4 ms·
The launch termination system at least needs a receiver
by gbrown 6y ago
The launch termination system at least needs a receiver
- bumby 6y agoIsn’t this only the case if the intent is for a range officer to abort? I.e., if this system is fully autonomous and on-board, a receiver wouldn’t be necessary?
- gbrown 6y agoYes
- qubex 6y agoWhat the OP seems to be saying is that the emergency abort system actually operates on a “lysine deficiency” basis: if the signal is no longer received, the self-destruct system goes BOOM. I suppose this classifies as “fail-safe”, though if there’s folks riding on the tip of this large sharp shard with the explosive force of a small nuclear weapon I’d be rather concerned about radio transient interference and things like that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bumby 6y agoIn that case, is it not really autonomous? Who’s stopping the signal? I’m assuming the range officer? When passengers are on-board, there’s generally a launch abort engine that is supposed to help them leave safely in a abort scenario
- SEJeff 6y agoThe way the automated FTS works is essentially that the USAF blasts a "DO NOT BLOW UP" signal with a very high power transmitter to the FTS. If the FTS doesn't receive that signal, it triggers and then you have a RUD.
- gbrown 6y agoThat sounds terrifying
- SEJeff 6y agoI don’t disagree, but that is in fact how it works!
- bumby 6y agoTrue, but it’s the safest configuration because you want the default condition to abort. The inverse set up is less safe because there are more failure modes for a receiver to break, meaning if a abort command was sent there’s more chance it won’t respond. It’s like choosing a normally-open or normally-closed valve; you want the default (power off) configuration to be the safer one. Inadvertently aborting is safer than not aborting when you should have
- qubex 6y agoRUD: Rapid Unscheduled Dissassembly
- jccooper 6y agoIt does not. F9 FTS is onboard and entirely automated. There is no ground trigger.