Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion  (Read 531975 times)

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11522
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7651
  • Likes Given: 74693
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #920 on: 01/29/2021 09:07 am »
Moderator:
Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories have no place on NSF,  not even in the New Physics sub-forum.
Thread trim.

Moderator:
The NSF forum is not the place for unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
Thread trimmed. Again.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 09:15 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline maquinsa

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #921 on: 01/29/2021 09:43 am »
FAA ATCSCC Advisory Page:

Quote
SPACEX STARSHIP ROCKET LAUNCH SCHEDULED FOR
AFTER 1400Z.

This could be an indicator the approval has been given.

https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=11&adv_date=01292021&facId=DCC&title=OPERATIONS+PLAN2Q%60%601&titleDate=01/29/21

We'll have to wait until road closure matchs tfr
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 10:09 am by maquinsa »

Offline garthberry

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • UK
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #922 on: 01/29/2021 10:41 am »
FAA ATCSCC Advisory Page:

Quote
SPACEX STARSHIP ROCKET LAUNCH SCHEDULED FOR
AFTER 1400Z.

This could be an indicator the approval has been given.

https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=11&adv_date=01292021&facId=DCC&title=OPERATIONS+PLAN2Q%60%601&titleDate=01/29/21

We'll have to wait until road closure matchs tfr

Looks like a correction was issued 22 minutes after that operations plan with the following relevant text.

Quote
THIS ADVISORY REPLACES ADVISORY 011 FOR TITLE CORRECTION AND UPDATED ROCKET
LAUNCH INFORMATION. SPACEX ROCKET LAUNCH CANCELLED FOR TODAY.

https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=12&adv_date=01292021&facId=DCC&title=OPERATIONS+PLAN+-+CORRECTION&titleDate=01/29/21

Online BitterJim

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 616
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #923 on: 01/29/2021 10:46 am »
Not sure how SpaceX deserves to be scrutinized for the counties job to ensure beach is clear, etc. The county closes the road and clears the beach, not SpaceX. SpaceX may help, but not their liability.

It most certainly is SpaceX's liability. The beach is a public state park and the road accessing it is a public thoroughfare. The State and County agree to allow SpaceX to close them periodically in exchange for other consideration (economic development and investment, etc) but the closures are for SpaceX's benefit.

Emphasis mine.

Sorry Herb, but that is factually incorrect.

SpaceX cannot enforce the closure of a public beach and a public highway. It can only request the county to do so. And when the county agrees (judge signs a piece of paper), the law-enforcement agency of the county is responsible for the actual closure of the beach and highway and enforcing those closures. Hence why the sherrif is always there when the road and beach are closed.The only thing SpaceX can do is ASSIST the law enforcement agency. For example by reconning (via a drone) the beach, dunes and roads for 'hidden' vehicles and people, and forwarding that info to the sherrif's department. It is ultimately the responsibility of the law enforcement agency to get those people out.

So, failure to clear a beach properly (vehicles remaining on the beach after closure) and failure to prevent a kayak from entering the area (after closure) ultimately is a failure by the law enforcement agency to properly do its job.

You are however correct that the aspect of liability comes down on SpaceX.

Clearing the beach may be the county's responsibility, but it's SpaceX's responsibility to make sure there is no one in the dangerous area before performing potentially dangerous tests.

The issue with the kayaker isn't that they weren't removed from the beach, it's that SpaceX had the vehicle fueled and were working toward a static fire while there was someone on the beach. If the county decided to just not clear people off the beach that wouldn't mean SpaceX was clear to fire anyway, same thing if they miss someone.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6311
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9638
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #924 on: 01/29/2021 10:46 am »
As far as I am aware, Starship is using the same AFTS system as Falcon 9 (and possibly even literally the same hardware, if they've harvested some units from idle or decommissioned boosters). If it is A-OK for use by Falcon, and was okayed for use by SN8, what would cause it to be an issue for SN9? It's not like SN9 is flying a different flight profile or sending its IIP outside the hazard zone.
Best I can think of is that something was overlooked for SN8 that should not have been approved, but is now being identified under increased scrutiny. Possibly range safety related, e.g. monitoring, surveillance (just looking for anyone squawking AIS or ADS-B is not sufficient) and enforcement of the keep-out regions over the water and in the air and who is talking to who when it comes to communicating violations in a timely manner (e.g. could a Wayward Boat enter the region at t-10 and the coast-guard - if that is who is the responsible party - have a line to get that back to SpaceX launch control before t=0?) or figuring out if anyone is actually responsible for and capable of escorting any boats or aircraft out of the region.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 07:48 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1887
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4077
  • Likes Given: 2776
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #925 on: 01/29/2021 12:29 pm »
As far as I am aware, Starship is using the same AFTS system as Falcon 9 (and possibly even literally the same hardware, if they've harvested some units from idle or decommissioned boosters). If it is A-OK for use by Falcon, and was okayed for use by SN8, what would cause it to be an issue for SN9? It's not like SN9 is flying a different flight profile or sending its IIP outside the hazard zone.
Best I can think of is that something was overlooked for SN8 that should not have been approved, but is now being identified under increased scrutiny. Possibly range safety related, e.g. monitoring, surveillance (just looking for anyone squawking AIS or ADS-B is not sufficient) and enforcement of the keep-out regions over the water and in the air and who is talking to who when it comes to communicating violations in a timely manner (e.g. could a Wayward Boat enter the region at t-10 and the coast-guard - if that is who is the responsible party - have a line to get that back to SpaceX launch control before t=0?) or figuring out if anyone is actually responsible for and capable of escorting any boats or aircraft out of the region.

Isn't that speculation? It might as well be concerns that starship or parts of it, considering its sturdy design and large aerodynamic components could venture out of the keepout zone post AFTS trigger. Assume the tanks blow up but the nose cone survives just as it did with SN8 and - fins intact - enters an aerodynamically stable mode ( theres a famous story from WW2 where the tail section of a bomber managed to glide to a landing - post midair breakup) it could have considerable cross range and end up in Mexico or even make it to LabPadreIsland
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 07:49 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Itís clear that very few of the last comments today and last night have to do with Texas prototypes per se. Please take the regulatory talk to a more appropriate thread or start a new one. The Mods already have too much to do.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39284
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25279
  • Likes Given: 12125
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #927 on: 01/29/2021 12:39 pm »
As far as I am aware, Starship is using the same AFTS system as Falcon 9 (and possibly even literally the same hardware, if they've harvested some units from idle or decommissioned boosters). If it is A-OK for use by Falcon, and was okayed for use by SN8, what would cause it to be an issue for SN9? It's not like SN9 is flying a different flight profile or sending its IIP outside the hazard zone.
Best I can think of is that something was overlooked for SN8 that should not have been approved, but is now being identified under increased scrutiny. Possibly range safety related, e.g. monitoring, surveillance (just looking for anyone squawking AIS or ADS-B is not sufficient) and enforcement of the keep-out regions over the water and in the air and who is talking to who when it comes to communicating violations in a timely manner (e.g. could a Wayward Boat enter the region at t-10 and the coast-guard - if that is who is the responsible party - have a line to get that back to SpaceX launch control before t=0?) or figuring out if anyone is actually responsible for and capable of escorting any boats or aircraft out of the region.

Isn't that speculation? It might as well be concerns that starship or parts of it, considering its sturdy design and large aerodynamic components could venture out of the keepout zone post AFTS trigger. Assume the tanks blow up but the nose cone survives just as it did with SN8 and - fins intact - enters an aerodynamically stable mode ( theres a famous story from WW2 where the tail section of a bomber managed to glide to a landing - post midair breakup) it could have considerable cross range and end up in Mexico or even make it to LabPadreIsland
Man, donít give the FAA any ideas
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 07:49 pm by zubenelgenubi »
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 Herb Schaltegger

Latest FAA Notice for a TFR from 1400z to 2359z upto 91000 feet.

https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_7364.html

This isnít really an Update. That TFR was issued 3 days ago.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline r8ix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #929 on: 01/29/2021 12:53 pm »
Latest FAA Notice for a TFR from 1400z to 2359z upto 91000 feet.

https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_7364.html

This isnít really an Update. That TFR was issued 3 days ago.

Yes, but it was missing for a least some of yesterday. It's been resurrected...

Offline Shanuson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Liked: 327
  • Likes Given: 2564
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #930 on: 01/29/2021 01:03 pm »
As far as I am aware, Starship is using the same AFTS system as Falcon 9 (and possibly even literally the same hardware, if they've harvested some units from idle or decommissioned boosters). If it is A-OK for use by Falcon, and was okayed for use by SN8, what would cause it to be an issue for SN9? It's not like SN9 is flying a different flight profile or sending its IIP outside the hazard zone.
Best I can think of is that something was overlooked for SN8 that should not have been approved, but is now being identified under increased scrutiny. Possibly range safety related, e.g. monitoring, surveillance (just looking for anyone squawking AIS or ADS-B is not sufficient) and enforcement of the keep-out regions over the water and in the air and who is talking to who when it comes to communicating violations in a timely manner (e.g. could a Wayward Boat enter the region at t-10 and the coast-guard - if that is who is the responsible party - have a line to get that back to SpaceX launch control before t=0?) or figuring out if anyone is actually responsible for and capable of escorting any boats or aircraft out of the region.

Isn't that speculation? It might as well be concerns that starship or parts of it, considering its sturdy design and large aerodynamic components could venture out of the keepout zone post AFTS trigger. Assume the tanks blow up but the nose cone survives just as it did with SN8 and - fins intact - enters an aerodynamically stable mode ( theres a famous story from WW2 where the tail section of a bomber managed to glide to a landing - post midair breakup) it could have considerable cross range and end up in Mexico or even make it to LabPadreIsland
Man, donít give the FAA any ideas

How about the newly added helium bottles surviving the explosion and being send somewhere to explode on impact?
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 07:50 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1887
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4077
  • Likes Given: 2776
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #931 on: 01/29/2021 01:06 pm »
As far as I am aware, Starship is using the same AFTS system as Falcon 9 (and possibly even literally the same hardware, if they've harvested some units from idle or decommissioned boosters). If it is A-OK for use by Falcon, and was okayed for use by SN8, what would cause it to be an issue for SN9? It's not like SN9 is flying a different flight profile or sending its IIP outside the hazard zone.
Best I can think of is that something was overlooked for SN8 that should not have been approved, but is now being identified under increased scrutiny. Possibly range safety related, e.g. monitoring, surveillance (just looking for anyone squawking AIS or ADS-B is not sufficient) and enforcement of the keep-out regions over the water and in the air and who is talking to who when it comes to communicating violations in a timely manner (e.g. could a Wayward Boat enter the region at t-10 and the coast-guard - if that is who is the responsible party - have a line to get that back to SpaceX launch control before t=0?) or figuring out if anyone is actually responsible for and capable of escorting any boats or aircraft out of the region.

Isn't that speculation? It might as well be concerns that starship or parts of it, considering its sturdy design and large aerodynamic components could venture out of the keepout zone post AFTS trigger. Assume the tanks blow up but the nose cone survives just as it did with SN8 and - fins intact - enters an aerodynamically stable mode ( theres a famous story from WW2 where the tail section of a bomber managed to glide to a landing - post midair breakup) it could have considerable cross range and end up in Mexico or even make it to LabPadreIsland
Man, donít give the FAA any ideas

Hey if it's just that, that'd be easy. Just put some extra explosives in the nose cone ;)

« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 07:51 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Online Vettedrmr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Hot Springs, AR
  • Liked: 2112
  • Likes Given: 3250
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #932 on: 01/29/2021 01:09 pm »
How about the newly added helium bottles surviving the explosion and being send somewhere to explode on impact?

But all the debris was contained within the exclusion zone, right?
Aviation/space enthusiast, retired control system SW engineer, doesn't know anything!

Offline jd42jd

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Germany
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #933 on: 01/29/2021 01:17 pm »
FAA ATCSCC Advisory Page:

Quote
SPACEX STARSHIP ROCKET LAUNCH SCHEDULED FOR
AFTER 1400Z.

This could be an indicator the approval has been given.

https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=11&adv_date=01292021&facId=DCC&title=OPERATIONS+PLAN2Q%60%601&titleDate=01/29/21

We'll have to wait until road closure matchs tfr

Looks like a correction was issued 22 minutes after that operations plan with the following relevant text.

Quote
THIS ADVISORY REPLACES ADVISORY 011 FOR TITLE CORRECTION AND UPDATED ROCKET
LAUNCH INFORMATION. SPACEX ROCKET LAUNCH CANCELLED FOR TODAY.

https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis.jsp?advn=12&adv_date=01292021&facId=DCC&title=OPERATIONS+PLAN+-+CORRECTION&titleDate=01/29/21

looks like they did the same yesterday but later. There is advisory 19 with "ZHU - SPACEX STARSHIP ROCKET LAUNCH" at 14:24 UTC yesterday and then advisory 23 with "ROCKET LAUNCH FROM BOCA CHICA TX HAS BEEN SCRUBBED, RESCHEDULED FOR
TOMORROW" at 16:30 UTC.

Offline Mike_1179

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #934 on: 01/29/2021 01:27 pm »
How about the newly added helium bottles surviving the explosion and being send somewhere to explode on impact?

But all the debris was contained within the exclusion zone, right?

There are different "exclusion zones". The max amount of fuel and oxidizer in the vehicle at fueling / liftoff would necessitate a keep-out zone around the vehicle during those operations. The TFR keeps aircraft out of the area during fueling (up to 7200 ft) and ascent (unlimited). The winds and flight profile will determine IIP on the ground and you don't necessarily keep everyone out of those zones if you determine the risk is low enough (see flights over Cuba for polar corridor from CCAFS)

So in other words, it's complicated and very dependent on the vehicle and flight conditions. They may need to prove that the FTS reduces risk sufficiently for ground impacts and there's still some concerns about that.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5189
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 2903
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #935 on: 01/29/2021 01:30 pm »
How do they clear the beach area at Cape Canaveral?  Can't people walk in along the beach from the north or south?  Maybe the cape is more of an Island.  You can still have boats and kayaks along the coast?  At some point, the beach and the road are going to have to be closed far more often than open, unless they launch offshore. 

Yay - first forum post. Wasn't sure if it is worth noticing, neither if this has anything to do with SpaceX, but there are 2 NASA Planes headed into the direction of Boca Chica.

edit: NASA908 is indeed heading for Brownsville Airport. T-38 propably escorting it or something.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 01:37 pm by sngrofficial »

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1027
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #937 on: 01/29/2021 01:39 pm »
Yay - first forum post. Wasn't sure if it is worth noticing, neither if this has anything to do with SpaceX, but there are 2 NASA Planes headed into the direction of Boca Chica.
They're headed to Brownsville. Very typical flight for the T38s
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/NASA908

Offline Thunderscreech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
  • Liked: 950
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #938 on: 01/29/2021 01:44 pm »
Yes, but it was missing for a least some of yesterday. It's been resurrected...
Correction: it was never missing, this TFR has been consistently listed since being filed.  1/7364 was posted on the 26th and hasn't budged since.

Source: I'm @SpaceTFRs on Twitter and my script monitors TFRs and alerts when they disappear as it did for 1/7363.
Ben Hallert - @BocaRoad, @FCCSpace, @Spacecareers, @NASAProcurement, and @SpaceTFRs on Twitter

Offline Jimmy_C

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 6655
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #939 on: 01/29/2021 01:45 pm »
Yay - first forum post. Wasn't sure if it is worth noticing, neither if this has anything to do with SpaceX, but there are 2 NASA Planes headed into the direction of Boca Chica.

edit: NASA908 is indeed heading for Brownsville Airport. T-38 propably escorting it or something.

Welcome to the forum!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1