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

[M.E.T.]

Fair points raised by everyone after my question. I guess Shotwell did say every 2-3 weeks, and 12 March is indeed 3 weeks from the CRS-10 launch date.

So if they achieve that and gradually improve from there they might achieve a 2 week turnaround time by the time LC40 comes back online.

[watermod]

This is a really good argument both for the Texas Launch site and for any rocket launching company (SpaceX and everybody) not to locate on a shared range.

Otherwise various players can always modulate your launch timing and rates.  This, of course, impacts profitability.

[marksmit]

Chris B said in the update thread that the new NET date is because of limited range availability with the Delta IV launch on March 8th. Therefore the current schedule cannot be used as a starting point to discuss technical turnaround at pad 39A, hardware availability, etc.

[manoweb]

But are not the different pads at distances big enough that should not impact each other? Is it not theoretically possible to have different pads launch even on the same day? Or is it a safety issue and for no reason a static fire might be performed if any of the pads in the State of Florida is used for a launch?

[gospacex]

Bureaucracy and "procedures" are not that easy to change.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I think I remember Jim saying that the current safety regulations for the Eastern Range is one launch every 72 hours. This is to give tracking and range safety staff enough down-time to be back to top condition for the next launch.

[Jim]

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

Not a bunch, just Saturn V and Saturn I.
Shuttle only had one and it was permanent

[Jim]

Bureaucracy and "procedures" are not that easy to change.

What "Bureaucracy and procedures" are you talking about?  And what does it have to do with this topic?

[Jim]

But are not the different pads at distances big enough that should not impact each other? Is it not theoretically possible to have different pads launch even on the same day? Or is it a safety issue and for no reason a static fire might be performed if any of the pads in the State of Florida is used for a launch?

It isn't safety. There are shared resources.

[manoweb]

Can you name some such shared resources, that will help me understand why SpaceX does not provide their own for the launch of Echostar 23

[Jim]

Can you name some such shared resources, that will help me understand why SpaceX does not provide their own for the launch of Echostar 23

GN2 pipeline.  Range tracking cameras, comm to orbital tracking sites, comm to other spaceport facilities, fire and rescue personnel, telemetry receivers, etc

[Joffan]

Bureaucracy and "procedures" are not that easy to change.

Changing procedures should have a certain amount of difficulty associated with it, or you are likely to lose the knowledge captured by those procedures.

[WizZifnab]

I've heard that range requires 72hrs to reset.  I've also heard range is required for static fire.  If the Delta IV M+ is launching Mar 8/9, then range wouldn't be reset till Mar 11/12.  With Falcon 9 launch planned for NET Mar 12, that seem to imply that the static fire will happen 72hrs before the Delta IV M+ launch, so maybe Mar 5th or even earlier.   Assuming is ok for it to be that far in advance of Falcon 9 launch on March 12. Otherwise we'd see a NET Mar 15.

Assuming no other delays for either launch of course.

Does that sound right?

[Jim]

It is 48 hrs

[WizZifnab]

It is 48 hrs

Thanks Jim.

So that would make it Mar 6 or earlier for the Falcon 9 static fire right?  Technically seems possible for a Mar 10 if the Delphi IV M+ launched on Mar 8.  However, the time between static fire and launch for the Falcon 9 isn't constrained by another range reset is it?  Its more about SpaceX typically wanting static fire to be at least 3 days ahead of launch for the LRR based on static fire.  So still seems they would have indicated a NET Mar 13.

So still seems like they are planning to static fire ahead of the Delta IV M+ launch.  Either that or they are intending to consider the possibility of just a 2 day lead with the static fire.  Or NET Mar 15 is more likely.

[AndyH]

I think I remember Jim saying that the current safety regulations for the Eastern Range is one launch every 72 hours. This is to give tracking and range safety staff enough down-time to be back to top condition for the next launch.

I wonder if it might be time to hire a few more folks and get them trained.  Unless the plan is to just deal with the timing bottleneck until the Texas launch site is on-line?

[Jim]

I wonder if it might be time to hire a few more folks and get them trained.

who is going to pay for the extra people?

[manoweb]

who is going to pay for the extra people?

As it seems SpaceX does not have a problem to fill their queue (customers) but has a bottleneck in launching (emptying the queue) the extra personnel expense should be easily paid by the augmented launch rate - unless they launch at a loss.

There are of course practical problems to this approach, Brook's law may apply here.

[matthewkantar]

I believe they are indeed attempting to fix this problem by hiring a whole bunch of people. In Boca Chica, Texas.

Matthew

[Jim]

As it seems SpaceX does not have a problem to fill their queue (customers) but has a bottleneck in launching (emptying the queue) the extra personnel expense should be easily paid by the augmented launch rate - unless they launch at a loss.

Those people aren't employed by Spacex.  They are Air Force or NASA people.  Who is going to pay for them?  Spacex flight rate isn't enough to justify adding more permanent employees.

Think of the range as a small airport (not a major one) that works 5/40.  SpaceX is adding maybe a weekend flight and two evening flights.  That doesn't justify additional full shifts.