Quote from: SoCalEric on 04/20/2013 08:53 pmwait.... Scrub just because 40 people were too close? Not homes / wildlife sanctuaries,etc, but human tourists too close? If so, wouldn't the initial allowed observation range have been set further out from the get go?No, that had to do with an attempt to extend the range area based specifically on today's conditions.
wait.... Scrub just because 40 people were too close? Not homes / wildlife sanctuaries,etc, but human tourists too close? If so, wouldn't the initial allowed observation range have been set further out from the get go?
Quote from: psloss on 04/20/2013 09:04 pmQuote from: SoCalEric on 04/20/2013 08:53 pmwait.... Scrub just because 40 people were too close? Not homes / wildlife sanctuaries,etc, but human tourists too close? If so, wouldn't the initial allowed observation range have been set further out from the get go?No, that had to do with an attempt to extend the range area based specifically on today's conditions.Right, but, probably just (understanably) simple lack of tourist history that _initial_ allowed observation range wasn't _already_ initailly set at the " 99.9% chance no problem" level vs, say merely some "99% chance no problem level", or such?And, I guess FAA proper is official entity that decides. ?
so does Wallops being further North than KSC generally increase the chances of high winds (or bad weather in general)?