SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon 2 : SpX-DM2 - EOM/Return: August, 2020 : DISCUSSION

[Warren Platts]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

[mlindner]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

Oh come on. This is becoming ridiculous hyperbole. People really need to stop acting with the mindset of "everyone is out to kill me if there aren't armed security to prevent it". There was no risk of terrorist attack (real terrorist attacks almost universally are very well planned ahead of time) and also no risk fo the boaters punching a hole in the dragon's window. None of the boaters got anywhere close to the spacecraft. They were well over 100 meters away.

[Mark K]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

Oh come on. This is becoming ridiculous hyperbole. People really need to stop acting with the mindset of "everyone is out to kill me if there aren't armed security to prevent it". There was no risk of terrorist attack (real terrorist attacks almost universally are very well planned ahead of time) and also no risk fo the boaters punching a hole in the dragon's window. None of the boaters got anywhere close to the spacecraft. They were well over 100 meters away.

Yeah, I think it is great there were boats around. As long as they don't interfere in recovery. To me there is not an issue to have people watching and it could be great! Publicity stunts that are risky should be cracked down on, but boats floating a few hundred meters away is good not bad. Don't get the negativity.

PS not a boater myself.

[kdhilliard]

Do we have any reliable source estimating how close the boaters were?  I thought they *looked* closer than mlindner's 100 meters, but I know long distance shots through telephoto lenses are deceiving.

[CraigLieb]

We know SpaceX does not "clean" first stage Falcon 9 boosters that are re-flown. Does anyone know if they will treat re-flown Dragon capsules differently...and give them a "brand new" look?

Yes. The Dragon side surface is always replaced when re-used. It is a “soft” insulating layer, not painted metal like F9 first stages.

Interesting point and valid for Dragon 1. But how come the DM-1 Dragon didn't have that treatment? Still has the scorch marks in this official SpaceX photo prior to its static fire attempt.

Because the full refurbishment for re-use was nowhere near complete.

They took care of the “refurbishment” very shortly after this photo was taken.
No sides so no refurbishing needed.

[Lars-J]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

Oh come on. This is becoming ridiculous hyperbole. People really need to stop acting with the mindset of "everyone is out to kill me if there aren't armed security to prevent it". There was no risk of terrorist attack (real terrorist attacks almost universally are very well planned ahead of time) and also no risk fo the boaters punching a hole in the dragon's window. None of the boaters got anywhere close to the spacecraft. They were well over 100 meters away.

Well over 100 meters away? Do you care to revise that estimate?

[Warren Platts]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

Oh come on. This is becoming ridiculous hyperbole. People really need to stop acting with the mindset of "everyone is out to kill me if there aren't armed security to prevent it". There was no risk of terrorist attack (real terrorist attacks almost universally are very well planned ahead of time) and also no risk fo the boaters punching a hole in the dragon's window. None of the boaters got anywhere close to the spacecraft. They were well over 100 meters away.

Well over 100 meters away? Do you care to revise that estimate?

It would have been cool to watch in person, I must admit...

[yg1968]

I'd love to hear a lawyer break down what the actual laws are in this case. There's tons of misinformation flying around with some claiming very assuredly that the Coast Guard both doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything, but others claiming also very assuredly that the Coast Guard can do literally anything (like firing weapons at the boaters) because they're acting as pirates. The real story is somewhere in-between, but if someone could actually come out with some sources that would be great as I can then link that around.

Under international law, see the Lotus affair and Article 11 of the 1958 High Seas Convention.

The Lotus principle or Lotus approach, usually considered a foundation of international law, says that sovereign states may act in any way they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit prohibition. The application of this principle – an outgrowth of the Lotus case – to future incidents raising the issue of jurisdiction over people on the high seas was changed by article 11 of the 1958 High Seas Convention. The convention, held in Geneva, laid emphasis on the fact that only the flag state or the state of which the alleged offender was a national had jurisdiction over sailors regarding incidents occurring in high seas.

Summaries of the Lotus Affair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_case
https://ruwanthikagunaratne.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/lotus-case-summary/

Full case of the Lotus Affair:
http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1927.09.07_lotus.htm

Article 11 of the 1958 High Seas Convention says:

Article 11

1. In the event of a collision or of any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such persons except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national.

2. In disciplinary matters, the State which has issued a master's certificate or a certificate of competence or licence shall alone be competent, after due legal process, to pronounce the withdrawal of such certificates, even if the holder is not a national of the State which issued them.

3. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by any authorities other than those of the flag State.

https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/high.seas.1958.html

Article 97 of UNCLOS which replaces the 1958 High Seas Treaty provides for the same.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 77 (1941) where the Supreme court said the following:

[...] a criminal statute dealing with acts that are directly injurious to the government, and are capable of perpetration without regard to particular locality is to be construed as applicable to citizens of the United States upon the high seas or in a foreign country, though there be no express declaration to that effect. [...]

If the United States may control the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas, we see no reason why the State of Florida may not likewise govern the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas with respect to matters in which the State has a legitimate interest and where there is no conflict with acts of Congress [...].

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Skiriotes_v._Florida/Opinion_of_the_Court

See also these articles:
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3097&context=facpub
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf

[mlindner]

Do we have any reliable source estimating how close the boaters were?  I thought they *looked* closer than mlindner's 100 meters, but I know long distance shots through telephoto lenses are deceiving.

The easy method I use is to draw a line parallel to the water line of the vessel and see how far "above" or "below" the other vessel is. All were significantly above or below in every image I saw.

[mlindner]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

Oh come on. This is becoming ridiculous hyperbole. People really need to stop acting with the mindset of "everyone is out to kill me if there aren't armed security to prevent it". There was no risk of terrorist attack (real terrorist attacks almost universally are very well planned ahead of time) and also no risk fo the boaters punching a hole in the dragon's window. None of the boaters got anywhere close to the spacecraft. They were well over 100 meters away.

Well over 100 meters away? Do you care to revise that estimate?

[re: Your 100m line drawing] Those are all either in the foreground or behind the vehicle by a significant distance.

[zubenelgenubi edit]

[cwr]

Do we have any reliable source estimating how close the boaters were?  I thought they *looked* closer than mlindner's 100 meters, but I know long distance shots through telephoto lenses are deceiving.

The easy method I use is to draw a line parallel to the water line of the vessel and see how far "above" or "below" the other vessel is. All were significantly above or below in every image I saw.

Some film from the NASA B-57 circling dragon, shows dragon from above, hence its cross-section
serves as a clear yard stick.
This film was cut in live to the NASA/SpaceX broadcast when three of the spectating boats
got really close.

That film clearly shows the majority of boats in a circle some distance from dragon
and it shows 3 boats quite close to dragon. In fact 2 of those boats were closer to
dragon than the spaceX fast boat closest to dragon. The closest spectator boat was
about a dragon diameter from Dragon. That's an order of magnitude less than 100 meters.
Just watch the NASA/SpaceX video.

Carl

[Lars-J]

Those are all either in the foreground or behind the vehicle by a significant distance.

You just don't give up, do you? How about this image? Check out the lower right numbers, which gives the FOV size in horizontal and vertical ft. Do your own math if you want. One boat was here ~77 m from the Dragon.

And do drop your "naaaaah, its fine" attitude. You don't get to decide that. NASA disagrees. SpaceX disagrees. I think they know more about potential dangers (and risks) than you do.

Also note that the photo, the blurry spots were the parachutes in the water, which they were working on recovering for analysis. The boats were closer than that.

[Kim Keller]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

I tweeted Bridenstine about that minutes after spashdown. I just couldn't believe how lax security was. Tremendous oversight.

[mlindner]

Do we have any reliable source estimating how close the boaters were?  I thought they *looked* closer than mlindner's 100 meters, but I know long distance shots through telephoto lenses are deceiving.

The easy method I use is to draw a line parallel to the water line of the vessel and see how far "above" or "below" the other vessel is. All were significantly above or below in every image I saw.

Some film from the NASA B-57 circling dragon, shows dragon from above, hence its cross-section
serves as a clear yard stick.
This film was cut in live to the NASA/SpaceX broadcast when three of the spectating boats
got really close.

That film clearly shows the majority of boats in a circle some distance from dragon
and it shows 3 boats quite close to dragon. In fact 2 of those boats were closer to
dragon than the spaceX fast boat closest to dragon. The closest spectator boat was
about a dragon diameter from Dragon. That's an order of magnitude less than 100 meters.
Just watch the NASA/SpaceX video.

Carl

That doesn't describe what I saw. I never saw any boat ever get closer than the SpaceX fast boats.

The closest spectator boat was about a dragon diameter from Dragon.

That definitely did not occur.

[mlindner]

Your 100m line drawing is silly. Those are all either in the foreground or behind the vehicle by a significant distance.

You just don't give up, do you? How about this image? Check out the lower right numbers, which gives the FOV size in horizontal and vertical ft. Do your own math if you want. One boat was here ~77 m from the Dragon.

And do drop your "naaaaah, its fine" attitude. You don't get to decide that. NASA disagrees. SpaceX disagrees. I think they know more about potential dangers (and risks) than you do.

Also note that the photo, the blurry spots were the parachutes in the water, which they were working on recovering for analysis. The boats were closer than that.

77m is approximately 100m, and all the rest of the boats are much further. Note 100m is a single significant figure.

Also Bridenstine took a relatively neutral approach as did the coast guard. "this shouldn't of happened but they weren't completely in the wrong and we should improve for next time" basically

[Mandella]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1290103926893682689


Not one hundred yards.

It was a big deal. It will not be allowed to happen again.

[DigitalMan]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1290103926893682689


Not one hundred yards.

It was a big deal. It will not be allowed to happen again.

There are pictures a lot closer than that on twitter.

[DistantTemple]

Just imagine one of these reckless boaters punches a hole in one of Dragon's window....

To me the biggest worry would be a terrorist attack by a suicide bomber.

Oh come on. This is becoming ridiculous hyperbole. People really need to stop acting with the mindset of "everyone is out to kill me if there aren't armed security to prevent it". There was no risk of terrorist attack (real terrorist attacks almost universally are very well planned ahead of time) and also no risk fo the boaters punching a hole in the dragon's window. None of the boaters got anywhere close to the spacecraft. They were well over 100 meters away.

Well over 100 meters away? Do you care to revise that estimate?

Your 100m line drawing is silly. Those are all either in the foreground or behind the vehicle by a significant distance.

The words, "Terrorist" and "everyone is out to kill me" are edge cases (not to be totally disregarded), they are distractions, and over emotive. They reduce reasonable discussion.
However, there are many ways the pleasure/unofficial vessels increase risk, and there should be a way of enforcing an appropriate exclusion zone, that is easily respected by at least American vessels.
Risks: (I know many of these did not actually happen,  but at sea you have to think ahead about developing situations. many of the following increase the risk, and put pressure on the operators of the official boats)

1. reducing the navigation (free movement) of the official vessels going about the recovery. The "Rules of the Road"  mean that the official vessels would have to detour around unofficial, if for example it was approaching to port of the unofficial. This makes the recovery more difficult.
2. larger vessels like Go navigator may seem to be under exacting control, but it is not like driving a lorry, they need space to accelerate, decelerate, turn etc. and are subject to waves, currents and wind. Restricting their space  may mean they cannot make the approach to the capsule as easily etc.
3. there were parachutes in the water and potentially associated lines, and then there was rigging on the D2, and conceivably there could be tow lines to the D2 (not this time) These may not be noticed, run over, and foul props and steering of unofficial boats, causing a safety incident in the recovery area. The coastguard would likely have to help the casualty, taking them away from "guard duty" and safety backup for SpaceX
4. There was only one person in the water, but the unofficial boats were not to know that. Various contingency situations may mean there would be more. Its obvious unofficial boats pose a risk to such personnel.
5. the wake of any extra vessel makes comfortable balance and work onboard the official vessels harder. Wakes are more unpredictable than normal wave motion. They should be minimised when someone is transferring to the D2 and climbing the outside to rig the harness, or tow lines etc.
6. Then there is the risk of contamination to these visitors! Its bonkers that SX can be hanging back waiting for safety test, whilst yobs are steaming in there as if to say "what are you waiting for?" What size would the exclusion zone have to be, and for how long if there were a significant hypergolic spill? What was the blast radius of the Demo1 anomaly?
7. OK ill-intent. There are quite a lot of "crazies" in the US atm. From ignorant entitled idiots, (and just honest mistakes), through disagreements, photo-bombers!, conspiracy theorists, to those picking up a hammer, fireworks, contaminants, guns, or even explosives! This cannot all be ignored just because its unlikely to be targeted by "real terrorists". Any sort of physical intervention or protest adds to the risk.

It is not a stable situation where everyone can stop and wait, with engines off and handbrake on! Everything is always dynamic at sea.

And while I have been writing this TL:DR essay you have carried on with the 100m business.
GoNavigator is 50m long and 11m wide. Its wrong to consider 2 (of her) boat lengths to be a safe distance. What space does she need to be able to navigate freely? What is her turning circle when steaming ahead?
 

[DistantTemple]

Surely the presence of the hypergolic fuel alone should allow a mandated safety exclusion zone.

[yg1968]

Another article on the boat issue:

As John Michelli, a spokesperson for the Coast Guard's eighth district, wrote in an email to Business Insider (emphasis ours):

"The Coast Guard does not have authority to establish restricted areas for these types of events beyond the navigable waterways of the United States, which in most cases is 12-nautical miles from shore. Without a duly established restricted area, the Coast Guard can advise the boating public of potential safety concerns but cannot issue fines or other violations to recreational boaters who encroached within the recovery zone."

"The development of lessons learned will be our next priority moving forward," Michelli wrote in an email. "The results of those lessons learned may yield further consideration to zones and the enforcement authorities of those zones."

https://www.businessinsider.com/boaters-who-disrupted-nasas-spacex-landing-will-go-unpunished-2020-8