Yes, I read the article. It says that the second stage will be "high" by the time it passes over Cuba. What it does not say is that it will only be "high" if everything works properly during the thrusting phase. If something goes wrong, there will be a small probability that the second stage could crash onto Cuba. The stage is still suborbital when the IIP passes over Cuba.
Personally, I don't see this happening. Flying over Cuba, with an IIP passing over the island during the thrusting phase, given the history of past flights on this corridor, presents too many opportunities for trouble. If you think California is "hostile" to VAFB launches, what do you think Cuba is going to say? Not to mention the more crowded sea lanes beneath such a launch track. Liability would be an issue for a commercial contractor, etc. That said, NASA apparently last used this corridor in 1965-66 to orbit TIROS satellites using Thor-Delta rockets. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: woods170 on 01/02/2018 07:31 amUsing NASA as a yardstick isn't always the way-to-go when dealing with USAF decisions.Plus: did you bother to actually read the article?Quote from: James Dean“They crunched numbers for about eight months, and I am confident we can go south,” said Monteith (Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the 45th Space Wing)Monteith did not detail the precise trajectory, but said it involved “a little jog shortly off the pad” to turn south once offshore, “and then we’d skirt Miami.”The rocket’s first stage would drop safely before reaching Cuba, he said. The second stage would be so high up by the time it flew over the island that no special permissions would be required.Yes, I read the article. It says that the second stage will be "high" by the time it passes over Cuba. What it does not say is that it will only be "high" if everything works properly during the thrusting phase. If something goes wrong, there will be a small probability that the second stage could crash onto Cuba. The stage is still suborbital when the IIP passes over Cuba. - Ed Kyle
Using NASA as a yardstick isn't always the way-to-go when dealing with USAF decisions.Plus: did you bother to actually read the article?Quote from: James Dean“They crunched numbers for about eight months, and I am confident we can go south,” said Monteith (Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the 45th Space Wing)Monteith did not detail the precise trajectory, but said it involved “a little jog shortly off the pad” to turn south once offshore, “and then we’d skirt Miami.”The rocket’s first stage would drop safely before reaching Cuba, he said. The second stage would be so high up by the time it flew over the island that no special permissions would be required.
“They crunched numbers for about eight months, and I am confident we can go south,” said Monteith (Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the 45th Space Wing)Monteith did not detail the precise trajectory, but said it involved “a little jog shortly off the pad” to turn south once offshore, “and then we’d skirt Miami.”The rocket’s first stage would drop safely before reaching Cuba, he said. The second stage would be so high up by the time it flew over the island that no special permissions would be required.
I'm very skeptical of this... Here is a quick image showing the path. (from another thread) Note that it basically already overflies Bimini islands and edges Bahamas proper, not to mention all the disruption to shipping lanes and air traffic out of the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area while also skimming the Florida coastline. There is a *LOT* of stuff to dodge.It seems exceedingly optimistic. And that's not even getting into the Cuba overflight issues...
QuoteBeyond satellite launches, the corridor could open opportunities to rendezvous with the International Space Station as it flew to the north or south.No citation given, does this mean anything besides "the writer/editor misunderstands orbital mechanics"?
Beyond satellite launches, the corridor could open opportunities to rendezvous with the International Space Station as it flew to the north or south.
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/02/2018 09:07 pmI'm very skeptical of this... Here is a quick image showing the path. (from another thread) Note that it basically already overflies Bimini islands and edges Bahamas proper, not to mention all the disruption to shipping lanes and air traffic out of the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area while also skimming the Florida coastline. There is a *LOT* of stuff to dodge.It seems exceedingly optimistic. And that's not even getting into the Cuba overflight issues...I'm not so skeptical. Start on the line you drew (155 degrees), then as soon as possible make a right turn and head due south. On the Atlas launch with TDRS-M, at 40 some miles out it was doing 4700 mph (=2100 m/s in rational units). Doing a 25 degree turn at that point means the cost is 2100 * (1 - cos(25 degrees)) or about 200 m/s (actually somewhat less, since only the horizontal component needs fixing). That's certainly not prohibitive.Now the only island that gets passed over is Cuba, and the rocket is high and fast by then.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 01/02/2018 11:21 pmNow the only island that gets passed over is Cuba, and the rocket is high and fast by then.Then you might as well go slightly north instead, and then turn left over South/North Carolina and head north right over the continental US. Use that as a litmus test for whether or not you think it would be safe for Cuba. Because surely if it is safe for Cuba, it would be safe for us?
Now the only island that gets passed over is Cuba, and the rocket is high and fast by then.
Then you might as well go slightly north instead, and then turn left over South/North Carolina and head north right over the continental US. Use that as a litmus test for whether or not you think it would be safe for Cuba. Because surely if it is safe for Cuba, it would be safe for us?
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/03/2018 06:59 pmThen you might as well go slightly north instead, and then turn left over South/North Carolina and head north right over the continental US. Use that as a litmus test for whether or not you think it would be safe for Cuba. Because surely if it is safe for Cuba, it would be safe for us? Precisely this has been done. See STS-36, which reached 62 degrees where 57 is the normal maximum. Take off as north as possible, make a left turn, go over North Carolina, then Cape Cod, then Canada.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 01/03/2018 07:58 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 01/03/2018 06:59 pmThen you might as well go slightly north instead, and then turn left over South/North Carolina and head north right over the continental US. Use that as a litmus test for whether or not you think it would be safe for Cuba. Because surely if it is safe for Cuba, it would be safe for us? Precisely this has been done. See STS-36, which reached 62 degrees where 57 is the normal maximum. Take off as north as possible, make a left turn, go over North Carolina, then Cape Cod, then Canada.62 degrees is a long ways away from sun-sync or polar, neither of which are realistically achievable by launching north. Even if they fly far enough east before the dogleg that the main stage falls in the ocean, there would be several minutes of flight where a failure would drop on populated areas, vs a few seconds at most to the south.Flying to sun-sunc to the south, the IIP trace crosses only ~70 miles of Cuba and another ~55 miles of Panama, the rest is ocean.
Isn't this analogous to N Korea overflying Japan? Tokyo has talked about attempting to shoot down overflying rockets.
Missiles being tested don't carry live warheads.