Author Topic: Launches troublesome for Airlines, Commercial liftoffs cause delays  (Read 14835 times)

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
A.  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.
Already done. Discovery retired with 39 flights on her airframe, Atlantis retired after 33 flights and Endeavour had 25 flights to her name. Columbia was lost on her 28th entry and Challenger on her 10th launch. So Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour all surpassed Challenger and then some. Discovery and Atlantis both got past Columbia, (Discovery already had surpassed Columbia when she was lost and Atlantis did that on STS-117) Endeavour however only came close to exceeding the number of flights of Columbia. She would have done it easily if the programed had continued.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136

With 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.

That statement is a tautology, true by definition, but potential informative if it can be quantified.
Excluding the recent Ariane launch, how far do rockets typically depart from their preplanned trajectories in the various phases, like liftoff, transonic, pitch-over, staging, etc?  And, yes, it varies between rockets, rocket models, launch profiles, etc but what would be a good distance for one or more cases?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
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.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Last 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? 

Depends on your definition of "Exploded", South West 1380 un-contained engine failure that killed a passenger and dropped engine bits all over the north east was only last April. Contained and un-contained engine failures that drop hot metal engine bits are quite common. Every couple of months, the reason you don't hear about them is they usually don't kill people and are "contained". "Contained" definition is the spiny bits did not penetrate through the side of the engine into the plane and wings, but instead, by design shot out the back dropping harmlessly on an unsuspecting populace.

Or do you mean a fuel tank explosion, like TWA 800 in 1996? Or just fell out of the sky like AF 447 in 2011, similar to Colgan Air 3407 and Air Asia 8501?

What about the AF 4509, A Condorde that turned into a torch before leveling a hotel in France...

Planes drop dangerous parts quite frequently, and IMO it's a miracle more people are not hurt in the process. 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
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.
Woods170 is correct. Please try your best to stay on topic.... prior program system failures are only partly relevant. And when someone appears to be concern trolling, or repeats incorrect statistics even after being corrected, do your best to ignore that.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline ngilmore

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 207
The article actually states that ALPA, the FAA, and SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on the problem and consider it primarily one of better real time coordination between launch and air traffic systems. The amount of time and space that has to be closed can be greatly optimized.

Honestly, I don't get the impression that anyone read the article very closely.

Quote
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.
(my bold)
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
“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.”

Quote
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.”

Same article behind partial paywall, but you can copy/paste:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airlines-space-launches-20180627-story.html

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

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.


Wrong.
 the concept of AFTS existed long  before SpaceX and was being championed by the 45th

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162

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.


Wrong.
 the concept of AFTS existed long  before SpaceX and was being championed by the 45th

Jim is correct. SpaceX just happened to be the first major LSP to implement AFTS.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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.

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.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
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.

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.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333

...

Quote
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.”

...


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).

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
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.

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.

Good. That simplifies the problem.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965

...

Quote
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.”

...


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.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305
 If all airliners had decent internet connections, an ACAS upgrade could give them the ability to avoid known hazards at a second's notice. I've been feeding AIS data to radar screens for years, including course, speed and possible collisions based on such. Projecting the paths of any rocket based objects and feeding it to a stream that ship AIS/radars or airplane ACAS/radars pick up wouldn't be all that hard to do. Even cheap Class B AIS receivers can set off a collision alarm based on course and speed data from other vessels.
 Not that the FAA could restrain itself from making a $16 billion, 12 year project out of it.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333

...

Quote
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.”

...


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?

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305

Aren'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.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333

Aren'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.

How long from when (A)FTS is triggered until it's safe to pass?

I suspect if an aircraft is close enough to worry about this, rules were already broken.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

...

Quote
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.”

...


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.

It is already too late if that has to be used

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
If all airliners had decent internet connections, an ACAS upgrade could give them the ability to avoid known hazards at a second's notice.

The problem is too far gone, if that has to be use.

The point is not have to dodge rockets in the first place


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0