SpaceX Falcon 9 : Intelsat 35e : July 5, 2017 : DISCUSSION

[Jim]

is it infrastructure: LOX, RP-1, LH, LHe transfer lines, water systems... etc.

That not part of the range.  Pad infrastructure is the responsibility of the launch vehicle contractor.  LOX, RP-1, LH, LHe and other commodities are delivered to the pad by the suppliers by trucks.  The commodities are contracted for by launch vehicle contractor.   As far as other services like water, GN2, sewer, electricity, etc, those are supplied by the base contractor and not the range contractor.  Range systems by in large are electronic.

[cppetrie]

STATIC FIRE

This seems to be setting up a 9 day turnaround if the weather cooperates, yes? 3 launches in 9 days! Nice!

Edit: I can count, really; it just takes doing it twice sometimes.

[Lars-J]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/880592028844806144

SpaceX‏ @SpaceX
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete—targeting launch of Intelsat 35e from Pad 39A in Florida on Sunday, July 2.

Cue questions about why there is a Dragon capsule attached to this booster in 3...2...1... 

[macpacheco]

If this launch goes off on July 2nd, and considering that the last launch from LC-39A was on June 23rd, where will that place this launch on the list for fast turnaround of the pad?  Nine days seems very fast.

Interestingly, after this launch, it looks like there is over a month wait until the next one.  Was there a holdup in boosters or payloads for such a long break?

My speculation is that the pad isn't the bottleneck. Assembling the launch vehicle and doing the final processing on the payload is the bottleneck. Hawthorne and the range as a whole are also bottlenecks.
Plus SpaceX can't build one full F9 stack a week. Moving forward they're hoping for at least 75% launches being flight proven boosters which allow them to build a lot of 2nd stages and far fewer boosters.
Basicly what I'm guessing is the weather delays before the BulgariaSat launch were used the have a leg up on this launch. Even if it goes up on the 2nd, this pretty much means nothing if I'm right.

[tvg98]

Seems like Go Searcher has left Port Canaveral and is heading East, presumably to attempt to recover the fairings.

[gospacex]

If this launch goes off on July 2nd, and considering that the last launch from LC-39A was on June 23rd, where will that place this launch on the list for fast turnaround of the pad?  Nine days seems very fast.

Interestingly, after this launch, it looks like there is over a month wait until the next one.  Was there a holdup in boosters or payloads for such a long break?

My speculation is that the pad isn't the bottleneck. Assembling the launch vehicle and doing the final processing on the payload is the bottleneck. Hawthorne and the range as a whole are also bottlenecks.
Plus SpaceX can't build one full F9 stack a week.

Yes, as of now SpaceX can build only ~20 1st stages a year (Shotwell interview) - thus, a bit less than one core per two weeks.

SpaceX is aiming for a launch per week perhaps still this year once LC40 is up.
And don't forget Boca Chica.

This was your far more optimistic earlier post... evidently now your assessment changed. Whoa. Someone on Internet was convinced by new evidence. This does not happen often.

[pb2000]

<snip> Range downtime aren't really on-topic for this thread.

Is there an existing thread for range discussion? Anyone know if there's a hard cut-off date that if not met, would delay the launch?

[kevin-rf]

Yes, as of now SpaceX can build only ~20 1st stages a year (Shotwell interview) - thus, a bit less than one core per two weeks.

Which is why reuse is so important for meeting schedule this year.

It does bring up the question of how many second stage can they produce a year. It would seem to be the real bottle kneck and not something I've seen anyone address yet.

With reuse, they might be able to shift some resources and tooling from first stage toward second stage production to meet the increased demand.

[launchwatcher]

<snip> Range downtime aren't really on-topic for this thread.

Is there an existing thread for range discussion? Anyone know if there's a hard cut-off date that if not met, would delay the launch?

SInce it was also a question of what could be done during the downtime to 39A, the "FH on 39A" thread, perhaps?  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41015.0

[envy887]

If this launch goes off on July 2nd, and considering that the last launch from LC-39A was on June 23rd, where will that place this launch on the list for fast turnaround of the pad?  Nine days seems very fast.

Interestingly, after this launch, it looks like there is over a month wait until the next one.  Was there a holdup in boosters or payloads for such a long break?

My speculation is that the pad isn't the bottleneck. Assembling the launch vehicle and doing the final processing on the payload is the bottleneck. Hawthorne and the range as a whole are also bottlenecks.
Plus SpaceX can't build one full F9 stack a week.

Yes, as of now SpaceX can build only ~20 1st stages a year (Shotwell interview) - thus, a bit less than one core per two weeks.

SpaceX is aiming for a launch per week perhaps still this year once LC40 is up.
And don't forget Boca Chica.

This was your far more optimistic earlier post... evidently now your assessment changed. Whoa. Someone on Internet was convinced by new evidence. This does not happen often.

I don't think those two statements are inconsistent. SpaceX can't build a new F9 stack every week, or integrate and launch one a week at 39A.

But they can probably build/refurbish a mix of new and used F9 stacks at a rate of one per week, and they might be able to integrate and launch at that rate once 40 is up. The range is likely the limiting factor once 40 is running, but that might still allow 1 per week for a few weeks running before a break.

[macpacheco]

If this launch goes off on July 2nd, and considering that the last launch from LC-39A was on June 23rd, where will that place this launch on the list for fast turnaround of the pad?  Nine days seems very fast.

Interestingly, after this launch, it looks like there is over a month wait until the next one.  Was there a holdup in boosters or payloads for such a long break?

My speculation is that the pad isn't the bottleneck. Assembling the launch vehicle and doing the final processing on the payload is the bottleneck. Hawthorne and the range as a whole are also bottlenecks.
Plus SpaceX can't build one full F9 stack a week.

Yes, as of now SpaceX can build only ~20 1st stages a year (Shotwell interview) - thus, a bit less than one core per two weeks.

SpaceX is aiming for a launch per week perhaps still this year once LC40 is up.
And don't forget Boca Chica.

This was your far more optimistic earlier post... evidently now your assessment changed. Whoa. Someone on Internet was convinced by new evidence. This does not happen often.

I didn't change my thinking one iota. TODAY customers aren't signing up in droves for reuse (yet). My most recent post was about NOW. My older post was about what I think SpaceX is AIMING for (after all boca chica isn't even operating today).

My prediction is once half a dozen reflights take place, it will become common place. And that will allow hawthorne to refocus on building 2nd stages far more than today and 15-25% as many boosters as today.
This also requires Block V flying.

[gospacex]

I didn't change my thinking one iota.

Sorry for assuming you are untypical and capable of admitting you were wrong.

TODAY customers aren't signing up in droves for reuse (yet). My most recent post was about NOW. My older post was about what I think SpaceX is AIMING for (after all boca chica isn't even operating today).

My prediction is once half a dozen reflights take place, it will become common place.

You said "launch per week perhaps still this year". Half a dozen reflights require the rest of this year, bare minimum. Therefore, "a launch a week" is not realistic in 2017. Gosh, we aren't at "a launch every two weeks" yet, although getting close (yay!).

Did you not see just now, in "SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4", the 3 out of 4 launches in July shift to mid-August? This leaves only 5 months in 2017 for everything.

[gongora]

Intelsat 35e mission thread here, not the speculation on how many flights SpaceX could possibly make in the remainder of the year thread.

[kevin-rf]

Intelsat 35e mission thread here, not the speculation on how many flights SpaceX could possibly make in the remainder of the year thread.

Well we could speculate on something RoboBeat brought up in the updates thread:

That looks like a huge solar array. How much power?

Based on Boeing press releases about the 702 MP bus, it can handle between 6 and 12kW. I would hazard a wild guess this is a 12kW bird based on the size of the arrays in the update pictures.

http://www.boeing.com/space/boeing-satellite-family/

Oddly can't find a press release that lists this satellites power generation.

[tleski]

Does anyone know if Playalinda Beach will be open for this launch? It was open for BulgariaSat-1 according to this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42913.msg1694118#msg1694118

[rsdavis9]

So I have noticed the 35 min load of LOX.
What did they do to allow the fast load time?
Changed COPV's?
This was/is a block 3 S1 and maybe a block 4 S2?

[Craig_VG]

Does anyone know if Playalinda Beach will be open for this launch? It was open for BulgariaSat-1 according to this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42913.msg1694118#msg1694118

That's a good question, seeing that this is another GTO launch and not a northerly CRS launch I'd think that that gives us a better shot at it being open. Note that it does close at 8pm so if the launch extends into the window the beach will close.

[smoliarm]

Below I attached summary of propellant loading times from SpaceX press kits.
I would guess grouping on the picture reflects actual *blocks* of Falcon 9FT

[old_sellsword]

Below I attached summary of propellant loading times from SpaceX press kits.
I would guess grouping on the picture reflects actual *blocks* of Falcon 9FT

Nice work, that's a great visualization.

I believe the Press Kits for NROL-76 and Inmarsat-5 F4 were actually wrong. They claimed the conservative loading times seen post-Amos-6, but then used the more aggressive ones we've seen since the new upper stages started showing up.

And this is a good indication of upper stage Blocks, but not first stage ones, because Block 4 S1 has yet to fly.

[rsdavis9]

First thanks for the great answer to my question.
Assuming the load time difference is COPV changes and block 4 on S2 made a difference (45m to 35m) then why is S1 seemingly immune to the LOX loading time?

EDIT: I seem to remember that they changed the number of COPV's per S2 post AMOS? Is that correct?