Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.space.policy    |    Discussions about space policy    |    106,651 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 105,165 of 106,651    |
|    Snidely to All    |
|    Re: SpaceX and the FAA    |
|    05 Feb 21 00:05:35    |
      From: snidely.too@gmail.com              Snidely pounded on thar keyboard to tell us       > JF Mezei asserted that:       >> On 2021-02-04 15:52, Snidely wrote:       >>       >>> SN8 clearly was over the water when it started down, and moved inland over       >>> the landing pad once it was clear it wasn't heading for South Padre. I       >>> haven't watched the SpaceX video enough to be sure it did the same thing,       >>> but the cameras of the NSF crew had to pan a fair bit during flight.       >>       >>       >> FAA concerns are about the "boom" of an explosion damaging structures       >> (aka: windows) outside of SpaceX land. It wasn't about Starship itself       >> landing on populated areas.       >       > And so far, SN1, SN4, SN7, SN7.1, SN8, and SN9 haven't broken windows in Boca       > Chica village, much less South Padre Island.              I didn't count SN7.2 because it didn't go boom, it went hiss.              > During static fires, the siren tells the BCV residents when to be outside,       > just in case of an overpressure event. Not happened yet. Landing off       > balance with full tanks might do it, though.       >       > /dps              --       I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know       any particular reason, but I have always been glad.        _Roughing It_, Mark Twain              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca