Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12  (Read 609221 times)

Offline StarshipTrooper

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 186
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1180 on: 09/12/2022 05:32 am »
Herd of goats to signicantly reduce the brush.
Probabky need to hire a shepherd.
This is NSF Forums.  Please use the proper terminology.  It's a goat herder
A goat herder is the new shepherd.
They'll be responsible for clearing the new glen.
“I'm very confident that success is within the set of possible outcomes.”  Elon Musk

Online Herb Schaltegger

Wasn’t aware that controlled burning was occurring until well in to the evening many hours later.

So does Starship eventually need to launch / land adjacent to other systems on the Moon or Mars.  Seems kind of iffy

No ambient oxygen on the Moon or Mars, let alone any vegetation to burn. ;) Physical damage by debris impact would be a more serious concern.

But in any rate, and to get things back on-topic, I do wonder what SpaceX will have to do eventually to mitigate the risk of future fires. Last week’s fires started a significant distance from the Suborbital Pad. That belies the conclusory statements in the FAA EIS that the risk of fire due to SpaceX operations was low because all static fire and launch operations occurred over concrete surfaces.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 6843
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1182 on: 09/12/2022 12:30 pm »
Wasn’t aware that controlled burning was occurring until well in to the evening many hours later.

So does Starship eventually need to launch / land adjacent to other systems on the Moon or Mars.  Seems kind of iffy
Luckily both the Moon and Mars have comparatively sparse areas of scrubland.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 58024
  • Likes Given: 1130
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1183 on: 09/12/2022 05:31 pm »

But in any rate, and to get things back on-topic, I do wonder what SpaceX will have to do eventually to mitigate the risk of future fires. Last week’s fires started a significant distance from the Suborbital Pad. That belies the conclusory statements in the FAA EIS that the risk of fire due to SpaceX operations was low because all static fire and launch operations occurred over concrete surfaces.
They tried sprinklers near Stand B to wet nearby brush down before early tests and launches, but they didn't hold up very well and I'd find them all over the flats.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline sdub

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1184 on: 09/13/2022 04:08 am »
Interesting new blinky lights on the launch tower.  They provide quite a bit of additional visibility for the location of the chopsticks and the quick disconnect in the dark.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30989
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 55476
  • Likes Given: 25058
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1185 on: 09/13/2022 09:54 pm »
https://twitter.com/ezekieloverstr1/status/1569779062645604354

Quote
Delivery at the Starbase Launch Site

#SpaceX #Starship #Starbase

📸 Me for WAI Media @FelixSchlang

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 679
  • Liked: 717
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1186 on: 09/14/2022 07:44 pm »
Love him or hate him, Zack has done a pretty clever skit as a subterfuge for discussing an aspect of the launch mount and holddown clamp system.  Worth the watch, 22 minutes.


Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36097
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20423
  • Likes Given: 10602
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1187 on: 09/14/2022 11:50 pm »
I already shared it in the party thread. ;)

Okay, I think this belongs in the Party thread because it’s hilarious.

He makes a pretty convincing argument there was no way in heck Starship was gonna be ready for a static fire in a week last year.

https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1569849638651416577?s=20&t=IsXAs0fg47vAjx8u3w8wYQ

Excuse the clickbait title. It’s pretty funny.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2022 11:52 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 679
  • Liked: 717
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1188 on: 09/15/2022 12:20 am »
I already shared it in the party thread. ;)
Don't read that one.

Offline AC in NC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 3597
  • Likes Given: 1919
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1189 on: 09/15/2022 02:24 am »
Love him or hate him, Zack has done a pretty clever skit as a subterfuge for discussing an aspect of the launch mount and holddown clamp system.  Worth the watch, 22 minutes.
Tedious as usual.  Part of his 1 minute of content in 30 minutes of delivery is that they couldn't static fire because of a crane and moments later shows video of a spin prime deflagration eclipsed by a crane.  Maybe much further away but not so far as to support the minutes-earlier asserted "evidence".
« Last Edit: 09/15/2022 02:26 am by AC in NC »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36097
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20423
  • Likes Given: 10602
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1190 on: 09/15/2022 02:39 am »
It was tedious (I had to play it on 2x, and skip ahead LOL), but still kind of funny
« Last Edit: 09/15/2022 02:44 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 590
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1191 on: 09/15/2022 04:54 am »
Tedious as usual.  Part of his 1 minute of content in 30 minutes of delivery is that they couldn't static fire because of a crane and moments later shows video of a spin prime deflagration eclipsed by a crane.  Maybe much further away but not so far as to support the minutes-earlier asserted "evidence".

Wrong. The recent spin prime deflagration with the crane nearby is OWNED by SpaceX and the huge crane they used to build the tower was RENTED.

I remember that people on this very forum were saying the same thing Zack said in his video back when that crane was being used.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2022 04:54 am by chopsticks »

Offline Hamish.Student

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1192 on: 09/15/2022 04:56 am »
Love him or hate him, Zack has done a pretty clever skit as a subterfuge for discussing an aspect of the launch mount and holddown clamp system.  Worth the watch, 22 minutes.
Tedious as usual.  Part of his 1 minute of content in 30 minutes of delivery is that they couldn't static fire because of a crane and moments later shows video of a spin prime deflagration eclipsed by a crane.  Maybe much further away but not so far as to support the minutes-earlier asserted "evidence".
 
 
The crane that was present for the spin prime was the one owned by SpaceX, not a rented one. His argument was the rental agreement preclude a static fire; which is supported by the fact they no longer rent but own their crane. 
 
E: Ninja'd 
 
It was tedious (I had to play it on 2x, and skip ahead LOL), but still kind of funny
 
 
Agreed, I like the content but the skits are becoming too much. He will lose viewers over it, especially ones that just assume its a wayyyy too long intro joke (as I initially did)
« Last Edit: 09/15/2022 04:58 am by Hamish.Student »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 6843
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1193 on: 09/15/2022 04:01 pm »
Plenty of not only spin-primes, but static fires and flights were conducted with rented cranes on site. SN11's wreckage was scattered over rented cranes, diggers, lifts, posthole borers, etc. And they were not lacking in SPMTs to carry any other equipment to a safe distance, as they also did regularly.

A rented crane being on site in no way precludes a future static fire, and never did.

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 590
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1194 on: 09/15/2022 04:45 pm »
Plenty of not only spin-primes, but static fires and flights were conducted with rented cranes on site. SN11's wreckage was scattered over rented cranes, diggers, lifts, posthole borers, etc. And they were not lacking in SPMTs to carry any other equipment to a safe distance, as they also did regularly.

A rented crane being on site in no way precludes a future static fire, and never did.

You're going to need some evidence to back that up. That huge Liebherr crane is not exactly in the same category as the other equipment you mentioned, and there could very well could have been some strict agreements about not firing rocket engines in close proximity to it.

Also, from what I remember, it was quite a job to reconfigure/take down that crane and probably wasn't what SpaceX wanted to do in order to conduct booster testing.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2022 04:48 pm by chopsticks »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36097
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20423
  • Likes Given: 10602
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1195 on: 09/15/2022 05:11 pm »
Plenty of not only spin-primes, but static fires and flights were conducted with rented cranes on site. SN11's wreckage was scattered over rented cranes, diggers, lifts, posthole borers, etc. And they were not lacking in SPMTs to carry any other equipment to a safe distance, as they also did regularly.

A rented crane being on site in no way precludes a future static fire, and never did.

You're going to need some evidence to back that up. That huge Liebherr crane is not exactly in the same category as the other equipment you mentioned, and there could very well could have been some strict agreements about not firing rocket engines in close proximity to it.


Reasonable speculation, but still speculative.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4718
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 6843
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1196 on: 09/15/2022 05:30 pm »
Plenty of not only spin-primes, but static fires and flights were conducted with rented cranes on site. SN11's wreckage was scattered over rented cranes, diggers, lifts, posthole borers, etc. And they were not lacking in SPMTs to carry any other equipment to a safe distance, as they also did regularly.

A rented crane being on site in no way precludes a future static fire, and never did.

You're going to need some evidence to back that up. That huge Liebherr crane is not exactly in the same category as the other equipment you mentioned, and there could very well could have been some strict agreements about not firing rocket engines in close proximity to it.

Also, from what I remember, it was quite a job to reconfigure/take down that crane and probably wasn't what SpaceX wanted to do in order to conduct booster testing.
Yet they managed to regularly shuttle the big crane it offsite on the SPMTs for Starship testing. That's not theoretical or potential or possible, it's literally what they already did to solve that problem.

Plus back in the days when SpaceX were applying for Written Re-evaluations to their original Falcon 9 EIS, they had carved out an explicit crane refuge for a LR11000-sized crane to hunker down in at the west end of the launch site, behind two berms (the tank farm and its own), and this was carried over to the site expansion plan for the PEA. They clearly not only have an active operational plan to deal with rented cranes (move it to a safe distance), they also had a plan for refuge on site if required.

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 590
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1197 on: 09/15/2022 05:52 pm »
Plenty of not only spin-primes, but static fires and flights were conducted with rented cranes on site. SN11's wreckage was scattered over rented cranes, diggers, lifts, posthole borers, etc. And they were not lacking in SPMTs to carry any other equipment to a safe distance, as they also did regularly.

A rented crane being on site in no way precludes a future static fire, and never did.

You're going to need some evidence to back that up. That huge Liebherr crane is not exactly in the same category as the other equipment you mentioned, and there could very well could have been some strict agreements about not firing rocket engines in close proximity to it.


Reasonable speculation, but still speculative.

I'm not claiming otherwise.

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 590
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1198 on: 09/15/2022 06:04 pm »
Plenty of not only spin-primes, but static fires and flights were conducted with rented cranes on site. SN11's wreckage was scattered over rented cranes, diggers, lifts, posthole borers, etc. And they were not lacking in SPMTs to carry any other equipment to a safe distance, as they also did regularly.

A rented crane being on site in no way precludes a future static fire, and never did.

You're going to need some evidence to back that up. That huge Liebherr crane is not exactly in the same category as the other equipment you mentioned, and there could very well could have been some strict agreements about not firing rocket engines in close proximity to it.

Also, from what I remember, it was quite a job to reconfigure/take down that crane and probably wasn't what SpaceX wanted to do in order to conduct booster testing.
Yet they managed to regularly shuttle the big crane it offsite on the SPMTs for Starship testing. That's not theoretical or potential or possible, it's literally what they already did to solve that problem.

I couldn't remember what what kind of testing Starship was doing at the time that that crane was there, so thanks for the refresher. The only problem I had with your post was the "never did" part, which we as the public don't know (that is, the agreement between SpaceX and the owners of the crane). Of course as you say, it would have been possible to move the crane back to the production site with SPMTs for booster testing as well, but I think it's also reasonable to assume that SpaceX didn't want to deal with this hassle more than necessary. Sorry for the aggressive tone, I think I sounded a bit harsh before.

Quote
Plus back in the days when SpaceX were applying for Written Re-evaluations to their original Falcon 9 EIS, they had carved out an explicit crane refuge for a LR11000-sized crane to hunker down in at the west end of the launch site, behind two berms (the tank farm and its own), and this was carried over to the site expansion plan for the PEA. They clearly not only have an active operational plan to deal with rented cranes (move it to a safe distance), they also had a plan for refuge on site if required.

This makes me wonder what they will do with the large crane they now own at the launch site. Will they just move it as far away as possible during 33 engine static fires and launches (if this is what they do, it might be a good indication in the future that they will plan to fire lots of engines) or will they safe it somewhere? Do we know? What about other equipment that may need to be protected at the launch site?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30989
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 55476
  • Likes Given: 25058
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1199 on: 09/17/2022 05:25 am »
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1570954641608953864

Quote
These new strobe lights on the Starbase tower are going to be fun.

nsf.live/starbase

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1