3 ms·
The orbiter (re-entry vehicle) is well know to lack range safety, unlike the full space shuttle (launch system). That is clear from my earlier comments. That is
by 001sky 13y ago
The orbiter (re-entry vehicle) is well know to lack range safety, unlike the full space shuttle (launch system). That is clear from my earlier comments. That is not a point on which anyone is dis-agreeing.
With that out of the way, lets look at the issue at hand.
Two issues comprise range-safety and both are at play: (1) is the egineering; and (2) is the flight paths. Proper range safety requires both (1) and (2) combined. The orbiter-as-re-entry vehicle lacked both (1) and (2). Whist the shuttle launch system had them both.
Certainly space X could engineer (1) and (2) using similar techniques at launch with no issue.
The open question is simply providing for range safety for the re-entry/recovery portion of the flight. The shuttle providese little to no road-map in that regards.
Just the opposite: it illustrates some of the difficulties.[0]
Assuming an engineered solution is present (ie, pt1 above) what would the limitations on the flight-patch (ie, pt 2 above) need to be in order that the comination (1,2) together would qualify as "range safety" in the legitimate sense.[1]
The ~rough~ answer seems to be (2') needs to be kept over water/open ocean.
So, my question is more about ballistics math: what is the envelope of precision needed to keep something either (a) in the ocean; and/or (b) out of harms way if the event is triggered closer to land.
The answer to that is something the engineers at SpaceX have surely considered.
I don't know what those calculations show; it (surely) can be safely done up to some threshold.
The question then simply is "what is the threshold"?
_____________________
[0] The scale of the debris cone from a columbia's ("natually occurring") event @ 100,000+ ft is illustrative of a couple things. None of: China Lake, White Sands, and Barry Goldwater etc alone could ~readily contain such an event. We know this because all were proximate to the debbris path (ie, western CA, Southern AZ, South/Central NM).
[1] see, eg s.6.2.1 (ff) of this report> http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/multimedia/docs/RangeSafetyManual.pdf http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/multimedia/docs/RangeSafetyManual....