As above, depending on the cost of delays, incremental cost of more satellites, and SpaceX's RTF timeline, there's an business case where it would make sense from Iridium's POV to launch now. They'd probably be renegotiating some very expensive insurance, but if that's cheaper than delays...But it was just a hypothetical economic discussion. It won't happen in our reality:* SpaceX wouldn't want another video of another fireball when they're working towards commerical crew.* VAFB wouldn't want anything blowing up in the vicinity of other things that aren't meant to be blown up.* The FAA may have a bit of say in here too. They may not technically have veto power, but in the long-term "How does this get us to Mars?" sense, you certainly want to play nice now.
According to this report in the AMOS-6 thread, launch appears to be scheduled for December 2016 and possibly the first reuse of a flown stage.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41252.msg1598513#msg1598513"The plan is to get back to launch in early December and that will be from pad 39A at the Cape and we will be launching around the same time from Vandenberg as well. ... We are going to re-fly the first returned core December or January. We have test fired one of the returned cores 8 times and it looks good. That is promising for testing re-flight."
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 10/16/2016 08:36 amAccording to this report in the AMOS-6 thread, launch appears to be scheduled for December 2016 and possibly the first reuse of a flown stage.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41252.msg1598513#msg1598513"The plan is to get back to launch in early December and that will be from pad 39A at the Cape and we will be launching around the same time from Vandenberg as well. ... We are going to re-fly the first returned core December or January. We have test fired one of the returned cores 8 times and it looks good. That is promising for testing re-flight."You are combining two pieces of the statement that don't go together. Iridium will fly on a new core. Then SES-10 will fly on a used core.
You are combining two pieces of the statement that don't go together. Iridium will fly on a new core. Then SES-10 will fly on a used core.
It'a be good press to actually meet September 2nd set - November RTF deadline.
QuoteIt'a be good press to actually meet September 2nd set - November RTF deadline.... And let's remember there are still (reportedly) NASA people who don't believe the strut was the (sole) root cause of the previous failure, and therefore still suspect a COPV root cause.
With COPV's possibly suspect in both failures, it's all the more reason to proceed with extreme caution.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 5m5 minutes agoSelf-evident dept: IRDM CEO says IRDM sats wont be on SpaceX Falcon 9 for static fire test. No info re launch date or if IRDM is RTF payload
QuotePeter B. de Selding @pbdes 5m5 minutes agoSelf-evident dept: IRDM CEO says IRDM sats wont be on SpaceX Falcon 9 for static fire test. No info re launch date or if IRDM is RTF payloadhttps://twitter.com/pbdes/status/793011616396763136
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/31/2016 07:53 amQuotePeter B. de Selding @pbdes 5m5 minutes agoSelf-evident dept: IRDM CEO says IRDM sats wont be on SpaceX Falcon 9 for static fire test. No info re launch date or if IRDM is RTF payloadhttps://twitter.com/pbdes/status/793011616396763136That's an even better idea than placing it on top of the Falcon 9. If another static fire failure ever occurs, then the Iridium sats won't be lost.
Will/is the second stage attached for the static fire? The question goes to what doesn't go to the pad for the static fire: just the payload or the payload and second stage (Recall the second stage failed the static fire, even though it obviously was not being fired)? How does that affect the launch cadence? Do they have to build in more time for integration?