Quote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 01:55 amQuote from: gongora on 09/26/2016 12:36 amQuote from: Jim on 09/25/2016 08:20 pmDon't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system saysMaybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead? I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.It isn't a service. The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clearWill that also be true for Texas? I've wondered how range safety will be managed when they get that site online.
Quote from: gongora on 09/26/2016 12:36 amQuote from: Jim on 09/25/2016 08:20 pmDon't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system saysMaybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead? I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.It isn't a service. The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clear
Quote from: Jim on 09/25/2016 08:20 pmDon't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system saysMaybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead? I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.
Don't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 09/26/2016 01:58 amQuote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 01:55 amQuote from: gongora on 09/26/2016 12:36 amQuote from: Jim on 09/25/2016 08:20 pmDon't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system saysMaybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead? I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.It isn't a service. The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clearWill that also be true for Texas? I've wondered how range safety will be managed when they get that site online. Spacex will manage their own range in TX
Also, I would wonder about how spacecraft feel about being that close to those radars.
Quote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 04:52 pmAlso, I would wonder about how spacecraft feel about being that close to those radars. They could have them up to 3 miles from the pad north or south. An antenna on a broom handle would be enough for a line of sight comms link anywhere on the island. Maybe a mobile 100' tower or two for the radar antenna. One at either end of the beach could double for a security point.
Quote from: Nomadd on 09/26/2016 05:11 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 04:52 pmAlso, I would wonder about how spacecraft feel about being that close to those radars. They could have them up to 3 miles from the pad north or south. An antenna on a broom handle would be enough for a line of sight comms link anywhere on the island. Maybe a mobile 100' tower or two for the radar antenna. One at either end of the beach could double for a security point.I am talking about the proposed ones on 40 and 39
Quote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 05:14 pmQuote from: Nomadd on 09/26/2016 05:11 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 04:52 pmAlso, I would wonder about how spacecraft feel about being that close to those radars. They could have them up to 3 miles from the pad north or south. An antenna on a broom handle would be enough for a line of sight comms link anywhere on the island. Maybe a mobile 100' tower or two for the radar antenna. One at either end of the beach could double for a security point.I am talking about the proposed ones on 40 and 39They don't "illuminate" them.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/26/2016 05:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 05:14 pmQuote from: Nomadd on 09/26/2016 05:11 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 04:52 pmAlso, I would wonder about how spacecraft feel about being that close to those radars. They could have them up to 3 miles from the pad north or south. An antenna on a broom handle would be enough for a line of sight comms link anywhere on the island. Maybe a mobile 100' tower or two for the radar antenna. One at either end of the beach could double for a security point.I am talking about the proposed ones on 40 and 39They don't "illuminate" them.Not directly, no. I'm sure Jim's concern is more about sidelobe radiation and RF interference with payload systems. At least, that would be my concerns until some on-site tests are done. Of course, maybe they have done a few tests like that on exemplar units already and are satisfied there's no need for concern.
Would you turn off the exclusion zone radars when you launch? Good antennas can have sidelobes more than 40db down if they're worried about the rocket on the pad. Even less off the back. Radar dishes closer to the rocket can be less interference that farther ones if the point is farther off.
Quote from: Nomadd on 09/26/2016 09:00 pm Would you turn off the exclusion zone radars when you launch? Good antennas can have sidelobes more than 40db down if they're worried about the rocket on the pad. Even less off the back. Radar dishes closer to the rocket can be less interference that farther ones if the point is farther off.I believe the "issue" is not SX's rocket on the pad, but other payloads in/on/adjacent nearby. Accidentally wrecking sensitive ... receptors.And yes your threat assessment can tell you close rates for next assessment.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/26/2016 09:09 pmQuote from: Nomadd on 09/26/2016 09:00 pm Would you turn off the exclusion zone radars when you launch? Good antennas can have sidelobes more than 40db down if they're worried about the rocket on the pad. Even less off the back. Radar dishes closer to the rocket can be less interference that farther ones if the point is farther off.I believe the "issue" is not SX's rocket on the pad, but other payloads in/on/adjacent nearby. Accidentally wrecking sensitive ... receptors.And yes your threat assessment can tell you close rates for next assessment.I think their application says they will mask it in the direction of the other pads. Don't have the link to look it up right now.
Helium in F9 second stage has nothing to do with reusability. The second stage is not reusable.
Quote from: hkultala on 09/28/2016 08:36 amHelium in F9 second stage has nothing to do with reusability. The second stage is not reusable.reusability brings a loss of capacity, it was necessary to increase the performance of the second stage..without reusability, there is no need to increase the performance of the second stag
if the failure investigation, take too long time..will be "downgrade", fallback plan?money to burn..http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/spacexs-explosion-reverberates-across-space-satellite-and-telecom-industries.html?_r=0
Helium in F9 second stage has nothing to do with reusability. The second stage is not reusable.And they cannot launch any rocket no matter what the rocket contains until they have a pad that works.Currently they do not have a pad that works because LC40 is damaged and not yet fixed and LC-39A is not yet ready