Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4  (Read 665241 times)

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #20 on: 09/01/2016 03:53 pm »
We don't yet know what the debris was, only that it was smaller than a shoebox.  If it was foil or other light material, no panic would be necessary.

I don't see the Canaveral folks getting concerned about relocating the 39a facilities further from 40, for instance.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #21 on: 09/01/2016 04:14 pm »
Some idea of the force of the explosion:

Quote
Ben Brockert ‏@wikkit 15m15 minutes ago

~10 pieces of debris from the Falcon 9 found in the parking lot of KSC Pad A, "would fit in a shoebox". Lot is 1.8 miles from the F9 pad.

https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/771355370719744000

How far from Boca Chica NSF central headquarters (a.k.a. Nomadd's place) to the pad?
1.7 miles.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #22 on: 09/01/2016 04:15 pm »
We don't yet know what the debris was, only that it was smaller than a shoebox.  If it was foil or other light material, no panic would be necessary.

I don't see the Canaveral folks getting concerned about relocating the 39a facilities further from 40, for instance.

There's no way that foil or any other low-ballistic-coefficient material makes it that far from the explosion -- only if it gets carried by airborne currents.  This would have been a hefty chunk of material.

There's a bit of difference between buying up private property and relocating a fifty-year-old launch pad.

Offline Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 3673
  • Likes Given: 3551
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #23 on: 09/01/2016 04:28 pm »
There's no way that foil or any other low-ballistic-coefficient material makes it that far from the explosion -- only if it gets carried by airborne currents.  This would have been a hefty chunk of material.
Smoke plumes goes over at Pad 39A so it's possible that the lightweight debris simply floated up and ended up there.
https://twitter.com/wxbrad/status/771340339751727104/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #24 on: 09/01/2016 04:31 pm »
We don't yet know what the debris was, only that it was smaller than a shoebox.  If it was foil or other light material, no panic would be necessary.

I don't see the Canaveral folks getting concerned about relocating the 39a facilities further from 40, for instance.

There's no way that foil or any other low-ballistic-coefficient material makes it that far from the explosion -- only if it gets carried by airborne currents.  This would have been a hefty chunk of material.

There's a bit of difference between buying up private property and relocating a fifty-year-old launch pad.
Yeah. The people relocating the  launch pad wouldn't have to deal with a crazy old coot who just spent ten months fixing the place up.
 If they're going to take the place, they'll have their chance in the next few months. I'm leaving in a week to roam around South America till the end of November.
 Not sure if the problem at the cape will slow things down or speed them up here. I'm trying not to think of the safety policy changes this might cause.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2016 05:11 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #25 on: 09/01/2016 04:35 pm »
We don't yet know what the debris was, only that it was smaller than a shoebox.  If it was foil or other light material, no panic would be necessary.

I don't see the Canaveral folks getting concerned about relocating the 39a facilities further from 40, for instance.

There's no way that foil or any other low-ballistic-coefficient material makes it that far from the explosion -- only if it gets carried by airborne currents.  This would have been a hefty chunk of material.

There's a bit of difference between buying up private property and relocating a fifty-year-old launch pad.
Yeah. The people relocating the  launch pad wouldn't have to deal with a crazy old coot who just spent ten months fixing the place up.
 If they're going to take the place, they'll have their chance in the next few months. I'm leaving in a week to roam around South America till the end of November.
Not if rebuild it into a bunker.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #26 on: 09/01/2016 04:35 pm »


Yeah. The people relocating the  launch pad wouldn't have to deal with a crazy old coot who just spent ten months fixing the place up.
 If they're going to take the place, they'll have their chance in the next few months. I'm leaving in a week to roam around South America till the end of November.

OTOH if they want to relocate LC40, I hear that a good opportunity just opened up this morning.

...

Too soon?
« Last Edit: 09/01/2016 04:36 pm by cscott »

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #27 on: 09/01/2016 06:48 pm »
We don't yet know what the debris was, only that it was smaller than a shoebox.  If it was foil or other light material, no panic would be necessary.

I don't see the Canaveral folks getting concerned about relocating the 39a facilities further from 40, for instance.

There's no way that foil or any other low-ballistic-coefficient material makes it that far from the explosion -- only if it gets carried by airborne currents.  This would have been a hefty chunk of material.

There's a bit of difference between buying up private property and relocating a fifty-year-old launch pad.

IIRC debris was found on Chincoteague after the Antares failure...dont see how it wouldnt be possible for some debris from this event to travel 1.8 miles
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #28 on: 09/01/2016 10:05 pm »
As a public relations exercise SpaceX will probably need to publish a map showing the blast and debris area of Amos-6 imposed on the Texas launch site. This will explain why SpaceX had to buy so much land and the viewing stands are so far away. A smaller area would have been much cheaper.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #29 on: 09/02/2016 01:36 am »
As a public relations exercise SpaceX will probably need to publish a map showing the blast and debris area of Amos-6 imposed on the Texas launch site. This will explain why SpaceX had to buy so much land and the viewing stands are so far away. A smaller area would have been much cheaper.
Appropriated from another thread.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #30 on: 09/02/2016 01:47 am »
 Back to business. There's a nice little lined pad of dirt between the hill and the future launch pad. Concrete barriers going up along the highway.
 The pilings seem to be about done. They're in a 4 x 7 rectangular perimeter about 60' x 144' with a couple on the inside.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #31 on: 09/03/2016 12:32 pm »
Residents Concerned After SpaceX Explosion in Florida
http://www.krgv.com/story/33007012/residents-concerned-after-spacex-explosion-in-florida

Quote
BROWNSVILLE – The explosion of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in Florida is sparking concerns for many people in the Rio Grande Valley...

Alexander Limon and his family are still in awe of what they saw happen.

“I thought that was crazy. We don’t need that here, that big ole’ explosion, it’s just going to mess up everything,” he said.

The Limon family lives about 10 miles from the launch site. They fish regularly at Boca Chica Beach and they don’t want that family tradition to be jeopardized.

“The tourism would be good for the community,” Limon said. “But why mess up such a beautiful thing?”

Cameron County Emergency Manager Tom Hushen said incidents can’t be ruled out, but they are working closely with SpaceX to stay ahead of the game.

“Things are going to be in place beforehand. There will be fire departments standing by, roads will be blocked, it’s not going to just happen overnight, where they decide okay we’re going to blast off a rocket,” Hushen said. “This is preparation, this is timed, (and) we move people around making sure that no one is in harm’s way during the actual event.”

He added the public won’t be allowed anywhere near the launch pad.

“There is going to be launching facilities to be able to see out on South Padre Island. But Cameron County and SpaceX will work hand and hand to make sure the residents in the area are safe,” Hushen said.

The information gives Limon some comfort, but he said not as much as simply not having the risk at all.

A SpaceX spokesman said all their focus is on the incident in Cape Canaveral but said there is a detailed plan in place. Hushen added launches are still about two years away from happening, so there is time to adjust emergency plans as needed.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 12:34 pm by Dave G »

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #32 on: 09/03/2016 05:02 pm »
Once again I more strongly than ever believe that Sx's next generation of really Big rockets after FH will launch from pads at sea anchored in shallow water.  This latest anomaly is making everyone re-assess the safety margins from a pad or near pad RUD.

Also, don't underestimate the residential whining from sonic booms as a really BIG spacecraft does a RTLS.  Here I'm not sure that even many miles away at sea attenuates the audio avalanche of boomlets enough.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #33 on: 09/03/2016 05:09 pm »
If BFR is every going to launch from Boca Chica (which is in doubt), I don't think the current residents of the village will be able to stay with their property acquired by the state through eminent domain. Wherever BFR launches from, I expect it will be well away from places people live.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #34 on: 09/03/2016 05:48 pm »
Once again I more strongly than ever believe that Sx's next generation of really Big rockets after FH will launch from pads at sea anchored in shallow water.  This latest anomaly is making everyone re-assess the safety margins from a pad or near pad RUD.

Also, don't underestimate the residential whining from sonic booms as a really BIG spacecraft does a RTLS.  Here I'm not sure that even many miles away at sea attenuates the audio avalanche of boomlets enough.
I doubt if sonic booms are going to bother someone who just went through a rocket launch.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2016 05:49 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #35 on: 09/04/2016 12:42 am »
On the contrary, it seems that the lc40 incident is showing that the existing keepaways are sufficient and complete detonation of the stack (as opposed to deflagration) is unlikely.  The debris on LC39a appeared insignificant.  We'll see, but I doubt the HIF will be moving further back at LC40.  By all accounts all the safety measures worked. No injuries occurred.

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #36 on: 09/04/2016 12:54 am »
I doubt if sonic booms are going to bother someone who just went through a rocket launch.

The issue with sonic booms is that a curving or accelerating supersonic trajectory can lead to the shock wave getting focussed on some spot on the ground.  I think this is the reason for the large keep out zone downrange of Cape Canaveral during launches there.

I don't actually know if the RTLS trajectory would tend to focus a boom somewhere on the ground, or if it naturally tends to focus somewhere out to sea.  If the latter, no big deal, as you say.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #37 on: 09/04/2016 12:55 am »
 I'm not sure about anything schedule wise, but they've said they were waiting for 39A to finish so the same crew could work out here. I hope that doesn't mean we'll be delayed because that crew is going to be working on 40 for the next year. No matter how bad the damage is, fixing 40 would have to be faster than finishing Boca Chica, since there's nothing but a pile of dirt out here so far. Hopefully, there's not much scheduled here that will require much besides contractors for a while.
 With the Kawalskis gone, we're down to six permanent residents within 3 miles of the pad.
 BocaChicaGal might be back in October to take up the photo taking while I'm off galavanting around South America. Maybe one of the other Texans can make it here on occasion.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2016 01:21 am by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #38 on: 09/05/2016 01:38 am »
On the contrary, it seems that the lc40 incident is showing that the existing keepaways are sufficient and complete detonation of the stack (as opposed to deflagration) is unlikely.  The debris on LC39a appeared insignificant.  We'll see, but I doubt the HIF will be moving further back at LC40.  By all accounts all the safety measures worked. No injuries occurred.

I concur. The HIF is only 500 feet away from LC-40 and reportedly in good shape. The nearest civilian buildings to Boca Chica are about 9000 feet away.

Offline Scylla

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Clinton NC, USA
  • Liked: 1130
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 4
« Reply #39 on: 09/05/2016 06:49 pm »
Some drone footage.

Shot and posted to youtube by Anthony Medina.

I reject your reality and substitute my own--Doctor Who

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0