chica as given the news from the last few days it is possible that it will be the initial launch site, this a discussion thread too. :)

It would be interesting to take a step back from FAA rules and flight termination systems and think in terms of insurers liabilities and how to mitigate risk. Then go back and see how FAA rules etc. apply.

None of those things have anything to do with the Texas launch site.  We've already gotten a couple reports about this conversation being off topic for the thread, and I agree.

edit:  Specifically, BFS point to point travel and flying over land are not at all specific to the Texas launch site.  There are already other threads for discussing that.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 03:53 AM by gongora »

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Shuttle had FTS. Bob Cabana talked about it during the press conference when AFTS moved to primary on Falcon.

FTS is about public safety. Sure, killing the crew isn’t good. But having the rocket crash and kill many members of the public is considered worse. The general public didn’t sign up to sit on the rocket. The astronauts did.

Edit: added some additional thoughts
I agree that NASA astronauts signed up...  But BFS will transport regular public (eventually) like an aircraft of which FAA ensures safety for all.  Somehow I don't think the FAA will allow the guaranteed death of a hundred passengers to *probably* save an unknown quantity of people/things on the ground.  That's why aircraft don't have FTS...

How much experience do you have with how the US federal government promulgates regulations for new and emerging areas? If the answer is anything but "Lots," then I respectfully suggest you - and every other armchair amateur rocket scientist/lawyer - stick to regulations as they exist now, and technologies such as AFTS that exist now - rather than make blanket pronouncements about future PowerPoint vehicles servicing future PowerPoint economic markets that do not yet exist.
The discussion is about BFR/BFS launching out of Boca Chica and the requirements to do so safely.  If you want to speak about that great. However, I respectfully suggest that you don't speak about the people contributing to the discussion, good or bad.  Also, IMHO, when metal is being bent then it's not a PowerPoint project anymore.  SpaceX is building BFR/BFS now...
You were the one bringing up the airliner analogy and speaking authoritatively about what the FAA will or won’t do. ;)

And frankly, “bending metal” is an arbitrary and nonsensical standard. Plenty of prior aerospace programs have produced hardware that didn’t result in a flying vehicle. And in any case, there are already existing FAA regulations for launch and entry of spacecraft, complete with risk assessment requirements for people on the ground.

No need for people with no understanding of government regulatory affairs or aerospace design to posit new ones in the absence of any reason to create any.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline jfallen

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #603 on: 10/13/2017 11:59 AM »
This has definitely gone way off topic.  And now I am going to apologize for the same.  In defense of my fellow Newb, I think it is ridiculous to think the FAA won't rewrite the policy once spacecraft start carrying more than seven people.   And I deal with the FAA regularly.

Now back on topic...

Has there been anything from SpaceX on a complete redesign for Boca Chica?  Also to someone who knows, would that require a new environmental impact survey or has the current administration successfully eliminated some of this bureaucracy?

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 473
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #604 on: 10/13/2017 02:00 PM »
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/10/spacexs-gwynne-shotwell-reveals-more-details-about-the-bfr-002085099.html

Is Texas really SpaceX first & final choice to launch the BFR. First.

From the article you linked:
Quote
Shotwell did not provide any detail about how the Boca Chica spaceport would handle BFR launches and landings, whether they would be from land or, as some illustrations suggest, from an offshore platform.

Texas has plenty of firms with expertise in building offshore platforms. Launching from offshore would likely avoid the issue of beach closures that land launches have entailed.

Note that we've previously discussed the possibility of a BFR launch pad a few miles offshore from Boca Chica, starting around here.

An offshore pad combined with an onshore control center, tracking station, and propellant storage could make getting approvals a lot easier.

That was my take with the 2016 much larger ITS reveal.  Given the shallow Gulf water depth even 20 Km offshore, it seemed to be the easier regulatory, safety, noise abatement way to go.  Downside is cost, hydrofoiling everything out and back is more expensive than trucking.
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Liked: 938
  • Likes Given: 752
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #605 on: 10/13/2017 02:23 PM »
Shuttle had FTS.
The Shuttle stack had FTS, specifically each of the SRMs.  The Orbiter, as far as I know, did not?

[EDIT: Point being; the BFS is roughly comparable to Orbiter+ET; the BFR would presumably be required to have an FTS that would fire immediately after emergency separation by the BFS in an abort scenario, or after normal separation in the event of some anomaly].
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 02:30 PM by abaddon »

Offline abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Liked: 938
  • Likes Given: 752
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #606 on: 10/13/2017 02:26 PM »
How much experience do you have with how the US federal government promulgates regulations for new and emerging areas? If the answer is anything but "Lots," then I respectfully suggest you - and every other armchair amateur rocket scientist/lawyer - stick to regulations as they exist now, and technologies such as AFTS that exist now - rather than make blanket pronouncements about future PowerPoint vehicles servicing future PowerPoint economic markets that do not yet exist.
Wrong argument, they should stick to the proper already-existing threads that are dedicated to discussing future PowerPoint vehicles servicing future PowerPoint economic markets that do not yet exist.  Although this is now a thread dedicated to a future launch site servicing that future PowerPoint vehicle, as F9 appears to be off the table completely.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #607 on: 10/13/2017 04:19 PM »
Shuttle had FTS.
The Shuttle stack had FTS, specifically each of the SRMs.  The Orbiter, as far as I know, did not?

[EDIT: Point being; the BFS is roughly comparable to Orbiter+ET; the BFR would presumably be required to have an FTS that would fire immediately after emergency separation by the BFS in an abort scenario, or after normal separation in the event of some anomaly].
The question was whether a launch vehicle that carried crew had an FTS that would cause LoC in the interest of public safety. The answer is yes. Shuttle did and had it been used it would have resulted in LoC. There was no LAS for shuttle to save crew prior to FTS activation. Bob Cabana said as much when talking about using AFTS on crewed vehicles in the future. He talked about showing pictures of family to the guy in the hot seat prior to STS launches. Where the actual detonators were specifically located in the stack isn’t relevant to the question that was asked.

This is all off-topic, though, and should either be moved or removed.

Offline Chris Bergin

Long thread, wandering, needs next thread to refocus.

Everyone to thread 6 and wear your "on topic" hats:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43968.0

Tags: