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

[craigcocca]

One thing we might be forgetting is that DoD has been trying to get X-37b on the ground at KSC, which has been causing the range to become unavailable for days at a time (this almost impacted CRS-10).  That could be the reason that the next F9 flight moved to the right.

EDIT:  Range is unavailable due to airspace closures, not because the range is supporting the landing.

[macpacheco]

Am I just naive, to experience such disappointment when SpaceX miss their target dates by such big margins?

Why say you are aiming for a launch every two weeks when the range is obviously not available for 3 weeks? Why say your first re-used launch is happening in March, when the preceding launch is NET 12 March, and you know that a 2 week cadence is long term aspirational, while a 3 week turnaround is the absolute best you can currently achieve?

I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I simply don't understand what they gain from such overly optimistic timeframe declarations.

Meanwhile SpaceX will prepare the next boosters, process payloads and so on. By the time they're ready to launch EchoStar 23, they could have SES-10 ready to go too. And perhaps they can bring LC40 reconstruction efforts into high gear too.
I don't think SpaceX even needs 2 weeks to turn around the pad itself, but rather to process the boosters and payloads for launch.

[butters]

Am I just naive, to experience such disappointment when SpaceX miss their target dates by such big margins?

Why say you are aiming for a launch every two weeks when the range is obviously not available for 3 weeks? Why say your first re-used launch is happening in March, when the preceding launch is NET 12 March, and you know that a 2 week cadence is long term aspirational, while a 3 week turnaround is the absolute best you can currently achieve?

I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I simply don't understand what they gain from such overly optimistic timeframe declarations.

This is why they're building their own launch complex in Texas.

[mme]

Am I just naive, to experience such disappointment when SpaceX miss their target dates by such big margins?

Why say you are aiming for a launch every two weeks when the range is obviously not available for 3 weeks? Why say your first re-used launch is happening in March, when the preceding launch is NET 12 March, and you know that a 2 week cadence is long term aspirational, while a 3 week turnaround is the absolute best you can currently achieve?

I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I simply don't understand what they gain from such overly optimistic timeframe declarations.

You're assuming they knew ahead of time that they couldn't make the two weeks. SpaceX always chooses the "everything goes right" estimate they think is possible. I think that their philosophy is that is how you move as fast as possible.  A couple lucky breaks would mean a few extra flights in 2017 over more conservative estimates.  Not "going for it" guarantees they don't get those extra launches.

I know this drives some people crazy and may even annoy people they work with.  Instead of 12 launches that go a day or two from their first NET, they're going for 22 launches this year.  Maybe they'll get 16 off this year.  That's better than 12, right? (All these numbers are completely made up as examples.)

[gospacex]

Am I just naive, to experience such disappointment when SpaceX miss their target dates by such big margins?

What big margins? Historically, some launches were slipping by many months.

[Lars-J]

Am I just naive, to experience such disappointment when SpaceX miss their target dates by such big margins?

What big margins? Historically, some launches were slipping by many months.

Yeah... two weeks slip? That would qualify as an over-reaction.

[daveglo]

Am I just naive, to experience such disappointment when SpaceX miss their target dates by such big margins?

Why say you are aiming for a launch every two weeks when the range is obviously not available for 3 weeks? Why say your first re-used launch is happening in March, when the preceding launch is NET 12 March, and you know that a 2 week cadence is long term aspirational, while a 3 week turnaround is the absolute best you can currently achieve?

I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I simply don't understand what they gain from such overly optimistic timeframe declarations.

Yep, you're overreacting.  Keep in mind that SpaceX's first launch was not even 11 years ago.  It takes time to build a reliable launch system, and grow the business into something stable.  With Elon's aggressive style, I'll be shocked if we EVER see an announced NET date met.  Maybe when he's on Mars. 

However, I do think that the aggressive schedule puts time pressure on the company, which will result in a higher-than-industry-average failure rate.  Only time will tell if the cost reductions continue to make the risks worth it to the payload owners.  So far, I'd say it's worked for the most part.

[Norm38]

About x-37b, it takes about an hour from deorbit burn to landing. Why do they need to close the range for 3 weeks for that?  Why can't a rocket be prepped at the pad and launch the next day?
If OHare can land hundreds of flights a day, I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Jim]

I don't think SpaceX even needs 2 weeks to turn around the pad itself,

Yes, they do.  The pad includes the TEL.

[Jim]

About x-37b, it takes about an hour from deorbit burn to landing. Why do they need to close the range for 3 weeks for that?  Why can't a rocket be prepped at the pad and launch the next day?
If OHare can land hundreds of flights a day, I don't think that's unreasonable.

very unreasonable.  Airlines don't require the same amount of support as a launch.  Also, OHare is staffed for 24/7 ops

[cscott]

And remember this is their first launch from a new pad.  There are lots of unknowns and firsts here.  They applied for the date they'd be able to make if they found no new bugs.  I think we're a bit spoiled here on NSF that we're seeing every last schedule update and every bug fix.  If you just pay attention to the dates SpaceX announced on their own Twitter, you'd probably be less disappointed.

[cscott]

(I'm not convinced by the x-37b arguments.  Last time we heard that mooted, USAF denied explicitly that there was a landing planned.  This time we are told the delay is due to WGS-9.  Maybe there are inside sources who know better what the USAF is doing, but I try not to look for unnecessary conspiracies. The delays are adequately explained by normal pad debugging.)

[ATPTourFan]

I don't think SpaceX even needs 2 weeks to turn around the pad itself,

Yes, they do.  The pad includes the TEL.

This is confirmed even with 39A?

[Jim]

I don't think SpaceX even needs 2 weeks to turn around the pad itself,

Yes, they do.  The pad includes the TEL.

This is confirmed even with 39A?

There is only one TEL at each pad.  It has to be checked out and refurbed after each launch

[IanThePineapple]

It would be interesting to have interchangable TELs like the flame deflectors, use one while refurbishing the other(s)

[Jim]

It would be interesting to have interchangable TELs like the flame deflectors, use one while refurbishing the other(s)

Which flame deflectors are interchangeable? 
Anyways, 40 is too small for the 39 TEL.

[IanThePineapple]

It would be interesting to have interchangable TELs like the flame deflectors, use one while refurbishing the other(s)

Which flame deflectors are interchangeable? 
Anyways, 40 is too small for the 39 TEL.

By that I mean have 2 of the same TELs for 39A, 2 for 40, etc.

The flame deflectors for the Shuttle, Saturn IB, and a bunch of others had twins.

[feynmanrules]

I don't think SpaceX even needs 2 weeks to turn around the pad itself,

Yes, they do.  The pad includes the TEL.

Honest q- What is unique about TEL that it needs 2-weeks?   It's being reused each time in full, or no?

I figured they were just cleaning and inspecting it and then moving it to HIF/trench area.  The latter of which seems pretty quick based on timeline of photos we see here.

[cscott]

Previously, at least, the umbilicals and electrical wires got burnt off after each launch, and had to be essentially rebuilt each time AIUI.  Probably plumbing and gaskets and valves got melted or bent out of shape by heat damage as well, requiring rebuild.  Improvements make it so less and less of it is damaged each time, but it's an incremental process (and "big" changes like throwback are part of that).  The business end of a rocket makes for a hellish environment.  There will probably always be *some* sacrificial components.

Consider: even if you protect a component by spraying some ablative coating on top, then you need to strip and respray that coating; it gets used up to some degree by each launch.

[intrepidpursuit]

I would think that just the inspection of what does need to be replaced takes more time than replacing it. There are probably miles of wiring, hundreds of feet of piping and many tons of steel structure that all have to work 100% perfectly after it was just sprayed with a million pounds of hell fire. Parts they know are sacrificial probably have easy disconnects and such, but they can't rebuild the entire thing each time. I can imagine that inspection refurb process being a very tedious and time consuming task.