Quote from: rsdavis9 on 10/12/2017 04:53 pmIf they allow for overflight of cuba and the yucatan they can get a wide range of azimuths. It looks like 0 deg for straight east and maybe 60 degrees for southeast.Would they be over the Kármán line at this point? Otherwise they would enter Cuban or Mexican air space...
If they allow for overflight of cuba and the yucatan they can get a wide range of azimuths. It looks like 0 deg for straight east and maybe 60 degrees for southeast.
Quote from: jpo234 on 10/12/2017 05:55 pmQuote from: rsdavis9 on 10/12/2017 04:53 pmIf they allow for overflight of cuba and the yucatan they can get a wide range of azimuths. It looks like 0 deg for straight east and maybe 60 degrees for southeast.Would they be over the Kármán line at this point? Otherwise they would enter Cuban or Mexican air space...Doesn't this have more to do with the path traced out by the instantaneous impact point during the flight?
Quote from: acsawdey on 10/12/2017 06:10 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 10/12/2017 05:55 pmQuote from: rsdavis9 on 10/12/2017 04:53 pmIf they allow for overflight of cuba and the yucatan they can get a wide range of azimuths. It looks like 0 deg for straight east and maybe 60 degrees for southeast.Would they be over the Kármán line at this point? Otherwise they would enter Cuban or Mexican air space...Doesn't this have more to do with the path traced out by the instantaneous impact point during the flight?The upper stage would reach 100 km altitude while only 100 to 200 km from the launch site, so that's not an issue.But yes, the issue is IIP trace, especially over populated areas.
Quote from: envy887 on 10/12/2017 06:18 pmThe upper stage would reach 100 km altitude while only 100 to 200 km from the launch site, so that's not an issue.But yes, the issue is IIP trace, especially over populated areas.It makes sense to fly only BFR out of Boca Chica because the intent is to make BFR as reliable as an aircraft. If this is achieved then flying over populated areas like Cuba (at an altitude > 100km) should be ok. BFS won't have an AFTS/FTS system on board and BFR will safe its AFTS after meco/separation of BFS. This means that the rule about flying over populated areas would be moot since there shouldn't be a possibly of impact (unless in an accident like aircraft today).
The upper stage would reach 100 km altitude while only 100 to 200 km from the launch site, so that's not an issue.But yes, the issue is IIP trace, especially over populated areas.
Quote from: kaoru on 10/12/2017 07:15 pmQuote from: envy887 on 10/12/2017 06:18 pmThe upper stage would reach 100 km altitude while only 100 to 200 km from the launch site, so that's not an issue.But yes, the issue is IIP trace, especially over populated areas.It makes sense to fly only BFR out of Boca Chica because the intent is to make BFR as reliable as an aircraft. If this is achieved then flying over populated areas like Cuba (at an altitude > 100km) should be ok. BFS won't have an AFTS/FTS system on board and BFR will safe its AFTS after meco/separation of BFS. This means that the rule about flying over populated areas would be moot since there shouldn't be a possibly of impact (unless in an accident like aircraft today).Like he said,it has nothing do with the altitude when flying over. It has to do with the IIP trace. And if the IIP trace has not reached the populated areas like Cuba (which the vehicle will eventually fly over) until after staging, then the BFS WILL have an AFTS/FTS system
Doesn't every launch from the cape going east have a IIP of in europe or africa at some point in the flight?
...How I interpret things, BFS is essentially an oversized F9 S2 permanently attached to oversized CC Dragon (minus any Super Dracos/LAS) for carrying way more crew/passengers. This makes BFS essentially the same as CC Dragon from a flight termination POV. Current CC Dragon doesn't have a FTS system, so why should the BFS? If a FTS is required, it'll be interesting to read the indemnity waiver for the passengers... "SpaceX is not responsible for your death if the spacecraft decides to blow itself up on the off chance it might hit an island in a large ocean"...
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 10/12/2017 07:11 pmDoesn't every launch from the cape going east have a IIP of in europe or africa at some point in the flight?Yes, the trace goes all the way around the world in the time it takes to raise perigee above the surface - usually about 8 minutes. Close to the launch site, it moves very slowly, but further away it's moving very quickly, so the probability of a vehicle breakup resulting in expected casualties far downrange is quite low. The IIP crosses the thousands of miles of Africa in only a few seconds.The expected casualties number is basically a function of vehicle reliability and vehicle mass integrated over time along the population along the IIP trace. Per the FAA, the number of expected casualties has to be lower than 30x10^-6 per launch.
Shuttle had FTS. Bob Cabana talked about it during the press conference when AFTS moved to primary on Falcon.FTS is about public safety. Sure, killing the crew isn’t good. But having the rocket crash and kill many members of the public is considered worse. The general public didn’t sign up to sit on the rocket. The astronauts did. Edit: added some additional thoughts
Quote from: kaoru on 10/12/2017 08:14 pm...How I interpret things, BFS is essentially an oversized F9 S2 permanently attached to oversized CC Dragon (minus any Super Dracos/LAS) for carrying way more crew/passengers. This makes BFS essentially the same as CC Dragon from a flight termination POV. Current CC Dragon doesn't have a FTS system, so why should the BFS? If a FTS is required, it'll be interesting to read the indemnity waiver for the passengers... "SpaceX is not responsible for your death if the spacecraft decides to blow itself up on the off chance it might hit an island in a large ocean"...The BFS will be operated autonomously and needs AFTS for those flights, for certain. If something goes wrong it's basically a 1,000 ton unmanned flying bomb.
Quote from: cppetrie on 10/12/2017 08:29 pmShuttle had FTS. Bob Cabana talked about it during the press conference when AFTS moved to primary on Falcon.FTS is about public safety. Sure, killing the crew isnt good. But having the rocket crash and kill many members of the public is considered worse. The general public didnt sign up to sit on the rocket. The astronauts did. Edit: added some additional thoughtsI agree that NASA astronauts signed up... But BFS will transport regular public (eventually) like an aircraft of which FAA ensures safety for all. Somehow I don't think the FAA will allow the guaranteed death of a hundred passengers to *probably* save an unknown quantity of people/things on the ground. That's why aircraft don't have FTS...
Shuttle had FTS. Bob Cabana talked about it during the press conference when AFTS moved to primary on Falcon.FTS is about public safety. Sure, killing the crew isnt good. But having the rocket crash and kill many members of the public is considered worse. The general public didnt sign up to sit on the rocket. The astronauts did. Edit: added some additional thoughts
There are numerous BFR threads. They would be a more appropriate place for that thought.
In addition various reddit comments from Gwynne Shotwell's talk and Q&A last night say that the Boca Chica site is now specifically for BFR.
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/10/spacexs-gwynne-shotwell-reveals-more-details-about-the-bfr-002085099.htmlIs Texas really SpaceX first & final choice to launch the BFR. First.
Shotwell did not provide any detail about how the Boca Chica spaceport would handle BFR launches and landings, whether they would be from land or, as some illustrations suggest, from an offshore platform.Texas has plenty of firms with expertise in building offshore platforms. Launching from offshore would likely avoid the issue of beach closures that land launches have entailed.
Quote from: kaoru on 10/12/2017 09:17 pmQuote from: cppetrie on 10/12/2017 08:29 pmShuttle had FTS. Bob Cabana talked about it during the press conference when AFTS moved to primary on Falcon.FTS is about public safety. Sure, killing the crew isnt good. But having the rocket crash and kill many members of the public is considered worse. The general public didnt sign up to sit on the rocket. The astronauts did. Edit: added some additional thoughtsI agree that NASA astronauts signed up... But BFS will transport regular public (eventually) like an aircraft of which FAA ensures safety for all. Somehow I don't think the FAA will allow the guaranteed death of a hundred passengers to *probably* save an unknown quantity of people/things on the ground. That's why aircraft don't have FTS...How much experience do you have with how the US federal government promulgates regulations for new and emerging areas? If the answer is anything but "Lots," then I respectfully suggest you - and every other armchair amateur rocket scientist/lawyer - stick to regulations as they exist now, and technologies such as AFTS that exist now - rather than make blanket pronouncements about future PowerPoint vehicles servicing future PowerPoint economic markets that do not yet exist.
Quote from: gongora on 10/12/2017 05:39 pmThere are numerous BFR threads. They would be a more appropriate place for that thought.Not really, I was interested in the flight path of BFR specifically from Boca Chica as given the news from the last few days it is possible that it will be the initial launch site, this a discussion thread too. It would be interesting to take a step back from FAA rules and flight termination systems and think in terms of insurers liabilities and how to mitigate risk. Then go back and see how FAA rules etc. apply.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 10/12/2017 09:42 pmQuote from: kaoru on 10/12/2017 09:17 pmQuote from: cppetrie on 10/12/2017 08:29 pmShuttle had FTS. Bob Cabana talked about it during the press conference when AFTS moved to primary on Falcon.FTS is about public safety. Sure, killing the crew isnt good. But having the rocket crash and kill many members of the public is considered worse. The general public didnt sign up to sit on the rocket. The astronauts did. Edit: added some additional thoughtsI agree that NASA astronauts signed up... But BFS will transport regular public (eventually) like an aircraft of which FAA ensures safety for all. Somehow I don't think the FAA will allow the guaranteed death of a hundred passengers to *probably* save an unknown quantity of people/things on the ground. That's why aircraft don't have FTS...How much experience do you have with how the US federal government promulgates regulations for new and emerging areas? If the answer is anything but "Lots," then I respectfully suggest you - and every other armchair amateur rocket scientist/lawyer - stick to regulations as they exist now, and technologies such as AFTS that exist now - rather than make blanket pronouncements about future PowerPoint vehicles servicing future PowerPoint economic markets that do not yet exist.The discussion is about BFR/BFS launching out of Boca Chica and the requirements to do so safely. If you want to speak about that great. However, I respectfully suggest that you don't speak about the people contributing to the discussion, good or bad. Also, IMHO, when metal is being bent then it's not a PowerPoint project anymore. SpaceX is building BFR/BFS now...