Not happening. It doesn't do them any good to buy and physically have the vehicles. The Air Force could just used the next booster available. It doesn't need to have them stored. But that still is not going to happen. There still is about 6 months of analytic integration required. And there are no payloads that can react that quick either.
Correct me if I'm wrong but a 'quick reaction launch on need' scenario such as the one Chuck describes would have had the analytics done years before. A standardised payload would be integrated onto an existing stack using a standardised interface. There would be the maximum effort to avoid deviations of mass, centre of gravity and the like.Quote from: Jim on 06/07/2017 04:16 pmAnd there are no payloads that can react that quick either.Chuck wasn't claiming that there was such a payload. What he was saying is that the Falcon-9 allows for the USAF or NRO to develop such a payload with the assurance that there is a launch capability suitable for such a spacecraft and mission.
And there are no payloads that can react that quick either.
Currently, it is understood that the mission will utilize a brand new booster – as most of the Block 5 upgrades understood to be specifically for U.S. Air Force missions are not included on previous booster variants.This was seemingly confirmed by the U.S. Air Force Thursday evening, which issued a statement saying, “This mission will be the program’s first launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 Upgrade launch vehicle.”
This quote from the article confused me:Quote from: Chris GebhardtCurrently, it is understood that the mission will utilize a brand new booster – as most of the Block 5 upgrades understood to be specifically for U.S. Air Force missions are not included on previous booster variants.This was seemingly confirmed by the U.S. Air Force Thursday evening, which issued a statement saying, “This mission will be the program’s first launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 Upgrade launch vehicle.”Is Chris G saying that Block V could debut in August for this flight? That seems unlikely to me. Block IV though looks likely since we've already seen the second stage.
... Falcon 9 has not enable this. This has been talked for decades . ...
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 06/07/2017 05:33 pmThis quote from the article confused me:Quote from: Chris GebhardtCurrently, it is understood that the mission will utilize a brand new booster – as most of the Block 5 upgrades understood to be specifically for U.S. Air Force missions are not included on previous booster variants.This was seemingly confirmed by the U.S. Air Force Thursday evening, which issued a statement saying, “This mission will be the program’s first launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 Upgrade launch vehicle.”Is Chris G saying that Block V could debut in August for this flight? That seems unlikely to me. Block IV though looks likely since we've already seen the second stage.There's no way this booster will get a Block 5 stage of any kind. It's barely going to get a full Block 4.
The spaceplane will be boosted into space by a Falcon 9 Upgrade.
Isn't Block 5 the one that meets Air Force requirements?
Quote from: old_sellsword on 06/07/2017 05:41 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 06/07/2017 05:33 pmThis quote from the article confused me:Quote from: Chris GebhardtCurrently, it is understood that the mission will utilize a brand new booster – as most of the Block 5 upgrades understood to be specifically for U.S. Air Force missions are not included on previous booster variants.This was seemingly confirmed by the U.S. Air Force Thursday evening, which issued a statement saying, “This mission will be the program’s first launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 Upgrade launch vehicle.”Is Chris G saying that Block V could debut in August for this flight? That seems unlikely to me. Block IV though looks likely since we've already seen the second stage.There's no way this booster will get a Block 5 stage of any kind. It's barely going to get a full Block 4.Isn't Block 5 the one that meets Air Force requirements?
While the 11,000 lb weight of the X-37B suggests a RTLS, would that still hold once the weight of the fairing is factored in?
Unlike NROL payloads, at this point there is no secret to the outer mold line of the X-37b, nor what it looks like, aside from whatever may be installed in the payload bay. It would be excellent PR for the Air Force to allow video coverage through payload separation in future missions ... Footage of a neat little spaceplane inserted into orbit from the nose of an American rocket seems to be just the kind of imagery America would eat up in this day and age.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 06/08/2017 01:20 amUnlike NROL payloads, at this point there is no secret to the outer mold line of the X-37b, nor what it looks like, aside from whatever may be installed in the payload bay. It would be excellent PR for the Air Force to allow video coverage through payload separation in future missions ... Footage of a neat little spaceplane inserted into orbit from the nose of an American rocket seems to be just the kind of imagery America would eat up in this day and age.That would be nice, but why didn't they do it for Atlas V launches?
Quote from: cppetrie on 06/07/2017 01:11 amQuote from: gongora on 06/07/2017 01:07 amQuote from: yokem55 on 06/07/2017 01:01 amBut ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.Why do you think this needs to fly in August? Maybe that's just where it ended up on the SpaceX schedule when the contract was signed.Because they said it would launch in August and it is June. At this point there is little reason to believe they would quote an original contract date from some time ago that would have slipped by now. If they said August today I think it's pretty reasonable to assume they fully intend on this going up in August based on today's current schedule and manifest.The NROL-76 launch date didn't seem to slip after the AMOS-6 accident. You're throwing together a whole bunch of assumptions. You're making assumptions about what the mission requirements were, you're making assumptions about when it was bid, you're making assumptions about SpaceX schedule priority.edit: trimmed quotes
Quote from: gongora on 06/07/2017 01:07 amQuote from: yokem55 on 06/07/2017 01:01 amBut ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.Why do you think this needs to fly in August? Maybe that's just where it ended up on the SpaceX schedule when the contract was signed.Because they said it would launch in August and it is June. At this point there is little reason to believe they would quote an original contract date from some time ago that would have slipped by now. If they said August today I think it's pretty reasonable to assume they fully intend on this going up in August based on today's current schedule and manifest.
Quote from: yokem55 on 06/07/2017 01:01 amBut ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.Why do you think this needs to fly in August? Maybe that's just where it ended up on the SpaceX schedule when the contract was signed.
But ULA already has 3 launches booked for August, 2 at Canaveral and 1 at Vandenberg. If this was put out for very quick bid in May, than I think ULA would have been hard pressed to get this one added to August without bumping one of the other launches.
Quote from: Jcc on 06/08/2017 01:34 amQuote from: Herb Schaltegger on 06/08/2017 01:20 amUnlike NROL payloads, at this point there is no secret to the outer mold line of the X-37b, nor what it looks like, aside from whatever may be installed in the payload bay. It would be excellent PR for the Air Force to allow video coverage through payload separation in future missions ... Footage of a neat little spaceplane inserted into orbit from the nose of an American rocket seems to be just the kind of imagery America would eat up in this day and age.That would be nice, but why didn't they do it for Atlas V launches?ULA launch coverage seems to amount to animations after about 10km of altitude. They basically don't show launch video of anything regardless of the payload.Edit: I have al kinds of respect for ULA and its parent companies (I have a cousin who works for LM) and what they have accomplished in space and with their launch vehicles. That said, their launch coverage is about as exciting and awe-inspiring as watch paint dry.