Quote from: Jim on 06/30/2018 12:07 pmA. The shuttle failed only twice in 135 missions. Per vehicle is nonsensical. The failures were independent of which orbiter. Which would have made another launch of the remaining orbiters very interesting, to see if any of them failed around the 30-35 launch mark, but with another cause.
A. The shuttle failed only twice in 135 missions. Per vehicle is nonsensical. The failures were independent of which orbiter.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/30/2018 04:56 amWith GPS, it's easy for airplanes to know exactly where the rocket is going to go and stay away from its path.No, rockets do not follow the planned path. That is one given.
With GPS, it's easy for airplanes to know exactly where the rocket is going to go and stay away from its path.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 07/01/2018 03:37 pmLast in the in air explosion of a plane that I remember was a year or so ago.Not a bomb, 2001.So, pretty rare, given how many flights there have been between now and then, and 17 years since one that wasn't an actual act of terrorism or sabotage. That suggests the FAA will be looking to keep the rockets away from the aircraft for some time to come. On a more positive note it would be interesting if the process could be improved, even if the actual requirement is not going away soon.Could the advance notice circulation time be shortened for example? Could the shape of the exclusion zone be more tailored as data on successful (and unsuccessful) launches accumulates?
Last in the in air explosion of a plane that I remember was a year or so ago.Not a bomb, 2001.
Talk of Apollo failure modes, STS failure rate, F9 upper stage failures, etc. is all very much off-topic for this thread. Please read the thread title again and return to that particular subject.Thank you.
This kind of uneasy coexistence has become the norm as the FAA continues to restrict airspace for commercial launches and reentry, often for an hour or more. The closed space can extend for hundreds of miles along a rocket’s planned flight path, given the potential risks if a craft explodes in flight. That area will need to decrease over time to minimize airline disruptions, industry experts told Congress. They said computer simulations of such disasters block off more airspace than necessary.
“Commercial space launch needs to be better integrated into the national airspace,” said Caryn Schenewerk, SpaceX’s senior counsel and director of government affairs. After launch, the Falcon 9 exceeds 60,000 feet “in a quick 90 seconds,” she said, with its reusable rocket boosters requiring use of the airspace for only one minute before landing.Tim Canoll is president of ALPA, the union representing 60,000 U.S. and Canadian pilots. He said work is needed to make the two industries operate seamlessly, saying Tuesday at a hearing of a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee in Washington that FAA operations don’t have “real-time data” on rockets’ movements.As the launch industry matures, the ultimate goal is to incorporate spacecraft into the routine flow of the 42,000 daily aircraft that the FAA controls, making a SpaceX Falcon 9 bound for the International Space Station no different than an American A321 headed to Miami. “The next step,” Canoll said, is to put space travel and air travel together so rockets “can operate along with us.”
Tests have shown that rocket telemetry data can flow into current air-traffic control systems and give controllers real-time awareness on the vehicle’s movement. Of course, air traffic controllers direct an aircraft’s course and speed — a power they won’t have with space vehicles.Audrey Powers, Blue Origin’s deputy general counsel, told the House panel: “This is a very solvable problem.”The industry and regulators need to develop tools to help further existing efforts to build a space data integrator system, designed to automate the flow of real-time rocket data and the release of blocked airspace because, she said, “we are smart enough to solve this problem.”
It's like AFTS - before it appeared, no one could understand how Eastern range was going to support SpaceX flight rates. A few people here didn't think 45th Air Wing could wrap their heads around simultaneous returning boosters and approve it in less than a zillion years of rule making.
Quote from: ngilmore on 07/04/2018 03:39 pmIt's like AFTS - before it appeared, no one could understand how Eastern range was going to support SpaceX flight rates. A few people here didn't think 45th Air Wing could wrap their heads around simultaneous returning boosters and approve it in less than a zillion years of rule making.Wrong. the concept of AFTS existed long before SpaceX and was being championed by the 45th
After ignition, the exposure time is indeed very short except for RTLS boosters. But you can't expect aircraft already enroute to deviate 90 degrees at the last minute. They will want to know their route at least an hour away. Airliners enroute are not being flown by hand - it is all programmed into the flight computers because they operate more efficently that way and airline management insists on it. Also, fuel reserves have to take into account the additional fuel required for any posssible diversion. Carrying more fuel than necessary costs money because it increases weight even if you don't burn it, you burn more fuel just carrying it around. Airlines worry about such things.T-0 time is not always predictable far in advance. Some launches, such as to ISS, require split second timing - it either goes when scheduled or you wait a day or more. But other launches have a lot of slop possible. SpaceX has, several times, reloaded all propellant and tried again in an hour.So the duration of closures of an "R" area will still be a lot longer than the 90 seconds it takes the vehicle to clear the area. Oh and plus the RTLS boosters.
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 07/04/2018 04:01 pmAfter ignition, the exposure time is indeed very short except for RTLS boosters. But you can't expect aircraft already enroute to deviate 90 degrees at the last minute. They will want to know their route at least an hour away. Airliners enroute are not being flown by hand - it is all programmed into the flight computers because they operate more efficently that way and airline management insists on it. Also, fuel reserves have to take into account the additional fuel required for any posssible diversion. Carrying more fuel than necessary costs money because it increases weight even if you don't burn it, you burn more fuel just carrying it around. Airlines worry about such things.T-0 time is not always predictable far in advance. Some launches, such as to ISS, require split second timing - it either goes when scheduled or you wait a day or more. But other launches have a lot of slop possible. SpaceX has, several times, reloaded all propellant and tried again in an hour.So the duration of closures of an "R" area will still be a lot longer than the 90 seconds it takes the vehicle to clear the area. Oh and plus the RTLS boosters.Most of the flight plan for a launch vehicle can be know days in advance. The FAA may be able to use that information. T-0 may not be known exactly but with liquid fuelled rockets it is not the first stage in a launch. The launch pad is cleared and the rocket fuelled before that. One of those events could be when the FAA is official requested to close the "R" area. When the boosters have landed the area can be opened again.The FAA will also have to divert aircraft away from the re-entry points of debris like inter-stages.
...QuoteTests have shown that rocket telemetry data can flow into current air-traffic control systems and give controllers real-time awareness on the vehicle’s movement. Of course, air traffic controllers direct an aircraft’s course and speed — a power they won’t have with space vehicles.Audrey Powers, Blue Origin’s deputy general counsel, told the House panel: “This is a very solvable problem.”...
Tests have shown that rocket telemetry data can flow into current air-traffic control systems and give controllers real-time awareness on the vehicle’s movement. Of course, air traffic controllers direct an aircraft’s course and speed — a power they won’t have with space vehicles.Audrey Powers, Blue Origin’s deputy general counsel, told the House panel: “This is a very solvable problem.”
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/04/2018 08:29 pmQuote from: ThereIWas3 on 07/04/2018 04:01 pmAfter ignition, the exposure time is indeed very short except for RTLS boosters. But you can't expect aircraft already enroute to deviate 90 degrees at the last minute. They will want to know their route at least an hour away. Airliners enroute are not being flown by hand - it is all programmed into the flight computers because they operate more efficently that way and airline management insists on it. Also, fuel reserves have to take into account the additional fuel required for any posssible diversion. Carrying more fuel than necessary costs money because it increases weight even if you don't burn it, you burn more fuel just carrying it around. Airlines worry about such things.T-0 time is not always predictable far in advance. Some launches, such as to ISS, require split second timing - it either goes when scheduled or you wait a day or more. But other launches have a lot of slop possible. SpaceX has, several times, reloaded all propellant and tried again in an hour.So the duration of closures of an "R" area will still be a lot longer than the 90 seconds it takes the vehicle to clear the area. Oh and plus the RTLS boosters.Most of the flight plan for a launch vehicle can be know days in advance. The FAA may be able to use that information. T-0 may not be known exactly but with liquid fuelled rockets it is not the first stage in a launch. The launch pad is cleared and the rocket fuelled before that. One of those events could be when the FAA is official requested to close the "R" area. When the boosters have landed the area can be opened again.The FAA will also have to divert aircraft away from the re-entry points of debris like inter-stages.None of the vehicles flying out of the Cape drop interstages separately, they only drop whole boosters and fairings.
Quote from: ngilmore on 07/04/2018 03:39 pm...QuoteTests have shown that rocket telemetry data can flow into current air-traffic control systems and give controllers real-time awareness on the vehicle’s movement. Of course, air traffic controllers direct an aircraft’s course and speed — a power they won’t have with space vehicles.Audrey Powers, Blue Origin’s deputy general counsel, told the House panel: “This is a very solvable problem.”...I don't see how real time telemetry from the rocket is of any use to the FAA. I can't see the FAA rerouting aircraft in real time based on telemetry data, from launch to airspace cleared is to little time to be of any practical use. (and for returning stages, we know with fairly good certainly when and where they will return based on when they launched and the closure will be established at least at launch if not earlier)What I can see helping is better communication of the countdown status (terminal count, hold, scrub, etc), the FAA can use that info much more than it needs real time telemetry.(I could see one day in the future where planes on full autopilot get real time data and reroute around a launch automatically - but again that real time data would have to be countdown data, much more than telemetry after launch).
Quote from: mn on 07/05/2018 05:14 pmQuote from: ngilmore on 07/04/2018 03:39 pm...QuoteTests have shown that rocket telemetry data can flow into current air-traffic control systems and give controllers real-time awareness on the vehicle’s movement. Of course, air traffic controllers direct an aircraft’s course and speed — a power they won’t have with space vehicles.Audrey Powers, Blue Origin’s deputy general counsel, told the House panel: “This is a very solvable problem.”...I don't see how real time telemetry from the rocket is of any use to the FAA. I can't see the FAA rerouting aircraft in real time based on telemetry data, from launch to airspace cleared is to little time to be of any practical use. (and for returning stages, we know with fairly good certainly when and where they will return based on when they launched and the closure will be established at least at launch if not earlier)What I can see helping is better communication of the countdown status (terminal count, hold, scrub, etc), the FAA can use that info much more than it needs real time telemetry.(I could see one day in the future where planes on full autopilot get real time data and reroute around a launch automatically - but again that real time data would have to be countdown data, much more than telemetry after launch).Telemetry could help move planes away from an off-nominal launch, either by live instantaneous impact point tracking or by tracking azimuth or altitude out of bounds.
Aren't rockets that go out of bounds destroyed?
Quote from: mn on 07/06/2018 03:58 amAren't rockets that go out of bounds destroyed? They're not vaporized. You still wouldn't want your 777 flying through a cloud of debris.
If all airliners had decent internet connections, an ACAS upgrade could give them the ability to avoid known hazards at a second's notice.