Based on the brief glimpses of the landing pad from various Formosat-5 launch videos and pictures, it appeared to not yet be painted indicating it is not yet ready to go.
Step 1: pour concrete.Step 2: Paint a big, stylized "X" on it.Step 3: Unless there is some ground support equipment I'm not thinking of, you'd think the project would be simple.
Quote from: DaveJes1979 on 09/06/2017 07:49 pmStep 1: pour concrete.Step 2: Paint a big, stylized "X" on it.Step 3: Unless there is some ground support equipment I'm not thinking of, you'd think the project would be simple.Step 3: Get permission to drop a giant flying blowtorch from a great height onto an Air Force base.
Quote from: Joffan on 09/06/2017 09:11 pmQuote from: DaveJes1979 on 09/06/2017 07:49 pmStep 1: pour concrete.Step 2: Paint a big, stylized "X" on it.Step 3: Unless there is some ground support equipment I'm not thinking of, you'd think the project would be simple.Step 3: Get permission to drop a giant flying blowtorch from a great height onto an Air Force base.What do you think CCAFS is?
There is also the hugely expensive SLC-6 you have to overfly in order to RTLS to SLC-4W at Vandenberg.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_AFB_Space_Launch_Complex_6https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_AFB_Space_Launch_Complex_4
SpaceX deliberately keeps calling its landings "experimental"
Quote from: cscott on 09/07/2017 02:12 pmSpaceX deliberately keeps calling its landings "experimental"They stopped doing that some time ago. They are considered a secondary objective (rightly so) but are no longer considered "experimental". )And who would believe them if they did use that terminology at this point?)
Quote from: abaddon on 09/07/2017 02:17 pmQuote from: cscott on 09/07/2017 02:12 pmSpaceX deliberately keeps calling its landings "experimental"They stopped doing that some time ago. They are considered a secondary objective (rightly so) but are no longer considered "experimental". )And who would believe them if they did use that terminology at this point?)Today's X37B launch landed right near the center of the landing X again. Video was provided all the way down. It looked perfect. At what point will Vandenberg's decision makers consider it safe and proven?This was the 16th successful one.
It's very interesting that SpaceX signed a 1400kg to SSO launch in 2017. They've done lighter launches before but those were originally signed up for the Falcon 1. This contract shows that SpaceX is profitably competing in the lower end of the market.Maybe this is what reduced costs from reusability look like in practice?
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 09/08/2017 05:14 pmIt's very interesting that SpaceX signed a 1400kg to SSO launch in 2017. They've done lighter launches before but those were originally signed up for the Falcon 1. This contract shows that SpaceX is profitably competing in the lower end of the market.Maybe this is what reduced costs from reusability look like in practice?Allllllso, it appears extremely likely that SpaceX intends to launch its first two test satellites for their LEO constellation as passengers on this launch. Tim Farrar made the extremely astute observation that the publicly released orbits for both Microsats and PAZ are virtually identical, "a sun-synchronous orbit at 514 km altitude with an inclination of 97.44 degrees". 2200ish kg to SSO is marginally less crazy than 1400 kg for a Falcon 9, but it's something.http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2017/09/08/me-first-no-me/
Quote from: vaporcobra on 09/09/2017 12:43 amQuote from: DreamyPickle on 09/08/2017 05:14 pmIt's very interesting that SpaceX signed a 1400kg to SSO launch in 2017. They've done lighter launches before but those were originally signed up for the Falcon 1. This contract shows that SpaceX is profitably competing in the lower end of the market.Maybe this is what reduced costs from reusability look like in practice?Allllllso, it appears extremely likely that SpaceX intends to launch its first two test satellites for their LEO constellation as passengers on this launch. Tim Farrar made the extremely astute observation that the publicly released orbits for both Microsats and PAZ are virtually identical, "a sun-synchronous orbit at 514 km altitude with an inclination of 97.44 degrees". 2200ish kg to SSO is marginally less crazy than 1400 kg for a Falcon 9, but it's something.http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2017/09/08/me-first-no-me/That doest currently have any confirmation other than coincidence at this point.
That doesn't currently have any confirmation other than coincidence at this point.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 09/09/2017 02:27 amThat doesn't currently have any confirmation other than coincidence at this point.Yes, but it's the closest thing we've seen to a launch date for CommX. It would be great is somebody else could confirm or deny this.
Peter Selding reported that PAZ will have a co-passenger, but doesn't know who yet:https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839102717591158784
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 09/09/2017 10:06 amQuote from: russianhalo117 on 09/09/2017 02:27 amThat doesn't currently have any confirmation other than coincidence at this point.Yes, but it's the closest thing we've seen to a launch date for CommX. It would be great is somebody else could confirm or deny this.First Comm-X prototypes MicroSat-2A/2B are not expected to fly until 2018 at this point and will have a final test orbit of 1125 km circular at roughly 98° inclination. Deployment orbit will depend on Primary payload and Delta-v capability being high enough to also allow the second stage to deorbit.