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
Quote from: Steve D on 03/20/2017 04:58 pmThe 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?SteveComm, 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
“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.
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.
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
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2017 05:08 pmComm, 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, etcHow would AFTS eliminate tracking cameras? I thought those were diagnostic.
Quote from: mme on 03/20/2017 05:16 pmLooks 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?
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.
It's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 03/20/2017 05:43 pmHow 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.
Quote from: Barrie on 03/20/2017 06:19 pmIt's got me wondering if the launch rate could be increased further if there was more standardisation between launch vehicles.What kind of standardization?
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2017 06:35 pmQuote from: Barrie on 03/20/2017 06:19 pmIt'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.
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.
Quote from: Barrie on 03/20/2017 06:51 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/20/2017 06:35 pmQuote from: Barrie on 03/20/2017 06:19 pmIt'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.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 03/20/2017 07:00 pmQuote from: Barrie on 03/20/2017 06:51 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/20/2017 06:35 pmQuote from: Barrie on 03/20/2017 06:19 pmIt'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?
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?
the Rapid Mission Planning Tool (RMPT) tiestogether all the prelaunch mission planning functions required for air launches of smalllaunch vehicles
Automated Launch Coordination (ALC) tool being developed through ALASA seeksto streamline and automate many of the required launch-day interfaces with approvingauthorities and service providers
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?
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.
...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.
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.
Quote from: cppetrie on 03/20/2017 07:45 pm...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?
Quote from: AncientU on 03/22/2017 10:55 amQuote from: cppetrie on 03/20/2017 07:45 pm...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).
AFTS is more than a decade old (NASA has had a team working on it since 2002)
(in other words, why don't they have it already)
Quote from: Jim on 03/22/2017 12:00 pmQuote from: AncientU on 03/22/2017 11:48 amThey've also been around as long as the effort to do AFTSwrongAtlas and Delta?
Quote from: AncientU on 03/22/2017 11:48 amThey've also been around as long as the effort to do AFTSwrong
They've also been around as long as the effort to do AFTS
and they are/were going to have common avionics.
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2017 06:35 pmQuote from: Barrie on 03/20/2017 06:19 pmIt'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) tiestogether all the prelaunch mission planning functions required for air launches of smalllaunch vehicles 3) Quote Automated Launch Coordination (ALC) tool being developed through ALASA seeksto streamline and automate many of the required launch-day interfaces with approvingauthorities and service providersNot 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).
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. Presuming LC-40 can process the F9 through quickly with the smaller hangar.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/24/2015 05:00 pmKey figure. The best ever has been Ariane 4 (hypergolic fueled) with a launch every 6 days on 1 pad back in the 80's.
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.
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.
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)
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/22/2017 01:39 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/24/2015 05:00 pmKey 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)
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/23/2017 07:54 amSo 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
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 said now I'm thinking that seems a bit low. I keep thinking either Atlas or Delta have done better (3-4 weeks?)
Pity. Tapping the feed from the existing GPS and IMU sensors seemed harmless enough.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/23/2017 01:46 pm"... 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 KyleThat 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.
"... 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
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.
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
What happens when the ailing range tech breaks down? Atlas and Delta are grounded?
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
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/23/2017 06:08 pmOne 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 KyleReally? 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.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/24/2017 06:13 amIn 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.
Jupiter, on the other hand, used a kind of sloped pyramidal base plate. Redstone used something similar. - Ed Kyle
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?
$18.6 million project begins on CapeCAPE 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.
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.
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.”
Quote from: mme on 03/20/2017 05:16 pmLooks 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...)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/25/2018 02:21 amQuote from: mme on 03/20/2017 05:16 pmLooks 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.
number of RD-180s remaining is not really on topic for launch frequency.
Quote from: Lar on 03/27/2018 08:34 amnumber 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.
“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.
[Fast Company, Apr. 9, 2018] This U.S. Air Force Commander Helps Elon Musk’s Interns Launch SpaceX RocketsA good interview with Wayne Monteith, I recommend reading it.
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'sApart - late 60'sTogether - early 70'sApart - late 70'sTogether - early 90'sApart - early 00'sTogether - Late 10's
Quote from: Jim on 06/04/2018 05:09 pmThis just the current wind direction.Together - early 60'sApart - late 60'sTogether - early 70'sApart - late 70'sTogether - early 90'sApart - early 00'sTogether - Late 10'sSorry 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.
Quote from: Targeteer on 06/04/2018 04:49 pmThe 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'sApart - late 60'sTogether - early 70'sApart - late 70'sTogether - early 90'sApart - early 00'sTogether - Late 10's
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.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 06/04/2018 06:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/04/2018 05:09 pmThis just the current wind direction.Together - early 60'sApart - late 60'sTogether - early 70'sApart - late 70'sTogether - early 90'sApart - early 00'sTogether - Late 10'sSorry 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.
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.
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.
The following example illustrates one issue launch providers currently face as aresult of agency differences at the launch site:During a commercial launch campaign, the FAA treats major operations atnearby facilities (e.g. a static test firing at a different launch provider’sfacility) differently than the USAF does for one of its missions. One differencerelates to the Flight Hazard Area /Flight Caution Area. Specifically, the 45thSpace Wing is more accommodating when it comes to allowing ULA MissionEssential Personnel to remain at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) duringmajor operations at SLC-40 for non-FAA licensed missions. This enablesULA to keep personnel working and not delay operations for the next Atlas Vlaunch. However, the FAA is less accommodating in allowing ULA personnelto remain at SLC-41 during FAA licensed operations at SLC-40, which cancause monumental delays and schedule perturbations. There can be severalFAA licensed missions per year at each launch site, and the resultingdeleterious effect on the other party’s launch operations are significant.Launch providers and the USAF Range spend much time and significantresources de-conflicting SLC-40 and SLC-41 operations due to the FAAuniquerequirements that other agencies do not impose
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.