Quote from: Jim on 02/23/2017 05:09 pmIt is 48 hrsThanks 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.
It is 48 hrs
Quote from: manoweb on 02/23/2017 06:29 pmAs 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.
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.
Who pays? You said it - they're AF and/or NASA folks - we all pay for them to support launch ops.
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.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 02/23/2017 06:42 pmThose 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.Not at Southwest Airlines rates. But a Saturday launch of an F9 doesn't equate to an SW 737 does it? If they want it, they can afford it.
Quote from: Jim on 02/23/2017 06:42 pmQuote from: manoweb on 02/23/2017 06:29 pmAs 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.That is why a Airport charges a passenger fee, as traffic at the airport increases traffic then fees increase. The passenger fee pays for any additional resources to support increased traffic.
Quote from: Brovane on 02/26/2017 01:36 amQuote from: Jim on 02/23/2017 06:42 pmQuote from: manoweb on 02/23/2017 06:29 pmAs 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.That is why a Airport charges a passenger fee, as traffic at the airport increases traffic then fees increase. The passenger fee pays for any additional resources to support increased traffic. Doesn't work that way with the federal gov't. Airport fees do not pay for FAA salarys
Since SpaceX is not going to recover the booster on this mission, is it known whether they intend to try anything interesting with the re-entry profile to acquire data potentially useful for future use? For example, one very old technique that has only been tried a few times is skip re-entry, which might be useful to bleed off delta-V.
I would guess, it has more to do with the entry angle. It will be following a ballistic profile and might hit the atmosphere at too steep an angle to skip.
The booster is entering the denser part of the atmosphere at too steep an angle to skip, but the grid fins have already been used to impart a small angle of attack that provides some lift, and extends the range of the glide.
