Author Topic: Air Force reveals plan for up to 48 launches per year from Cape Canaveral  (Read 37599 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Steve D

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 2
The comment that caught my attention the most was the addition of the AFTS would eliminate 96 people.

“So we came down 96 people that don’t have to be sitting on console.  And the cost to the customer is cut in half.  "

Why did it take 96 people to do the flight termination? What did all 96 of them do?
Steve

Offline Paul Smith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • UK and Europe
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 164
Great article. Launch coverage here is going to be crazy if they get up to 48 launches!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
The comment that caught my attention the most was the addition of the AFTS would eliminate 96 people.

“So we came down 96 people that don’t have to be sitting on console.  And the cost to the customer is cut in half.  "

Why did it take 96 people to do the flight termination? What did all 96 of them do?
Steve

Comm, radar, transmitter, receiver, backup power generation, software, tracking cameras, console maintenance, etc  They would be located at the MOCC, JDMTA, Antigua, Cape command  antenna site, camera sites, etc

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Interesting. But is that really such an ambitious goal?

If SpaceX alone is aiming for 20 or so flights from the Cape this year, and upping that to 30+  the year thereafter (without Boca Chica being online yet), surely a 48 launch limit means that either SpaceX or some of the other launch providers will not be accommodated in any given year.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
The comment that caught my attention the most was the addition of the AFTS would eliminate 96 people.

“So we came down 96 people that don’t have to be sitting on console.  And the cost to the customer is cut in half.  "

Why did it take 96 people to do the flight termination? What did all 96 of them do?
Steve

Comm, radar, transmitter, receiver, backup power generation, software, tracking cameras, console maintenance, etc  They would be located at the MOCC, JDMTA, Antigua, Cape command  antenna site, camera sites, etc

Wow!
Just shows how not any idea of reality I had.  :o

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Looks like we could be in for some exciting times.
Quote
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Looks like we could be in for some exciting times.
Quote
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.

This is kind of what I'm wondering about. If SpaceX gets the launch cadence down to two weeks turnaround time per pad, that means basically 4 launches a month from 39A and 40 combined. That's 48 launches just from SpaceX.

So I'm wondering if 48 is just an intermediate target, which can be increased as demand increases, or is it some kind of hard limit?

Offline blasphemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Slovakia
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 1078
Awesome news! High launch rate is crucial for lower launch costs.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8565
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Comm, radar, transmitter, receiver, backup power generation, software, tracking cameras, console maintenance, etc  They would be located at the MOCC, JDMTA, Antigua, Cape command  antenna site, camera sites, etc

How would AFTS eliminate tracking cameras?  I thought those were diagnostic.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Comm, radar, transmitter, receiver, backup power generation, software, tracking cameras, console maintenance, etc  They would be located at the MOCC, JDMTA, Antigua, Cape command  antenna site, camera sites, etc

How would AFTS eliminate tracking cameras?  I thought those were diagnostic.

Unless I'm mistaken, tracking cameras for diagnostic was really just a Shuttle thing.  They're not needed in that way for Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2017 05:50 pm by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Congratulations to the Air Force team!

Offline Barrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Planets are a waste of space
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 3815
Looks like we could be in for some exciting times.
Quote
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.

This is kind of what I'm wondering about. If SpaceX gets the launch cadence down to two weeks turnaround time per pad, that means basically 4 launches a month from 39A and 40 combined. That's 48 launches just from SpaceX.

So I'm wondering if 48 is just an intermediate target, which can be increased as demand increases, or is it some kind of hard limit?

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
How would AFTS eliminate tracking cameras?  I thought those were diagnostic.

Maybe not now, but originally radars couldn't see the vehicle until it was above the ground clutter.  Back in the day, there were observers looking through a wire screens to make sure the rocket didn't go outside of the limits.  It was later replaced with cameras with overlays on the monitor screen.


GPS Metric tracking probably eliminated this.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

Unless I'm mistaken, tracking cameras for diagnostic was really just a Shuttle thing.  They're not needed in that way for Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9.

The others still have tracking for diagnostics, just not the level of shuttle.  Spacex even does some of its own.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

What kind of standardization?

Offline whitelancer64

How would AFTS eliminate tracking cameras?  I thought those were diagnostic.

Maybe not now, but originally radars couldn't see the vehicle until it was above the ground clutter.  Back in the day, there were observers looking through a wire screens to make sure the rocket didn't go outside of the limits.  It was later replaced with cameras with overlays on the monitor screen.


GPS Metric tracking probably eliminated this.

My understanding is that there are some range assets that are physically moved between launch sites for launches, is that correct Jim? Would that be the aforementioned tracking cameras and similar equipment?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Barrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Planets are a waste of space
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 3815

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

What kind of standardization?

Er, I don't know!  I'm just thinking that if they could launch two F9s on the same day, then they could launch two of anything on the same day if all rockets were alike in whatever ways matter as far as reconfiguring the range goes.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
What will the collateral impact be on work in progress at the pads, for instance, if the launch cadence is this high?  Will work have to stop on 39B every time a launch or static fire happens on 39A or 41/40/37?  Going to be tough to avoid schedule impact if this is the case (and the weekly cadence is realized).

By the way, don't know if it was an oversight, but article never mentioned SLS.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

What kind of standardization?

Er, I don't know!  I'm just thinking that if they could launch two F9s on the same day, then they could launch two of anything on the same day if all rockets were alike in whatever ways matter as far as reconfiguring the range goes.


No.  The only way two Falcons can launch on the same day is because there are two pads (39A and 40).  If there weren't, the AFTS becomes a moot point to this.  It's the combination of AFTS AND two pads that make two launches in same day possible for Falcon 9.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
What will the collateral impact be on work in progress at the pads, for instance, if the launch cadence is this high?  Will work have to stop on 39B every time a launch or static fire happens on 39A or 41/40/37?  Going to be tough to avoid schedule impact if this is the case (and the weekly cadence is realized).

By the way, don't know if it was an oversight, but article never mentioned SLS.

Depends on which pads.  39A and 39B are linked in that way, yes... as 41 and 39A are for certain activities as well due to proximity.  But 37B might not effect 39A and 39B -- or 41 for that matter.  It depends on what's going on and what pads are being used.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2017 07:03 pm by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline Barrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Planets are a waste of space
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 3815

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

What kind of standardization?

Er, I don't know!  I'm just thinking that if they could launch two F9s on the same day, then they could launch two of anything on the same day if all rockets were alike in whatever ways matter as far as reconfiguring the range goes.


No.  The only way two Falcons can launch on the same day is because there are two pads (39A and 40).  If there weren't, the AFTS becomes a moot point to this.  It's the combination of AFTS AND two pads that make two launches in same day possible for Falcon 9.

Yes, I get that, but what stops any two rockets with a pad each - say, an F9 and an Atlas 5 - getting off on the same day?

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

What kind of standardization?

Er, I don't know!  I'm just thinking that if they could launch two F9s on the same day, then they could launch two of anything on the same day if all rockets were alike in whatever ways matter as far as reconfiguring the range goes.


No.  The only way two Falcons can launch on the same day is because there are two pads (39A and 40).  If there weren't, the AFTS becomes a moot point to this.  It's the combination of AFTS AND two pads that make two launches in same day possible for Falcon 9.

Yes, I get that, but what stops any two rockets with a pad each - say, an F9 and an Atlas 5 - getting off on the same day?

At present it is the fact that no other launch provider has an AFTS system operating. In theory an Atlas with AFTS and a Falcon with AFTS could launch on the same day at least as far as I understand it. Unfortunately, ULA has indicated that they are not developing an AFTS for the Atlas or Delta rockets. It will only be on their forthcoming Vulcan rocket.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2017 07:51 pm by cppetrie »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
This is phenomenal

Eliminating 96 staff posts during the launch.

How many operational launch pads does CCAFS have?

I worked out that in principle the US could put 63  tonnes in LEO with a salvo launch of Atlat V, Delta IV, F9 and Antares and Jim said the long pole in the tent was running the speech tests between monitoring sites.

With AFTS now on line I wonder what that would be revised to? F9 FT is up about 6 tonnes over what it was while the Antares 230 Cygnus is 300Kg heavier and the payload 1200Kg heavier. So antares could handle 5 tonnes to LEO.

That suggests  a salvo launch of F9, Antares, Delta IV and Atlas V could (at a minimum) put 70 tonnes in LEO within a week with ELV's in the US inventory right now.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
This is kind of what I'm wondering about. If SpaceX gets the launch cadence down to two weeks turnaround time per pad, that means basically 4 launches a month from 39A and 40 combined. That's 48 launches just from SpaceX.

So I'm wondering if 48 is just an intermediate target, which can be increased as demand increases, or is it some kind of hard limit?
SX's stated goal is "single digit turnaround" of a single pad. IE ready to launch another vehicle within 10 hours of the last one.

With 2 pads on site that (and assuming SX have the launch team to do so) that's 2 9am launches and 2 launches before 7pm the same night. Assuming only week day launches, and excluding the 4 weeks CCAFS are saying they need for maintenance that's 960 launches a year. I guess that's the kind of scale you've got to be geared up for if you're wanting to launch a 12000 satellite comms network in a reasonable time.

AFTS means SX don't need those USAF staff around to help them do the launches.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline feynmanrules

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • florida
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 72

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

What kind of standardization?

Standardization which would allow more "independent launch vehicle subsystems designed to enable unmanned range ______ operations"

(taken from this PDF describing Autonomous Flight Termination System: http://www.darpa.mil/attachments/20160429_ALASA_DISTAR_26439.pdf)

Beyond AFTS what other systems are bottlenecks to launch rate?

This PDF describes two other tools beyond the AFTS:

2)
Quote
the Rapid Mission Planning Tool (RMPT) ties
together all the prelaunch mission planning functions required for air launches of small
launch vehicles


3)
Quote
Automated Launch Coordination (ALC) tool being developed through ALASA seeks
to streamline and automate many of the required launch-day interfaces with approving
authorities and service providers

Not sure if these tools are also required to hit 48 launches/year goal, if they would add to rate beyond this, or if they're addressing other issues than speed.  (quality/cost of operations/etc).   


Offline Dante2121

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • United States
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 125
This seems like a wise incremental improvement. No reason to optimize further until Spacex et al. actually launch more frequently.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
There is comm, security, offshore clearance, airspace clearance, telemetry, etc

Offline Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 586
  • Likes Given: 483
The comment that caught my attention the most was the addition of the AFTS would eliminate 96 people.

“So we came down 96 people that don’t have to be sitting on console.  And the cost to the customer is cut in half.  "

Why did it take 96 people to do the flight termination? What did all 96 of them do?
Steve

Comm, radar, transmitter, receiver, backup power generation, software, tracking cameras, console maintenance, etc  They would be located at the MOCC, JDMTA, Antigua, Cape command  antenna site, camera sites, etc

To an outsider like me, that sounds like a duplication of effort. The owner of the launch vehicle already has a telemetry downlink, and I assume they also use cameras and a position monitoring system (radar or otherwise). Doesn't the LV owner share his data with the Air Force?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

To an outsider like me, that sounds like a duplication of effort. The owner of the launch vehicle already has a telemetry downlink, and I assume they also use cameras and a position monitoring system (radar or otherwise). Doesn't the LV owner share his data with the Air Force?

The range provides the primary link for the range. 

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5469
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1801
  • Likes Given: 1296
This is phenomenal

Eliminating 96 staff posts during the launch.

How many operational launch pads does CCAFS have?

I worked out that in principle the US could put 63  tonnes in LEO with a salvo launch of Atlat V, Delta IV, F9 and Antares and Jim said the long pole in the tent was running the speech tests between monitoring sites.

With AFTS now on line I wonder what that would be revised to? F9 FT is up about 6 tonnes over what it was while the Antares 230 Cygnus is 300Kg heavier and the payload 1200Kg heavier. So antares could handle 5 tonnes to LEO.

That suggests  a salvo launch of F9, Antares, Delta IV and Atlas V could (at a minimum) put 70 tonnes in LEO within a week with ELV's in the US inventory right now.

If someone really needs 70+ tonnes to LEO in about a week. Simply salvo 2 Falcon 9 from each pad in the expendable mode. The 4 F9 can supposedly lift about 90 tonnes to LEO in the same orbital inclination.

Hmm, 6 expendable F9 can lift 135 tonnes in 16 days to LEO at the launch rate of 1 per pad every 7 days with a 2 day separation between pads. :o

Presuming LC-40 can process the F9 through quickly with the smaller hangar.


Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
...

At present it is the fact that no other launch provider has an AFTS system operating. In theory an Atlas with AFTS and a Falcon with AFTS could launch on the same day at least as far as I understand it. Unfortunately, ULA has indicated that they are not developing an AFTS for the Atlas or Delta rockets. It will only be on their forthcoming Vulcan rocket.

Why aren't Atlas and Delta already AFTS equipped?  Will SLS have AFTS?

AFTS is more than a decade old (NASA has had a team working on it since 2002)
Quote
The  National  Aeronautics  and  Space Administration  (NASA)  has  maintained  a  multi-center  engineering development  team  for  the  Autonomous  Flight  Safety  System  since  2002  in  an  attempt  to  realize  the  benefits  that such  a  system  could  bring  to  its  launch  operations.    Such  benefits  include  increases  in  public  safety  for  mission profiles that include phases of propulsive flight that cannot be covered or are prohibitively expensive to cover with conventional ground based telemetry and command systems.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080044860.pdf
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 11:24 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
...

At present it is the fact that no other launch provider has an AFTS system operating. In theory an Atlas with AFTS and a Falcon with AFTS could launch on the same day at least as far as I understand it. Unfortunately, ULA has indicated that they are not developing an AFTS for the Atlas or Delta rockets. It will only be on their forthcoming Vulcan rocket.

Why aren't Atlas and Delta already AFTS equipped?  Will SLS have AFTS?

Cheaper for ULA to introduce AFTS on Vulcan than to spend all the time and money to put it on Delta IV M line (retiring as early as next year) and Atlas V (which will be replaced in the early 2020s by Vulcan).

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
...

At present it is the fact that no other launch provider has an AFTS system operating. In theory an Atlas with AFTS and a Falcon with AFTS could launch on the same day at least as far as I understand it. Unfortunately, ULA has indicated that they are not developing an AFTS for the Atlas or Delta rockets. It will only be on their forthcoming Vulcan rocket.

Why aren't Atlas and Delta already AFTS equipped?  Will SLS have AFTS?

Cheaper for ULA to introduce AFTS on Vulcan than to spend all the time and money to put it on Delta IV M line (retiring as early as next year) and Atlas V (which will be replaced in the early 2020s by Vulcan).

Atlas V just announced to be around till 2025, and Delta Heavy has payloads through 2023.

They've also been around as long as the effort to do AFTS(in other words, why don't they have it already)... and they are/were going to have common avionics.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 11:51 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

AFTS is more than a decade old (NASA has had a team working on it since 2002)


The range is the one that has to do the work to certify it.  NASA wasn't doing that for the ER and WR.  NASA was just working on the hardware and concept.   AFTS was started for places that had no range.

GPS metric tracking wasn't even certified until a few years ago.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 01:50 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Atlas V and Delta IV both debuted in 2002 -- meaning they were in development long before NASA started work on AFTS in 2002.  So, yes, they both predate AFTS efforts.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 01:49 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
(in other words, why don't they have it already)

Because its use hasn't been mandated by the range and ULA has chosen not to invest in its development for their current generation of rockets. Unless its use becomes mandated by the AF for all launches, ULA, as a private company, can choose to invest their R&D dollars wherever they choose. We might disagree with their decisions, but they aren't ours to make unless of course we buy up controlling interest.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

They've also been around as long as the effort to do AFTS

wrong

Atlas and Delta?

And if we use your logic, then why didn't F9 have AFTS on its inaugural launch in 2010?


BTW, Atlas V and Delta IV were started in 1995 and as EELV's, they used the same avionics as Delta II and Atlas II
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 01:18 pm by gongora »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
and they are/were going to have common avionics.

Does not include the FTS.  Common avionics and FTS are separate independent systems.  They don't interact.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 12:32 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.

What kind of standardization?

Standardization which would allow more "independent launch vehicle subsystems designed to enable unmanned range ______ operations"

(taken from this PDF describing Autonomous Flight Termination System: http://www.darpa.mil/attachments/20160429_ALASA_DISTAR_26439.pdf)

Beyond AFTS what other systems are bottlenecks to launch rate?

This PDF describes two other tools beyond the AFTS:

2)
Quote
the Rapid Mission Planning Tool (RMPT) ties
together all the prelaunch mission planning functions required for air launches of small
launch vehicles


3)
Quote
Automated Launch Coordination (ALC) tool being developed through ALASA seeks
to streamline and automate many of the required launch-day interfaces with approving
authorities and service providers

Not sure if these tools are also required to hit 48 launches/year goal, if they would add to rate beyond this, or if they're addressing other issues than speed.  (quality/cost of operations/etc).   



Those are range tools and not launch vehicle related.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
If someone really needs 70+ tonnes to LEO in about a week. Simply salvo 2 Falcon 9 from each pad in the expendable mode. The 4 F9 can supposedly lift about 90 tonnes to LEO in the same orbital inclination.

Hmm, 6 expendable F9 can lift 135 tonnes in 16 days to LEO at the launch rate of 1 per pad every 7 days with a 2 day separation between pads. :o

Presuming LC-40 can process the F9 through quickly with the smaller hangar.
You are aware that one pad is still being rebuilt following the F9 explosion on pad, right? I think that's offline till at least the start of Q317. 

I did not consider the VDB AFB pad as it would have severe difficulties delivering to the same orbit as the others.

"Single digit hour" pad turnaround is an SX stated goal. The quckest figures I found were here

[quote author=edkyle99 link=topic=35674.msg1393533#msg1393533 date=1435165238

Key figure. The best ever has been Ariane 4 (hypergolic fueled) with a launch every 6 days on 1 pad back in the 80's.

So this upgrade gives the US ranges what Arianespace could do in Guyana in the 1980's (and using a hypergol fueled rocket to boot)  IE it's the known state of practice within the industry.

To get to SX's goal of single digit hour turnaround you have to go about 13x better still.

As we've seen with first stage reuse if you set it as a design goal from day one it's a lot easier to do than to do it as a retro fit.

The question of course is wheather the SX staff knew of the A4 history and studied it or if they only looked at US and/or Russian experience in this area.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 07:35 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457

Key figure. The best ever has been Ariane 4 (hypergolic fueled) with a launch every 6 days on 1 pad back in the 80's.


I'm not sure where Ed got that figure. Ariane 1-4 launched about every one to two months. Maybe that was a typo for "6 weeks", which seems about the average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(1979%E2%80%931989)

Offline whitelancer64

It's incorrect either way, the all-time record for two launches from a single pad is less than 24 hours, between Vostok 3 and Vostok 4, launched on August 11 and August 12, 1962.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
It's incorrect either way, the all-time record for two launches from a single pad is less than 24 hours, between Vostok 3 and Vostok 4, launched on August 11 and August 12, 1962.
Interesting.

So < 24 hours looks possible, although I'd wonder if that was designed in or not?

At the moment the 1 week turnaround looks like the current SoA in launch ranges. 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
And... just to nitpick... Ariane 4 was not a completely hypergolic LV, if used LH2/LOX on the 3rd stage

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
What happens when the ailing range tech breaks down? Atlas and Delta are grounded?

Tory Bruno replied to a question on SpaceX reddit. He said converting Atlas and Delta is not yet known.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Note that SX have been involved in AFTS since they carried the 2nd generation prototype on an F1. The F1 failed but the AFTS correctly detected the real failure (it was set to test a simulated flight failure that would have triggered flight termination) and fired it's dummy self destruct package.

The test versions all seem to be based around POWERPC SBC's while  SX use ARM's in their core architecture. It also uses a custom programmed FPGA for some of it's switching functions.

It's not clear to me if LV mfgs will have to buy this exact hardware package to be compliant or if they can host the code on a sufficiently powerful processor and program a compliant FPGA they can keep the hardware in house. 

I think the key idea is that for LV's (as opposed to UAV's and sounding rockets, which this is also designed to support) there must be at least 2 of them and they must be hosted on processors separated from the main GNC computer.

So for SX this would be a couple of separate ARM boxes with a feed from their IMUs and GPS receivers (which I think are already redundant)
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

So for SX this would be a couple of separate ARM boxes with a feed from their IMUs and GPS receivers (which I think are already redundant)

No, AFSS is completely independent, standalone, separate system from the rest of the launch vehicle.   There are batteries, transmitters, receivers, antennas, processors, etc are all dedicated to the AFSS
« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 12:41 pm by Jim »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351

Key figure. The best ever has been Ariane 4 (hypergolic fueled) with a launch every 6 days on 1 pad back in the 80's.


I'm not sure where Ed got that figure. Ariane 1-4 launched about every one to two months. Maybe that was a typo for "6 weeks", which seems about the average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(1979%E2%80%931989)

I do not believe that is my quote.  What I said way back in 2015 was "... Ariane 4 during the 1990s, which flew an average of 0.167 times per week from its single launch pad."  That was about once every six weeks.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 01:49 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596

So for SX this would be a couple of separate ARM boxes with a feed from their IMUs and GPS receivers (which I think are already redundant)

No, AFSS is completely independent, standalone, separate system from the rest of the launch vehicle.   There are batteries, transmitters, receivers, antennas, processors, etc are all dedicated to the AFSS
Pity. Tapping the feed from the existing GPS and IMU sensors seemed harmless enough.

Fortunately all of this hardware has plummeted in weight so I guess each package does not have to be that heavy, unlike the days of 500lb gas powered IMU on Apollo.

I think the biggest winners for this may be smallsat launchers, as AFTS papers show the total charges for the FTS system add up to about $700k per launch, and these costs seem to be regardless of LV size.
I do not believe that is my quote.  What I said way back in 2015 was "... Ariane 4 during the 1990s, which flew an average of 0.167 times per week from its single launch pad."  That was about once every six weeks.

 - Ed Kyle
That was my mis interpretation. I inverted 0.167 and took the result as days per launch instead of weeks.  :(

That said now I'm thinking that seems a bit low. I keep thinking either Atlas or Delta have done better (3-4 weeks?)  but it's probably my memory playing tricks or ULA launching off multiple pads. I know they've been planning to cut operating pads but I don't recall if they've got round to doing it yet.

This announcement suggests that CCAFS is now the SoA globally in launch range turnaround. 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
That said now I'm thinking that seems a bit low. I keep thinking either Atlas or Delta have done better (3-4 weeks?)

Delta had two pads, 17A and B, at the Cape.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

Pity. Tapping the feed from the existing GPS and IMU sensors seemed harmless enough.


No, it isn't.  They could be in error or at fault.  The whole point is to be independent.  Also, most launch vehicles do not use GPS in their guidance system. 

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
"... Ariane 4 during the 1990s, which flew an average of 0.167 times per week from its single launch pad."  That was about once every six weeks.

 - Ed Kyle
That said now I'm thinking that seems a bit low. I keep thinking either Atlas or Delta have done better (3-4 weeks?)  but it's probably my memory playing tricks or ULA launching off multiple pads. I know they've been planning to cut operating pads but I don't recall if they've got round to doing it yet.
I was looking at longer term averages, over many months or years, so there may have been a single fast turnaround here or there, but Delta 2 and Atlas 2 both used two pads at the Cape and one at Vandenberg.  During the 1960s, Atlas and Thor/Delta used even more pads.  The result is that the per-pad average was lower for the U.S. launchers during any era than for Ariane 4 during the 1990s (and for R-7 during the 1980s, which flew even more often than Ariane 4 on a per-pad average).

It is the long-term pad turnaround average that matters rather than the occasional shorter-than-average time.  Pads have to be taken out of service periodically for maintenance, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 04:12 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
No, it isn't.  They could be in error or at fault.  The whole point is to be independent.  Also, most launch vehicles do not use GPS in their guidance system.
Noted.

It still seems like a net win in cost terms for small sat launchers, provided the fact they no longer rely on range assets for FTS is reflected in range charges.

On the more general topic of pad, rather than range turnaround, how ambitious does SX's stated goal of a "single digit hour" turnaround of a pad seem to you?
I was looking at longer term averages, over many months or years, so there may have been a single fast turnaround here or there, but Delta 2 and Atlas 2 both used two pads at the Cape and one at Vandenberg.  During the 1960s, Atlas and Thor/Delta used even more pads. 
I think you mentioned Thor had 6 live pads at one time.
Quote from: edkyle99
The result is that the per-pad average was lower for the U.S. launchers during any era than for Ariane 4 during the 1990s (and for R-7 during the 1980s, which flew even more often than Ariane 4 on a per-pad average).
Clearly once you have multiple pads you can run almost as fast you like, until you run out of fresh pads.
Quote from: edkyle99
It is the long-term pad turnaround average that matters rather than the occasional shorter-than-average time.  Pads have to be taken out of service periodically for maintenance, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Agreed.  And this announcement talks about the range, not the individual pads using it. But I think creating that capability will encourage new entrants (or new vehicles) to revise their pad layouts for faster turnaround.

I don't have a good sense of how much damage a take off does to a pad. Extremely high (lethal?) noise levels, high temperatures and lots of flame but what does the most damage and what's the toughest to repair? Possibly even more important is anything doing cumulative damage to the pad that the whole structure will have to be replaced?

On that note how ambitious is SX's plan for "single digit hour" pad turnaround? A week between launches off the same pad sounds like a pretty good starting point.



MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
What happens when the ailing range tech breaks down? Atlas and Delta are grounded?

Guess it depends on the break down. Relying on memory, one of the early Falcon 9 launches was delayed by a fire taking out a radar station.

The range staff worked their tails off and was back in operation in two weeks. Original estimates were for a longer stand down.

A radar problem would stop an FTS launch but not an AFTS.

But those types of problems seem unlikely because the range does so much maintenance.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
I don't have a good sense of how much damage a take off does to a pad. Extremely high (lethal?) noise levels, high temperatures and lots of flame but what does the most damage and what's the toughest to repair? Possibly even more important is anything doing cumulative damage to the pad that the whole structure will have to be replaced?
One area of effort involves repair of flame deflector and flame trench surfaces.  These are eroded by liftoff exhaust, as I understand things, and must be resurfaced.  There may be some type of spray-on high temperature concrete involved.  Other work would include inspection and if necessary repair of umbilicals, testing of GSE, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
One area of effort involves repair of flame deflector and flame trench surfaces.  These are eroded by liftoff exhaust, as I understand things, and must be resurfaced.  There may be some type of spray-on high temperature concrete involved.  Other work would include inspection and if necessary repair of umbilicals, testing of GSE, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle
Really? I'd thought those things were good for years and refurbishment was a major (months long) event.

In this regard I liked the sound of the system that was used on the Saturn 1. A pointed rectangular cone. Looked like the thing they used on the V2. All Copper IIRC and uncooled. I guess it didn't scale up too well, hence all the high temp concrete.  :(

It'll be interesting to see how fast SX make good on moving to SDH turnaround, given they now have a fair bit of experience on the actual damage a launch does to their pads. Presumably the rebuild of the explosion damaged pad will incorporate as much of their experience as possible. 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
One area of effort involves repair of flame deflector and flame trench surfaces.  These are eroded by liftoff exhaust, as I understand things, and must be resurfaced.  There may be some type of spray-on high temperature concrete involved.  Other work would include inspection and if necessary repair of umbilicals, testing of GSE, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle
Really? I'd thought those things were good for years and refurbishment was a major (months long) event.

Fondu Fyre, it  is called, a refractory concrete.  A discussion of it and of launch deflector erosion during the Shuttle program, with some nice images, is included in the following document.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100031698.pdf

Similar materials may still be used, that have to be inspected after every launch and occasionally or periodically renewed.

It must be closely guarded.  I have yet to see an image of a flame deflector at a Falcon 9 launch site.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/24/2017 01:56 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
In this regard I liked the sound of the system that was used on the Saturn 1. A pointed rectangular cone. Looked like the thing they used on the V2. All Copper IIRC and uncooled.


It wasn't a pointed rectangular cone. It wasn't All Copper.  And it wasn't uncooled.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2017 12:49 pm by Jim »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Jupiter, on the other hand, used a kind of sloped pyramidal base plate.  Redstone used something similar. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/24/2017 01:04 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
In this regard I liked the sound of the system that was used on the Saturn 1. A pointed rectangular cone. Looked like the thing they used on the V2. All Copper IIRC and uncooled.


It wasn't a pointed rectangular cone. It wasn't All Copper.  And it wasn't uncooled.
I stand corrected, although I'm surprised. My impression of these things was that the bigger ones were (very) large concrete channels. How do cool something like that?

Jupiter, on the other hand, used a kind of sloped pyramidal base plate.  Redstone used something similar. 

 - Ed Kyle
That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about.

Man it's depressing my memory is this untrusworthy.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

I stand corrected, although I'm surprised. My impression of these things was that the bigger ones were (very) large concrete channels. How do cool something like that?


You can see the water ring here

http://imgur.com/D04kQhf

and the water coming out here


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81286
  • Likes Given: 36776
Quote
$18.6 million project begins on Cape
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Fla. --

The 45th Space Wing’s communication capabilities took a giant step forward with the groundbreaking of the new Range Communications Facility March 16, 2017.

A ceremony was held to signify the start of construction for the Eastern Range’s $18.6 million project, which will replace the former XY communications building, and serve as the new work center for the space launch program for decades to come.

“It is an exciting time to be at the 45th Space Wing as we continue to break barriers and new ground for the next generation of range communications,” said Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, 45th Space Wing commander.

The new 32,314-square-foot communications facility will be constructed in the industrial area and will directly support range operations.

In addition to replacing aging equipment and infrastructure, the upgraded building will also resolve other issues, which plagued the old facility to include problems caused by flooding.

“The new facility will alleviate concerns we have every hurricane season resolving structural, mechanical and fire protection problems that the building has experienced over the years. The upgraded facility will now comply with all electrical and telecommunications requirements,” said Robert Elliott, 45th Civil Engineer Squadron project manager.

“As space launch and vehicles evolve, so must the technology and facilities we use to support it,” Monteith said. “This facility is crucial in advancing us toward our drive to 48 and providing ‘assured access to space.”

Once completed, the new facility will house and operate state-of-art communications technology that will decrease operation and maintenance costs and increase long-term reliability, according to William Trump, 45th Range Maintenance Squadron project engineer.

Demolition of the former building at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was completed February 2017, and the new building is slated for completion in 2018.

“It is our goal to deliver this project on time and on budget and well look forward to seeing everyone at the ribbon cutting,” said Lt. Col. Landon Raby, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District deputy commander.

http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1130459/186-million-project-begins-on-cape

Offline nukie19

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 990
  • Likes Given: 44
SX's stated goal is "single digit turnaround" of a single pad. IE ready to launch another vehicle within 10 hours of the last one.

With 2 pads on site that (and assuming SX have the launch team to do so) that's 2 9am launches and 2 launches before 7pm the same night. Assuming only week day launches, and excluding the 4 weeks CCAFS are saying they need for maintenance that's 960 launches a year. I guess that's the kind of scale you've got to be geared up for if you're wanting to launch a 12000 satellite comms network in a reasonable time.

AFTS means SX don't need those USAF staff around to help them do the launches.

Wrong.  They still need USAF staff for prelaunch activities and launch support, just a reduced number.  Also, I'm sure you are joking about 960 launches a year, right?  Even if there were that many satellites just sitting around waiting to be launched, you still have to consider the pre-planning work to be done which would never happen with the current number of people working at the ER on that stuff.  And, you'd be essentially shutting down the Port and all the air traffic around the area if you were launching that often.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
[USAF] 45th Launch Group streamlines processes, optimizes mission assurance during organizational change
Quote
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Fla. -- The 5th Space Launch Squadron recently merged mission assurance operations with the 45th Launch Support Squadron (LCSS) to bring technical experts together under one organization and allow for the recently developed Falcon flight to meet future requirements.

Prior to the merger, the members who worked on the United Launch Alliance Atlas and Delta launch vehicles were a part of the 5th SLS under separate flights. However, their counterparts assigned to oversee the SpaceX Falcon launch vehicles were a part of the LCSS.

To maximize efficiency, the Atlas and Delta programs merged into one flight and the Falcon flight officially stood up under their new home at the 5th SLS. With this merger, one squadron is now responsible for all launch vehicle mission assurance.

“Mission assurance” is the process of identifying, tracking and assessing risk of system deficiencies for launch site assembly and testing, as well as launch vehicle and space vehicle processing activities. This process is a requirement for all National Security Space missions.

Knowing the Falcon launch vehicle would soon support NSS payloads, the team developed a plan to ensure a smooth transition. A methodical “crawl, walk, run” mentality was implemented in July 2017 to begin the transition from initial certification activities. By January 15, 2018, the Falcon flight entered its final ‘run’ phase, proving ready to provide mission assurance for the GPS III launch scheduled later this year.

These changes benefit more than just the Falcon flight personnel. Having experts who provide mission assurance for launch vehicles aligned under one squadron allows the team to streamline operations and share best practices, characteristics essential to ensuring public safety as the demand for launches from the Eastern Range continues to increase.

“Organizing all launch vehicle mission assurance under one roof brings all the brainstorming to one place, so the experiential knowledge of what works and doesn’t work can be used to enhance mission assurance,” said 1st Lt. Drew Carrigan, an Air Force responsible engineer in the Atlas/Delta Flight. “We’ve been forced to reevaluate how we do business and challenge the status quo, allowing the squadron to achieve previously unattained heights.”

In forcing the squadron to look inward and reevaluate, Carrigan said the squadron has actually become more agile in their capability to support multiple mission sets.

“We’ve also become more efficient due to the fact many of our mission assurance personnel are able to cover multiple launch vehicles,” he said.

According to Carrigan, this change is a key enabler to meeting the Wing’s ‘Drive to 48’ initiative by having a certification process for all mission assurance personnel.

“We’ve transformed how a team can balance changing requirements while continuing to ensure mission success as our Wing launches at an unprecedented rate,” said Carrigan. “Now that all launch vehicle mission assurance has been consolidated into the 5th SLS, we are united to crush roadblocks and innovate while safeguarding critical government requirements.”

5th SLS leadership acknowledged the challenge of change noted the expertise their team has allows them to adapt and succeed quickly.

“Change is unpleasant for most and it’s especially difficult when you uproot personnel, relocate them and ask them to completely rethink their way of doing business,” said Lt. Col. Waylon Mitchell, 5th Space Launch Squadron commander. “Every member of the 5th SLS was affected by this reorganization in some way, and I was very impressed to see how our members responded with resilience and a positive can-do attitude ready to take on the new challenge.”

Mitchell continued, saying while the launch enterprise is rapidly evolving, the mission assurance community must adapt accordingly.

“We must keep pace with an increasing number of providers, new vehicle designs and innovative concepts of operations, all the while maintaining our commitment to 100% mission success. This organizational change and the ramp up of Falcon mission assurance is just the first step of many to come on that journey into the future of space launch.”
« Last Edit: 03/20/2018 09:33 pm by gongora »

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
“We must keep pace with an increasing number of providers, new vehicle designs and innovative concepts of operations, all the while maintaining our commitment to 100% mission success."

My bets on them doing just that!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
Looks like we could be in for some exciting times.
Quote
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.
This kind of happened the other day, didn't it? There was supposed to be a Falcon 9 then an Atlas V back to back, but the range chickened out. (I'm sure that's a gross simplification, but it does show that this statement above was kinda optimistic...)
« Last Edit: 03/25/2018 02:21 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Looks like we could be in for some exciting times.
Quote
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.
This kind of happened the other day, didn't it? There was supposed to be a Falcon 9 then an Atlas V back to back, but the range chickened out. (I'm sure that's a gross simplification, but it does show that this statement above was kinda optimistic...)
2 Falcons isn’t the same as a Falcon and an Atlas. For one thing Atlas doesn’t have AFTS. Also, it wasn’t the range that chickened out. ULA and their payload partner didn’t want to risk an event from the Falcon on the pad contaminating their rocket and payload sitting unprotected on the pad nearby. Very different circumstances.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Looks like we could be in for some exciting times.
Quote
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.
This kind of happened the other day, didn't it? There was supposed to be a Falcon 9 then an Atlas V back to back, but the range chickened out. (I'm sure that's a gross simplification, but it does show that this statement above was kinda optimistic...)
2 Falcons isn’t the same as a Falcon and an Atlas. For one thing Atlas doesn’t have AFTS. Also, it wasn’t the range that chickened out. ULA and their payload partner didn’t want to risk an event from the Falcon on the pad contaminating their rocket and payload sitting unprotected on the pad nearby. Very different circumstances.

Or there just wasn't time to get all the involved players to buy into the attempt before the clock ran out (i.e. not just LV providers but also those responsible for the payloads would be canvassed).  There wasn't much time for everyone to get an overview of the potential added risks and do their own evaluation before the opportunity was already going to be over without delaying the Atlas launch.  If the Range wants to try something like that in the future, they might have more success if they don't try to do it on the fly with a short schedule.  Or by getting some of the stakeholders to do some of the risk analysis before it's needed.  Of course, operational capabilities in that type of very condensed scenario is potentially of interest to the Air Force, so... 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Anyone know how many (roughly) RD-180s they've got left before they have to end Atlas V? Kind of a shame really - always been a great rocket. An Atlas V-Heavy probably would have been cheaper than Delta IV-Heavy, too.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2018 02:03 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
number of RD-180s remaining is not really on topic for launch frequency.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
number of RD-180s remaining is not really on topic for launch frequency.
Strongly disagree - goes to availability of launchers if Vulcan is delayed and exactly when Delta IV ends up being retired.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
number of RD-180s remaining is not really on topic for launch frequency.
Strongly disagree - goes to availability of launchers if Vulcan is delayed and exactly when Delta IV ends up being retired.

It really makes no difference for Delta IV retirement (unless Vulcan is about 5 years late).  ULA will have enough engines to get through EELV Phase 1A.  Someone will have vehicles able to launch payloads in Phase 2.  Assuming Vulcan is chosen for Phase 2 it could be two years behind the current schedule and it would really make no difference, there is schedule margin.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Hearing that they have margin was more or less what I wanted to hear. I don't expect someone would tell us exactly how many engines they had left, because that would be a need-to-know basis; and I guess I'm not one of the need to know.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2018 01:37 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
It really makes no difference for Delta IV retirement (unless Vulcan is about 5 years late).  ULA will have enough engines to get through EELV Phase 1A.  Someone will have vehicles able to launch payloads in Phase 2.  Assuming Vulcan is chosen for Phase 2 it could be two years behind the current schedule and it would really make no difference, there is schedule margin.

I looked back at the RFP for Phase 2, it says Class A/B launch capability by Oct. 2021 (beginning of FY2022), so only one year of margin.  (Unless you take into account they're awarding at least one FY2022 launch in Phase 1A, and so many of the military payloads are late you probably have an extra year.)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
[Space News] Efforts underway to ease Florida’s Space Coast launch congestion
Quote
“As we’re going to 48, we can’t have scrubs unnecessarily,” he said. “It’s very important that we preserve our launch opportunities.”

For range safety, that means a shift in what happens when ships or planes enter restricted zones. An example he gave was a when a tugboat with a two-person crew was spotted in restricted waters ahead of a launch. In the past, such a ship would be treated the same as a cruise ship with thousands on board, but now the Air Force is looking at each ship, and the risk to those on board, individually.

“We went from measuring the risk of hitting the boat to actually causing some sort of casualty,” he said. In that example, the launch could proceed.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
[Fast Company, Apr. 9, 2018] This U.S. Air Force Commander Helps Elon Musk’s Interns Launch SpaceX Rockets

A good interview with Wayne Monteith, I recommend reading it.

You are correct sir. Nice detail on how they can increase efficiency and safety at the same time.

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
[Fast Company, Apr. 9, 2018] This U.S. Air Force Commander Helps Elon Musk’s Interns Launch SpaceX Rockets

A good interview with Wayne Monteith, I recommend reading it.

I liked it too, posted it to the general discussion as its own item. I searched the site for both Monteith's name and for the title of the article, so blame google for the redundancy. :)

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6106
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 1125
http://www.afspc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1537200/5th-space-launch-squadron-commander-assumes-command-of-45th-launch-support-squa/

 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Fla. --

Lt. Col. Waylon Mitchell, commander of the 5th Space Launch Squadron (SLS) assumes command of the 45th Launch Support Squadron (LCSS) May 31 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, accepting the command from Lt. Col. Kathryn Cantu.

The change of command ceremony is one of many steps the 45th Space Wing is taking to revitalize the squadron. In time, the 45th LCSS will inactivate and merge with the 5th SLS, under Mitchell, their dual-hatted commander.

“Lt. Col. Cantu was at the forefront of organizational change for the squadron,” said Col. Steven Lang, 45th Launch Group commander. “She was key to this mission. This is a bittersweet moment, letting go of such a great commander, but as we continue on with our mission and execute it to the best of our abilities – there is no doubt that we have incredible leadership in Lt. Col. Mitchell.”

This ceremony cements the 45th Space Wing's role as a forerunner in the race for heightened innovation, efficiency and overall squadron revitalization – as 45th Space Wing commander Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith continues to lead the wing towards the vision of a cohesive, revitalized work force.

The steps the wing is taking will only further integrate the space mission with that of the Air Force itself. The drive to 48 launches a year is only the beginning, the steps we take here are posturing us to be the most successful space organization of the next 20 years, said Monteith.

“I am absolutely committed to taking care of all of my Airmen, 5th SLS and 45th LCSS alike,” said Mitchell. “On the mission-front, our scope will continue to grow but I will maintain the laser focus on mission assurance and support functions that we always have. I understand the gravity of the tasks that lie ahead and I will give it my all every day.”

The 45th LCSS’s mission closely coincides with the 5th SLS – as both provide mission assurance for launches from the Eastern Range. The 5th SLS is responsible for boosters and the LCSS’s responsibility lies with the spacecraft itself.

 “It has been a pleasure to command, these Airmen embrace change and innovation like no other,” said Cantu. “I know that I’m leaving the squadron in good hands. There is not a better person in the Air Force to take command of the LCSS than Lt. Col. Mitchell. I know everyone will continue to knock it out of the park."

Bringing both squadrons under one commander reduces some of the duplication of effort by both parties and provides a more cohesive squadron feel to operations. With a mission so important, Airmen so innovative and such strong leadership – the current course the 45th Space Wing can only drives the wing closer to launch enterprise.
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

The 45th LCSS’s mission closely coincides with the 5th SLS – as both provide mission assurance for launches from the Eastern Range. The 5th SLS is responsible for boosters and the LCSS’s responsibility lies with the spacecraft itself.

.....

Bringing both squadrons under one commander reduces some of the duplication of effort by both parties and provides a more cohesive squadron feel to operations. With a mission so important, Airmen so innovative and such strong leadership – the current course the 45th Space Wing can only drives the wing closer to launch enterprise.


This just the current wind direction.
Together - early 60's
Apart - late 60's
Together - early 70's
Apart - late 70's
Together - early 90's
Apart - early 00's
Together - Late 10's

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
This just the current wind direction.
Together - early 60's
Apart - late 60's
Together - early 70's
Apart - late 70's
Together - early 90's
Apart - early 00's
Together - Late 10's

Sorry to be dense, but do you mean by this that all the changes that are occurring are cosmetic? It seems like a lot of improvements are occurring due to a lot of hard work.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
This just the current wind direction.
Together - early 60's
Apart - late 60's
Together - early 70's
Apart - late 70's
Together - early 90's
Apart - early 00's
Together - Late 10's

Sorry to be dense, but do you mean by this that all the changes that are occurring are cosmetic? It seems like a lot of improvements are occurring due to a lot of hard work.

I believe Jim is talking about specific organizations at the Cape (the two groups mentioned in the article posted by Targeteer), not the overall changes to support more launches.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
This just the current wind direction.
Together - early 60's
Apart - late 60's
Together - early 70's
Apart - late 70's
Together - early 90's
Apart - early 00's
Together - Late 10's

Sorry to be dense, but do you mean by this that all the changes that are occurring are cosmetic? It seems like a lot of improvements are occurring due to a lot of hard work.

This has nothing to do with the range launch rate.  It only has to do with management of Air Force missions.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634

The 45th LCSS’s mission closely coincides with the 5th SLS – as both provide mission assurance for launches from the Eastern Range. The 5th SLS is responsible for boosters and the LCSS’s responsibility lies with the spacecraft itself.

.....

Bringing both squadrons under one commander reduces some of the duplication of effort by both parties and provides a more cohesive squadron feel to operations. With a mission so important, Airmen so innovative and such strong leadership – the current course the 45th Space Wing can only drives the wing closer to launch enterprise.


This just the current wind direction.
Together - early 60's
Apart - late 60's
Together - early 70's
Apart - late 70's
Together - early 90's
Apart - early 00's
Together - Late 10's
Quote
The change of command ceremony is one of many steps the 45th Space Wing is taking to revitalize the squadron. In time, the 45th LCSS will inactivate and merge with the 5th SLS, under Mitchell, their dual-hatted commander.
Do you think this planned consolidation is either enabled or made more attractive because the majority (and eventually all?) of future range users are going to be using AFTS?  If so, then this consolidation may end up being more than just the current wind blowing. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline mulp

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • merrimack, nh
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 9
This just the current wind direction.
Together - early 60's
Apart - late 60's
Together - early 70's
Apart - late 70's
Together - early 90's
Apart - early 00's
Together - Late 10's

Sorry to be dense, but do you mean by this that all the changes that are occurring are cosmetic? It seems like a lot of improvements are occurring due to a lot of hard work.

This has nothing to do with the range launch rate.  It only has to do with management of Air Force missions.

If you go back and look at the justifications, splitting up was mostly likely supposed to increase the number of launches while combining was to reduce costs and efficiency, perhaps to afford more launches.

Triggering factors would have been new kinds of rockets and customers, manned vs unmanned, government vs commercial payloads, private vs government funding, military vs civilian.

Today the triggering factor is more private companies competing with government entities trying to launch using the same air space, and same shadow. Control of the ground is taking second place.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

Do you think this planned consolidation is either enabled or made more attractive because the majority (and eventually all?) of future range users are going to be using AFTS?  If so, then this consolidation may end up being more than just the current wind blowing. 

It has nothing to do with range resources or range safety.  The range management is a separate group and is unrelated to this topic.   The range supports all launches regardless.  This topics is about management of Air Force missions (Air Force payloads on Air Force procured launches).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Triggering factors would have been new kinds of rockets and customers, manned vs unmanned, government vs commercial payloads, private vs government funding, military vs civilian.

Today the triggering factor is more private companies competing with government entities trying to launch using the same air space, and same shadow. Control of the ground is taking second place.

Nope, it is none of those.  This issue has nothing to with commercial launches (no Air Force payloads)

There is only one customer of concern, the DOD.  It does't matter if the vehicle is new kinds of rockets,manned vs unmanned, government vs commercial payloads, private vs government funding,


In the past, they were split when there were multiple launch vehicles. And even SLS was split into separate squadrons for each launch vehicle, but there was only one spacecraft squadron, who supported all DOD spacecraft no matter what launch vehicle.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
From the ULA testimony at today's House hearing on Commercial Space Transportation Regulatory Reform: Stakeholder Perspective

https://transportation.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=402613

Quote
The following example illustrates one issue launch providers currently face as a
result of agency differences at the launch site:
During a commercial launch campaign, the FAA treats major operations at
nearby facilities (e.g. a static test firing at a different launch provider’s
facility) differently than the USAF does for one of its missions. One difference
relates to the Flight Hazard Area /Flight Caution Area. Specifically, the 45th
Space Wing is more accommodating when it comes to allowing ULA Mission
Essential Personnel to remain at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) during
major operations at SLC-40 for non-FAA licensed missions. This enables
ULA to keep personnel working and not delay operations for the next Atlas V
launch. However, the FAA is less accommodating in allowing ULA personnel
to remain at SLC-41 during FAA licensed operations at SLC-40, which can
cause monumental delays and schedule perturbations. There can be several
FAA licensed missions per year at each launch site, and the resulting
deleterious effect on the other party’s launch operations are significant.
Launch providers and the USAF Range spend much time and significant
resources de-conflicting SLC-40 and SLC-41 operations due to the FAAunique
requirements that other agencies do not impose

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6106
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 3315
  • Likes Given: 1125
https://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1589087/wing-retools-structure-toward-greater-agility/

 PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- On July 31, 2018, the 45th Space Wing inactivated the 45th Launch Group, combining their launch mission and personnel with the 45th Operations Group. The personnel from both groups will be led by Col. Steven Lang, commander of the 45th OG.

Moments before the 45th Launch Group inactivation and merger, the 45th Launch Support Squadron also inactivated and merged with the 5th Space Launch Squadron, now under the command of Lt. Col. Waylon Mitchell.

Next, the 45th Operations Support Squadron and 1st Range Operations Squadron inactivated and merged, now a single squadron under the command of Lt. Col. Gregory Vice, and called the 45th Range Squadron.

The 45th Launch Group, combining their launch mission and personnel with the 45th Operations Group was the last inactivation and merger of the day.

This 45th OG merger postures the 45th SW to capitalize on launch innovations and lays the foundation for a more agile spaceport with a rapidly growing operations tempo and number of launch providers, said Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the 45th SW.

The inactivation and merging of groups closes the seams to resolve issues for launch process engineering risk, range scheduling and range instrumentation issues as a single interface to the customer under one operations group commander.

“We are known in our enterprise as being the best in the business,” said Lang. “We have the best people and processes and we will continue to have the best people and processes moving forward.”

The Operations Group is now responsible for both mission assurance and range operations, and the vital mission assurance responsibility transitioned from the Launch Group will remain an absolute priority.

“I am humbled by the opportunity to lead the consolidated group to close organizational seams and ensure both range support and mission assurance operations are coordinated to successfully deploy the critical satellite payloads that support our national interests,” said Lang. “It is my distinct honor to serve as the commander for the group that continues to provide 100% mission success.”

“The 45th Launch Group has been a cornerstone to one of the safest and most successful periods of time in space history and is worthy of remembrance,” said Monteith. “But we can’t stay stagnant—we have to continue making progress and this merger is that next step.”
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
[Florida Today] Brig. Gen. Doug Schiess returns to Brevard, assumes command of Air Force's 45th Space Wing
Quote
PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE — Six years ago, then-Col. Doug Schiess reported to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to oversee Eastern Range missile launch operations.

Thursday, he returned to Brevard County as a brigadier general — to lead the entire 45th Space Wing.

Schiess assumed command from retiring Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith during a ceremony at the Patrick Air Force Base auditorium.
...
Schiess — whose last name rhymes with chess — formerly commanded the 45th Operations Group from 2012-14. In that capacity, he oversaw the Eastern Range's military, commercial, NASA, and ballistic missile launch operations.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1