User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 3:19:40 PM EDT
[#1]
I guess it depends how we define "political"
 One could make the argument that the risky decision to launch Challenger in really cold temperatures political, because NASA was under enormous pressure to launch and was worried about Congressional funding.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 3:32:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boomer: With who? Apollo 13, STS-107 or the Starliner? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boomer: Originally Posted By crownvic96: Originally Posted By RattleCanAR: Originally Posted By vmpglenn: And that suit fits one of the Starliner astronauts, but NASA has not said which one. The other would ride down in their Boeing suit but with no way to pressurize it should Dragon experience any issues. That is insane. The most dangerous part of spaceflight is the return home... With who? Apollo 13, STS-107 or the Starliner? Pretty much all phases of spaceflight are dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 4:15:55 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I could be wrong here, but I doubt they are trained on dragon at all, so will have to be passengers on the later return flight They would have been passengers versus commander or pilot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 4:21:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Is it really "political" that NASA is extremely risk-averse after having killed TWO Space Shuttle crews by saying "we're pretty sure it'll be fine" (whether low temperatures for Challenger, or foam strikes for Columbia) instead of being able to say "we are certain it will be fine"? Considering all of the issues that Boeing has had with Starliner, I don't think it's unreasonable for NASA to decide that "we're pretty sure it will be fine" is not a good enough standard to risk astronaut lives AGAIN. Personally, I believe that Starliner will be fine, will have a perfectly safe re-entry and landing, and that the two astronauts COULD have been able to safely get back to Earth on it. But I don't blame NASA for not wanting to take the risk, even if it seems tiny. If this had been driven by internal politics, I don't think they would have taken so incredibly long to make the decision. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 4:27:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Is it really "political" that NASA is extremely risk-averse after having killed TWO Space Shuttle crews by saying "we're pretty sure it'll be fine" (whether low temperatures for Challenger, or foam strikes for Columbia) instead of being able to say "we are certain it will be fine"? Considering all of the issues that Boeing has had with Starliner, I don't think it's unreasonable for NASA to decide that "we're pretty sure it will be fine" is not a good enough standard to risk astronaut lives AGAIN. Personally, I believe that Starliner will be fine, will have a perfectly safe re-entry and landing, and that the two astronauts COULD have been able to safely get back to Earth on it. But I don't blame NASA for not wanting to take the risk, even if it seems tiny. If this had been driven by internal politics, I don't think they would have taken so incredibly long to make the decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 4:30:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hadrian: Apply this reasoning to the decision to launch with known issues on the spacecraft. I believe the decision to launch was driven largely by political pressure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Is it really "political" that NASA is extremely risk-averse after having killed TWO Space Shuttle crews by saying "we're pretty sure it'll be fine" (whether low temperatures for Challenger, or foam strikes for Columbia) instead of being able to say "we are certain it will be fine"? Considering all of the issues that Boeing has had with Starliner, I don't think it's unreasonable for NASA to decide that "we're pretty sure it will be fine" is not a good enough standard to risk astronaut lives AGAIN. Personally, I believe that Starliner will be fine, will have a perfectly safe re-entry and landing, and that the two astronauts COULD have been able to safely get back to Earth on it. But I don't blame NASA for not wanting to take the risk, even if it seems tiny. If this had been driven by internal politics, I don't think they would have taken so incredibly long to make the decision. How much of the Apollo timeline (including launches) was driven by political pressure? I don't have an answer but my assumption is >0%. Again I'm not defending NASA on this....I think they made the wrong decision to launch....but I don't believe politics is a new variable in the decision making there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 5:06:14 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 9/3/2024 5:15:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crownvic96: STS-51L and Apollo1 would like to have a word. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crownvic96: Originally Posted By RattleCanAR: Originally Posted By vmpglenn: And that suit fits one of the Starliner astronauts, but NASA has not said which one. The other would ride down in their Boeing suit but with no way to pressurize it should Dragon experience any issues. That is insane. The most dangerous part of spaceflight is the return home... 3 of 4 fatal in-flight spacecraft accidents have been in the return phase. But the sample size is pretty small, and no manned spacecraft has flown anywhere near the number of times that Soyuz and the Shuttle have. Those two happen to be the only ones with fatal accidents in flight. Mercury arguably wasn’t any safer. We just quit flying it after six short missions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 12:41:28 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: How much of the Apollo timeline (including launches) was driven by political pressure? I don't have an answer but my assumption is >0%. Again I'm not defending NASA on this....I think they made the wrong decision to launch....but I don't believe politics is a new variable in the decision making there. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Is it really "political" that NASA is extremely risk-averse after having killed TWO Space Shuttle crews by saying "we're pretty sure it'll be fine" (whether low temperatures for Challenger, or foam strikes for Columbia) instead of being able to say "we are certain it will be fine"? Considering all of the issues that Boeing has had with Starliner, I don't think it's unreasonable for NASA to decide that "we're pretty sure it will be fine" is not a good enough standard to risk astronaut lives AGAIN. Personally, I believe that Starliner will be fine, will have a perfectly safe re-entry and landing, and that the two astronauts COULD have been able to safely get back to Earth on it. But I don't blame NASA for not wanting to take the risk, even if it seems tiny. If this had been driven by internal politics, I don't think they would have taken so incredibly long to make the decision. How much of the Apollo timeline (including launches) was driven by political pressure? I don't have an answer but my assumption is >0%. Again I'm not defending NASA on this....I think they made the wrong decision to launch....but I don't believe politics is a new variable in the decision making there. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy challenged the United States to land a person on the moon before the end of the decade. On September 12, 1962, he delivered a speech at Rice University in Houston, Texas, titled "We choose to go to the Moon". In the speech, Kennedy declared that the United States should take a leading role in space exploration and commit to landing a person on the moon and returning them safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Also in that speech "one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." There is no higher political schedule pressure than that. The entire program was under the highest schedule pressure possible from the highest position in office. The only issue on the table before launch was a He leak. It was decided that was a manageable issue. It's proven to be a manageable issue even with the leaks that cropped up after launch and this ridiculously long flight extension. The He leaks are unrelated to the thruster issue. The He legs identified do not match the thrusters identified. Boeing pulled a thruster that had been sitting wet with hypers for a couple years, ran it through environment matched acent, docking and decent profiles test and beat on it some more. It was still working when they took it apart and found the teflon seal degradation. Any issue with any ship can crop up at any time. The what if scenarios apply to any ship no mater the brand name on the can. This is all political posturing because the head office is the VP and guess who is on the ballot. Why does anyone think the old man was there for the media telecon? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 1:16:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Hesperus]
[#10]
I've said this about Apollo before and I'll probably say it again.
They were really pushing the technology of the time to the absolute limit and they were lucky that it wasn't a disaster. We definitely do not live in a reality where the Russians could have pulled off a manned moon landing around that time either. N-1 clearly didn't work and there was no way the Russians were going to make it work. Now technology is much improved and for the time being we don't have to rush off anywhere because some politician said something. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 1:19:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RiverSwine45: In 1961, President John F. Kennedy challenged the United States to land a person on the moon before the end of the decade. On September 12, 1962, he delivered a speech at Rice University in Houston, Texas, titled "We choose to go to the Moon". In the speech, Kennedy declared that the United States should take a leading role in space exploration and commit to landing a person on the moon and returning them safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Also in that speech "one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." There is no higher political schedule pressure than that. The entire program was under the highest schedule pressure possible from the highest position in office. The only issue on the table before launch was a He leak. It was decided that was a manageable issue. It's proven to be a manageable issue even with the leaks that cropped up after launch and this ridiculously long flight extension. The He leaks are unrelated to the thruster issue. The He legs identified do not match the thrusters identified. Boeing pulled a thruster that had been sitting wet with hypers for a couple years, ran it through environment matched acent, docking and decent profiles test and beat on it some more. It was still working when they took it apart and found the teflon seal degradation. Any issue with any ship can crop up at any time. The what if scenarios apply to any ship no mater the brand name on the can. This is all political posturing because the head office is the VP and guess who is on the ballot. Why does anyone think the old man was there for the media telecon? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RiverSwine45: Originally Posted By fox2008: Originally Posted By Hadrian: Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Is it really "political" that NASA is extremely risk-averse after having killed TWO Space Shuttle crews by saying "we're pretty sure it'll be fine" (whether low temperatures for Challenger, or foam strikes for Columbia) instead of being able to say "we are certain it will be fine"? Considering all of the issues that Boeing has had with Starliner, I don't think it's unreasonable for NASA to decide that "we're pretty sure it will be fine" is not a good enough standard to risk astronaut lives AGAIN. Personally, I believe that Starliner will be fine, will have a perfectly safe re-entry and landing, and that the two astronauts COULD have been able to safely get back to Earth on it. But I don't blame NASA for not wanting to take the risk, even if it seems tiny. If this had been driven by internal politics, I don't think they would have taken so incredibly long to make the decision. How much of the Apollo timeline (including launches) was driven by political pressure? I don't have an answer but my assumption is >0%. Again I'm not defending NASA on this....I think they made the wrong decision to launch....but I don't believe politics is a new variable in the decision making there. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy challenged the United States to land a person on the moon before the end of the decade. On September 12, 1962, he delivered a speech at Rice University in Houston, Texas, titled "We choose to go to the Moon". In the speech, Kennedy declared that the United States should take a leading role in space exploration and commit to landing a person on the moon and returning them safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Also in that speech "one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." There is no higher political schedule pressure than that. The entire program was under the highest schedule pressure possible from the highest position in office. The only issue on the table before launch was a He leak. It was decided that was a manageable issue. It's proven to be a manageable issue even with the leaks that cropped up after launch and this ridiculously long flight extension. The He leaks are unrelated to the thruster issue. The He legs identified do not match the thrusters identified. Boeing pulled a thruster that had been sitting wet with hypers for a couple years, ran it through environment matched acent, docking and decent profiles test and beat on it some more. It was still working when they took it apart and found the teflon seal degradation. Any issue with any ship can crop up at any time. The what if scenarios apply to any ship no mater the brand name on the can. This is all political posturing because the head office is the VP and guess who is on the ballot. Why does anyone think the old man was there for the media telecon? Yep....as long as NASA is a government agency politics are a factor. Hell SpaceX isn't a government agency and politics are a factor....they can't launch anything without .gov approval (legally anyway). They want .gov contracts, licenses...etc....they are playing politics to some degree. I'd imagine they have more leeway than most right now, considering they basically own the market on US based launches....that is obviously subject to change with more / less competition. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 1:25:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Thuban: So, will the Starliner Capsule... Fail to re-enter Earth's atmosphere and become another hunk of space junk? Have the door fall off mid flight? Burn up in an uncontrolled re-entry? Crash into an apartment building, killing 6? Successfully return to Earth? You left out “make a surprise and safe landing in Iran” (or China) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 1:36:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RiverSwine45: You are correct. It was political. There is always a political consideration. Always. Hopefully safety has the priority. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 1:38:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Is it really "political" that NASA is extremely risk-averse after having killed TWO Space Shuttle crews by saying "we're pretty sure it'll be fine" (whether low temperatures for Challenger, or foam strikes for Columbia) instead of being able to say "we are certain it will be fine"? Considering all of the issues that Boeing has had with Starliner, I don't think it's unreasonable for NASA to decide that "we're pretty sure it will be fine" is not a good enough standard to risk astronaut lives AGAIN. Personally, I believe that Starliner will be fine, will have a perfectly safe re-entry and landing, and that the two astronauts COULD have been able to safely get back to Earth on it. But I don't blame NASA for not wanting to take the risk, even if it seems tiny. If this had been driven by internal politics, I don't think they would have taken so incredibly long to make the decision. That is my take. There is enough doubt on the craft’s condition that they’re not just going with “we hope it hold together this time until we get it on the ground”. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 1:42:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: California_Kid]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morgan321: This confirms that the nasa decisions are no longer being made only on technical merit.... I think that fact was demonstrated by the Challenger disaster over 40 years ago.  Daystrom Breakdown |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2024 1:53:40 PM EDT
[#16]
I caught about 39 minutes of the NASA press conference. Actual duration unknown.
The one SpaceX IVA suit on the ISS fits Suni. Another that fits Butch will come up on Crew-9. The makeshift seats in the Crew-8 cargo area if needed for an emergency departure would fit Suni and Butch using no suits. The Starliner suits will return on Starliner. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2024 1:10:50 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2024 1:25:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: NASA’s Boeing Starliner Mission Landing Criteria, Timeline Read link for details What are the Vegas odds on a successful return? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2024 1:48:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cpt_Kirks: What are the Vegas odds on a successful return? Successful, as in the correct landing area and vehicle condition that would have supported safe return for astronauts? I would put it at 90+% |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2024 1:59:33 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2024 2:16:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
I've seen that movie....and it sucked  In reality, I'd put money on it landing in one piece |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 10:12:54 AM EDT
[#22]
Well... Today's the day.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 10:30:28 AM EDT
[#23]
Around 6 pm EST decoupling.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 10:33:43 AM EDT
[#24]
Undocking will be live streamed.
 NASA-Boeing - Starliner "Calypso" - Undocking International Space Station - Space Affairs Live |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 10:55:48 AM EDT
[#25]
Starliner is undocking and returning tonight to White Sands Facility in New Mexico
Upon release of the Starliner spacecraft at approximately 6:04 p.m. EDT, springs will push the spacecraft away from the space station. Starliner will then fire its troublesome thrusters to fly up and over the space station before preforming its deorbit burn. Its the thrusters that caused the concern about the spacecraft. Starliner is expected to land just after midnight Eastern time at White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 11:12:13 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Starliner is undocking and returning tonight to White Sands Facility in New Mexico Upon release of the Starliner spacecraft at approximately 6:04 p.m. EDT, springs will push the spacecraft away from the space station. Starliner will then fire its troublesome thrusters to fly up and over the space station before preforming its deorbit burn. Its the thrusters that caused the concern about the spacecraft. Starliner is expected to land just after midnight Eastern time at White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico. Sounds like a questionable maneuver with those funky thrusters. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 11:17:23 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cpt_Kirks: Sounds like a questionable maneuver with those funky thrusters. Whatever it does, it is reported to be the quickest (assumed safest) way to get away from the ISS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 11:29:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Dagger41]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: Whatever it does, it is reported to be the quickest (assumed safest) way to get away from the ISS. The 'breakaway' maneuver does not entail the spacecraft flying around the ISS. They are going to back it up quite far away from the ISS, use RCS to orient the business end and fire the braking thrusters from there and then dump the trunk and basically let gravity and aerodynamics take over, with a bit of help (hopefully) from the RCs thrusters to keep it pointed at the optimal entry angle. That's how I understand it anyways. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 2:27:48 PM EDT
[#29]
For those near White Sands, El Paso TX and far southeastern AZ here is a thread on viewing the re-entry.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 4:11:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: The 'breakaway' maneuver does not entail the spacecraft flying around the ISS. They are going to back it up quite far away from the ISS, use RCS to orient the business end and fire the braking thrusters from there and then dump the trunk and basically let gravity and aerodynamics take over, with a bit of help (hopefully) from the RCs thrusters to keep it pointed at the optimal entry angle. That's how I understand it anyways. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Whatever it does, it is reported to be the quickest (assumed safest) way to get away from the ISS. The 'breakaway' maneuver does not entail the spacecraft flying around the ISS. They are going to back it up quite far away from the ISS, use RCS to orient the business end and fire the braking thrusters from there and then dump the trunk and basically let gravity and aerodynamics take over, with a bit of help (hopefully) from the RCs thrusters to keep it pointed at the optimal entry angle. That's how I understand it anyways. The bomb drops at 6 eastern, right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 5:15:21 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 5:39:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cpt_Kirks: The bomb drops at 6 eastern, right?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 5:41:39 PM EDT
[#33]
 Starliner Leaves the ISS - The Flame Trench |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 5:44:11 PM EDT
[#34]
 NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test Undocking |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 5:45:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Hesperus]
[#35]
Less than 20 minutes until they try undocking.
 Home James, Don't Spare the Horses - Burt Bacharach |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 5:46:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryDisabled comments. HA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 5:59:51 PM EDT
[#37]
5 mins to undock
|
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:02:11 PM EDT
[#38]
The commentator on NASA's feed just called Crew Dragon an "orbital Uber.".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:05:50 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:09:11 PM EDT
[#40]
There's some pretty cool thruster firing footage going on
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:10:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Hesperus]
[#41]
I'm just glad to see it successfully backing away from the station. Guess the metaphorical drive shaft wasn't busted.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:13:55 PM EDT
[#42]
When do they close the hatch?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:19:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kharn]
[#43]
Are there are any new NOTAMs for WSMR?
How big is the restricted area for the reentry, anything off post? Their target is twice the size of Rhode Island, so any bets on inside/outside the boundaries? Or if they X-ring the Trinity memorial? Taco Bell should've offered free tacos if they hit the obelisk. Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:26:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Glad to see it didn't destroy the ISS.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:27:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GW0DizSXoAA4zQ9?format=jpg&name=large Thanks for finding that Chokey. I will add it to the re-entry thread if you have not already. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:29:08 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:31:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Will the capsule pass over the lower 48 before it reenters and lands? It would be net to try and see it pass over similar to watching the ISS flyovers.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:34:29 PM EDT
[#48]
Correct me if I am wrong, but the problematic OMAC thrusters will be used later to maneuver for de-orbit
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:41:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pavil58ar: Will the capsule pass over the lower 48 before it reenters and lands? It would be net to try and see it pass over similar to watching the ISS flyovers. Appears all the passes this evening will be unlit.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2024 6:44:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Sailboat]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: Are there are any new NOTAMs for WSMR? How big is the restricted area for the reentry, anything off post? Their target is twice the size of Rhode Island, so any bets on inside/outside the boundaries? Or if they X-ring the Trinity memorial? Taco Bell should've offered free tacos if they hit the obelisk. Kharn I am guessing some of these... ZAB Number: 09/665 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0401 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0630 AIRSPACE TOMBSTONE B MOA ACT 500FT-14499FT 2409070401-2409070630 ZAB Number: 09/666 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0401 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0630 !SUAC 09/666 ZAB AIRSPACE TOMBSTONE C MOA ACT 14500FT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180 2409070401-2409070630 ZAB Number: 09/667 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0401 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0630 AIRSPACE TOMBSTONE A MOA ACT 500FT-14499FT 2409070401-2409070630 ZAB Number: 09/037 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/03/2024 0700 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE R2303C ACT 15000FT-FL300 2409030700-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/561 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0001 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE R2303B ACT 8000FT-FL300 2409070001-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/562 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0001 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE R2303A ACT SFC-15000FT 2409070001-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/592 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/06/2024 1400 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE AR602 ACT 9000FT-17000FT 2409061400-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/661 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0201 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE R5103A ACT SFC-10000FT 2409070201-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/654 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0201 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE PECOS NORTH LOW MOA ACT 500FT-10999FT 2409070201-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/655 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0201 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE PECOS NORTH HIGH MOA ACT 11000FT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180 2409070201-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/657 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0201 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE R5107K ACT SFC-FL300 2409070201-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/658 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0201 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE R5103B ACT SFC-FL300 2409070201-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/659 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0201 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE PECOS SOUTH MOA ACT 500FT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180 2409070201-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/664 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0300 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0600 AIRSPACE R5103C ACT SFC-FL400 2409070300-2409070600 ZAB Number: 09/643 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/06/2024 2345 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0530 AIRSPACE R5109A ACT FL240-UNL 2409062345-2409070530 ZAB Number: 09/653 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0145 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0330 AIRSPACE AR197H ACT FL240-FL260 2409070145-2409070330 ZAB Number: 09/652 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0130 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0315 AIRSPACE AR197L ACT FL200-FL220 2409070130-2409070315 ZAB Number: 09/656 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0201 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0300 AIRSPACE R5103C ACT SFC-FL300 2409070201-2409070300 ZAB Number: 09/315 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/06/2024 1400 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0100 AIRSPACE R2310A ACT SFC-10000FT 2409061400-2409070100 ZAB Number: 09/567 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/06/2024 1315 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0030 AIRSPACE R5107H ACT SFC-9000FT 2409061315-2409070030 ZAB Number: 09/644 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0001 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0030 AIRSPACE BEAK C MOA ACT 12500FT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180 2409070001-2409070030 ZAB Number: 09/645 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0001 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0030 AIRSPACE BEAK B MOA ACT 12500FT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180 2409070001-2409070030 ZAB Number: 09/646 Class: Airspace Start Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0001 End Date UTC: 09/07/2024 0030 AIRSPACE BEAK A MOA ACT 12500FT UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180 2409070001-2409070030 |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
