Re: Peter Thiel: What do you know that nobody else believes

[Robert Clark]

"James McGinn" wrote in message
news:66c34272-a339-4e4d...@googlegroups.com...
========================================================
What do you know that nobody else believes

https://youtu.be/oKuZSJ6-MxE?t=17m28s
========================================================

Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) is doable with significant payload, and isn't
even particularly hard:

The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html


Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Fred J. McCall]

"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:

>"James McGinn" wrote in message
>news:66c34272-a339-4e4d...@googlegroups.com...
>========================================================
>What do you know that nobody else believes
>
>https://youtu.be/oKuZSJ6-MxE?t=17m28s
>========================================================
>
>Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) is doable with significant payload, and isn't
>even particularly hard:
>
>The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html
>

But why the hell would you want to?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Jeff Findley]

In article <gic6ic9ejl9utoe8v...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...

>
> "Robert Clark" <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>
> >"James McGinn" wrote in message
> >news:66c34272-a339-4e4d...@googlegroups.com...
> >========================================================
> >What do you know that nobody else believes
> >
> >https://youtu.be/oKuZSJ6-MxE?t=17m28s
> >========================================================
> >
> >Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) is doable with significant payload, and isn't
> >even particularly hard:
> >
> >The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
> >http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html
> >
>
> But why the hell would you want to?

I used to be an SSTO fan, but that was 20 years ago. SSTO only makes
sense at very high flight rates (much higher than today). The tracking
equipment at Cape Canaveral currently takes several days to reconfigure.
So we can't currently launch once per day. We'd need some significant
infrastructure investment in order to overcome that and other
limitations.

Today, I'd like to see full reusability in a launch vehicle. That's
likely to be either a TSTO or possibly even more stages than that. I'd
think it far more likely that SpaceX would put a bit of effort into
making their upcoming LOX/methane upper stage reusable. If they could
do that, then Falcon Heavy could be completely reusable. Longer term,
SpaceX wants a fully LOX/methane Raptor powered reusable TSTO.

And we all know Blue Origin is working on a fully reusable TSTO. That's
been their goal from the beginning. If I could see two competing fully
reusable TSTOs I would be quite happy. Well, that and the death of SLS.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-23 07:09, Jeff Findley wrote:

> sense at very high flight rates (much higher than today). The tracking
> equipment at Cape Canaveral currently takes several days to reconfigure.

Is there any explanation for this? just red tape paperwork? If they can
track a rocket in flight, surely than can re-orient themselves fairly
quickly?

And since launches are prepared well in advance, surely the launch
company can provide the Cape with the numbers that they can punch in to
set the tracking system quickly?

[Robert Clark]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:gic6ic9ejl9utoe8v...@4ax.com...
=================================================================

>Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) is doable with significant payload, and isn't
>even particularly hard:
>
>The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html
>

But why the hell would you want to?

=================================================================

A calculation near the end of that page shows IF you use altitude
compensation, such as the aerospike, the cost per kilo to orbit can actually
be less for the SSTO than for the TSTO.

[Fred J. McCall]

Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

>In article <gic6ic9ejl9utoe8v...@4ax.com>,
>fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> "Robert Clark" <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"James McGinn" wrote in message
>> >news:66c34272-a339-4e4d...@googlegroups.com...
>> >========================================================
>> >What do you know that nobody else believes
>> >
>> >https://youtu.be/oKuZSJ6-MxE?t=17m28s
>> >========================================================
>> >
>> >Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) is doable with significant payload, and isn't
>> >even particularly hard:
>> >
>> >The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
>> >http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html
>> >
>>
>> But why the hell would you want to?
>>
>
>I used to be an SSTO fan, but that was 20 years ago. SSTO only makes
>sense at very high flight rates (much higher than today). The tracking
>equipment at Cape Canaveral currently takes several days to reconfigure.
>So we can't currently launch once per day. We'd need some significant
>infrastructure investment in order to overcome that and other
>limitations.
>

SSTO only makes sense for a fully reusable vehicle that would land and
immediately fly again. If you can do something like Delta Clipper was
aimed at, SSTO makes sense. But by the time you add all that, payload
shrinks so that they really only make sense for people or very high
value payloads.

>
>Today, I'd like to see full reusability in a launch vehicle. That's
>likely to be either a TSTO or possibly even more stages than that. I'd
>think it far more likely that SpaceX would put a bit of effort into
>making their upcoming LOX/methane upper stage reusable. If they could
>do that, then Falcon Heavy could be completely reusable. Longer term,
>SpaceX wants a fully LOX/methane Raptor powered reusable TSTO.
>

I can live with where SpaceX is going. It's probably the most
sensible approach to cutting launch costs and you've got to love a
company that puts the guy who designed the Batman suit in their
spacesuit design group.

>
>And we all know Blue Origin is working on a fully reusable TSTO. That's
>been their goal from the beginning. If I could see two competing fully
>reusable TSTOs I would be quite happy. Well, that and the death of SLS.
>

We ought to just make it policy that you don't put people on anything
with a solid rocket associated with it.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[Fred J. McCall]

"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote:

>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>news:gic6ic9ejl9utoe8v...@4ax.com...
>=================================================================
>>Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) is doable with significant payload, and isn't
>>even particularly hard:
>>
>>The Coming SSTO's: Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage as SSTO, Page 2.
>>http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-coming-sstos-falcon-9-v11-first.html
>>
>
>But why the hell would you want to?
>=================================================================
>
>A calculation near the end of that page shows IF you use altitude
>compensation, such as the aerospike, the cost per kilo to orbit can actually
>be less for the SSTO than for the TSTO.
>

But it can't approach what you can do with a reusable booster. By the
time you add in SSTO *and* 'reusable', you don't have any payload
left.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:k9b9icduk2okmfb3b...@4ax.com...

>
>We ought to just make it policy that you don't put people on anything
>with a solid rocket associated with it.
>
>

If they want one for an escape system, I might be ok with that, but that's
it. :-)

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

[Jeff Findley]

In article <592459ea$0$36057$c3e8da3$76a7...@news.astraweb.com>,
jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...

>
> On 2017-05-23 07:09, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
> > sense at very high flight rates (much higher than today). The tracking
> > equipment at Cape Canaveral currently takes several days to reconfigure.
>
>
> Is there any explanation for this? just red tape paperwork? If they can
> track a rocket in flight, surely than can re-orient themselves fairly
> quickly?

No, they can't. I understand it takes several days to "reset"
everything between launches.

> And since launches are prepared well in advance, surely the launch
> company can provide the Cape with the numbers that they can punch in to
> set the tracking system quickly?

No, it doesn't work that way. The system works well, but is antiquated
by modern standards. The USAF would like to upgrade the system, but
from what I understand has not gotten the money to do so.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <k9b9icduk2okmfb3b...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...

> >
> >And we all know Blue Origin is working on a fully reusable TSTO. That's
> >been their goal from the beginning. If I could see two competing fully
> >reusable TSTOs I would be quite happy. Well, that and the death of SLS.
> >
>
> We ought to just make it policy that you don't put people on anything
> with a solid rocket associated with it.
>

We should, but we won't. Orbital ATK needs the pork to keep open their
SRB manufacturing facilities, which the DOD will need the next time they
want to acquire a new solid fueled ICBM.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.338ff41b1...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
>In article <592459ea$0$36057$c3e8da3$76a7...@news.astraweb.com>,
>jfmezei...@vaxination.ca says...
>>
>> On 2017-05-23 07:09, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> > sense at very high flight rates (much higher than today). The tracking
>> > equipment at Cape Canaveral currently takes several days to
>> > reconfigure.
>>
>>
>> Is there any explanation for this? just red tape paperwork? If they can
>> track a rocket in flight, surely than can re-orient themselves fairly
>> quickly?
>
>No, they can't. I understand it takes several days to "reset"
>everything between launches.
>
>> And since launches are prepared well in advance, surely the launch
>> company can provide the Cape with the numbers that they can punch in to
>> set the tracking system quickly?
>
>No, it doesn't work that way. The system works well, but is antiquated
>by modern standards. The USAF would like to upgrade the system, but
>from what I understand has not gotten the money to do so.
>

Nope, but Congress can get NASA to spend money on a test stand in the wrong
place:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/nasa-inspector-questions-why-agency-built-rocket-test-stands-in-alabama/

I think some of the delay is confirming frequencies and that and my guess is
it's all 1970s outdated analog/digital equipment.
>Jeff

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-24 20:53, Jeff Findley wrote:

> We should, but we won't. Orbital ATK needs the pork to keep open their
> SRB manufacturing facilities, which the DOD will need the next time they
> want to acquire a new solid fueled ICBM.

Never considered that. How long does an ICBM last? wouldn't it be better
for the military to order a few replacements each year, enough to keep
ATK alive without the NASA pork for SLS?

(blame the need for replacements on degradation of the solid fiuel
propellant).

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-05-24 20:53, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>
>> We should, but we won't. Orbital ATK needs the pork to keep open their
>> SRB manufacturing facilities, which the DOD will need the next time they
>> want to acquire a new solid fueled ICBM.
>>
>
>Never considered that.
>

Really? Virtually any discussion of the choice to use SRBs on the
Shuttle will include this idea of keeping costs for military solid
rockets down.

>
>How long does an ICBM last? wouldn't it be better
>for the military to order a few replacements each year, enough to keep
>ATK alive without the NASA pork for SLS?
>

I would assume it's around 30 years, given that USAF started fielding
Minuteman III in around 1970 and started doing motor replacements on
them in 1998.

>
>(blame the need for replacements on degradation of the solid fiuel
>propellant).
>

They just redid all the motors a decade or two ago. Probably won't
need any more until they're ready to replace Minuteman III in 2030 or
so. Then they'll need to buy 400-500 missiles.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-25 00:13, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Really? Virtually any discussion of the choice to use SRBs on the
> Shuttle will include this idea of keeping costs for military solid
> rockets down.

I knew that ATK was getting pork because they also built military stuff.
I didn't realise that this pork is to keep them alive for 30 years until
the next order for ICBMs comes in.

Which is why it would be better to replace these progressively with
enough orders each year to keep ATK alive instead of mass replacements
every 30 years.

[Fred J. McCall]

Except it wouldn't. This would be stupidly expensive, because you'd
need to have the new designs in hand NOW and you would then fuck up
your logistics chain by supporting multiple types of missile in what
is no longer the large force it used to be. When you want to test
fire a missile, you would have to fire one of each type rather than
just a single missile. It gets ugly fast.

[Anthony Frost]

In message <MPG.338de2673...@news.eternal-september.org>

Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

> I used to be an SSTO fan, but that was 20 years ago. SSTO only makes
> sense at very high flight rates (much higher than today). The tracking
> equipment at Cape Canaveral currently takes several days to reconfigure.
> So we can't currently launch once per day.

SpaceX are now flying with new range safety equipment that removes the
need for most of the ground tracking equipment. Recently they did a
static fire and launch either side of an Atlas V launch which would
normally have required two full resets, but it was possible to leave
most equipment configured for the Atlas.

Much of the delay in reconfiguring is apparently down to repositioning
mobile units. They need packing up, moving, redeploying and checking out
each time, and some of their electronics is rumoured to still be valve
based.

Anthony

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-25 03:14, Anthony Frost wrote:

> SpaceX are now flying with new range safety equipment that removes the
> need for most of the ground tracking equipment.

I know range safety is the one that transmits the command to go "kaboom".

Is range safety also in charge of making the decision that a rocket is
off its nominal course and send the "kaboom" command, or is that
decision made by the launching company's systems who then tell range
safety to send the command ?

Is there always a human who sees alert on screen and then decides to
press the big red button, or is that automated ?

Are there cases where a human makes a decision to press the big red
button based on visual cues ? or is the decision explicitely limited to
telemetry data ?

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
news:5927089d$0$9944$b1db1813$6557...@news.astraweb.com...

>
>On 2017-05-25 03:14, Anthony Frost wrote:
>
>> SpaceX are now flying with new range safety equipment that removes the
>> need for most of the ground tracking equipment.
>
>
>I know range safety is the one that transmits the command to go "kaboom".
>
>Is range safety also in charge of making the decision that a rocket is
>off its nominal course and send the "kaboom" command, or is that
>decision made by the launching company's systems who then tell range
>safety to send the command ?
>

Range safety ultimately makes the decision. As long as the rocket is flying
specific parameters, they'll hold their finger off the button.

But I suppose if the company said, "it's a lost cause, destroy it now" they
might issue the command before it violates the flight parameters.

>Is there always a human who sees alert on screen and then decides to
>press the big red button, or is that automated ?
>

Pretty sure human controlled.

>Are there cases where a human makes a decision to press the big red
>button based on visual cues ? or is the decision explicitely limited to
>telemetry data ?
>

Telemetry. Though I believe during shuttle launches the decision was also
based on crew feedback. I can't recall where I read it, but my understanding
was that if the stack violated the parameters, but the crew was conscious
and in control and felt they could recover, they'd hold off.

But the ultimate goal is make sure no one on shore gets hurt.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-25 16:22, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

> Telemetry. Though I believe during shuttle launches the decision was also

So a launch company such as SpaceX has to give the military the
acceptable flight envelope inside of which no range safety is needed,
and outside of which, range safety is needed.

Would this be what takes weeks to type onto the punched cards needed for
their 1970s computer to make the real time decision of whether the
rocket is within acceptable parameters?

Wouldn't it be simpler for the launch company to just send constant flow
of "OK" mesages (they do the validation of the flight performance) and a
"NOT OK" the micro second the rockets goes outside of flight envelope?

I find it odd that it would take so long to go from one launch to another.

Legally speaking, could SpaceX build and operate its own range safety
for KSC launches and not have to deal with the ancient military systems
? Or does the military have legal right to demand that it be in charge
of range safety?

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-05-25 03:14, Anthony Frost wrote:
>>
>> SpaceX are now flying with new range safety equipment that removes the
>> need for most of the ground tracking equipment.
>>
>
>I know range safety is the one that transmits the command to go "kaboom".
>
>Is range safety also in charge of making the decision that a rocket is
>off its nominal course and send the "kaboom" command, or is that
>decision made by the launching company's systems who then tell range
>safety to send the command ?
>

Range safety.

>
>Is there always a human who sees alert on screen and then decides to
>press the big red button, or is that automated ?
>

It can be either, depending on where you're launching from. Automated
systems are typically required to have tighter bounds and are either
backed up by a human or will trip if the automated system indicates
it's not working. Automated systems have, on occasion, blow up
perfectly good rockets.

>
>Are there cases where a human makes a decision to press the big red
>button based on visual cues ? or is the decision explicitely limited to
>telemetry data ?
>

Radar plus telemetry. It's based on the position of the rocket and
where the velocity vector points and how big it is. If the velocity
vector is outside a defined nominal corridor range safety will
terminate thrust before the velocity vector could carry the rocket to
something you don't want it to land on. I'm sure we've had this
discussion with you before at least once, Mayfly.

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-05-25 16:22, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>>
>> Telemetry. Though I believe during shuttle launches the decision was also
>>
>
>So a launch company such as SpaceX has to give the military the
>acceptable flight envelope inside of which no range safety is needed,
>and outside of which, range safety is needed.
>

Yes and no. Again, Range Safety is primarily concerned with where the
thing could conceivably come down and that's all physics. They know
on a moment by moment basis what the velocity vector of the vehicle is
and where it's pointed. If that vector is such that it is getting to
where it could carry the vehicle outside the bounds of the range they
will blow it up.

>
>Would this be what takes weeks to type onto the punched cards needed for
>their 1970s computer to make the real time decision of whether the
>rocket is within acceptable parameters?
>

Just doing the paperwork can take a very long day. Frequencies have
to be registered and certified clear within 24 hours of launch (and
that's not a fast process, so you usually start it 24 hours prior and
put in 12-18 hours getting it done). Specific codes need to be
programmed that match those programmed into the TTS/FTS on the
vehicle.

>
>Wouldn't it be simpler for the launch company to just send constant flow
>of "OK" mesages (they do the validation of the flight performance) and a
>"NOT OK" the micro second the rockets goes outside of flight envelope?
>

It would be simpler but it wouldn't be as safe AND you would
potentially blow up a lot of vehicles

>
>I find it odd that it would take so long to go from one launch to another.
>

I'm sure there is much in the real world that you find 'odd'.

>
>Legally speaking, could SpaceX build and operate its own range safety.

>for KSC launches and not have to deal with the ancient military systems
>? Or does the military have legal right to demand that it be in charge
>of range safety?
>

Not allowed. USAF has responsibility for range safety on that range.

Please read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety\

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-25 21:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Yes and no. Again, Range Safety is primarily concerned with where the
> thing could conceivably come down and that's all physics.

In the case of an SRB, can you really predict where it would/could go if
it prematurely separated and flew like a wild firecracker?

Wouldn't there be preventative detonation instead of waitiong for teh
firecracker to become clear and present danger to land? (kill it after
malfiunction instead of waiting for it to start flying towards coast).


Different slant:

Say the rocket worked flawlessly but a radio failure blocks telemetry
from reaching SpaceX. Does Range Safety have pre-calculated expected
position for every second of flight and as long as the rocket is
nominal, it lets it go, or would the loss of telemetry reception result
in decision to detonate ?

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-05-25 21:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> Yes and no. Again, Range Safety is primarily concerned with where the
>> thing could conceivably come down and that's all physics.
>>
>
>In the case of an SRB, can you really predict where it would/could go if
>it prematurely separated and flew like a wild firecracker?
>

They can't instantaneously change their velocity vector (physics and
shit), so you'll see it changing toward the danger zone. When it gets
close to violating range constraints you'd blow the TTS.

>
>Wouldn't there be preventative detonation instead of waitiong for teh
>firecracker to become clear and present danger to land? (kill it after
>malfiunction instead of waiting for it to start flying towards coast).
>

You could certainly do that, but you'd potentially blow up some 'good'
rockets that way.

>
>Different slant:
>
>Say the rocket worked flawlessly but a radio failure blocks telemetry
>from reaching SpaceX. Does Range Safety have pre-calculated expected
>position for every second of flight and as long as the rocket is
>nominal, it lets it go, or would the loss of telemetry reception result
>in decision to detonate ?
>

Depends on the rocket. In general a loss of TM will lead to blowing
the vehicle because if you lose comms from the rocket to the ground
you have to be concerned about losing comms from the ground to the
rocket. Manned vehicles get more leeway.

We used to put vehicles on the NAWC-WD China Lake range whose
capability exceeded the size of the range. We would fly them across
one range, through a tiny bridge between ranges onto a second range
and then across that range. I know we blew at least one 'good'
vehicle because it took a slightly wide turn going into that 'bridge'.
It was on its way to recovering to predicted track, but they blew the
FTS anyway because it was outside the corridor predicted by the
vehicle simulation.

[Anthony Frost]

In message <4oednc5JyqIaorrE...@earthlink.com>

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <moo...@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:

> "JF Mezei" wrote in message
> news:5927089d$0$9944$b1db1813$6557...@news.astraweb.com...
> >
> >On 2017-05-25 03:14, Anthony Frost wrote:
> >
> >> SpaceX are now flying with new range safety equipment that removes the
> >> need for most of the ground tracking equipment.

> >I know range safety is the one that transmits the command to go "kaboom".
> >
> >Is range safety also in charge of making the decision that a rocket is
> >off its nominal course and send the "kaboom" command, or is that
> >decision made by the launching company's systems who then tell range
> >safety to send the command ?
> >
>
> Range safety ultimately makes the decision. As long as the rocket is flying
> specific parameters, they'll hold their finger off the button.

> >Is there always a human who sees alert on screen and then decides to
> >press the big red button, or is that automated ?
>
> Pretty sure human controlled.

Not any more for SpaceX launches. The AFSS in use on the Falcon 9 has
sole control over the destruct system and is in fact allowed more
latitude over the nominal course. A human on the BRB may think "Oops,
going off course, boom" too early whereas the AFSS can and will give the
flight control system time to recover.

AFSS has been in use since February and running in parallel with the
traditional system on earlier flights. Air Force range crew for a Falcon
9 launch is now around 25 compared to 10 times that previously.

Anthony

[Fred J. McCall]

Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org> wrote:

>
>Not any more for SpaceX launches. The AFSS in use on the Falcon 9 has
>sole control over the destruct system and is in fact allowed more
>latitude over the nominal course. A human on the BRB may think "Oops,
>going off course, boom" too early whereas the AFSS can and will give the
>flight control system time to recover.
>
>AFSS has been in use since February and running in parallel with the
>traditional system on earlier flights. Air Force range crew for a Falcon
>9 launch is now around 25 compared to 10 times that previously.
>

If "the AFSS in use on the Falcon 9 has sole control over the destruct
system" why is that number 25 rather than zero? What are those 25
people doing if they cannot override and blow the rocket?

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-26 09:38, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> If "the AFSS in use on the Falcon 9 has sole control over the destruct
> system" why is that number 25 rather than zero? What are those 25
> people doing if they cannot override and blow the rocket?

If they legally still have jurisdiction over range control, I suspect
they still have a red button for manual intervention just in case, and
they probably have people who monitor the AFSS data.

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"JF Mezei" wrote in message

news:5927b302$0$29110$c3e8da3$3863...@news.astraweb.com...

>
>On 2017-05-25 21:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> Yes and no. Again, Range Safety is primarily concerned with where the
>> thing could conceivably come down and that's all physics.
>
>In the case of an SRB, can you really predict where it would/could go if
>it prematurely separated and flew like a wild firecracker?
>
>Wouldn't there be preventative detonation instead of waitiong for teh
>firecracker to become clear and present danger to land? (kill it after
>malfiunction instead of waiting for it to start flying towards coast).
>
>

Not necessarily. Let's take the Challenger example.

Let's assume they had somehow stayed on course. Or at least within Range
Safety.

NASA would have preferred not to blow them up, so that more and better data
could be collected.
So, Range Safety would want to wait as long as possible, but once it was
clear control was lost and they were leaving the range. BAM.

>Different slant:
>
>Say the rocket worked flawlessly but a radio failure blocks telemetry
>from reaching SpaceX. Does Range Safety have pre-calculated expected
>position for every second of flight and as long as the rocket is
>nominal, it lets it go, or would the loss of telemetry reception result
>in decision to detonate ?
>
>

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-26 13:01, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

> Not necessarily. Let's take the Challenger example.

> So, Range Safety would want to wait as long as possible, but once it was
> clear control was lost and they were leaving the range. BAM.

73 seconds into flight, so with roughly 50 seconds of fuel left, would
it be fair to state that a determined SRB without any payload would have
had plenty of fuel to reach the coast?

Does range safety look at worse case scenario of the SRB going staight
for the coast, or would they consider the "real life" behaviour of a
stray SRB veering off in random directions and having little chance of
reaching coast with 50 seconds of fuel?

[Fred J. McCall]

I 'suspect' they do, too, which is what I said.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

It's "Range Safety", not "Range Casino". When a vehicle leaves the
range safety corridor that vehicle is pretty much done. The part with
people in it might get a little leeway, but the rest of the vehicle
not so much.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-26 14:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> It's "Range Safety", not "Range Casino". When a vehicle leaves the
> range safety corridor that vehicle is pretty much done.

If the rocket is deffective, strays off course, but still heading out to
sea, does range safety detonate even though that rocket presents no
danger to populated areas ?

If an SRB falls off 1.5 minutes into flight but still heading out to see
in more or less straight line, do they detonate or do they wait for it
to head towards coast ?

[Fred J. McCall]

I keep saying it and you keep not getting it. Let me try again.

IF THE VEHICLE DEPARTS THE RANGE SAFETY CORRIDOR THEY WILL TRIGGER THE
TTS/FTS.

Is that clear enough?

Ever heard of these things called 'ships'? You really don't want to
drop a rocket on any of those, either.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-05-26 15:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> I keep saying it and you keep not getting it. Let me try again.
>
> IF THE VEHICLE DEPARTS THE RANGE SAFETY CORRIDOR THEY WILL TRIGGER THE
> TTS/FTS.
>
> Is that clear enough?

My discussion has to do more with the definition of "range safety corridor".

As the rockets goes further and further from land, I have to assume that
a range safety corridor widens cosiderably more than the rocket's own
trajectory corridor IF the goal of range safety is to protect property.

And blowing it up over the ocean generates rainfall of burning debris
thatr has more chance of getting a ship than letting it crash into ocean
as a single unit (smaller footprint).

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-05-26 15:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> I keep saying it and you keep not getting it. Let me try again.
>>
>> IF THE VEHICLE DEPARTS THE RANGE SAFETY CORRIDOR THEY WILL TRIGGER THE
>> TTS/FTS.
>>
>> Is that clear enough?
>>
>
>My discussion has to do more with the definition of "range safety corridor".
>
>As the rockets goes further and further from land, I have to assume that
>a range safety corridor widens cosiderably more than the rocket's own
>trajectory corridor IF the goal of range safety is to protect property.
>

'Ships'?

>
>And blowing it up over the ocean generates rainfall of burning debris
>thatr has more chance of getting a ship than letting it crash into ocean
>as a single unit (smaller footprint).
>

Let's test that out, shall we? Drop some dust on me and then drop a
big fucking rock on you and let's see which one of us gets hurt?

[Greg Goss]

The SRB with the defective O-ring was spinning pretty fast. This
meant that it headed off in a fairly stable direction. I don't
remember if it proceeded to another explosion before going too far.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[JF Mezei]

Side question:

It's been mentioned it takes a very long time for range safety to change
from one launch to another. "weeks" was mentioned.

Aren't there times where a rocket is allowed X scrubs/days after which
it needs to stand down because they have a launch from another pad the
next day?

Wouldn't that mean that range safety is able to switch within 24 hours?

Requiring each to file flight "plans" weeks in advance so range safety
can prepare is quite different from stating that range safety takes
weeks to switch from one pad/launch to the next.

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>Side question:
>
>It's been mentioned it takes a very long time for range safety to change
>from one launch to another. "weeks" was mentioned.
>
>Aren't there times where a rocket is allowed X scrubs/days after which
>it needs to stand down because they have a launch from another pad the
>next day?
>
>Wouldn't that mean that range safety is able to switch within 24 hours?
>

It would mean that in the same way that you can run a four minute mile
if you start timing 5,000 feet through the race. As has already been
pointed out to you, a big piece of that 'weeks' value is to do things
like issue NOTAMs for the range, file frequency notices, etc.

>
>Requiring each to file flight "plans" weeks in advance so range safety
>can prepare is quite different from stating that range safety takes
>weeks to switch from one pad/launch to the next.
>

It all depends on how many range safety people and how much gear you
have that would allow working in parallel. And that 'one day shift'
is actually several days worked back to back with no interrupting
sleep.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-06-01 19:15, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> It all depends on how many range safety people and how much gear you
> have that would allow working in parallel. And that 'one day shift'
> is actually several days worked back to back with no interrupting
> sleep.

So, that would mean you agree that the time needed is to prepare for a
flight, not to switch from one flight to another. This discussion arose
from the premise that it took forever to switch from one flight to
another to re-orient antennas, recalculate everything etc.

[Fred J. McCall]

That rather depends on the difference between the orbits the flights
are going to and the booster vehicles. If you don't have to re-orient
anything, the time gets shorter (which ought to be obvious to even the
most brain-dead observer). If one flight is going to a 23 degree
inclination and the next is going to 54 degrees, it all takes longer.
The 'recalculate' part can be done during that 5,000 feet of the mile
that you don't want to count as part of the race, given enough advance
notice and enough duplicate capacity, but you still have to program
the motions into the range equipment even if you're going to the same
orbit if the performance characteristics of the two boosters are
significantly different.

You know, you'd probably do a lot better if you started thinking and
stopped trying to go for some 'gotcha' moment.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-06-01 20:44, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> You know, you'd probably do a lot better if you started thinking and
> stopped trying to go for some 'gotcha' moment.

In a context discussing possible launch frequency, you argued rabnge
safety takes weeks BETWEEN flights to get ready. I have tried to
understand this.

I get that they have old systems from the 1970s and need to prepare
punched cards containing all the paramenters. I get that this may take
weeks to get done. But surely they do this montsh before launch after a
company has booked a pad and provides the launch parameters.

Since the randar antennas are able to track a moving rocket, surely has
has the ability to re-orient itself to a new launch pad within 24 hours.

And if they have the punched card ready, then reading them doesn't take
that long to load the program and have the antennas move to their
designated "start" position and know how to move as the rocket ascends.

And since they are able to go from one launch pad to the next very
quickly, then "taking weeks" between flights can't be a valid answer
since they already turn around much more quickly.

Where they may have limits is how many flights per year they can load
onto punched cards if each flight takes say 2 weeks of work to program,
then they could only do 26 flights per year if there is staff that has
no vacation and works every day of the year.

However, that would not dictate turn around between flights per say.
Only maximum overall throughput in a year. (you could have 26 flights in
December, but all the flight plans and range safety filed and developped
over a period of a year).

[Fred J. McCall]

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2017-06-01 20:44, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> You know, you'd probably do a lot better if you started thinking and
>> stopped trying to go for some 'gotcha' moment.
>>
>
>In a context discussing possible launch frequency, you argued rabnge
>safety takes weeks BETWEEN flights to get ready. I have tried to
>understand this.
>

*I* argued no such thing. You've fallen into the trap of thinking
everyone here who is not you is the same person. And you're not
trying to 'understand'. You're trying to nitpick to get a 'gotcha'
moment.

>
>I get that they have old systems from the 1970s and need to prepare
>punched cards containing all the paramenters. I get that this may take
>weeks to get done. But surely they do this montsh before launch after a
>company has booked a pad and provides the launch parameters.
>

Surely the don't. Why would they? Why would you have all that
parallel capacity and what do all those folks do when you AREN'T
jamming launch on top of launch? Have you ever run anything more
complicated than a mop?

<snippagio>

I think once again we're at the "think whatever you want, Mayfly; I'm
OK with you being wrong" point.

[Lofty Goat]

On Wed, 24 May 2017 21:51:50 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
<moo...@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:

>Congress can get NASA to spend money on a test stand in the wrong
>place:
>
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/nasa-inspector-questions-why-agency-built-rocket-test-stands-in-alabama/

Probably because all the rest of the necessary infrastructure, and some
existing test stands, are already at Redstone.

--
Goat