Down range could definitely be a factor when selecting a site. Given SpaceX's plans, it may be no less important a factor than many of the other points in that summary.
In my estimation, one factor not given nearly enough credence is exclusivity. Given SpaceX's clear plans for high launch frequencies, one finds it difficult to believe they would select any site not offering mitigation against competitor interference.
Quote from: Linze on 04/03/2013 04:41 pmIn my estimation, one factor not given nearly enough credence is exclusivity. Given SpaceX's clear plans for high launch frequencies, one finds it difficult to believe they would select any site not offering mitigation against competitor interference. Why have they said 12 launches a year, then? That's just not "high"... yes it's a significant fraction of today's total launch frequency but it's not high I expect them to revise that upwards. At some point
I'm equally curious as to why they put forward the 12 launches per year figure. I agree with your assessment, 12 per can not be considered "high". That figure is clearly at odds with high launch frequencies seemingly required by so many of SpaceX's plans. At a guess, it's just a PR figure to create minimal pushback from the locals. The actual contract will say something quite different, perhaps providing an obscure loophole through which SpaceX could quickly increase frequency.
• FAA would issue launch licenses and/or experimental permits to SpaceX to conduct rocket launches• SpaceX proposes to launch the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy (up to two per year), and a variety of smaller reusable suborbital launch vehicles• The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy may also carry a capsule, such as the SpaceX Dragon Capsule• SpaceX proposes to conduct up to 12 launches a year
12 flights per year per pad seems to be maximum anticipated launch rate with the v1.1 flow (from a practical perspective) - So it makes sense that they would establish that up front for every prospective launch site.It's not like they would instantly have 36 missions per year with 3 active pads. Not for a long time - and it seems doubtful that they would reach a flight rate of 12/year at VAFB, even if they would capture the entire market.
I'm equally curious as to why they put forward the 12 launches per year figure.
Quote from: Linze on 04/03/2013 05:59 pmI'm equally curious as to why they put forward the 12 launches per year figure. I suspect they don't want to rock the boat. Once they get the ball rolling, environmental and other concerns will ease somewhat. At that point, they can apply for a higher launch rate with a greater chance of success.
Texas is supposedly for non-DOD / NASA launches. It's only cost effective if Bigelow actually has a LEO space station that requires lots of launches for re-supply and tourists each year. Unfortunately, I see this as very unlikely to happen this decade.
Quote from: Lars_J on 04/03/2013 09:47 pm12 flights per year per pad seems to be maximum anticipated launch rate with the v1.1 flow (from a practical perspective) - So it makes sense that they would establish that up front for every prospective launch site.It's not like they would instantly have 36 missions per year with 3 active pads. Not for a long time - and it seems doubtful that they would reach a flight rate of 12/year at VAFB, even if they would capture the entire market.ULA doesn't do 12 per year from VAFB, and they have the entire DOD market. Given a decreasing DOD budget, I would expect fewer launches, not more.Texas is supposedly for non-DOD / NASA launches. It's only cost effective if Bigelow actually has a LEO space station that requires lots of launches for re-supply and tourists each year. Unfortunately, I see this as very unlikely to happen this decade. It isn't needed to support Mars missions. Why build a whole separate pad for that, when a few extra integration buildings near the existing launch sites would do just fine. Remember, they can roll the LV out to the pad in a few hours, max. The long pole is testing and integration. If they need to launch every week from a single east coast pad, that is technically possible if the range assets aren't busy.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 04/03/2013 10:50 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 04/03/2013 09:47 pm12 flights per year per pad seems to be maximum anticipated launch rate with the v1.1 flow (from a practical perspective) - So it makes sense that they would establish that up front for every prospective launch site.It's not like they would instantly have 36 missions per year with 3 active pads. Not for a long time - and it seems doubtful that they would reach a flight rate of 12/year at VAFB, even if they would capture the entire market.ULA doesn't do 12 per year from VAFB, and they have the entire DOD market. Given a decreasing DOD budget, I would expect fewer launches, not more.Texas is supposedly for non-DOD / NASA launches. It's only cost effective if Bigelow actually has a LEO space station that requires lots of launches for re-supply and tourists each year. Unfortunately, I see this as very unlikely to happen this decade. It isn't needed to support Mars missions. Why build a whole separate pad for that, when a few extra integration buildings near the existing launch sites would do just fine. Remember, they can roll the LV out to the pad in a few hours, max. The long pole is testing and integration. If they need to launch every week from a single east coast pad, that is technically possible if the range assets aren't busy.The key here and is probably the major item for seeking such a launch site in Texas is range availability. The Cape range requires a 3 day down time between range activities. The cape range is very active with lots of different types of vehicles and activities. So having an exclusive range that has no problems or a minimum of problems in scheduling a launch date is a very big advantage for a commercial launch business.
The key here and is probably the major item for seeking such a launch site in Texas is range availability. The Cape range requires a 3 day down time between range activities.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/04/2013 02:54 pmThe key here and is probably the major item for seeking such a launch site in Texas is range availability. The Cape range requires a 3 day down time between range activities.If we buy into SpaceX eventually wanting to do a huge rate of launches, would there be a three-day turnaround if two consecutive launches were of the same launcher?cheers, Martin
Quote from: Lar on 04/03/2013 04:56 pmQuote from: Linze on 04/03/2013 04:41 pmIn my estimation, one factor not given nearly enough credence is exclusivity. Given SpaceX's clear plans for high launch frequencies, one finds it difficult to believe they would select any site not offering mitigation against competitor interference. Why have they said 12 launches a year, then? That's just not "high"... yes it's a significant fraction of today's total launch frequency but it's not high I expect them to revise that upwards. At some pointI'm equally curious as to why they put forward the 12 launches per year figure. I agree with your assessment, 12 per can not be considered "high". That figure is clearly at odds with high launch frequencies seemingly required by so many of SpaceX's plans. At a guess, it's just a PR figure to create minimal pushback from the locals. The actual contract will say something quite different, perhaps providing an obscure loophole through which SpaceX could quickly increase frequency.