We might need to rethink the 200NM zone.
True, then why can't you simply launch with something in the zone?
So the tank needs to be pressurized with helium right from the beginning, just to keep up 1 atmospheric pressure inside it. Otherwise the entire rocket would do a thing SpaceX is painfully familiar with from some early Falcon 1 experiences with a faulty valve.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/29/2016 02:42 pmWe might need to rethink the 200NM zone. Why? It has been in place for years. Why is it questioned now? Just because it affected Spacex? Shuttle and the other vehicles deal with it. It is a legitimate policy. CRS-7 is a good reason for it.
Noted as a "developing story" so I didn't post this in "updates thread"Via: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-attempt-launch-monday-20160229-post.html"SpaceX’s fourth attempt to launch a communications satellite has been set for 6:46 p.m. Monday at Cape Canaveral, according to a website maintained by Space Florida.(SpaceX itself had not on Monday morning confirmed a Monday launch. This is a developing story.)"
Sounds like we will be able to watch another attempt tonight after all!http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-attempt-launch-monday-20160229-post.htmlJust need SpaceX to confirm...
Quote from: Retired Downrange on 02/29/2016 04:13 pmNoted as a "developing story" so I didn't post this in "updates thread"Via: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-attempt-launch-monday-20160229-post.html"SpaceX’s fourth attempt to launch a communications satellite has been set for 6:46 p.m. Monday at Cape Canaveral, according to a website maintained by Space Florida.(SpaceX itself had not on Monday morning confirmed a Monday launch. This is a developing story.)"Seems like the vehicle would be vertical by this point if they were really preparing to launch tonight. Anyone local able to confirm? Or did they even bring it down after yesterday's attempt?
Quote from: Hauerg on 02/29/2016 04:14 pmTrue, then why can't you simply launch with something in the zone?Because the range and the FAA have policies that don't allow launches when there is a increased risk. When expectation of casualty (Ec) is >30 × 10 −6
Does anybody know the current location of the SES-9 vehicle?
Curious, that implies once SpaceX proves a certain level of reliability for their rockets they can fly with people in the exclusion zone? Since the expectation of casualty would be the probability of failure * the probability of being killed by debris upon failure; the bar is pretty low on rocket reliability for Ec < 30 x 10 ^ -6Is there somewhere I can read more on this?
Quote from: Jim on 02/29/2016 04:18 pmQuote from: Hauerg on 02/29/2016 04:14 pmTrue, then why can't you simply launch with something in the zone?Because the range and the FAA have policies that don't allow launches when there is a increased risk. When expectation of casualty (Ec) is >30 × 10 −6Curious, that implies once SpaceX proves a certain level of reliability for their rockets they can fly with people in the exclusion zone? Since the expectation of casualty would be the probability of failure * the probability of being killed by debris upon failure; the bar is pretty low on rocket reliability for Ec < 30 x 10 ^ -6Is there somewhere I can read more on this?
Quote from: wes_wilson on 02/29/2016 05:08 pmCurious, that implies once SpaceX proves a certain level of reliability for their rockets they can fly with people in the exclusion zone? Since the expectation of casualty would be the probability of failure * the probability of being killed by debris upon failure; the bar is pretty low on rocket reliability for Ec < 30 x 10 ^ -6Is there somewhere I can read more on this?It has nothing to do with vehicle reliability. It is the chance of injury when there is a problem.
Actually, it looks like rocket reliability is part of the equation. Section 3.1 of that FAA doc says risk is the product of the probability of occurrence of an event (rocket failure here) and the consequences of that event (someone being hit by falling debris here)
It's a shame the range had to call a hold, but the rules are the rules. Personally I think if you are stupid enough to wander into a well publicized restricted area, you are entitled to a chance at becoming a Darwin award winner, but I understand the legal ramifications.
Only if they are motor homes... Seriously, a vessel operator is making a choice, the rural residents are probably considered "dispensable" by the communist regime and their doctrine of the "greater good" of the state...
You make a valid point Jim, however I have a problem in general about protecting people from their own stupidity... Call it an "evolutionary self-correction mechanism"...