Author Topic: Developing the BFS - Phase 1 - StarHopper - Discussion - THREAD 3  (Read 668394 times)

Online RoboGoofers

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • NJ
  • Liked: 871
  • Likes Given: 980
The tent existed before the fairing crumpled, so I'm going to assume that's an amusing note about our lack of knowledge about what's going on under it much in the same way as "Drone Duel Detritus Defense" might be as a response.  :>
The tent didn't have sidewalls before the fairing was dragged in so at most it provided limited weather protection. Some of the smaller sub assemblies like the current dome/fairing being built could be built in the tent, but they aren't doing so. the tent also precludes using the cranes, so moving around heavy sub assemblies is a bit harder. it's also too short unless they build horizontal, which they could do (like at hawthorn) but so far have only done vertical assembly.

I bet it was used to process plumbing/sensors/electronics coming in from hawthorn, but it's a very big building for that. they likely have enough space that they don't need a second big empty tent.

it could be a tall structure with a gantry crane like the VAB or a welding jig (but not FSW) like for SLS, but i doubt the concrete pad they poured is a suitable foundation for either.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 03:26 pm by RoboGoofers »

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
I dunno, just guessing -- I'm still waiting for some kind of lightning control at the pad, so what do I know?!

I think that's what's laying in sections down at the notional landing pad...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Wargrim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Berlin, Germany
  • Liked: 1029
  • Likes Given: 552
I dunno, just guessing -- I'm still waiting for some kind of lightning control at the pad, so what do I know?!

I think that's what's laying in sections down at the notional landing pad...

I have been wondering about this for a while. The sections clearly were meant for either a lightning tower or a crane, but did not get assembled for either when there was plenty of time to do it.

My best current guess: Some plans changed. Maybe with the change to stainless steel, the Hopper became its own lightning tower.

[edit]

This morning the upper bulkhead access hatch has been opened.

Is it normal to inspect the inside of a tank after a pressure test? Assuming that is why it was opened?

[/edit]
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 04:00 pm by Wargrim »

Offline dnavas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • San Jose
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 1312
I dunno, just guessing -- I'm still waiting for some kind of lightning control at the pad, so what do I know?!

I think that's what's laying in sections down at the notional landing pad...

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

My best current guess: Some plans changed. Maybe with the change to stainless steel, the Hopper became its own lightning tower.

...and that's what I've been wondering -- is it a good idea to use steel that wraps liquified O2 and CH4 as a lightning rod?  Steel isn't a *bad* conductor, but it isn't copper either....  I would have expected metallic tie-downs, though, if that were the case....


Offline ejb749

If that's a new steel building going up, there should be building permits. 

Offline Peter.Colin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 77
Unloading a lot of metal with interesting shapes.
(Blown up from RGVArialPhotography tweet on update thread)

Baffles and stringers for the orbital prototype???
I'm still sitting on the fence, btw.

Unless my eyes are deceiving me, the steel delivered and the manor it how it was delivered looks exacting like the all the steel buildings I have had delivered and erected in the past.  If it looks like a steel building, gets erected like a steel building and there is no tent like material covering a light weight aluminum frame then it is just a simple steel building.  This is not rocket science folks.

Maybe its for a vertical manufacturing building for the SuperHeavy and orbital StarShip

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
I dunno, just guessing -- I'm still waiting for some kind of lightning control at the pad, so what do I know?!

I think that's what's laying in sections down at the notional landing pad...

I have been wondering about this for a while. The sections clearly were meant for either a lightning tower or a crane, but did not get assembled for either when there was plenty of time to do it.

My best current guess: Some plans changed. Maybe with the change to stainless steel, the Hopper became its own lightning tower.
That's possible, there's probably still many welding ground connections still hooked up.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Unloading a lot of metal with interesting shapes.
(Blown up from RGVArialPhotography tweet on update thread)

Baffles and stringers for the orbital prototype???
I'm still sitting on the fence, btw.

Unless my eyes are deceiving me, the steel delivered and the manor it how it was delivered looks exacting like the all the steel buildings I have had delivered and erected in the past.  If it looks like a steel building, gets erected like a steel building and there is no tent like material covering a light weight aluminum frame then it is just a simple steel building.  This is not rocket science folks.

Maybe its for a vertical manufacturing building for the SuperHeavy and orbital StarShip

Yep, I have previously argued that they are going to replace the tent with a more permanent assembly building.

Offline dnavas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • San Jose
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 1312
Yep, I have previously argued that they are going to replace the tent with a more permanent assembly building.

Concur.  Less sure about vertical construction though.  You'd need some pretty serious work to build an assembly building tall enough.  ejb749's point about building permits is probably worth a sleuthing or two.

Offline prelator

Flying over someone's property, and especially over someone's expensive equipment and over people without prior explicit permission by the property owner (SpaceX) is illegal, dangerous, reckless and irresponsible.

We have the great privilege to be able to witness drone footage from responsible pilots, such as
Austing Barnard, Spadre and RGV Aerial Photography.

The actions of an irresponsible pilot, which i shall not name for i hope the links will be deleted by moderation (in fact i will report those posts after writing this here up) are not only bad in themself, they also endanger the current freedom other drone users are enjoying thanks to SpaceX being highly tolerant in the issue.

If SpaceX is forced to ask authorities to create and enforce a no-drone zone, it will be because of such irresponsible piloting. We should not support such behaviour by linking to resulting material and giving it views.
Long time lurker here, been following this thread for a while. Just wanted to chime in to reply to this. I'm both a lawyer and a drone enthusiast who has followed drone law for years, and I hate seeing this dangerous misconception out there.

In the US, it is NOT illegal to fly drones over private property in any way, shape, or form. Drones are considered aircraft and are regulated by the FAA. They operate in the National Airspace System, which includes anything from the ground up. Landowners do not own the airspace of their property, and do not have any right to restrict aircraft (including drones) from flying over their property.

There are some oddities of Texas law that purport to restrict overflight of and drone photography of private property, but everyone in the drone legal community agrees that law is federally preempted and illegal. To my knowledge it has never been enforced, and if it were, it would likely be struck down if challenged in court.

While it is never a bad idea to show courtesy to landowners and not fly directly over their property, there is nothing illegal about doing so, and drone operators are completely within their legal rights to overfly private land. In the case of SpaceX, I agree it would be best not to fly directly over their equipment, but it is hardly illegal.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 07:31 pm by prelator »

Offline marsbase

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 82
While it is never a bad idea to show courtesy to landowners and not fly directly over their property, there is nothing illegal about doing so, and drone operators are completely within their legal rights to overfly private land. In the case of SpaceX, I agree it would be best not to fly directly over their equipment, but it is hardly illegal.
The only Supreme Court case on the issue was US v Causby from 1946 in which a NC man was ruled to have legally shot down a "drone" craft at 83 feet altitude.  So apparently we own our airspace up to 83 feet.  A more recent case from Kentucky gave the same result but with unclear precedent.  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/judge-rules-in-favor-of-drone-slayer-dismisses-lawsuit-filed-by-pilot/

Dear moderator:  This post and the one immediately preceding it may be in the wrong thread.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 07:40 pm by marsbase »

Offline flyright

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 716
  • Likes Given: 1882
While it is never a bad idea to show courtesy to landowners and not fly directly over their property, there is nothing illegal about doing so, and drone operators are completely within their legal rights to overfly private land. In the case of SpaceX, I agree it would be best not to fly directly over their equipment, but it is hardly illegal.
The only Supreme Court case on the issue was US v Causby from 1946 in which a NC man was ruled to have legally shot down a "drone" craft at 83 feet altitude.  So apparently we own our airspace up to 83 feet.  A more recent case from Kentucky gave the same result but with unclear precedent.  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/judge-rules-in-favor-of-drone-slayer-dismisses-lawsuit-filed-by-pilot/

Dear moderator:  This post and the one immediately preceding it may be in the wrong thread.

Under the FARs, aircraft must maintain at least 500 feet from any person or structure. I didn't think that drone video looked like it was taken from more than 500 feet above the hopper.

edit: clarified.   Agree that this post and preceeding should be in another thread, or deleted.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 08:09 pm by flyright »

Offline Wargrim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Berlin, Germany
  • Liked: 1029
  • Likes Given: 552
Fair enough, i removed the word illegal from my post because i can not with certainty state what is US/Texan law in this case. But my other points still stand. With that said, can we get back on topic?

Both bulkhead access hatches have been opened.

Looks like the tanks get ventilated, possible to allow workers to get in and do inspection.

Offline brainbit

Quote from: Scylla on 03/11/2019 10:45 pm
Unloading a lot of metal with interesting shapes.
(Blown up from RGVArialPhotography tweet on update thread)

I think this may be an exhaust deflector. It is missing for an Raptor tests.

Offline prelator

While it is never a bad idea to show courtesy to landowners and not fly directly over their property, there is nothing illegal about doing so, and drone operators are completely within their legal rights to overfly private land. In the case of SpaceX, I agree it would be best not to fly directly over their equipment, but it is hardly illegal.
The only Supreme Court case on the issue was US v Causby from 1946 in which a NC man was ruled to have legally shot down a "drone" craft at 83 feet altitude.  So apparently we own our airspace up to 83 feet.  A more recent case from Kentucky gave the same result but with unclear precedent.  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/judge-rules-in-favor-of-drone-slayer-dismisses-lawsuit-filed-by-pilot/

Dear moderator:  This post and the one immediately preceding it may be in the wrong thread.
Drones didn't exist in 1946. That case was about extremely low overlights by military aircraft on approach to a nearby airbase disturbing a farmer's chickens, apparently sending them into a frenzy and causing them to peck each other to death. The court ruled against the government because of the actual harm the overflights caused to the farmer's property and livelihood, not because of a specific altitude. It basically established the rule that aircraft overflights have to cause some tangible harm on the ground in order to be considered trespassing.

Also, most drones (hobbyists excluded) are required to fly UNDER 500 feet, which is the minimum for other types of aircraft, in order to ensure separation between them.

Sorry to sidetrack this thread and I don't mind if this is deleted. Just wanted to clarify this, as there are huge misconceptions about drone laws out there.

Offline WormPicker959

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • NYC
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 75
Do you not have any legislation around flying drones over people / property in the US ?  In the UK you are not allowed to fly within 150ft of a building or person.

It'd be a no no, but rarely leads to action, in the UK. No idea what the rules are in Texas.

Worth adding, the video is not hosted by us (it's on youtube). It's not taken by a member of this site, and I'm sure if the authorities wish to take action, it been shown on several sites (here, Facebook, Reddit and Twitter) will provide a useful "outing" to the authorities to take action based on the local laws. So watch for the video to be taken down if they act, which means the youtube link will go dead as again, it's not hosted here, it's a youtube link.

My personal note is the guy is an idiot and I fully expect there's officials who will go after him for this.

So we can get back to discussing the vehicle and not whatever drone law there is in your the UK or Germany.......if as one would assume, this isn't allowed in Texas, they'll know who to go after per the youtube link.

I've deleted it from the update thread at least as I would expect that youtube link to go dead, but I'd also say you could downvote the video on youtube and post notice on the video's comment section he should probably think about removing it himself and see if he does.

--

EDIT: I've now removed the video link completely from the threads as the guy sounds like he's related to the "Webcam that shall not be named" guy!

Hey Chris, it looks like the link is still active in a post quoting my own post (the one which was deleted with the offending link). Maybe it could do with a strikethrough or something? Sorry about causing a ruckus, I didn't even think about the fact that the video could be problematic. Thanks for pointing it out!

Offline OxCartMark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Former barge watcher now into water towers
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2072
  • Likes Given: 1555
After 6 days in Elon's genetic brew kettle the giant worms had grown to Texas size and were ready to be released...
Actulus Ferociter!

Offline WormPicker959

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • NYC
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 75
After 6 days in Elon's genetic brew kettle the giant worms had grown to Texas size and were ready to be released...

This sounds like a job for me... I'm gonna need a DNA sample and a PCR cycler, pronto.

Offline WormPicker959

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • NYC
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 75
Pics from the launch site.

"GCH4 Igniter" sounds... dangerous. What is this thing for? What would they be testing by igniting gaseous methane (which is what I'm assuming "GCH4" is)?

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Pics from the launch site.

"GCH4 Igniter" sounds... dangerous. What is this thing for? What would they be testing by igniting gaseous methane (which is what I'm assuming "GCH4" is)?
Flaring off gas from the tankage would be my guess. Need an ignition source to ignite when venting is occurring.

Tags:
 

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