|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-06 13:28, Rick Jones wrote: Presumably, with self-destruct engaged, all that fuel and oxidizer will be burned-up at altitude rather than down on the ground. That is probably a net win compared with having a still largely fueled rocket hit the ground. Did triggering FTS help reduce pad damage for Antares ? What if allowing it to continue on inertia had brought it further away from pad to greatly reduce pad damage? They triggered the FTS for the same reason they always trigger it - to prevent a rocket that is no longer behaving as it should from taking off and hitting people. It didn't hit the pad, so the answer to your question is 'no'. Mark Kelly, a retired NASA astronaut and SpaceX advisory board member, told CNN it was the right call. "They commanded the destruct system to make sure it didn't wind up in a populated area when they knew it wasn't going to make it to orbit," he said. Since the rocket was going to explode before it hit the ground anyways, it wouldn't have made much of a difference in terms of fuel hitting the ground. You don't know that any of the preceding statements are true. It had a first stage engine problem. Suppose it had suddenly got a surge of thrust again (it's malfunctioning - you don't know what it's going to do) and hit a populated area? With failed engines, there wasn't much risk of it flying from Wallops to Washington or to Delaware beaches, aiming for that girl in a nice bikini playing volleyball with friends. You still don't understand what Range Safety does, despite having been told multiple times. You don't bet on a 'not much risk'. If the rocket has left its predicted profile, if there is ***ANY*** chance of it hitting anything outside the range area they trigger the FTS. snip Mr Mezei's discussion from ignorance of Range Safety -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-08 23:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: You don't know that any of the preceding statements are true. It had a first stage engine problem. Suppose it had suddenly got a surge of thrust again (it's malfunctioning - you don't know what it's going to do) and hit a populated area? Was it in any danger of hitting a populated area at time Antares was detonated: NO. Again, you're making claims that you have no evidence for. The issue I have is that there is "robotic" training to push the red button as soon as something goes wrong. This fails to consider whether the button should be pressed now or wait a bit for rocket to clear pad as much as it can. You REALLY don't know **** about what Range Safety does or how Range Safety Officers are trained, do you? And this despite having at least the first part of that explained to you in simple English multiple times. It's true in your case. I can't fix stupid. I am not advocating they wait till the rocket has traveled and treathens Manhattan. But when rocket is still at/over pad, might as well wait a bit. (besides, generally, at that point, if range safety is activated, it is because rocket has begun to explode on its own. Multiple bull**** false statements in a single paragraph. The shot being discussed didn't hit the pad. The FTS isn't activated "because the rocket has begun to explode on its own". This has been explained to you repeatedly. PAY ATTENTION, YAMMERHEAD. snip ignorant bull**** -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-09 01:18, Fred J. McCall wrote: Multiple bull**** false statements in a single paragraph. The shot being discussed didn't hit the pad. The FTS isn't activated "because the rocket has begun to explode on its own". This has been explained to you repeatedly. PAY ATTENTION, YAMMERHEAD. So you deny range safety was activated for the Atares explosion at Wallops? I note you've 'cleverly' removed all the context, including the quote from Astronaut Mark Kelly. I deny that the FTS was activated "because the rocket has begun to explode on its own". Congratulations. You've moved from merely being adamantly ignorant to being intellectually dishonest. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com, says... On 2016-09-06 13:28, Rick Jones wrote: Presumably, with self-destruct engaged, all that fuel and oxidizer will be burned-up at altitude rather than down on the ground. That is probably a net win compared with having a still largely fueled rocket hit the ground. Did triggering FTS help reduce pad damage for Antares ? What if allowing it to continue on inertia had brought it further away from pad to greatly reduce pad damage? That's not the point of the FTS. Note what the acronym means: Flight Termination System. It is designed to stop the launch vehicle from flying in an uncontrolled fashion. This means it comes down anywhere along the flight path which ideally has nothing beneath it. Unfortunately, the launch pad is the notable exception. crap deleted Ask the USAF who is in charge of range safety. I can understand his point that the falling rocket coming back on the pad is probably not a desirable situation, especially when it can be avoided. However, your last sentence sums it all up. FTS is operated by the USAF, it is not their rocket, it is not their pad, they simply don't care. They want simple procedures that can be executed by trained apes, and these are only "destroy when path not nominal", not detailing any advanced decision criteria like "minimize monetary loss". It is like the fire brigade cutting off the top of your car when you have been tailended, "because they don't want to risk you have any back injury", not considering the level of that risk and not considering the remaining value of your car. It is not their car, and they have been instructed to handle incidents this way. The fact that your car is now a write-off doesn't bother them at all. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article . com, says... BTW, was FTS activated during the SpaceX "anomaly" after explosion began? I'm sure the signal was sent, but beyond that, who knows. I'm not going to engage in pointless speculation. The accident investigation will no doubt figure out the exact timeline for this. I actually doubt that it was. The vehicle was locked down, so it wasn't going anywhere. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article om, says... On 2016-09-08 23:52, Fred J. McCall wrote: You don't know that any of the preceding statements are true. It had a first stage engine problem. Suppose it had suddenly got a surge of thrust again (it's malfunctioning - you don't know what it's going to do) and hit a populated area? Was it in any danger of hitting a populated area at time Antares was detonated: NO. This is hindsight and armchair quarterbacking of the most dangerous kind. Please stop! At the time of the event, you push the big red button because at the time of the event, you don't *know* what's going to happen. Better to push the button than to take *any* chance that the thing might kill someone. Yep. We had a vehicle on the range one time that took a 'wide turn' on the range. It didn't leave the range and was actually in a controlled turn, but the wide turn took it outside the predicted trajectory. They blew the FTS. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion piece on a need for focus
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-09 07:24, Jeff Findley wrote: At the time of the event, you push the big red button because at the time of the event, you don't *know* what's going to happen. Better to push the button than to take *any* chance that the thing might kill someone. Surely the folks at Wallops know how many seconds of flight it takes for a rogue rocket to leave the immediate pad area, how many seconds it takes to leave Wallops property, how many seconds it would take to leave the park area surrounding it and how many seconds to reach populated areas, and in such cases, where is the last point where FTS must be triggered to ensure debris falls before reaching populated areas. Clearly something is wrong with the vehicle. At the time there is little to nothing actually known about what is wrong, and perhaps more importantly, whether there is a cascade of things going wrong. So, one cannot, or perhaps more accurately should not, ass-u-me the FTS will remain operational as the incident progresses. Or midway: for first X seconds of flight, wait for rocket to clear pad or breach the "last chance to FTS" whichever comes first, and after that, trigger at first sign of anomaly. I believe that for the incident in 1996 for which I posted links the other day, the Chinese had a lift-off delay of 15 seconds or so before their FTS activated - in the name of protecting the pad. rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DLR in C5 prime focus: cannot get fully in-focus images | RePete | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | October 30th 06 11:01 AM |
The Totalitarian Temptation in Space -Another Jeff Bell Editioral/Opinion Piece | Earl Colby Pottinger | Policy | 114 | June 10th 06 02:11 PM |
The Totalitarian Temptation in Space -Another Jeff Bell Editioral/Opinion Piece | Space Cadet | Policy | 114 | June 5th 06 10:45 PM |
2" eye piece | Steve - www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk | UK Astronomy | 5 | December 20th 04 01:51 PM |
tired ot carrying your Losmandy GM-8 out, piece by piece? | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | December 16th 04 05:53 PM |