15 ms·
Just want to add another comment in here that there is no manual termination, they are using a fully automatic flight termination system.
by cdash 3y ago
Just want to add another comment in here that there is no manual termination, they are using a fully automatic flight termination system.
- ByThyGrace 3y agoSurely the final Starship carrying passengers will not have auto flight termination?
- t0mas88 3y agoImagine explaining to the court that the passengers were blown up by your AI algorithm... I expect these things are only on test flights indeed.
- dave78 3y agoI'm pretty sure Falcon 9 carrying crew has an AFTS. Challenger was destroyed by an FTS system as well despite having crew on board. I think it's just a risk you have to take to go on a rocket ride.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe Crew Dragon capsule has escape rockets that will fire as part of the flight termination system to carry the crew safely away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_In-Flight_Abort_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_In-Flight_Abort_Te...
- KineticLensman 3y ago> Challenger was destroyed by an FTS system No. The shuttle broke up when the overall stack became unstable due to the right hand SRB separating because a strut that attached it to the external tank failed (due to a blowtorch effect from a failed O-ring). The Challenger orbiter ended up 'on top' and broke into several chunks - without involvement of any FTS - because of the aerodynamic stress (one of these chunks was the crew compartment). The SRBs were destroyed by their FTS systems, but this was more than 30 seconds after Challenger broke up. The ET simply disintegrated. [Edit] added emphasis that the orbiter break-up (and destruction) was not due to any FTS.
- dave78 3y agoI'm very aware of why it initially broke up. But once that started, the range safety officer did activate the FTS system. The point is that rockets carrying crew do indeed have FTS systems - presence of a crew doesn't negate that need.
- ben_w 3y agoThe SRBs (and the EFTs) had FTS's, but the Orbiters didn't.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago>the range safety officer did activate the FTS system. That doesn't sound very automatic.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- krisoft 3y ago> Imagine explaining to the court that the passengers were blown up by your AI algorithm... Autonomous flight termination systems are not "AI". It uses an on-board GPS and INS to figure out where the rocket is. It applies a pre-defined set of rules to the state vector and if any one of the rules fail it terminates the flight. You can read more about them here: https://www.gps.gov/cgsic/meetings/2019/valencia.pdf https://www.gps.gov/cgsic/meetings/2019/valencia.pdf
- ben_w 3y agoGOFAI is still AI in my books. *old man shouts at The Cloud*
- anovikov 3y agoIt's not AI at all. It just has preset border conditions in terms of flight corridor and probably, predicted/calculated impact point if engines go out at that moment, and blows rocket up if they are violated. It's hard logic, comparison of some variables with set thresholds, not some "thinking".
- ikari_pl 3y agoHeuristics used to be AI. Now only chat gpt is ai
- krisoft 3y agoOkay, but then I assume you also call AI the model predictive controller flying and landing the rocket too? An other question if you don’t mind: Did you ever used software which was not AI in your view?
- sroussey 3y agoHopefully no GPS jammers nearby.
- krisoft 3y agoYes. I'm sure they apply all the mitigations possible. Worth mentioning that the previous state of the art solution relied on a radio link too. Not sure if it was an implementation where jamming could led to flight termination, or where jamming could lead to failure to terminate a flight. But jamming, and resistance to it, was a concern even before autonomous flight termination.
- WJW 3y agoIf I were writing such a system it would have very straightforward if-statements linked directly to FAA requirements. No faffy AI stuff is needed.
- thinkcontext 3y agoNot sure about that but indications are it won't have an escape system like other manned craft.
- inglor_cz 3y agoSpace Shuttle didn't have an escape system either; its total death toll was 14.
- KineticLensman 3y ago> Space Shuttle didn't have an escape system either To be pedantic, the early flights had ejector seats for the pilot and commander, and the post-Challenger orbiters had a 'fire-pole' bail-out system. These systems could only be used in a very limited set of circumstances.
- midasuni 3y agoAbsolute numbers don’t really mean much. More than 14 people have died since this test flight on American roads. Shuttle death rate was about 1 in 75, which is insanely high.
- troupe 3y agoHow does that compare with other rocket systems?
- pantalaimon 3y agoPretty poorly, Soyuz has 4 fatalities (Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11) during it's over 140 flights, Crew Dragon has none.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoThat's a unnormalized metric: shuttle had two failures in 135 flights and generally carried up way more people per flight and also did way more stuff per flight.
- sebzim4500 3y agoAs I understand it, on crewed flights of the Falcon 9 the AFTS is somehow integrated with the abort system so that it is impossible for it to detonate without the capsule having a few seconds to get to safety first. I don't see how this would work for Starship, since it won't have an abort system.
- api 3y agoCouldn’t Starship detach and fire its engines to get away from the booster? Of course I guess if they are not hypergolic there is startup time.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe real question here is what happens with a crewed second stage that has a problem with its engines/fuel. We’ve yet to see designs for the crewed interior beyond very conceptual stuff. Maybe something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule for launch abort.
- Phenomenit 3y agoI believe that the crewed version is way in the future when operations are much better understood. There’s no chance in hell they’re catching that 2028 window to march.
- dotancohen 3y agoThis same question was asked in the early years of commercial aviation. In the end, the industry (mostly) settled on aircraft designs that could passively glide reasonably well enough to land (sometimes). But some aircraft, e.g. military jets and Cirrus, came up with different answers (parachutes for the crew and for the whole aircraft, mostly). We'll see how the commercial spacecraft industry deals with this, but I do think that we are at far too early of a stage to start expecting progress in this area. The first few decades of commercial spaceflight will be dangerous just like the first few decades of commercial aviation, or for that matter the first few centuries of commercial shipping. The answers, varied or uniform, will be interesting and I hope that I'll be around to see them.
- BurningFrog 3y agoIf you pay the Non AFT Fee, yes.
- wheelerof4te 3y agoNo. If thing go south, they'd just suicide themselves manually.
- wly_cdgr 3y agoSurely it will, but prob only Elon and a couple others will know about it