Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/20/2017 01:41 pmIf expendable then there's no need to toss away expensive legs and fins. These things are installed at the launch site, so this step would just be skipped. HOWEVER, it's my strong hope that Block 5 (1.3? Fullest Thrust??) or FH would be available by launch time, thereby not having to go the expendable route. I think it's baked right into SpaceX's very core to not expend (<- see what I did there?)I don't think block 5 will do much in that regard. It is more about ease of reusability. They need to do some expendable flights because FH is not yet ready for regular flight and flight rates. Which will need block 5.
If expendable then there's no need to toss away expensive legs and fins. These things are installed at the launch site, so this step would just be skipped. HOWEVER, it's my strong hope that Block 5 (1.3? Fullest Thrust??) or FH would be available by launch time, thereby not having to go the expendable route. I think it's baked right into SpaceX's very core to not expend (<- see what I did there?)
Expendables might make sense from the point of view of "we have these old-spec cores that are iffy for reuse anyway, shiny new block 5s coming next that are designed for easy reuse... and some FH launches that are late, but could fly on an expendable F9. How about we just toss a few of these old spec boosters, get some pressure off the manifest - win win. I mean, we're running low on storage space for recovered boosters anyway"
Why are launch providers not in a position to dictate to customers that delays on the customer's side mean they get pushed down the queue? After all, this has financial implications for the launch provider. Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/07/2017 02:58 pmWhy are launch providers not in a position to dictate to customers that delays on the customer's side mean they get pushed down the queue? After all, this has financial implications for the launch provider. Does it not make business sense to say well, Inmarsat has leapfrogged you now, NROL, because you missed your booked date?I think the reason is that the launch flow is highly pipelined, and there aren't multiples of most things. So it's not easy to leapfrog the launch schedule for small delays, since flight X is using equipment Y for a whole week, and it would cost more than it would save to get flight X off of Y and put flight X+1 on there early. (And then flight X still has to use equipment Y for a full week sometime later, delaying flights after that one...)I think where you do see leapfrogging happen is when the delay becomes known at a time where there's a natural gap between pipeline stages and there is storage available. (Storage at the cape is getting quite tight we hear.). The step where a stage is trucked from McGregor to the Cape seems to be one such gap. But NROL is already at the Cape, and all indications are that the delay was caused by some payload problem discovered during integration with the F9. So it's already taking up its pipeline stage, and it would only slow up the flow (including problem resolution) to take the payload off the rocket and move everything out of the hanger. You might get Inmarsat launched quicker, but NROL would end up taking up even more time when it got back in line.If SpaceX is successful in getting land-to-reflight times significantly down, necessarily including the payload integration portion of that process, then I'd think you'd see more leapfrogging. But while the launch flow is months long with a single copy of each pipeline stage it's really hard to make short-notice swaps.IMNSHO, I'm not an expert, have no special knowledge, etc, etc.
IWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?
Quote from: Wolfram66 on 04/07/2017 04:41 pmIWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?What is a F9FT-Slick config?
Quote from: gongora on 04/07/2017 04:46 pmQuote from: Wolfram66 on 04/07/2017 04:41 pmIWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?What is a F9FT-Slick config?SLICK = Expendable - No Legs or Grid-fins
Quote from: Wolfram66 on 04/07/2017 04:41 pmIWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?Is that an official (SpaceX) term, or did you just make it up?
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/07/2017 05:12 pmQuote from: Wolfram66 on 04/07/2017 04:41 pmIWIK if the F9FT-Slick configs for InmarSat even been tested at McGregor and Delivered to the Cape?Is that an official (SpaceX) term, or did you just make it up?I figured it was burrowed from the vi't nam-era slang term for a UH-1 Huey without external weapons attached.