-
#780
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Apr, 2023 20:26
-
If S24 is going to be doing a bellyflop all the way to the water, has anyone estimated what the terminal velocity will be?
Approximately 75 - 90 m/s, or about 270 - 324 kph / 167 - 200 mph, depending on its angle of attack and the position of the flaperons.
It occurs to me that the first crewed flights of Starship could happen Yuri-style where they just eject after Starship gets subsonic…
LOL
-
#781
by
Elvis in Space
on 12 Apr, 2023 20:33
-
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
Last time I was there, Texas was already awash in natural gas and oxygen. I doubt even the critters would notice.
-
#782
by
sferrin
on 12 Apr, 2023 20:35
-
Historically, launch licenses for new LVs are only granted a few days before the first launch attempt.
Nit: Expect this is a permit (not license). In any case, FAA has historically lagged and not unusual to see nothing published of until after the event. Not holding my breath we will see such from the FAA before this attempt.
What's the difference between a permit and a license, and how could SpaceX launch legally without either?
-
#783
by
uhuznaa
on 12 Apr, 2023 20:42
-
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
Last time I was there, Texas was already awash in natural gas and oxygen. I doubt even the critters would notice.
I'm pretty sure the FAA has this nicely covered. Both the ship and booster will have methane and oxygen, some hydraulic fluids and probably some Tesla's worth of batteries on board. All of this will land in the sea one way or another anyway though. Not nothing, but also not much, really. Not even hypergolic RCS.
-
#784
by
jpo234
on 12 Apr, 2023 20:57
-
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
some hydraulic fluids and probably some Tesla's worth of batteries on board.
But these wouldn't burn off in a landing burn...
-
#785
by
whitelancer64
on 12 Apr, 2023 21:00
-
Historically, launch licenses for new LVs are only granted a few days before the first launch attempt.
You have the implied causality backwards. The more accurate relationship is: Most new LVs are launched within a few days of being granted a launch license.
It is both. You can't launch without the FAA approval, but you can't get the FAA approval without being ready for launch.
-
#786
by
Oersted
on 12 Apr, 2023 21:50
-
If S24 is going to be doing a bellyflop all the way to the water, has anyone estimated what the terminal velocity will be?
Approximately 75 - 90 m/s, or about 270 - 324 kph / 167 - 200 mph, depending on its angle of attack and the position of the flaperons.
It occurs to me that the first crewed flights of Starship could happen Yuri-style where they just eject after Starship gets subsonic…
LOL
Thanks for referencing Gagarin in this thread. Today is the anniversary of his flight.
-
#787
by
joek
on 12 Apr, 2023 22:04
-
What's the difference between a permit and a license, and how could SpaceX launch legally without either?
SpaceX could not legally launch without one of them...
-
Vehicle Operator Licenses; current licenses
here.
-
Experimental Permits for Reusable Suborbital Rockets; current permits
here.
Just reviewed CFR's again (been a while) and looks like this will need a license as it involves orbital vehicle and parameters which exceed permit allowance.
Also likely why previous SS/hopper tests were under license rather than permit. Apologies to @whitelancer64 et. al. for the nit; previous post updated.
-
#788
by
joek
on 12 Apr, 2023 22:21
-
It is both. You can't launch without the FAA approval, but you can't get the FAA approval without being ready for launch.
Well... sorry to nit again, but you can get a license without being ready for launch; plenty of precedent for that. Expect that when we see the FAA license it will be one of those "LRLO" (launch reentry launch operator) or similar which allows a number of flights of the same type. But could be wrong; might be an "LLS" (launch license specific), but that historically does not allow for reentry (which SS would require).
Or I may be way off the map. Keeping track of FAA's license-permit-whatever designations drives me nuts. Think maybe does not matter any more; just read the license (whenever we see it) and ignore the FAA's designation-acronym-de-jour.
-
#789
by
AU1.52
on 12 Apr, 2023 23:15
-
If the launch is April 17th I will likely miss it. Very unfortunate timing for me - if it launches Monday Z-up, I will running Y-east to the center of Boston for 26.2 miles from mid morning through early pm.
-
#790
by
CameronD
on 12 Apr, 2023 23:56
-
If the launch is April 17th I will likely miss it. Very unfortunate timing for me - if it launches Monday Z-up, I will running Y-east to the center of Boston for 26.2 miles from mid morning through early pm.
Priorities.. But don't worry, it'll be all over Youtube and there'll be other launches to watch
-
#791
by
alugobi
on 12 Apr, 2023 23:58
-
Magic Eight Ball says, "I see a scrub in your future."
-
#792
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Apr, 2023 00:13
-
-
#793
by
spacenut
on 13 Apr, 2023 00:19
-
Methane or natural gas isn't toxic in itself. It has a specific gravity of around 0.6 and lighter than air. It will evaporate and go into the upper atmosphere. Same with liquid oxygen. It too will evaporate and go into the air. Probably the safest of all rocket fuels other than hydrogen. In liquid form all are dangerous. Too much methane or hydrogen in an enclosed space can suffocate you, but not out in the open.
-
#794
by
TomH
on 13 Apr, 2023 01:49
-
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
Last time I was there, Texas was already awash in natural gas and oxygen. I doubt even the critters would notice.
SS is supposed to land on the margin of a marine sanctuary in Hawaii.
-
#795
by
TomH
on 13 Apr, 2023 01:56
-
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
some hydraulic fluids and probably some Tesla's worth of batteries on board.
But these wouldn't burn off in a landing burn...
What I am saying is that they may burn them off prior to reentry, with nothing more than RCS prop remaining. The SS then belly flops with no prop available to do the landing burn. This might possibly eliminate environmental concerns related to landing on the periphery of an environmentally protected area. If this had been one of the sticking points in getting the permit/license. Getting rid of the prop ahead of time and eliminating the flip/landing burn may have eliminated that sticking point. SX can attempt that on a subsequent flight, perhaps away from protected areas.
-
#796
by
russianhalo117
on 13 Apr, 2023 02:03
-
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
Last time I was there, Texas was already awash in natural gas and oxygen. I doubt even the critters would notice.
SS is supposed to land on the margin of a marine sanctuary in Hawaii. Keep up!
More specifically into one of the weapons and missile impact test ranges controlled by the Kauai Test Facility (KTF) (Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF)) centrally based from their installation at Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.
-
#797
by
InterestedEngineer
on 13 Apr, 2023 04:45
-
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
Last time I was there, Texas was already awash in natural gas and oxygen. I doubt even the critters would notice.
SS is supposed to land on the margin of a marine sanctuary in Hawaii. Keep up!
More specifically into one of the weapons and missile impact test ranges controlled by the Kauai Test Facility (KTF) (Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF)) centrally based from their installation at Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.
Is there anything preventing a foreign ship from entering those waters?
I'm not a maritime law expert by any stretch of the imagination but I thought the exclusion zone was only about 20 miles or so (aka the horizon)
-
#798
by
woods170
on 13 Apr, 2023 08:11
-
...But, why? Flip & landing was already demonstrated by SN15. What was wrong about leaving this maneuver in the flight plan?
A simple explanation maybe that they consider Starship surviving to make a landing attempt to be a low probability and not worth the effort to include it in the plan.
You're spot on.
-
#799
by
kevinof
on 13 Apr, 2023 09:36
-
As with everything, "it depends". For boats it's 12 miles is the limit for territorial waters and the U.S. has control over everything inside of that. Beyond the 12 mile limit they have little or no control unless you are a U.S. registered vessel, or are a U.S. citizen in control of the vessel or are something like drug smuggling and they are giving chase, preventing harm to the U.S. etc.
Foreign boats could enter this zone and basically give the finger the the U.S. Navy or CG but that's probably not a smart move. Most sailors would keep well away. There are different rules for controlling airspace.
If they burn off all the residuals, they can crash with less toxic chemicals.
What toxic chemicals?
Last time I was there, Texas was already awash in natural gas and oxygen. I doubt even the critters would notice.
SS is supposed to land on the margin of a marine sanctuary in Hawaii. Keep up!
More specifically into one of the weapons and missile impact test ranges controlled by the Kauai Test Facility (KTF) (Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF)) centrally based from their installation at Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii.
Is there anything preventing a foreign ship from entering those waters?
I'm not a maritime law expert by any stretch of the imagination but I thought the exclusion zone was only about 20 miles or so (aka the horizon)
