Quickie
Colonel
A static test stand control center does have the ability to cut off the engines any time any anomalies are detected through the sensors. We have seen this happen many times during the testing of new Starship Boosters.
China's Space Program Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
A static test stand control center does have the ability to cut off the engines any time any anomalies are detected through the sensors. We have seen this happen many times during the testing of new Starship Boosters.
That is also the on-board computer. Not the stand or the control center.
SpaceX uses no other means of control, even the FTS is automatic and based on the ship itself (something that was demonstrated on IFT-1).
This not about SpaceX though, what I describe is standard practice in modern rocketry.
Last edited:
This can be.
The test site is not just the rack, but also all the fuel, oxyen and water tanks, pumps, pluming and trenches, quite lot of things to save. If you have acquired permission of safety zone of Xkm radius, why not using it instead of sacrificing anything. Besides, it is not a real rocket, it doesn't have SW that allows it to fly properly after leaving the ground, meaning it won't go far provided your safety zone is adequate.
It is certainly a set-back for the company, but if they acquired adquate safety zone properly I don't see why the big fuss of "head-rolling" and "back scaling" hysteria. (not you but some others in the thread).
Last edited:
That sounds reasonable considerring the recent CZ-10A hold-down test only had 3 engines instead of 7, so if 9 engines are mounted, they should have a throttle limitation in place. However this approach has the risk of throttle failure, either due to man-made mistake or SW malfunction.
BTW, the engine is supposed to be 1090kn at sea level according to official site . That means full thrust of the 1st stage is 981 tonnes. The wiki page of TL-3 the rocket is wrong. If you check wiki page of TH12 the engine, it says 1090kn (109 tonne).
Quickie
Colonel
Then again, especially during the testing of new rocket systems/engines, there are always certain important commands (such as auto-destruction of rocket) that need to be decided on and issued by the mission/testing controllers, based on the unique circumstances of the situation.
This will require a communication link between the control center and the rocket's onboard computer.
That is an FTS as I was saying. A Flight Termination System. Assuming the LV was designed with a non automatic FTS, it would use something like a high powered coded UHF link between the site and the rocket. An RSO then could order the rocket to "unzip" if it violated an instantaneous impact point.
As was evident by the video of the test, the first stage did not have an FTS installed and/or active.
If I could wager a guess...probably because it was assumed it would not take flight in the first place..this was supposed to be a WDR/static fire test of a single stage of the LV.
Last edited:
I'm more surprised this company I haven't heard of is already testing falcon-9 equivalent rocket. Yeah I agree heads will roll, especially safety related posts and whatever government position authorized such testing site this close to civilian center. However the company itself should not only be spared but massively funded, their engine tech is pretty impressive from previous single engine test at least
lcloo
Captain
These spectators are at 5km to 8km away using measurement with Google Earth map.