22 minutes ago, Mike A said:

Was all the falling debris that threatened air traffic funny?

 

I haven't looked into the "threatened traffic" claim but if so, nobody is saying its funny. The authorities cleared the flight and gave SpaceX the license to launch. That included consideration for the flight path and anything below that might be in jeopardy in the event of a catastrophic failure. Same applies to any rocket launch that's gone before, including Apollo to the Moon and all other launches. 

 

Quote

The FAA regularly closes airspace for space launches and reentries, but it can create a "debris response area" to prevent aircraft from entering if the space vehicle experiences an anomaly outside the originally closed zone.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacex-launches-seventh-starship-mock-satellite-deployment-test-2025-01-16/

Edited January 18, 20251 yr by martin-w

3 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Not really. This was an acronym coined right back to the first launch. Again, its just a joke. It's become a tradition when things go fubar. Nobody is trying to disguise an obvious rocket failure. its an obvious failure for all to see. Its humour only. You don't think Musk thought that if he referred to a RUD it would somehow hide the obvious fact it exploded, do you? 😁 I'm sure he thinks some of us are dumb but not that dumb. 

Euphemisms meant to conceal are phrases used to soften or disguise unpleasant realities, often by substituting a more polite or indirect term, effectively hiding the true nature of something, like "downsizing" instead of "firing employees" or "passed away" instead of "died.". 

Examples of euphemisms used to conceal:

• "Let go" instead of "fired"
• "Rightsizing" instead of "laying off"
• "Performance improvement plan" instead of "disciplinary action"
• "Passed away" instead of "died"
• "Rapid unscheduled disassembly" instead of exploded....

Never been a fan.

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

I haven't looked into the "threatened traffic" claim

You don’t have to go far to start, check the first page of this very thread:

 

jon b

Posted 20 hours ago

I was up flying over the Caribbean last night when this happened, people diverting all over the place, sounded like chaos.

3 hours ago, Mike A said:

You don’t have to go far to start, check the first page of this very thread:

 

 

jon b

Posted 20 hours ago

I was up flying over the Caribbean last night when this happened, people diverting all over the place, sounded like chaos.

 

Yes. But that's nothing to do with SpaceX referring to a rocket explosion as a RUD.

 

 

4 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Euphemisms meant to conceal are phrases used to soften or disguise unpleasant realities, often by substituting a more polite or indirect term, effectively hiding the true nature of something, like "downsizing" instead of "firing employees" or "passed away" instead of "died.". 

Examples of euphemisms used to conceal:

• "Let go" instead of "fired"
• "Rightsizing" instead of "laying off"
• "Performance improvement plan" instead of "disciplinary action"
• "Passed away" instead of "died"
• "Rapid unscheduled disassembly" instead of exploded....

Never been a fan.

 

 

 

Not relevant in this respect. RUD has always been regarded as tongue in cheek. Somebody would need to be not firing on all cylinders to regard a rocket explosion as anything less than a rocket explosion and have an obvious explosion and debris raining down concealed from them and be have it disguised from them by 3 letters. 🙄 

Its actually the engineers on the SpaceX team that originally referred to it that way, engineer tongue in cheek stuff, nothing to do with deceiving anyone. I read that it's a phrase that goes right back to the 1980's. When you have so many spectacular failures in rocketry, engineering humour is inevitable. 

Edited January 18, 20251 yr by martin-w

35 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Yes. But that's nothing to do with SpaceX referring to a rocket explosion as a RUD.

I was referring specifically to what you wrote: "I haven't looked into the "threatened traffic" claim"

30 minutes ago, Mike A said:

I was referring specifically to what you wrote: "I haven't looked into the "threatened traffic" claim"

 

I hadn't. I was discussing the use of the abbreviation RUD, not the claimed threat to aviation.

This channel did though and offers a more balanced perspective from a pilot and why pushing aircraft and rockets to the limit to find out where the failure point is, is critical for safety. 

The pilot in the video goes on to say it wasn't dangerous at all. 2:36. She said the FAA plans worked out exactly as they were supposed to. She said it wasn't at all close, just a spectacular show. She said all the debris fell in the scheduled hazard area. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 20251 yr by martin-w

One of my first "serious" jobs was at an insurance company that had developed a whole internal language for making things sound innocuous as possible.

I was not prepared for alternate realities at that age, and it took me quite a while to realize they were serious,

Lying to the customers (I kid you not) was referred to by the trainers as "creative reality".

Raising prices was "Taking rate". etc, etc.

It was very extensive.

After getting my mouth closed, I decided I was surrounded by pod-people.

My opinion of that sort of stuff really has not changed much over the years, especially with what's happening in the world nowadays.

"Alternative facts".

 

Re the above video.

Right, ok………well here’s another, contradictory “ 787 pilot’s reaction to starship explosion “ …when you have thousands of pieces of burning metal falling from the sky at high speed onto aircraft in flight….it’s bloody dangerous.

Now I don’t know much about this incident other than I was there, heading North at 38,000ft in Cuban airspace heading to the Bahamas at around 2300z ,heard multiple diverts on the radio but didn’t know why. We didn’t see anything and no one told us anything.

Only on landing were we made aware of what had happened and that aircraft had been held on the ground or diverted.

My understanding is airspace was closed for 90 minutes to allow all the debris to fall, did it all burn up in the upper atmosphere? Or fall into the sea ?You tell me , I’ve not read the reports.

I’m afraid what this lady is saying is nonsense( only watched the first 4 minutes, forgive me if there’s clarification later on, I’ll watch some more possibly when I get time ). I’ve flown literally over the Kennedy Space Center more times than I care to remember, and yes you’ll get NOTAMS for launches and airspace closure close to the launch site, but you  don’t get NOTAMS for airspace 100’s of miles away saying if this goes wrong it’ll be raining metal.

Sorry, the statement she makes about if pilots didn’t read the  NOTAMS they are in breach of Federal regulations has got my back up somewhat. There were no NOTAMS issued in the Caribbean region for a rocket launching in Texas, and certainly non stating there’ll be thousands of pieces of burning metal falling out of the sky.

Airspace was closed and aircraft were either held on the ground , in the air ,or diverted as there was a dangerous situation unfolding in the eyes of the authorities, enough said really.

Edited January 21, 20251 yr by jon b

3 hours ago, jon b said:

There were no NOTAMS issued in the Caribbean region for a rocket launching in Texas, and certainly non stating there’ll be thousands of pieces of burning metal falling out of the sky.

 

The debris didn't fall in the Caribbean, did it? It fell over Turks and Cacos. Futher north, I think.

The debris stayed within the designated launch corridor.

Best to watch the whole video. She seems like an experienced pilot. 

Edited January 21, 20251 yr by martin-w

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

She seems like an experienced pilot. 

I think Jon's an experienced pilot as well.

Hook

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

She seems like an experienced pilot

To the layman on YouTube perhaps but as someone who’s been flying  jets for over 30 years and 20 years as a long haul captain,I’d beg to differ.

I’ve no axe to grind with Mr Musk or SpaceX.  I like them both , but this lady’s comments are frankly being pulled out of the air and are nonsense.

Delays as T&C airport might not have a procedure of how to do a runway inspection ? offensive initials not allowed

T&C ATC holding traffic and sequencing them with vectors to final ? .  Good luck with that T&C is a non radar environment, I go in there regularly.

” I wouldn’t personally go through a danger area unless my destination was on the other side” I mean statements like that sound authoritative to the YouTube audience, but what does it even mean ? It’s jibberish.

48 minutes ago, jon b said:

To the layman on YouTube perhaps but as someone who’s been flying  jets for over 30 years and 20 years as a long haul captain,I’d beg to differ.

 

So what are you actually saying? The debris fell into the designated launch corridor. The FAA obviously considered a failure of the vehicle and debris falling, so are you saying the FAA failed in some way? 

The launch corridor is designed to be wider than required, of course, as a safety margin. How far away from the launch corridor where you?

What are you saying should have been done better?

The lady in the video was pointing out that there was no danger to aircraft and that the FAA plans for the launch worked as it should, do you disagree?

 

15 hours ago, jon b said:

There were no NOTAMS issued in the Caribbean region for a rocket launching in Texas, 

 

Because the Caribbean was not under the designated launch corridor. 

From what I've read, NOTAMs were issued to airmen of potential debris falling "in certain areas" so where debris could fall. 

Edited January 22, 20251 yr by martin-w

Martin, if I have the option to believe a local expert or "someone on YouTube", I'll believe the local expert every time.

IN JON WE TRUST

Because Jon doesn't have an agenda and isn't spinning the story for any reason. We know Jon isn't farming Likes or trying to gain subscribers. Choose your experts wisely.

Hook

17 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Martin, if I have the option to believe a local expert or "someone on YouTube", I'll believe the local expert every time.

 

What do you mean by "believe"?

I've asked what, if anything, could have been done better by the FAA.  Or if he is happy with the measures put in place by the FAA, re the designated launch corridor.

My coment regarding the pilot in the video was that she claimed the FAA measures were effective and properly conducted. I'm asking I he disagrees and thinks they weren't.

Clarification of Jon's valuable opinion, that's all.