QuoteUSAF: SpaceX's landing complex at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport is a multi-user facility...not only for Falcon-9. #SpaceCongress2016https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735157372809838592
USAF: SpaceX's landing complex at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport is a multi-user facility...not only for Falcon-9. #SpaceCongress2016
Quote from: Lar on 05/24/2016 07:08 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/24/2016 06:58 pmQuoteUSAF: SpaceX's landing complex at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport is a multi-user facility...not only for Falcon-9. #SpaceCongress2016https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735157372809838592Multi-user or multi-vehicle? I think we might need some clarification on that... what other users (companies) would be landing there?I would imagine that statement is pretty standard. That the entire range supports multiple users, whether they exist today or not.And it may also mean that what the USAF does won't be customized just for one user. Which is a good thing, since in this case SpaceX is being a pathfinder for many capabilities, and I'm sure we all hope others will follow. And when they do, the USAF will be ready to support them too.My $0.02
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/24/2016 06:58 pmQuoteUSAF: SpaceX's landing complex at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport is a multi-user facility...not only for Falcon-9. #SpaceCongress2016https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735157372809838592Multi-user or multi-vehicle? I think we might need some clarification on that... what other users (companies) would be landing there?
ho paid for the mods to the landing complex? Will SpaceX get to collect landing fees? Who decides who gets to land if there are two incoming vehicles arriving in close order (with their surface equipment waiting)This kind of seems like a rehash of Blue's attempt to prevent SpaceX from getting exclusive use of 39A ... We aren't privy to the contract details but I can't imagine SpaceX voluntarily paying for mods and then not being able to control who lands there.Or are we talking about range assets which support landings, rather than the actual pad and equipment itself?
So Jim, what is your opinion of what that tweet meant? Range assets (other than the pad) like tracking radars, etc? or the pad (and whatever equipment SpaceX has or might in future deploy there) itself?
From the Orlando Sentinel this morning...SpaceX seeks approval for two additional landing pads on Space Coasthttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-landing-pads-space-coast-20160718-story.html"...The new landing areas would be built within that [LZ-1] landing zone."I have sent a message to the PA officer asking for an electronic copy of the permissions application they submitted. There is a public comment period that ends in August. I will post it here if she responds.
Quote from: sghill on 07/19/2016 11:43 amFrom the Orlando Sentinel this morning...SpaceX seeks approval for two additional landing pads on Space Coasthttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-landing-pads-space-coast-20160718-story.html"...The new landing areas would be built within that [LZ-1] landing zone."I have sent a message to the PA officer asking for an electronic copy of the permissions application they submitted. There is a public comment period that ends in August. I will post it here if she responds.There is already an entire thread dedicated to this subject. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40667.0
Not sure where to put it, but this thread seems more appropriate than others...SpaceX CRS launch license LLS 14-087 Rev 2 was updated 15-Jul and posted today by the FAA. The only change is liability insurance requirement increase from $45M to $185M if the flight includes first stage return to launch site. Other insurance requirements remain unchanged.The other launch license for GEO sat launches, LLS 14-090 Rev 2, is unchanged; presumably because none of those are expected to involve RTLS.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/24/2016 07:56 pmQuote from: Lar on 05/24/2016 07:08 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/24/2016 06:58 pmQuoteUSAF: SpaceX's landing complex at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport is a multi-user facility...not only for Falcon-9. #SpaceCongress2016https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735157372809838592Multi-user or multi-vehicle? I think we might need some clarification on that... what other users (companies) would be landing there?I would imagine that statement is pretty standard. That the entire range supports multiple users, whether they exist today or not.And it may also mean that what the USAF does won't be customized just for one user. Which is a good thing, since in this case SpaceX is being a pathfinder for many capabilities, and I'm sure we all hope others will follow. And when they do, the USAF will be ready to support them too.My $0.02Who paid for the mods to the landing complex? Will SpaceX get to collect landing fees? Who decides who gets to land if there are two incoming vehicles arriving in close order (with their surface equipment waiting)This kind of seems like a rehash of Blue's attempt to prevent SpaceX from getting exclusive use of 39A ... We aren't privy to the contract details but I can't imagine SpaceX voluntarily paying for mods and then not being able to control who lands there.Or are we talking about range assets which support landings, rather than the actual pad and equipment itself?
As of July 4, the latest posted image, the TerraServer shows no progress on a second landing zone.However, some time between May 16 and July 4 SpaceX has repainted the X on LZ-1.It is not obvious why, but it looks great.
Quote from: Comga on 08/22/2016 06:02 pmAs of July 4, the latest posted image, the TerraServer shows no progress on a second landing zone.However, some time between May 16 and July 4 SpaceX has repainted the X on LZ-1.It is not obvious why, but it looks great. It would seem more practical to paint the X much bigger. That way you don't have to repaint after every landing with the bonus of shot-grouping (great for bingo:)
Quote from: mfck on 08/23/2016 06:17 pmQuote from: Comga on 08/22/2016 06:02 pmAs of July 4, the latest posted image, the TerraServer shows no progress on a second landing zone.However, some time between May 16 and July 4 SpaceX has repainted the X on LZ-1.It is not obvious why, but it looks great. It would seem more practical to paint the X much bigger. That way you don't have to repaint after every landing with the bonus of shot-grouping (great for bingo:)Maybe they forgot to use heat-resistant paint.
Manager of Falcon Launch Fleet Operations Trip Harriss (@SpaceXTrip) has new LZ-1 images via Apple Mapshttps://twitter.com/SpaceXTrip/status/790728268534218752