Timeline for Why would autonomous auto-destruct ramp up launch tempo/cadence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:54 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 21, 2017 at 14:54 | comment | added | Hobbes | @OrganicMarble: i've rephrased that part of my answer. | |
| Mar 21, 2017 at 14:53 | history | edited | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2017 at 14:42 | history | edited | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added manpower reference
|
| Mar 18, 2017 at 18:40 | comment | added | David Hammen | The new system is only partly standardized. Part of the hardware and part of the software is standardized. The vehicle vendor has to provide vehicle-specific hardware and software, plus vehicle-specific and flight-specific flight termination rules. The standardized and vehicle-specific hardware and software can be verified and validated well before launch, moving that part of the process out of the launch processing. The flight-specific termination rules are written in terms of the automated equipment. This can also be pushed up earlier, presumably prior to flight readiness review. | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 11:08 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | It sounds like most of the advantages have nothing to do with the system being automatic, but rather with the system being standardized, which apparently it wasn't before. Or from a slightly different perspective: removing the need for it to be standardized since it isn't actually interfacing with the outside world anymore (except for the format of those "data files" mentioned, which can and probably will be converted to a non-standard, flight-computer-specific format before uploading them to the rocket). | |
| Mar 15, 2017 at 21:34 | vote | accept | uhoh | ||
| Mar 15, 2017 at 21:34 | comment | added | uhoh | OK, (until now) each system is different, complex, distributed, includes both human and electronic elements, and critical that it function correctly, with no false positives or negatives. I can certainly imagine a significant amount of testing and qualification would be needed each time. Standardization almost always brings improvement in throughput and reliability (in general at least). Thanks. | |
| Mar 15, 2017 at 13:30 | comment | added | Organic Marble | I don't think this part "They'd also need to provide the Range Safety Officer (the person with the finger on the 'Destroy' button) with all the information they need for the decision, again unique information for every launch vehicle. " is going to change. Hence the quote "We still develop the mission rules to provide public safety, but the system works with mission rule data files loaded into the on-board AFSS units. This essentially shifts the workload to the front-end of the launch process.” The AF is still responsible. Your part about the system reconfig & testing is spot on. | |
| Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 | history | answered | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |