SpaceX Falcon 9 - EchoStar 23 - March 16, 2017 - DISCUSSION

[IanThePineapple]

Who thinks USLaunchReport WOULDN'T cover the static fire?

[ZachS09]

Who thinks USLaunchReport WOULDN'T cover the static fire?

Maybe some guy who's not interested in spaceflight news or whatever?

[Jim]

If a hotfire actually takes place Jan 21 the schedule of both EchoStar 23 and the CRS will hold to their dates. The hotfire could end being as much a main stream media news story as the RTF launch.

I remember when they did the hotfire of Columbia before the STS-1 launch in 1981 - my memoryserves me correctly several of the major networks covered it live.  Considering the history of LC-39A and the added attention since the Amos-6 anomaly, I would not be surprised if at least one major news outlet breaks into their programming and covers it live.

Nah.  No where near the same news level.   LC-39 doesn't mean anything outside of this community.

[meekGee]

If a hotfire actually takes place Jan 21 the schedule of both EchoStar 23 and the CRS will hold to their dates. The hotfire could end being as much a main stream media news story as the RTF launch.

I remember when they did the hotfire of Columbia before the STS-1 launch in 1981 - my memoryserves me correctly several of the major networks covered it live.  Considering the history of LC-39A and the added attention since the Amos-6 anomaly, I would not be surprised if at least one major news outlet breaks into their programming and covers it live.

While the static fire will likely be a news story, I would be very surprised to see it covered live. The launch, perhaps; a test, no.

perhaps, but I could all but guarantee USLaunchReport will be recording it...

Hey, what are the odds...

[Chris Bergin]

NET Jan 30, just after midnight local time now, per L2 KSC schedule. Pad is the constraint, as the Static Fire date is what's moving as the primary driver (pending remaining pad work).

[ZachS09]

What is taking the pad people so long?

[abaddon]

What is taking the pad people so long?

Why do you think it is "so long"?

[Herb Schaltegger]

What is taking the pad people so long?

Why do you think it is "so long"?

Arguably they've had several years to get 39A ready.

However, realistically, the AMOS-6 event certainly pushed LC39A readiness a lot higher up the SpaceX priority list.

Perhaps what ZachS09 might've meant was more along the lines of, "What is the long-pole in the tent prior to the first launch?"

[Kansan52]

I was musing about 39a being 'late'. Lots have happened there. However, anything that might be affected by F9 changes were held in abeyance so the final pad design could handle those changes.

Now it's time to finish with the best design possible. Seems everyday they get closer but not knowing is killing me!

[Space Ghost 1962]

Suggest "perfect is the enemy of good".

[Darkseraph]

Given what was revealed about their finances recently, better they take time to get everything right with Pad 39A (even if it's a bit late). Losing two Pads on the East Coast would be extremely bad news for them.

[Robotbeat]

Given what was revealed about their finances recently, better they take time to get everything right with Pad 39A (even if it's a bit late). Losing two Pads on the East Coast would be extremely bad news for them.

How do you get that?

Honestly, they were doing much better than I thought considering the failure.

[meekGee]

Suggest "perfect is the enemy of good".

F9, even block 5, is still far from perfect...  It's more like a "perfect compromise" given the specific circumstances of SpaceX.

And we'll see just how final it'll be....

[wannamoonbase]

Suggest "perfect is the enemy of good".

F9, even block 5, is still far from perfect...  It's more like a "perfect compromise" given the specific circumstances of SpaceX.

And we'll see just how final it'll be....

It will be final until the Block 6.

[johng]

Is this flight still scheduled for RTLS?

[envy887]

Is this flight still scheduled for RTLS?

No flights to GTO have done RTLS.

[ChrisGebhardt]

What is taking the pad people so long?

In reality, the pad is not taking long.  The thing here that is different is that the pad, as of 14 January with Iridium NEXT RTF, is now the primary factor in when east coast missions can start launching.  That's unusual as the pad is nearly always ready long before a rocket because of developmental delays to the rocket.  Furthermore, they're not just getting 39A ready for Falcon 9.  It's also being prepped for two variants of a rocket.  To take a pad that was "progressing but still months out from being ready with no firm date of readiness" on 1 September 2016 to "first launch" by the end of January 2017 is seriously impressive.  And the fact that we're only talking about a less-than-one-month realignment at this point to the Echostar-23 date is impressive.

39A has always been the long poll item for resumption of east coast launches -- and its readiness has only been spotlighted because it didn't take SpaceX long to RTF.  Orbital ATK's failure in 2014 resulted in a full year to get the pad repaired -- the the rocket redesign took longer, so no one "noticed" how long it took at get pad 0A ready again.  SpaceX had the benefit of having already been deep into work on 39A, and that's the only reason we're even talking about east coast launches for Falcon at this point.  If they only had SLC-40, we'd be months if not a full year out from resumption of Cape launches of Falcon.

IIRC, the last time the pad was the main long poll item was 2008 between STS-122/Atlantis and STS-123/Endeavour.  That 33 day launch-to-launch campaign was constrained by an 11-day period it took them to get 39A refurbished from 122's launch to be ready to receive 123 for its then nominal 22-day pad flow.

[Prettz]

Furthermore, they're not just getting 39A ready for Falcon 9.  It's also being prepped for two variants of a rocket.

Can you expand on this? In what ways is "getting the pad ready for F9 and FH" a different task from "getting the pad ready"?

To take a pad that was "progressing but still months out from being ready with no firm date of readiness" on 1 September 2016 to "first launch" by the end of January 2017 is seriously impressive.

On September 1 they were still saying 39A would be ready in November.

I'd say the original question still stands.

[Lar]

Furthermore, they're not just getting 39A ready for Falcon 9.  It's also being prepped for two variants of a rocket.

Can you expand on this? In what ways is "getting the pad ready for F9 and FH" a different task from "getting the pad ready"?

GSE, the hold downs, the clamps on the TLE, and a bunch of other stuff differ from one to the other. Why would you think it's not a different task?

To take a pad that was "progressing but still months out from being ready with no firm date of readiness" on 1 September 2016 to "first launch" by the end of January 2017 is seriously impressive.

On September 1 they were still saying 39A would be ready in November.

I'd say the original question still stands.

SpaceX time dilation...

Make sure you're not concern trolling, please.

[gongora]

I don't see the FCC application for recovery of this booster, and I do see them for flights that should be CRS-10 (no drone ship location) and SES-10 (later in February date).  Was it granted a long time ago and I'm just missing it?  If not, will be interesting to see if this booster has legs.