Bill is likely confused by the comments that 39A may be pad ready by November, per F9 options during SLC-40 repair.I would tell people to expect FH to be a lady for 2017. Anything other would be a nice surprising bonus, but that was before Amos-6, so I think the focus should be on when the next F9 is going to be launched and as Bill noted, he's not speaking for SpaceX.
Some other things Bill said in the interview which may or may not be true (as Chris said, grain of salt)- He said SpaceX was planning on doing the RTF "differently" than last time.- Falcon Heavy launch in November.- The light sail is on the next Heavy launch in the spring.- Falcon heavy will have a new center core with reused cores for the side boosters.Video:
If you take all the bullet items above literally, it appears the RTF would be on Spacex's nickel and would be the first FH with the first reused stage 1's from 39a. First FH was their nickel anyway. I would be surprised if they would commit all that for RTF so soon. It would really be gutsy and exciting. A part of me could see Elon going for it as a show of confidence.
The considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:[SNIP]3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).
The first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts? Sign me up!
Quote from: UberNobody on 09/09/2016 06:18 amThe first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts? Sign me up! My understanding is that that Bill was referring to the FH that Lightsail-2 would be riding on (the second FH flight). The 2 used boosters will be the ones recovered from the first FH flight. The boosters will be new for the first FH flight.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/09/2016 12:32 amThe considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:[SNIP]3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).A few days ago in the AMOS-6 thread, someone posted the applicable language from the launch license. The FAA is indisputably the investigating authority once the F9 arrives at the launch facility for the planned launch. I'll see if I can't find post, or better yet, track down the FAA launch license itself if you don't find it first. EDIT: Ah, here we go:https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf
Quote from: Space Junkie on 09/09/2016 08:56 amQuote from: UberNobody on 09/09/2016 06:18 amThe first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts? Sign me up! My understanding is that that Bill was referring to the FH that Lightsail-2 would be riding on (the second FH flight). The 2 used boosters will be the ones recovered from the first FH flight. The boosters will be new for the first FH flight.We had prior indications that reused cores were being converted to FH side boosters. I don't recall any one saying for sure which flight they were for, but the timing would seem to indicate the inaugural flight.Economics, too: the first flight is on SpaceX's own dime.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 09/09/2016 12:37 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 09/09/2016 12:32 amThe considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:[SNIP]3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).A few days ago in the AMOS-6 thread, someone posted the applicable language from the launch license. The FAA is indisputably the investigating authority once the F9 arrives at the launch facility for the planned launch. I'll see if I can't find post, or better yet, track down the FAA launch license itself if you don't find it first. EDIT: Ah, here we go:https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf"“Flight” shall mean the flight of a Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle commencing with ignition..."so no flight or attempted flight has taken place.For aircraft I think the legal definition of a flight varies in jurisdiction and some places can say a flight begins with movement of an aircraft with the intention to fly - I don't know the U.S. version.The special reporting requirements are interesting in that it refers to a prior launch rather than a flight. I wonder what the legal definition of a launch is and whether that means the same as a flight. It could be that the fact that there was no "flight commencing with ignition" also means that there was no launch that meets the special reporting requirements.So, it could be that all SpaceX has to do is satisfy the air force and make sure they've still got enough insurance. No doubt the wording will be tightened up in future.
We had prior indications that reused cores were being converted to FH side boosters. I don't recall any one saying for sure which flight they were for, but the timing would seem to indicate the inaugural flight.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 09/09/2016 12:37 amhttps://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf"“Flight” shall mean the flight of a Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle commencing with ignition..."
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf
License Number: LLS 14-090 (Rev 2)----General. Space Exploration Technologies is authorized to conduct:...(b) pre-flight ground operations at CCAFS associated with the flights, as identified in paragraph (a) of this license, of the Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle. This license is granted subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in licensing orders A,... ---License Order No. LLS 14-090A (Rev 3)...3. (b) “Pre-flight ground operations” shall mean SpaceX’s pre-flight preparations of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle at CCAFS, beginning with the arrival of the Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle at CCAFS.
Launch means to place or try to place a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle and any payload from Earth in a suborbital trajectory, in Earth orbit in outer space, or otherwise in outer space, and includes preparing a launch vehicle for flight at a launch site in the United States. Launch includes the flight of a launch vehicle and includes pre- and post-flight ground operations as follows:(1) Beginning of launch. (i) Under a license, launch begins with the arrival of a launch vehicle or payload at a U.S. launch site.<snip> Mishap means a launch or reentry accident, launch or reentry incident, launch site accident, failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned, or an unplanned event or series of events resulting in a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2), or resulting in greater than $25,000 worth of damage to a payload, a launch or reentry vehicle, a launch or reentry support facility or government property located on the launch or reentry site.
(a) Ground safety requirements apply to launch processing and post-launch operations at a launch site in the United States.(b) A launch operator must protect the public from adverse effects of hazardous operations and systems associated with preparing a launch vehicle for flight at a launch site.(c) §§417.111(c), 417.113(b), and 417.115(c), and subpart E of this part provide launch operator ground safety requirements.
No, it is plain and simple, it states "preflight ground operations". FAA has the jurisdiction.
Notification within 24 hours to the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Washington Operations Center in the event of a mishap, other than those in §415.41 (b) (1) of this chapter, that does not involve a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2)
Quote from: Jim on 09/10/2016 02:41 pmNo, it is plain and simple, it states "preflight ground operations". FAA has the jurisdiction.Very clearly pointed out in 14CFR §417.111(h)--Launch Safety Responsibilities; Launch Plans; Accident Investigation Plan (AIP). It specifically triggers (1)(ii): QuoteNotification within 24 hours to the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Washington Operations Center in the event of a mishap, other than those in §415.41 (b) (1) of this chapter, that does not involve a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2)And then all the rest of the AIP requirements.This is in addition to any changes to SpaceX's Ground Safety Analysis Report for current/future launch licenses which the FAA would have to approve before they could launch a commercial payload again.