Quote from: baking on 09/12/2022 02:59 amQuote from: WTF on 09/11/2022 02:22 pmHerd 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 herderA goat herder is the new shepherd.
Quote from: WTF on 09/11/2022 02:22 pmHerd 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
Herd of goats to signicantly reduce the brush.Probabky need to hire a shepherd.
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
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.
Delivery at the Starbase Launch Site#SpaceX #Starship #Starbase📸 Me for WAI Media @FelixSchlang
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=IsXAs0fg47vAjx8u3w8wYQExcuse the clickbait title. It’s pretty funny.
I already shared it in the party thread.
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".
Quote from: alugobi on 09/14/2022 07:44 pmLove 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".
It was tedious (I had to play it on 2x, and skip ahead LOL), but still kind of funny
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.
Quote from: edzieba on 09/15/2022 04:01 pmPlenty 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.…
Quote from: edzieba on 09/15/2022 04:01 pmPlenty 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.
Quote from: chopsticks on 09/15/2022 04:45 pmQuote from: edzieba on 09/15/2022 04:01 pmPlenty 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.
Quote from: chopsticks on 09/15/2022 04:45 pmQuote from: edzieba on 09/15/2022 04:01 pmPlenty 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.
These new strobe lights on the Starbase tower are going to be fun.nsf.live/starbase