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. :>
I dunno, just guessing -- I'm still waiting for some kind of lightning control at the pad, so what do I know?!
Quote from: dnavas on 03/12/2019 02:44 pmI 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...
This morning the upper bulkhead access hatch has been opened.
My best current guess: Some plans changed. Maybe with the change to stainless steel, the Hopper became its own lightning tower.
Quote from: jpo234 on 03/12/2019 03:00 pmQuote from: Scylla on 03/11/2019 10:45 pmUnloading 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.
Quote from: Scylla on 03/11/2019 10:45 pmUnloading 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.
Unloading a lot of metal with interesting shapes.(Blown up from RGVArialPhotography tweet on update thread)
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 03/12/2019 03:40 pmQuote from: dnavas on 03/12/2019 02:44 pmI 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.
Quote from: testguy on 03/12/2019 03:18 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 03/12/2019 03:00 pmQuote from: Scylla on 03/11/2019 10:45 pmUnloading 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.
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 asAusting 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.
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.
Quote from: prelator on 03/12/2019 07:29 pmWhile 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.
Both bulkhead access hatches have been opened.
Quote from: KDH on 03/12/2019 08:57 amDo 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!
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.
After 6 days in Elon's genetic brew kettle the giant worms had grown to Texas size and were ready to be released...
Pics from the launch site.
Quote from: bocachicagal on 03/12/2019 09:50 pmPics 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)?