I wonder if we're getting related issues confused in our game of telephone here. What if SpaceX wanted to do a "major" refit of their fleet, that would require a dry dock for inspection *after the modifications were made*. Then we'd hear roughly the same story: barge owners looking for a dry dock to enable coast guard inspection (...after modifications).
QuoteCould the inspection be done by divers?Negative, must be drydocked.Imaginary tweet from Elon: "@USCG, WTF???"
Could the inspection be done by divers?
Quote from: cscott on 06/09/2016 04:00 pmI wonder if we're getting related issues confused in our game of telephone here. What if SpaceX wanted to do a "major" refit of their fleet, that would require a dry dock for inspection *after the modifications were made*. Then we'd hear roughly the same story: barge owners looking for a dry dock to enable coast guard inspection (...after modifications).I can tell you categorically this is coming from USCG, not SpaceX. Elon must be fuming. If they have to splash just one stage while the ASDSes are in drydock, that's throwing away a $20M asset, depending on your accounting math...just when they've figured out how to make the ASDS landings work and are speeding up launch tempos.The timing stinks, but maybe they can schedule the OCISLY drydock inspection for the period around an RTLS mission and try not to miss any GTO sea landings.
found somethinghttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/14/2011-32007/seagoing-barges"In 1993, Congress exempted from inspection seagoing barges that are unmanned and not carrying hazardous material as cargo, or carrying a flammable or combustible liquid, including oil, in bulk."https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title46/html/USCODE-2014-title46-subtitleII-partB-chap33-sec3302.htm"(m) A seagoing barge is not subject to inspection under section 3301(6) of this title if the vessel is unmanned and does not carry—(1) a hazardous material as cargo; or(2) a flammable or combustible liquid, including oil, in bulk."not a lawyer so not sure if this actually covers what it sounds like
heres some information i found a while back. sounds like the coast gaurd is wanting to define the asds as something other than a barge.Quote from: dorkmo on 03/24/2016 07:28 amfound somethinghttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/14/2011-32007/seagoing-barges"In 1993, Congress exempted from inspection seagoing barges that are unmanned and not carrying hazardous material as cargo, or carrying a flammable or combustible liquid, including oil, in bulk."https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title46/html/USCODE-2014-title46-subtitleII-partB-chap33-sec3302.htm"(m) A seagoing barge is not subject to inspection under section 3301(6) of this title if the vessel is unmanned and does not carry—(1) a hazardous material as cargo; or(2) a flammable or combustible liquid, including oil, in bulk."not a lawyer so not sure if this actually covers what it sounds like
How often are sea going ships subject to a drydock inspection... ?
If this is a routine inspection, then why is the owner scrambling to find a dry dock? They should be prepared, or is it a case of as we call it "Christmas comes always as a surprise"?
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/09/2016 04:47 pmQuote from: cscott on 06/09/2016 04:00 pmI wonder if we're getting related issues confused in our game of telephone here. What if SpaceX wanted to do a "major" refit of their fleet, that would require a dry dock for inspection *after the modifications were made*. Then we'd hear roughly the same story: barge owners looking for a dry dock to enable coast guard inspection (...after modifications).I can tell you categorically this is coming from USCG, not SpaceX. Elon must be fuming. If they have to splash just one stage while the ASDSes are in drydock, that's throwing away a $20M asset, depending on your accounting math...just when they've figured out how to make the ASDS landings work and are speeding up launch tempos.The timing stinks, but maybe they can schedule the OCISLY drydock inspection for the period around an RTLS mission and try not to miss any GTO sea landings.You edited away my EDIT section. It seems clear to me now that this is a normal and expected 2.5yr service-in-saltwater requirement. Hard to see how Elon would be "fuming" about something everyone has known all along. I'm sure the logistics are still very challenging for all involved, especially with uncertainties about the Panama Canal new lock opening dates and the ever-shifting SpaceX launch schedule. Challenging, yes. *Surprising*, no.
(32)“seagoing barge” means a non-self-propelled vessel of at least 100 gross tons as measured under section 14502 of this title, or an alternate tonnage measured under section 14302 of this title as prescribed by the Secretary undersection 14104 of this title making voyages beyond the Boundary Line.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title46/html/USCODE-2014-title46-subtitleII-partB-chap33-sec3302.htm"(m) A seagoing barge is not subject to inspection under section 3301(6) of this title if the vessel is unmanned and does not carry—(1) a hazardous material as cargo; or(2) a flammable or combustible liquid, including oil, in bulk."
Elon has always very clearly stated the vessel is a ship, not a barge, based on this definition ("self-propelled"). Therefore the ASDS does not fall under the sea-going barge exemption from inspection.
Any guesses as to whether this inspection mess will impact the next ASDS sortie, which should be just hours away?
MARMAC 304 was launched in August 2013, so it might have a few months of grace left. (Which explains why they are not as frantic about west coast dry docks.)
MARMAC 303/OCISLY was launched in May 2013 according to http://www.mcdonoughmarine.com/recent-news.html. Assuming it had its first dry dock inspection in that month, OCISLY is now ~1 month past due. (Which would explain the scurry.)MARMAC 304 was launched in August 2013, so it might have a month or so of grace left. (Which explains why they are not as frantic about west coast dry docks.)