Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5  (Read 338073 times)

Offline jfallen

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #600 on: 10/13/2017 11:59 am »
This has definitely gone way off topic.  And now I am going to apologize for the same.  In defense of my fellow Newb, I think it is ridiculous to think the FAA won't rewrite the policy once spacecraft start carrying more than seven people.   And I deal with the FAA regularly.

Now back on topic...

Has there been anything from SpaceX on a complete redesign for Boca Chica?  Also to someone who knows, would that require a new environmental impact survey or has the current administration successfully eliminated some of this bureaucracy?

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #601 on: 10/13/2017 02:00 pm »
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/10/spacexs-gwynne-shotwell-reveals-more-details-about-the-bfr-002085099.html

Is Texas really SpaceX first & final choice to launch the BFR. First.

From the article you linked:
Quote
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.

Note that we've previously discussed the possibility of a BFR launch pad a few miles offshore from Boca Chica, starting around here.

An offshore pad combined with an onshore control center, tracking station, and propellant storage could make getting approvals a lot easier.

That was my take with the 2016 much larger ITS reveal.  Given the shallow Gulf water depth even 20 Km offshore, it seemed to be the easier regulatory, safety, noise abatement way to go.  Downside is cost, hydrofoiling everything out and back is more expensive than trucking.
FULL SEND!!!!

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #602 on: 10/13/2017 02:23 pm »
Shuttle had FTS.
The Shuttle stack had FTS, specifically each of the SRMs.  The Orbiter, as far as I know, did not?

[EDIT: Point being; the BFS is roughly comparable to Orbiter+ET; the BFR would presumably be required to have an FTS that would fire immediately after emergency separation by the BFS in an abort scenario, or after normal separation in the event of some anomaly].
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 02:30 pm by abaddon »

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #603 on: 10/13/2017 02:26 pm »
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.
Wrong argument, they should stick to the proper already-existing threads that are dedicated to discussing future PowerPoint vehicles servicing future PowerPoint economic markets that do not yet exist.  Although this is now a thread dedicated to a future launch site servicing that future PowerPoint vehicle, as F9 appears to be off the table completely.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 5
« Reply #604 on: 10/13/2017 04:19 pm »
Shuttle had FTS.
The Shuttle stack had FTS, specifically each of the SRMs.  The Orbiter, as far as I know, did not?

[EDIT: Point being; the BFS is roughly comparable to Orbiter+ET; the BFR would presumably be required to have an FTS that would fire immediately after emergency separation by the BFS in an abort scenario, or after normal separation in the event of some anomaly].
The question was whether a launch vehicle that carried crew had an FTS that would cause LoC in the interest of public safety. The answer is yes. Shuttle did and had it been used it would have resulted in LoC. There was no LAS for shuttle to save crew prior to FTS activation. Bob Cabana said as much when talking about using AFTS on crewed vehicles in the future. He talked about showing pictures of family to the guy in the hot seat prior to STS launches. Where the actual detonators were specifically located in the stack isn’t relevant to the question that was asked.

This is all off-topic, though, and should either be moved or removed.

Offline Chris Bergin

Long thread, wandering, needs next thread to refocus.

Everyone to thread 6 and wear your "on topic" hats:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43968.0
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 04:40 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1