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