Could they just immediately erect it on LC-40, do a static fire say Thursday or Friday, then just take it strait back to LC-39A?
Quote from: Dante80 on 01/12/2016 05:00 pmGood call moving this to the discussion area mods. QuoteI did before I posted. No further evidence was given.That's why I posted that it was claimed to be moving there. I shouldn't have done it in the update thread though. Any ideas what is happening? Maybe this is an old one from the landing pad to LC-39A?The rocket is still dirty and it is posted by someone who's only other post was one asking if they had been banned. I think this is just an old picture of it going to LC39A that someone reposted for the hell of it.
Good call moving this to the discussion area mods. QuoteI did before I posted. No further evidence was given.That's why I posted that it was claimed to be moving there. I shouldn't have done it in the update thread though. Any ideas what is happening? Maybe this is an old one from the landing pad to LC-39A?
I did before I posted. No further evidence was given.
Yeah, had it confirmed (I asked) it's going to SLC-40. We're not sure why they opted against the original plan for 39A.
If they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.
Quote from: luinil on 01/13/2016 03:22 amIf they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.Mundane speculation: additional work is needed on LC39A HIF, having a core there is holding up the construction scheduleWild speculation: They need the LC39A HIF space for something else, something big...
Quote from: luinil on 01/13/2016 03:22 amIf they use the pad for testing, they can't use it very long as there is a launch coming, explaining the "hurry"That does not explain why they test it before the launch, they could have waited.If they need LC40 they can NOT wait. The next two launches from there are planned within an almost record beating timespantime.
Purely hypothetically: if they did want to reuse the stage for SES-9, would anyone else have a say in the matter? The range? FAA?
Pure speculation: showing they can reuse the first stages may have some credibility enhancement to their CRS II bid, should they have offered NASA a discount for these stages as part of future CRS II pricing?
Quote from: bstrong on 01/13/2016 05:11 amPurely hypothetically: if they did want to reuse the stage for SES-9, would anyone else have a say in the matter? The range? FAA?This sounds insane. But then again ...No.