Now, now. Jim's right. They're just a bunch of kids playing with their backyard rockets... They don't have a clue what they're doing. Put the Kool-Aid away... I seem to remember him saying they wouldn't get to orbit... after Falcon 1 flight 4, in fact...Even a rocket expert is sometimes proven wrong.
Quote from: llo2015 on 12/07/2010 09:34 pmQuote from: wjbarnett on 12/07/2010 08:30 pmSince I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36NThanks for your info - Launch Azimuth of 69.7° from KSC/Cape Canaveral corresponds to an orbit of 34.5° inclination. This launch azimuth takes the Falcon-9/Dragon in a direction north of Bermuda and a subsequent over-flight track over Gibraltar and the Mediterranean makes sense.Concerning Jay Barbree's question, Europe or Gibraltar are basically the same concerning his main point which was over-flight due to an event of an engine-out late in powered flight and the potential consequences of an uncontrolled descent.It's still pretty weak sauce. By the time in F9's flight where it's IIP (Instantaneous Impact Point--the point you would hit if you lost power at any given second) is crossing over any populate area, the IIP is going to be moving so fast that the actual odds of it hurting anyone are ridiculously low. This isn't having your IIP passing over a densely populated are right as you're doing stage separation or something like that. This is well into the 2nd stage of flight. Part of the launch license that SpaceX filed involves calculating E-sub-c (expected casualties). That's the expected number of people to be hurt from a given flight. FAA will not let you fly if your E-sub-c is greater than .00003 (30x10^-6). The odds of SpaceX's F9 failing at the exact instant it would take to actually hurt someone in Gibraltar or Northern Africa is vanishingly small, even if you assume a 100% probability of launch failure. Let's do the math. Say your IIP is going at say 5km/s (IIP typically moves faster than your actual ground track--at the split second before your perigee gets above ground, your IIP actually is effectively going infinitely fast), and your flight is say 600s long, and the populated area is 50km long with people standing hand in hand along the flight path that whole way so there's a 100% chance of fatalities if the thing fails during that timeframe, you're only looking at 1.6% chance (50km/5km/s=10s, 10s/600s =.016).Yawn.~Jon[Note: the specific numbers like flight duration and IIP velocity and 50km populated area were all total guesstimates pulled out of certain nether regions]
Quote from: wjbarnett on 12/07/2010 08:30 pmSince I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36NThanks for your info - Launch Azimuth of 69.7° from KSC/Cape Canaveral corresponds to an orbit of 34.5° inclination. This launch azimuth takes the Falcon-9/Dragon in a direction north of Bermuda and a subsequent over-flight track over Gibraltar and the Mediterranean makes sense.Concerning Jay Barbree's question, Europe or Gibraltar are basically the same concerning his main point which was over-flight due to an event of an engine-out late in powered flight and the potential consequences of an uncontrolled descent.
Since I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36N
I am just trying to counter balance the unwarranted and blind worship of all things Spacex. I call a spade a spade. I support Spacex but with tempered enthusiasm. I was in the same boat at one time, supporting the first real commercial space company, Spacehab.
I'm not in the business but was wondering whether 'test flights' are counted when considering a company's launch success/failure statistics. Seems to me that flights specifically identified as test flights shouldn't be considered part of the launch statistics or at least a disclaimer acknowledging the basis behind the statistic.By that measure:F1 has a 50% success rate based on 1 failed satellite launch and 1 successful.F9 has no record at this point since flight 1 was clearly a test, and the COTS flights are demo's or tests to prove up the system by any other name.Cheers.
Quote from: beancounter on 12/08/2010 01:09 amI'm not in the business but was wondering whether 'test flights' are counted when considering a company's launch success/failure statistics. Seems to me that flights specifically identified as test flights shouldn't be considered part of the launch statistics or at least a disclaimer acknowledging the basis behind the statistic.By that measure:F1 has a 50% success rate based on 1 failed satellite launch and 1 successful.F9 has no record at this point since flight 1 was clearly a test, and the COTS flights are demo's or tests to prove up the system by any other name.Cheers.Depends on whether you're a "blind worshiper" or a "tempered enthusiast."
In my view, the SpaceX representative should have told Jay that if that Falcon-9 missed orbital velocity, both the second stage and Dragon capsule could be maneuvered to a safe disposal in the Atlantic
It seems to me that the only "blind worship" I've seen on this forum is from people who haven't been in the business and don't have firsthand knowledge of how hard it is.It seems that the people on this forum who have been in the business are, in fact, the ones with "tempered enthusiasm." They know it's not easy, there are going to be growing pains and some failures, but they respect and admire what SpaceX has been able to do, and what they may be poised to accomplish. Can't speak for everyone, but that's how it looks to me.
My main point is not that they will or not have successful flights but that they won't be any different than others in the same field. Their costs/prices will be similar.
Yahoo news quotes Gwynne Shotwell as saying that the launch is no earlier than Thursday as of a few hours ago.If that is the case, why is everyone saying that the launch is tommorrow? Is it just out of date information?
There are already 30 launches on their manifest that are not "similar costs/prices."