-
#180
by
Nomadd
on 15 Sep, 2014 16:08
-
(speculating) Perhaps the slip was caused by the 1st stage swap from the booster that was originally scheduled to fly with the new one that doesn't have legs.
The swap was talked about for a long while now, at least going back to Asiasat 8. More likely the delay is just due to the very tight turnaround schedule. Might not be the only move to the right, either.
Exactly. With a schedule this tight, *everything* is on the critical path. Any slight hiccoughs anywhere are going to lead to rightward shifts. The flip side is that this one day slip gives *everyone* a little extra room. So every slip decreases the likelihood of further slips, to some degree.
Keep digging. There has to be a pony in their somewhere.
-
#181
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 15 Sep, 2014 16:11
-
Actually we are talking about small process slips in the order of hours or minutes. After awhile these small slips can add up. Adding a day makes it possible to absorb these small slips while still targeting for the 19th.
I have been away (without regular Internet access for a week while traveling). A lot has happened. More than I thought SpaceX was going to be able to accomplish. Expecting a NET 28 Sept launch on Sept 7. A 14 day process flow has blown me away.
If they can do it that demonstrates a better than 12 per year capability even with significant slips. A 4 week process flow with uncontrollable slips added would mean an average 6 weeek process or about 9 launches a year. A 2 week process flow capability means an average of 3 weeks with slips added for about 18 launches a year capability. WOW!!!!
-
#182
by
wannamoonbase
on 15 Sep, 2014 16:47
-
If they can do it that demonstrates a better than 12 per year capability even with significant slips. A 4 week process flow with uncontrollable slips added would mean an average 6 weeek process or about 9 launches a year. A 2 week process flow capability means an average of 3 weeks with slips added for about 18 launches a year capability. WOW!!!!
I would add, 'per launch pad'.
Throw in 39A, VAFB and Brownsville and the numbers get hugely impressive.
-
#183
by
Llian Rhydderch
on 15 Sep, 2014 17:35
-
If they can do it that demonstrates a better than 12 per year capability even with significant slips. A 4 week process flow with uncontrollable slips added would mean an average 6 weeek process or about 9 launches a year. A 2 week process flow capability means an average of 3 weeks with slips added for about 18 launches a year capability. WOW!!!!
I would add, 'per launch pad'.
Throw in 39A, VAFB and Brownsville and the numbers get hugely impressive.
And FWIW, Shotwell has been pretty clear in public statements that Brownsville is
not the end of it. SpaceX, she has said, will be looking to have lots of launch pads.
-
#184
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 15 Sep, 2014 17:44
-
Here's to hopping they pull it off with a successful launch of CRS-4 on 20-21 Sept.
-
#185
by
laika_fr
on 16 Sep, 2014 02:39
-
Launching within 2 weeks only a year after the commercial offering really started is somewhat eerie.
Feels like a dimension opens, hopefully they'll soon have time machines for sale.
-
#186
by
macpacheco
on 16 Sep, 2014 04:02
-
And FWIW, Shotwell has been pretty clear in public statements that Brownsville is not the end of it. SpaceX, she has said, will be looking to have lots of launch pads.
In the very long run perhaps.
But there's no logic in having more than LC40/LC39A/Vandy/Brownsville until 2020. It would be a waste of resources.
Except perhaps as a means to getting more congressional support, by opening up another launchpad in yet another state.
I sense a major SpaceX vs SLS war coming.
-
#187
by
Vultur
on 16 Sep, 2014 05:53
-
Is the Planetary Resources A3 testbed still on this launch?
-
#188
by
Zed_Noir
on 16 Sep, 2014 06:01
-
And FWIW, Shotwell has been pretty clear in public statements that Brownsville is not the end of it. SpaceX, she has said, will be looking to have lots of launch pads.
In the very long run perhaps.
But there's no logic in having more than LC40/LC39A/Vandy/Brownsville until 2020. It would be a waste of resources.
Except perhaps as a means to getting more congressional support, by opening up another launchpad in yet another state.
I sense a major SpaceX vs SLS war coming.
Shotwell did say LC-39A is inadequate for the BFR. So new pads & logistics infrastructure will be needed to be started by 2018 to test the BFR by around 2020.
Bit we are drifting off topic. Let get back to the CRS-4/SPX-4.
-
#189
by
cro-magnon gramps
on 16 Sep, 2014 08:20
-
Is the Planetary Resources A3 testbed still on this launch?
do you have a link for this
-
#190
by
topsphere
on 16 Sep, 2014 08:29
-
Is the Planetary Resources A3 testbed still on this launch?
No, it's on ORB-3 launching in October.
-
#191
by
theonlyspace
on 16 Sep, 2014 09:45
-
Does anyone know if Space X has made public the flight patch or emblem for CRS/SpX 4 yet? Has NASA made a emblem for the flight yet? Anyone has a link to the SpX 4 Press Kit?
-
#192
by
GregA
on 16 Sep, 2014 10:19
-
The public doesn't really care, honestly, and would probably prefer a giant fireball to a soft touchdown 3 times out of 4 anyway for sheer entertainment value.
Ha!
Now there's an interesting show they could put on for launches like the last one where they didn't have enough leftover fuel for landing.
Put an interesting old wreck of a boat out at sea and try to hit it. Ratings would be good, someone would start a betting pool.
-
#193
by
averagespacejoe
on 16 Sep, 2014 14:40
-
Does anyone know if Space X has made public the flight patch or emblem for CRS/SpX 4 yet? Has NASA made a emblem for the flight yet? Anyone has a link to the SpX 4 Press Kit?
The trend tends to be that SpaceX does not release the patch design until after the static fire is complete. So expect one in the next day or two. As for NASA sometimes earlier sometimes later haven't seen it yet.
-
#194
by
northenarc
on 17 Sep, 2014 14:05
-
Static fire test today?
-
#195
by
Chris Bergin
on 17 Sep, 2014 14:19
-
Static fire test today?
That's the L2 CRS-4 scheduled timeline, but we traditionally wait until rollout and confirmation to proceed before I add it to the update thread on the open forum - or via the article when conducted. Otherwise it gets leeched by social media sites (and other news sites) and misrepresented.
-
#196
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 17 Sep, 2014 14:36
-
Static fire test today?
That's the L2 CRS-4 scheduled timeline, but we traditionally wait until rollout and confirmation to proceed before I add it to the update thread on the open forum - or via the article when conducted. Otherwise it gets leeched by social media sites (and other news sites) and misrepresented.
Chris, you realise that, due to L2, you are practically SpaceX's PAO sometimes?
-
#197
by
mr. mark
on 17 Sep, 2014 18:08
-
Seems like this flight is getting lost in the haze of the commercial crew decision. It's time to get back on track. One launch at a time. Here's to a very successful flight. Go mousetronauts.
-
#198
by
sghill
on 17 Sep, 2014 18:14
-
Static fire test today?
That's the L2 CRS-4 scheduled timeline, but we traditionally wait until rollout and confirmation to proceed before I add it to the update thread on the open forum - or via the article when conducted. Otherwise it gets leeched by social media sites (and other news sites) and misrepresented.
Chris, you realise that, due to L2, you are practically SpaceX's PAO sometimes?
Harumph! They could use a good PAO.
-
#199
by
northenarc
on 17 Sep, 2014 18:16
-
Static fire test today?
That's the L2 CRS-4 scheduled timeline, but we traditionally wait until rollout and confirmation to proceed before I add it to the update thread on the open forum - or via the article when conducted. Otherwise it gets leeched by social media sites (and other news sites) and misrepresented.
I can certainly understand that, I might be getting slightly L2 tempted
Bit we are drifting off topic. Let get back to the CRS-4/SPX-4.
