Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may not be very exciting ...
Java Jive wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps
may not be very exciting ...
More of a splashdown, than a launch ...
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful, clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South
Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
The whole thing seemed very hyped up, I could not work up any interest
in it particularly with Branston being involved.
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South
Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
The whole thing seemed very hyped up,
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South Atlantic' >>
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
The whole thing seemed very hyped up, I could not work up any interest
in it particularly with Branston being involved.
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
With the altitude of the rocket, and its location it was supposed to
have been possible to see from a large part of the UK and western Europe.
I looked in the right direction, but there was too much cloud cover.
I've often spotted and followed the ISS when it's come over the UK, and
it's still been visible while over Poland. Though that's obviously
higher than the burn phase of last night's roc
On 10/01/2023 10:42, Mark Carver wrote:Tracking civilian planes on FlightRadar (other aps are available) is
With the altitude of the rocket, and its location it was supposed to
have been possible to see from a large part of the UK and western
Europe.
I looked in the right direction, but there was too much cloud cover.
I've often spotted and followed the ISS when it's come over the UK, and
it's still been visible while over Poland. Though that's obviously
higher than the burn phase of last night's roc
The BBC News website has a map showing the track and the TDA.
I noticed last night that there seemed to be people tracking the
aircraft on flight tracking programmes so must have been high enough
to receive it somewhere.
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South
Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:08:30 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
The whole thing seemed very hyped up, I could not work up any interest
in it particularly with Branston being involved.
Pickles?
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:tpjdeu$gsnm$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South
Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
Was there any specific reason why the launch was carried out at night?
Images of the rocket leaving the plane, and the view from the rocket
camera as it climbed up away from the earth/sea surface would have
been interesting to see. Maybe lack of sun's heating on the rocket was important.
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South Atlantic' >> Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
The whole thing seemed very hyped up, I could not work up any interest
in it particularly with Branston being involved.
I noticed last night that there seemed to be people tracking the
aircraft on flight tracking programmes so must have been high enough to receive it somewhere
Tracking civilian planes on FlightRadar (other aps are available) is
child's play now. The area of the Atlantic the 747 last night was flying
is well within bog standard tracking range.
AIUI, there have been five previous launches in the USA. The first
failed (for exactly the same reason as yesterday), and the next four
were successful. The only difference with the UK launch was that it was
in the first time any satellite launch has taken place in the UK, and
shows that similar launches could take place elsewhere in the world.
On 10/01/2023 11:16, Ian Jackson wrote:
AIUI, there have been five previous launches in the USA. The first
failed (for exactly the same reason as yesterday), and the next four
were successful. The only difference with the UK launch was that it was
in the first time any satellite launch has taken place in the UK, and
shows that similar launches could take place elsewhere in the world.
They do not seem to 'fail', they have 'anomalies'!
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:tpjdeu$gsnm$1@dont-email.me...
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
Was there any specific reason why the launch was carried out at night?
Images of the rocket leaving the plane, and the view from the rocket camera as it climbed up away from the earth/sea surface would have been interesting to see. Maybe lack of sun's heating on the rocket was important.
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
On 10/01/2023 11:36, MB wrote:
On 10/01/2023 11:16, Ian Jackson wrote:
AIUI, there have been five previous launches in the USA. The first
failed (for exactly the same reason as yesterday), and the next four
were successful. The only difference with the UK launch was that it was
in the first time any satellite launch has taken place in the UK, and
shows that similar launches could take place elsewhere in the world.
They do not seem to 'fail', they have 'anomalies'!
In any accident NEVER claim liability.
Java Jive wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may not be
very exciting ...
More of a splashdown, than a launch ...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark CarverYou seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark CarverYou seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we >>>>> assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything >>>>> was hit?
over and out to sea !
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a
plane I'm flying on.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark CarverYou seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we >>>>> assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything >>>>> was hit?
over and out to sea !
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a
plane I'm flying on.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may not
be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
On 10/01/2023 10:08, MB wrote:
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful,
clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South
Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
With the altitude of the rocket, and its location it was supposed to have been possible to see from a large part of the UK and western Europe.
I looked in the right direction, but there was too much cloud cover.
I've often spotted and followed the ISS when it's come over the UK, and
it's still been visible while over Poland. Though that's obviously higher than the burn phase of last night's rocket
It was, even more puffed up than Messers Musk and Bezos's adventures
The whole thing seemed very hyped up,
On 09/01/2023 21:06, Java Jive wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
And, as others have noted already, sadly I was right, it was actually
rather boring to watch - too many long intervals of nothing happening
with "Your custom is very important to us, and a member of staff will
attend to you as soon as one is free, in the meantime please hold!" style
of moronic canned music alongside pretty Cornish coastal video loops, and
too much ersatz chat, with even the final failure lacking any sort of
visual spectacle or drama.
However, regardless of the lack of visual spectacle, it's a shame about
the failure, maybe, as the late lamented Gerry Rafferty put it, they can
"get it right next time!"
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
Thanks, yes they got it wrong again, but what about the sats? Does anyone know why it failed, after all they had long enough to check it all out, and its not as if this type of orbital launch has not been done before in the USA by acompany called Orbital with Their Pegasus. They also had some old Minuteman missile first stages that they married up with the Pegasus to do standard launches this was named Taurus.
Brian
Andy Burns wrote:
More of a splashdown, than a launch ...
or even a damp squib.
Martin wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
More of a splashdown, than a launch ...
or even a damp squib.
The telemetry was pretty poor throughout, going from 600,000 ft to 0, back to 900,000ft in seconds, with speed of 0 mph, and at one point 1.4 billion mph, so
it can't really be trusted ... but ... in terms of why it ddn't reach orbit, my
theory is they ran out of O2, the two tanks on the 2nd stage started off at 100%
but by the time the fuel was down to ~40% the O2 was below 20% ... unless the
engines would be expected to burn less O2 at higher altitude?
too many long intervals of nothing happening
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark CarverYou seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets >>>> over and out to sea !
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>>>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we >>>>>> assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of >>>>>> re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything >>>>>> was hit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of
regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a
plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-)
Martin wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
More of a splashdown, than a launch ...
or even a damp squib.
The telemetry was pretty poor throughout, going from 600,000 ft to 0, back to 900,000ft in seconds, with speed of 0 mph, and at one point 1.4 billion mph, so
it can't really be trusted ... but ... in terms of why it ddn't reach orbit, my
theory is they ran out of O2, the two tanks on the 2nd stage started off at 100%
but by the time the fuel was down to ~40% the O2 was below 20% ... unless the
engines would be expected to burn less O2 at higher altitude?
According to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant#Mixture_ratio> you
would want to run richer at lower altitudes, which is the opposite of the above. You would also expect the system to be designed to run out of both fuel
and oxidiser at about the same time
as any excess is dead mass to be
accelerated into orbit.
It could be an instrument error, that resulted in an abort, or it could be a fuel pump failure (or fuel pump control failure).
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:33:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark CarverYou seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets >>>>>> over and out to sea !
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we >>>>>>>> assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of >>>>>>>> re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything >>>>>>>> was hit?
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of
regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a
plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-)
Part of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
in situations like this.
Including Mark's second example?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark CarverYou seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets >>>>> over and out to sea !
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>>>>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we >>>>>>> assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of >>>>>>> re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything >>>>>>> was hit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of
regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a
plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-)
Part of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
in situations like this.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:33:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark CarverPart of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved >>> in situations like this.
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing >>>>>> are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets >>>>>>> over and out to sea !
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we >>>>>>>>> assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>>>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of >>>>>>>>> re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>>>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything >>>>>>>>> was hit?
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG? >>>>> You seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of
regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a >>>>> plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-)
Including Mark's second example?
I was referring to rocket launch facility approval.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:31:36 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:33:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark CarverPart of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved >>>> in situations like this.
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing >>>>>>> are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was >>>>>>> standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG? >>>>>> You seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets >>>>>>>> over and out to sea !
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>>>>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of >>>>>>>>>> re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>>>>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of
regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a >>>>>> plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-)
Including Mark's second example?
I was referring to rocket launch facility approval.
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there
an international body involved?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:47:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:31:36 -0000 (UTC), TweedNo idea. Best you write to UKSA who handle this.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:33:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark CarverPart of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing >>>>>>>>> are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was >>>>>>>>> standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG? >>>>>>>> You seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of >>>>>>>>>>>> re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of
regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a >>>>>>>> plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-)
in situations like this.
Including Mark's second example?
I was referring to rocket launch facility approval.
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there
an international body involved?
Maybe you should do the same before you opine that 'part of the
regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
in situations like this'.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:31:36 -0000 (UTC), TweedNo idea. Best you write to UKSA who handle this.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:33:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark CarverPart of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved >>>>> in situations like this.
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing >>>>>>>> are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was >>>>>>>> standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG? >>>>>>> You seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of >>>>>>>>>>> re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of
regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a >>>>>>> plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-)
Including Mark's second example?
I was referring to rocket launch facility approval.
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there
an international body involved?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 19:57:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:47:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:31:36 -0000 (UTC), TweedNo idea. Best you write to UKSA who handle this.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:33:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark CarverPart of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark CarverYou seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing >>>>>>>>>>> are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was >>>>>>>>>>> standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of >>>>>>>>> regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a
plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-) >>>>>>>>>
in situations like this.
Including Mark's second example?
I was referring to rocket launch facility approval.
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there >>>>> an international body involved?
Maybe you should do the same before you opine that 'part of the
regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
in situations like this'.
Why? I know there is a regulatory process - there was an interview on the
radio on one of the science/technology programmes (I forget which) that
mentioned there was a huge amount of regulatory paperwork to get through,
mainly concerned with the safety of others. Unsurprisingly it didnÂ’t go
into the detail of the regulations or the approval process. I genuinely
have no idea about the details but I do know that UKSA handle it.
I thought the question was whether consideration was given to the risk
of debris landing in the sea. I suggest we agree that neither of us
actually knows.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:47:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 18:31:36 -0000 (UTC), TweedNo idea. Best you write to UKSA who handle this.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:33:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:41:32 +0000, Mark CarverPart of the regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing >>>>>>>>>> are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was >>>>>>>>>> standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG? >>>>>>>>> You seem worry an awful lot, but anything is possible ?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps mayAs a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
not be very exciting ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
Maybe so, but I am just wondering what might be in the mind of >>>>>>>> regulator when giving approval to a proposal.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a >>>>>>>>> plane I'm flying on.
That's okay. There would be no legal action against anyone :-) >>>>>>>>
in situations like this.
Including Mark's second example?
I was referring to rocket launch facility approval.
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there >>>> an international body involved?
Maybe you should do the same before you opine that 'part of the
regulatory approval process is to consider the risks involved
in situations like this'.
Why? I know there is a regulatory process - there was an interview on the >radio on one of the science/technology programmes (I forget which) that >mentioned there was a huge amount of regulatory paperwork to get through, >mainly concerned with the safety of others. Unsurprisingly it didn’t go
into the detail of the regulations or the approval process. I genuinely
have no idea about the details but I do know that UKSA handle it.
On 10/01/2023 10:43, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:08:30 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
Only Sky News bothered with any sort of TV coverage, and it was awful, >>>> clueless expressions such as, '..flying over Portugal in the South Atlantic'
Patrick Moore will be spinning in his grave.
The BBC just blissfully lumbered on with a repeat of a repeat of a
repeat of HardTalk
Was there anything to see except a Jumbo Jet taking off in the dark?
The whole thing seemed very hyped up, I could not work up any interest
in it particularly with Branston being involved.
Pickles?
and yummy with cheese!
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>Most end up in the sea.
wrote:
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to
earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of
controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything
was hit?
over and out to sea !
Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
I wonder if any warnings were broadcast when they knew the rocket would
crash - from video shown on the late news last night it came down
somewhere just west of the Canary Islands. Mind you it was bright enough
that anyone could see it even if they couldn't move their boat in time!
and because there is a far bigger area of the earth covered by sea than by air.
Most Russian launches drop the first stages on land.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:11:28 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:51:55 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 10:44, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 09:55:38 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:Indeed. That's why adventures like this usually involve firing rockets
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:06:44 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote:Most end up in the sea.
Although, AIUI, initially it's just a plane taking off, so perhaps may >>>>>> not be very exciting ...As a matter of interest, what happened to the satellites etc? Can we >>>>> assume, because they did not enter orbit, they must have returned to >>>>> earth? Would all Material ebris be fully destroyed by the heat of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
re-entry or would lumps of debris hit the ground? Is there a way of >>>>> controlling where these would land? Do we know if anyone or anything >>>>> was hit?
over and out to sea !
Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landing
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
They issue warnings to shipping before a launch and check nobody is going to be
struck by any stage falling on them. At Western Test Range in California launches have to fit in with the railway time table as a railway line between LA
and SF passes between the launch sites and the sea.
On 10/01/2023 12:11, Scott wrote:
Is there an assumption that the risks associated with a sea landingThe map on the BBC website showed the TDA and also said that shipping
are close to non-existent? A ship could be hit while someone was
standing on the deck, or a yacht, or what about a ship carrying LPG?
was advised to stay clear.
The Americans have been launching out over the Atlantic and Pacific for
years with boosters dropping down into the sea. How many 'shipstrikes'
have there been?
Even the British Army used to launch Corporal missiles from Scotland, to
fall into the Atlantic.
Oceans and even seas are very big places.
Was it just a coincidence or was this "meteor" seen over the UK the failed rocket coming back down again?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-64220964 https://news.sky.com/story/perfect-timing-meteor-travels-across-uk-skies-on-same-night-as-historic-space-launch-in-cornwall-12783386
The telemetry was pretty poor throughout, going from 600,000 ft to 0,
back to 900,000ft in seconds, with speed of 0 mph, and at one point 1.4 billion mph, so it can't really be trusted
... but ... in terms of why
it ddn't reach orbit, my theory is they ran out of O2, the two tanks on
the 2nd stage started off at 100% but by the time the fuel was down to
~40% the O2 was below 20% ... unless the engines would be expected to
burn less O2 at higher altitude?
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
On 10/01/2023 16:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
I suspect so, but by then I'd given up watching the livecast
continuously because it was too boring and so was working on another PC,
and missed the actual moment of separation. The next thing I saw was
the camera on the rocket pointing backwards and showing the flames of
the exhaust, but nothing else because it was dark.
On Wed 11/01/2023 14:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/01/2023 16:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
I suspect so, but by then I'd given up watching the livecast
continuously because it was too boring and so was working on another
PC, and missed the actual moment of separation. The next thing I saw
was the camera on the rocket pointing backwards and showing the flames
of the exhaust, but nothing else because it was dark.
I don't think there was a shot of the separation Charles. I watched it
right through (yawn!) and only saw the exhaust along with the sparks now
and again.
I haven't looked at the YouTube video yet - that may be very different.
On 11/01/2023 16:10, Woody wrote:
On Wed 11/01/2023 14:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/01/2023 16:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
I suspect so, but by then I'd given up watching the livecast
continuously because it was too boring and so was working on another
PC, and missed the actual moment of separation. The next thing I saw
was the camera on the rocket pointing backwards and showing the flames
of the exhaust, but nothing else because it was dark.
I don't think there was a shot of the separation Charles. I watched it
right through (yawn!) and only saw the exhaust along with the sparks now
and again.
I haven't looked at the YouTube video yet - that may be very different.
I was watching the Youtube feed and I'm sure the composite graph of the >speed, altitude, amount of fuel etc was displayed during the separation,
and the commentator only mentioned it a few seconds later when they
switched to the camera on Stage 1.
The Australian commentator seemed as if he was reacting to events,
rather than predicting them: "We are due to launch the rocket in 5, 4,
3, 2, 1 - NOW!", etc. I didn't see the very beginning of the feed so I
don't know who he was - was he part of the launch team?
I wonder what the scene was in the very laid-back nothing's-happening
control room as everyone realised that the "anomaly" had occurred - a >collective "oh shit" and then dejection all round, I imagine :-(
Anyway, it was all a good practice for any re-run that there might be. I >wondered all along "do you think that's wise" (in my best John le
Mesurier voice!) when I heard that they were launching a real payload of >satellites, rather than just a similar-mass set of inert objects, so at
least they didn't lose expensive satellites if their first trial launch
was a flop.
On Wed 11/01/2023 14:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/01/2023 16:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
I suspect so, but by then I'd given up watching the livecast
continuously because it was too boring and so was working on another PC, and missed the actual moment of separation. The next thing I saw was
the camera on the rocket pointing backwards and showing the flames of
the exhaust, but nothing else because it was dark.
I don't think there was a shot of the separation Charles. I watched it
right through (yawn!) and only saw the exhaust along with the sparks now
and again.
I haven't looked at the YouTube video yet - that may be very different.
On Wed 11/01/2023 14:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/01/2023 16:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
I suspect so, but by then I'd given up watching the livecast
continuously because it was too boring and so was working on another PC,
and missed the actual moment of separation. The next thing I saw was
the camera on the rocket pointing backwards and showing the flames of
the exhaust, but nothing else because it was dark.
I don't think there was a shot of the separation Charles. I watched it
right through (yawn!) and only saw the exhaust along with the sparks now
and again.
I haven't looked at the YouTube video yet - that may be very different.
On 11/01/2023 16:10, Woody wrote:
On Wed 11/01/2023 14:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/01/2023 16:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
I suspect so, but by then I'd given up watching the livecast
continuously because it was too boring and so was working on another
PC, and missed the actual moment of separation. The next thing I saw
was the camera on the rocket pointing backwards and showing the flames
of the exhaust, but nothing else because it was dark.
I don't think there was a shot of the separation Charles. I watched it
right through (yawn!) and only saw the exhaust along with the sparks now
and again.
I haven't looked at the YouTube video yet - that may be very different.
I was watching the Youtube feed and I'm sure the composite graph of the >speed, altitude, amount of fuel etc was displayed during the separation,
and the commentator only mentioned it a few seconds later when they
switched to the camera on Stage 1.
The Australian commentator seemed as if he was reacting to events,
rather than predicting them: "We are due to launch the rocket in 5, 4,
3, 2, 1 - NOW!", etc. I didn't see the very beginning of the feed so I
don't know who he was - was he part of the launch team?
I wonder what the scene was in the very laid-back nothing's-happening
control room as everyone realised that the "anomaly" had occurred - a >collective "oh shit" and then dejection all round, I imagine :-(
Anyway, it was all a good practice for any re-run that there might be. I >wondered all along "do you think that's wise" (in my best John le
Mesurier voice!) when I heard that they were launching a real payload of >satellites, rather than just a similar-mass set of inert objects, so at
least they didn't lose expensive satellites if their first trial launch
was a flop.
On 11/01/2023 10:40, Martin wrote:
and because there is a far bigger area of the earth covered by sea than by air.
Most Russian launches drop the first stages on land.
But they have huge areas of open space and don't care too much if debris
hits someone.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:46:53 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 11/01/2023 16:10, Woody wrote:
On Wed 11/01/2023 14:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 10/01/2023 16:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
too many long intervals of nothing happening
Did they show the rocket startup at all?
I suspect so, but by then I'd given up watching the livecast
continuously because it was too boring and so was working on another
PC, and missed the actual moment of separation. The next thing I saw
was the camera on the rocket pointing backwards and showing the flames >>>> of the exhaust, but nothing else because it was dark.
I don't think there was a shot of the separation Charles. I watched it
right through (yawn!) and only saw the exhaust along with the sparks now >>> and again.
I haven't looked at the YouTube video yet - that may be very different.
I was watching the Youtube feed and I'm sure the composite graph of the >>speed, altitude, amount of fuel etc was displayed during the separation, >>and the commentator only mentioned it a few seconds later when they >>switched to the camera on Stage 1.
The Australian commentator seemed as if he was reacting to events,
rather than predicting them: "We are due to launch the rocket in 5, 4,
3, 2, 1 - NOW!", etc. I didn't see the very beginning of the feed so I >>don't know who he was - was he part of the launch team?
I wonder what the scene was in the very laid-back nothing's-happening >>control room as everyone realised that the "anomaly" had occurred - a >>collective "oh shit" and then dejection all round, I imagine :-(
Anyway, it was all a good practice for any re-run that there might be. I >>wondered all along "do you think that's wise" (in my best John le
Mesurier voice!) when I heard that they were launching a real payload of >>satellites, rather than just a similar-mass set of inert objects, so at >>least they didn't lose expensive satellites if their first trial launch
was a flop.
It wasn't the first launch. It was the first launch from UK.
3 previoius launches have delivered satellites to space.
It often crosses my mind that a meteorite might go straight through a
plane I'm flying on.
Anyway, it was all a good practice for any re-run that there might be. I wondered all along "do you think that's wise" (in my best John le
Mesurier voice!) when I heard that they were launching a real payload of satellites, rather than just a similar-mass set of inert objects, so at
least they didn't lose expensive satellites if their first trial launch
was a flop.
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there
an international body involved?
On 10/01/2023 18:41, Scott wrote:
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there
an international body involved?
Next time you're flying over an ocean look out of the window.
There's an awful lot of empty ocean out there.
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 21:27:41 +0000, Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2023 18:41, Scott wrote:
How does a UK regulator assess risk outside the UK? Given the
likelihood that any debris will land in international waters, is there
an international body involved?
Next time you're flying over an ocean look out of the window.
There's an awful lot of empty ocean out there.
OTOH If you fly from Toulouse passing over Cap Hague to Gatwick on a sunny clear
day, the channel looks as busy as a motorway. I was glad I hadn't seen it like
that when I used to sail from Bucklers Hard to Cherbourg.
Oddly they don't use The Channel as a crash area for failed rockets
On 16/01/2023 12:16, Vir Campestris wrote:
Oddly they don't use The Channel as a crash area for failed rockets
It would be good way of retaliating against all the illegal immigrants
that the French send to us.
Unfortunately the French can and does make rockets and UK can't. Blame UK politicians from the 1960s and 1970s for that. If Mrs T had had her way UK wouldn't have a satellite industry either.
On 16/01/2023 15:16, Martin wrote:
Unfortunately the French can and does make rockets and UK can't. Blame UK
politicians from the 1960s and 1970s for that. If Mrs T had had her way UK >> wouldn't have a satellite industry either.
I thought I had read that the UK has quite a successful satellite
industry, concentrating on small ones.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 22:26:25 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 16/01/2023 15:16, Martin wrote:
Unfortunately the French can and does make rockets and UK can't. Blame
UK politicians from the 1960s and 1970s for that. If Mrs T had had her
way UK wouldn't have a satellite industry either.
I thought I had read that the UK has quite a successful satellite
industry, concentrating on small ones.
Satellites aren't rockets. Airbus bought UK's satellite industry.
In article <iptcsh5lej1cke3g463ojg42fp6f1qu3bs@4ax.com>, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 22:26:25 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 16/01/2023 15:16, Martin wrote:
Unfortunately the French can and does make rockets and UK can't. Blame >>>> UK politicians from the 1960s and 1970s for that. If Mrs T had had her >>>> way UK wouldn't have a satellite industry either.
I thought I had read that the UK has quite a successful satellite
industry, concentrating on small ones.
Satellites aren't rockets. Airbus bought UK's satellite industry.
Surrey University has a company making satellites
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <iptcsh5lej1cke3g463ojg42fp6f1qu3bs@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 22:26:25 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 16/01/2023 15:16, Martin wrote:
Unfortunately the French can and does make rockets and UK can't. Blame >>>>> UK politicians from the 1960s and 1970s for that. If Mrs T had had her >>>>> way UK wouldn't have a satellite industry either.
I thought I had read that the UK has quite a successful satellite
industry, concentrating on small ones.
Satellites aren't rockets. Airbus bought UK's satellite industry.
Surrey University has a company making satellites
Now owned by Airbus.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:16:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <iptcsh5lej1cke3g463ojg42fp6f1qu3bs@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 22:26:25 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 16/01/2023 15:16, Martin wrote:
Unfortunately the French can and does make rockets and UK can't. Blame >>>>>> UK politicians from the 1960s and 1970s for that. If Mrs T had had her >>>>>> way UK wouldn't have a satellite industry either.
I thought I had read that the UK has quite a successful satellite
industry, concentrating on small ones.
Satellites aren't rockets. Airbus bought UK's satellite industry.
Surrey University has a company making satellites
Now owned by Airbus.
Along with what was part of BAe and Matra Marconi Space
They made the payload for Galileo, which was managed by ESA for and funded by
the EU. As a result of Brexit. UK is no longer involved in Galileo
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a
'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent
years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of
the project doesn't seem to matter.
On Wed 18/01/2023 10:42, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:16:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
In article <iptcsh5lej1cke3g463ojg42fp6f1qu3bs@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 22:26:25 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 16/01/2023 15:16, Martin wrote:
Unfortunately the French can and does make rockets and UK can't. Blame >>>>>>> UK politicians from the 1960s and 1970s for that. If Mrs T had had her >>>>>>> way UK wouldn't have a satellite industry either.
I thought I had read that the UK has quite a successful satellite
industry, concentrating on small ones.
Satellites aren't rockets. Airbus bought UK's satellite industry.
Surrey University has a company making satellites
Now owned by Airbus.
Along with what was part of BAe and Matra Marconi Space
They made the payload for Galileo, which was managed by ESA for and funded by
the EU. As a result of Brexit. UK is no longer involved in Galileo
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a
'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent
years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of
the project doesn't seem to matter.
Barmy?
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a
'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other
non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent
years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of
the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five
Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a
'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other
non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent
years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of
the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five
Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a
'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other
non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent
years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of
the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five
Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays)
a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn’t a prerequisite of >ESA membership.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five
Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays) >> a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isnÂ’t a prerequisite of >> ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five
Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays) >>> a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of >>> ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU.
They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >member states who are not ESA members.
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESA’s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:22:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >> are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >> member states who are not ESA members.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five >>>>>> Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays) >>>> a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of >>>> ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU. >>
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESA’s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/
It won't show me the details.
The bar chart is there but it isn't annotated. When I left ESA UK was way down
on the list of contributors.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five
Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays) >>> a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of >>> ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU.
They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >member states who are not ESA members.
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESA’s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/
On 24/01/2023 10:52, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:22:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:It won't show me the details.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >>> are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >>> member states who are not ESA members.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five >>>>>>> Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays)
a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of
ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU. >>>
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESA’s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/ >>
The bar chart is there but it isn't annotated. When I left ESA UK was way down
on the list of contributors.
Things change. Now Germany 20%, France 19, Italy 18 and UK 11.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:22:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >> are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >> member states who are not ESA members.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five >>>>>> Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays) >>>> a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of >>>> ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU. >>
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESAÂ’s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/
It won't show me the details.
The bar chart is there but it isn't annotated. When I left ESA UK was way down
on the list of contributors.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:22:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >> are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >> member states who are not ESA members.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five >>>>>> Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays) >>>> a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of >>>> ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU. >>
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESAÂ’s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/
ESA says France followed by Germany Italy and UK are the biggest contributors.
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/01/ESA_budget_2022
This sort of information used to be easy to find in the monthly ESA Bulletin, which terminated in 2018.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:22:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:ESA says France followed by Germany Italy and UK are the biggest contributors.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >>> are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >>> member states who are not ESA members.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five >>>>>>> Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays)
a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of
ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU. >>>
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESA?s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/ >>
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2022/01/ESA_budget_2022
This sort of information used to be easy to find in the monthly ESA Bulletin,
which terminated in 2018.
Of course, in time, we get it all back with contracts placed in the UK.
One
of the principles of ESA funding is countries get back what they put in, >averaged over a fairly longish time. It’s quite a smart way of governments >propping up their national high tech industries whilst claiming they don’t >hand out subsidies.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:22:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:It won't show me the details.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:52:20 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:They can dream but have to face reality. UK, Norway, Switzerland and Canada >>> are non EU members (associate member for Canada) of ESA. There are also EU >>> member states who are not ESA members.
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:35:57 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2023 12:24, Woody wrote:
The UK is no longer part of Galileo because the EU now treats us as a >>>>>>>> 'third country' and are afraid we may dispense their secrets to other >>>>>>>> non-friendly organisations. The fact that the UK (Surrey Uni?) spent >>>>>>>> years working with the rest of the EU in the development and build of >>>>>>>> the project doesn't seem to matter.
I think they we get far more useful secret information through Five >>>>>>> Eyes, much of which is kept away from EU states.
You mix up two things.
Galileo apart, which is a bit of a special case, UK still plays (and pays)
a major role within ESA. Fortunately EU membership isn?t a prerequisite of
ESA membership.
There was a group of EU employees who dreamt of absorbing ESA into the EU. >>>
UK is the 4th largest contributor to ESA?s budget.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169442/esa-budget-contributors-europe/ >>
The bar chart is there but it isn't annotated. When I left ESA UK was way down
on the list of contributors.
Did you work at ESTEC?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
On 09/01/2023 21:06, Java Jive wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
UK space launch: Dislodged fuel filter blamed for rocket failure
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64644880
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/01/2023 21:06, Java Jive wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Co18HcyqHk
UK space launch: Dislodged fuel filter blamed for rocket failure
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64644880
Virgin Orbit:
Additional data shows that the fuel pump that is downstream of the filter >operated at a degraded efficiency level, resulting in the Newton 4 engine >being starved for fuel. Performing in this anomalous manner resulted in the >engine operating at a significantly higher than rated engine temperature.
Spike (earlier in the thread):--
If the motor was burning too much oxidiser, the flame temperature would >likely exceed the limits of the motor materials to withstand, and >additionally thrust would have been reduced. Normally, rocket motors run >fuel-rich.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:48:55 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,335,958 |