-
#40
by
IntoTheVoid
on 15 Jun, 2017 10:36
-
The BulgariaSat slip makes this date a bit uncertain. We'll create the Updates thread for this launch next week after we hear more about the timing.
And then you start to run into the 4th holiday. Not sure how people will feel about launching over the holiday.
There is no better U.S. holiday for firing off rockets than 4th of July.
-
#41
by
yokem55
on 15 Jun, 2017 13:34
-
The BulgariaSat slip makes this date a bit uncertain. We'll create the Updates thread for this launch next week after we hear more about the timing.
And then you start to run into the 4th holiday. Not sure how people will feel about launching over the holiday.
There is no better U.S. holiday for firing off rockets than 4th of July.
I'm just remembering there was some sore feelings over the Thanksgiving Day attempt a few years ago.
-
#42
by
zubenelgenubi
on 15 Jun, 2017 20:51
-
My understanding as a quasi-federal cog in the bureaucracy:
Any civil service employees involved would be paid Holiday pay + Holiday worked (double time) for working on a federal holiday (Independence Day).
I don't know what other "types" will rate extra pay for working a federal/Florida state holiday.
A personal observation, as an American:
Independence Day is an important day to spend with family, if possible. However, it's not as important a "family holiday" as Thanksgiving or Christmas.
Some families may be able to shift the festivities to the previous weekend (July 1 & 2), or to the weekend following (July 8 & 9).
If this goes to an Independence Day launch, then I guess those involved will just have to ask to have their potato salad and coleslaw properly refrigerated until they get home!
-
#43
by
wannamoonbase
on 16 Jun, 2017 15:17
-
The BulgariaSat slip makes this date a bit uncertain. We'll create the Updates thread for this launch next week after we hear more about the timing.
And then you start to run into the 4th holiday. Not sure how people will feel about launching over the holiday.
The east coast manifest can be handled with a 2 week cadence. If it slipped till after the 4th it isn't the end of the world.
That said, I should like to see it fly July 1 for Canada Day!
-
#44
by
gongora
on 16 Jun, 2017 15:29
-
The BulgariaSat slip makes this date a bit uncertain. We'll create the Updates thread for this launch next week after we hear more about the timing.
And then you start to run into the 4th holiday. Not sure how people will feel about launching over the holiday.
The east coast manifest can be handled with a 2 week cadence. If it slipped till after the 4th it isn't the end of the world.
That said, I should like to see it fly July 1 for Canada Day!
That could still happen.
-
#45
by
tvg98
on 19 Jun, 2017 00:39
-
-
#46
by
Norm38
on 23 Jun, 2017 21:37
-
I have a friend vacationing in FL 4th of July week, hoping to see a launch. But this is probably NET 7/7 right? Unless being expendable lets them shave a couple days.
-
#47
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:15
-
-
#48
by
abaddon
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:21
-
That would be a record turnaround for a single pad. Best we've seen from them is what, 12-13 days?
Not sure it makes sense either; it seems like SpaceX is currently core constrained, which would throttle their launch rate anyway. Why rush to get to a point where they have to wait for cores to be ready?
-
#49
by
Lars-J
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:27
-
That would be a record turnaround for a single pad. Best we've seen from them is what, 12-13 days?
Not sure it makes sense either; it seems like SpaceX is currently core constrained, which would throttle their launch rate anyway. Why rush to get to a point where they have to wait for cores to be ready?
Because they want to start flying Block 5 ASAP, but need to clear out their existing cores first?
-
#50
by
old_sellsword
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:30
-
That would be a record turnaround for a single pad. Best we've seen from them is what, 12-13 days?
Not sure it makes sense either; it seems like SpaceX is currently core constrained, which would throttle their launch rate anyway. Why rush to get to a point where they have to wait for cores to be ready?
Because they want to start flying Block 5 ASAP, but need to clear out their existing cores first?
But if their next launch isn't until August anyways, what's the point in rushing an early July launch?
-
#51
by
Lars-J
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:33
-
That would be a record turnaround for a single pad. Best we've seen from them is what, 12-13 days?
Not sure it makes sense either; it seems like SpaceX is currently core constrained, which would throttle their launch rate anyway. Why rush to get to a point where they have to wait for cores to be ready?
Because they want to start flying Block 5 ASAP, but need to clear out their existing cores first?
But if their next launch isn't until August anyways, what's the point in rushing an early July launch?
Contractual penalties? (speculation) Clearing space at manufacturing or pads? Could be lots of reasons.
-
#52
by
gongora
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:33
-
That would be a record turnaround for a single pad. Best we've seen from them is what, 12-13 days?
Not sure it makes sense either; it seems like SpaceX is currently core constrained, which would throttle their launch rate anyway. Why rush to get to a point where they have to wait for cores to be ready?
Because they want to start flying Block 5 ASAP, but need to clear out their existing cores first?
But if their next launch isn't until August anyways, what's the point in rushing an early July launch?
If it's ready to go, why delay it? Gets the customer to orbit ASAP and gives them a nice block of time to work on pads at the Cape. Maybe even lets their employees have July 4 off
-
#53
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:34
-
That would be a record turnaround for a single pad. Best we've seen from them is what, 12-13 days?
Not sure it makes sense either; it seems like SpaceX is currently core constrained, which would throttle their launch rate anyway. Why rush to get to a point where they have to wait for cores to be ready?
Because they want to start flying Block 5 ASAP, but need to clear out their existing cores first?
But if their next launch isn't until August anyways, what's the point in rushing an early July launch?
Potentially to avoid working overtime through the July 4 holiday (mid-week holidays are a pain for corporate productivity). Also more time to work on getting the RSS down and FH compatibility work on the pad as well, possibly.
-
#54
by
tater
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:34
-
But if their next launch isn't until August anyways, what's the point in rushing an early July launch?
Could it allow some work on 39A for FH?
-
#55
by
abaddon
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:35
-
Because they want to start flying Block 5 ASAP, but need to clear out their existing cores first?
I've been thinking a lot about this today
but it's quite complicated. I have a feeling that SpaceX is slow-rolling their core production a bit because they want to minimize the number of Block 3 cores they produce, which is similar to what you're saying but not quite the same (I think). They have a bit of a tricky problem here to manage the transition between Block 3 and Blocks 4&5. They don't want to end up with a big stable of Block 3 cores they have to spend more money to refurbish only to use just one more time, but they do have that backlog they are trying to catch back up on too.
I don't think it's quite "clear out their existing cores first" as it doesn't seem like they have a lot of existing cores, although for all we know there are a ton waiting in the factory. But in that case I don't see what sitting on a bunch of completed Block 3 cores buys them.
My best guess is the core production rate has been slow-rolled a bit to allow Block 4 & 5 modifications to make their way into production earlier in core number. That would suggest a lighter back-end of this year than many of us are anticipating. But turning around Intelsat this quickly would run counter to that...
[As others have noted; maybe they're just ready to go. In that case... a nine day turnaround would be very impressive!]
So, yeah, I don't know. Guess we will just have to wait and see
.
-
#56
by
Star One
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:35
-
That would be a record turnaround for a single pad. Best we've seen from them is what, 12-13 days?
Not sure it makes sense either; it seems like SpaceX is currently core constrained, which would throttle their launch rate anyway. Why rush to get to a point where they have to wait for cores to be ready?
Because they want to start flying Block 5 ASAP, but need to clear out their existing cores first?
But if their next launch isn't until August anyways, what's the point in rushing an early July launch?
Contractual penalties? (speculation) Clearing space at manufacturing or pads? Could be lots of reasons.
Is the gap until August to allow pad/range maintenance?
-
#57
by
Norm38
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:37
-
Pad work would by my guess. Don't they still want to remove a big chunk of the tower structure? Probably involves bringing in cranes and a lot of workers. Easier to arrange if they can block out a few weeks.
I'm glad for the sake of my friend that this may move left. I want him and his son to see a launch that week.
But is there really a big gap? Is SES-11 verified to have slipped out of July? If that's still launching between this and CRS-12, there's just normal spacing.
-
#58
by
abaddon
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:38
-
Does anyone know where Intelsat 35e is being processed, and where BulgariaSat-1 was processed? Previous fast turnarounds both involved CRS missions, and it was suggested that allowed the quick turnaround because different facilities are used for processing. If one of these payloads was/is being processed at AstroTech, for example, that might enable the quick turnaround, where if SpaceX was processing both at the same facility, that would prevent it.
-
#59
by
gongora
on 27 Jun, 2017 16:41
-
SpaceX has no reason to slow down production. The blocks have been planned in advance, and Block 4 production should be well under way by now. Gwynne said it was hard ramping up from a half dozen cores a year to 20, and I believe her. They have to ramp up production of tanks, engines, composite parts (fairings and interstages), flight computers, etc. They just aren't able yet to produce enough rockets to really clear out the backlog of payloads. They'll get there (as long as there aren't any more accidents soon.)
