-
#1140
by
obi-wan
on 17 Jan, 2018 06:22
-
I think the real question is, do they have to cease work/evacuate 39A for launch operations at LC-41?
-
#1141
by
jpo234
on 17 Jan, 2018 10:34
-
So to the original query: why must the FH static fire stand down for activity at LC-41?
If it's range resources, as you say Ed, please help us understand – there aren't enough people to close roads to both pads?
It's simple: You don't tempt fate if there is no really good reason to do so. Launch fever by a bunch of enthusiasts is not a good reason.
-
#1142
by
Oersted
on 17 Jan, 2018 11:09
-
Stepping back a bit from the minutiae of these "testing" days, I have been thinking about the opinion - held by many - that Falcon Heavy is a developmental 'dead end'. That it is just a distraction now that SpaceX wants to develop BFR with just one single booster stage.
Well, I think it is clear from the long development phase of FH, and the drawn-out testing before launch, that SpaceX has been learning a LOT during the process. One thing is to produce flashy videos and presentations of new hardware, but milling metal and actually putting it all together is where the deep learning truly takes place.
You can say that the specificities of learning how to strap three boosters together won't be of much use when they translate into building the BFR. However, all the knowledge they are acquiring about connecting deep cryo structures, firing a large amount of engines simultaneously, etc, etc, will undoubtedly be highly useful later on. With Falcon Heavy the company will move into the "big boy's" league and, if succesful, they will master rocketry on a massive scale.
SpaceX comes out of FH development a much more mature and knowledgeable space launch company. The kind of lead they have been building up can only be acquired through the sweat and tears of actual rocket building. FH will take them ahead of other new actors for a long time to come.
-
#1143
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 17 Jan, 2018 12:06
-
So to the original query: why must the FH static fire stand down for activity at LC-41?
If it's range resources, as you say Ed, please help us understand – there aren't enough people to close roads to both pads?
Ed’s quote did not just include road closures. His exact quote was:
It is about range resources, which means personnel, radio frequencies, road closures, etc.
- Ed Kyle
The Range is not an endless resource of unlimited people, unlimited hours, unlimited time, and unlimited equipment. The coordination that is undertaken for each rocket, the reconfiguration of range equipment for communications, tracking, response, night-based operations with lights that move from pad to pad – all of that takes time, resources, and people who have limits to how much they can work per day.
While roadblocks are a key element to what Range support provides, the communications equipment can only be configured for one rocket at a time. Thus, since those communication assets are 100% needed for a Falckn Heavy static fire, those assets are not available to SpaceX when an Atlas V is launching – and a launch takes priority.
-
#1144
by
M.E.T.
on 17 Jan, 2018 12:10
-
So to the original query: why must the FH static fire stand down for activity at LC-41?
If it's range resources, as you say Ed, please help us understand – there aren't enough people to close roads to both pads?
The Range is not an endless resource of unlimited people, unlimited hours, unlimited time, and unlimited equipment. The coordination that is undertaken for each rocket, the reconfiguration of range equipment for communications, tracking, response, night-based operations with lights that move from pad to pad – all of that takes time, resources, and people who have limits to how much they can work per day.
While roadblocks are a key element to what Range support provides, the communications equipment can only be configured for one rocket at a time. Thus, since those communication assets are 100% needed for a Falckn Heavy static fire, those assets are not available to SpaceX when an Atlas V is launching – and a launch takes priority.
Chris, you raise an interesting point here. While it is easy to think that a launch only really costs SpaceX a lot once a rocket is sent up into the air and hardware is expended, the significant effort and resource allocation you list above must surely not be cheap.
Do you have any indication or estimate what each day of extra WDR or pad activity costs SpaceX? Ballpark, are we talking millions of dollars for each extra day of testing? Or mere tens of thousands?
-
#1145
by
Jim
on 17 Jan, 2018 12:15
-
So to the original query: why must the FH static fire stand down for activity at LC-41?
If it's range resources, as you say Ed, please help us understand – there aren't enough people to close roads to both pads?
It is comm, power, water, frequency clearance, security, etc
-
#1146
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 17 Jan, 2018 12:27
-
So to the original query: why must the FH static fire stand down for activity at LC-41?
If it's range resources, as you say Ed, please help us understand – there aren't enough people to close roads to both pads?
Ed’s quote did not just include road closures. His exact quote was:
It is about range resources, which means personnel, radio frequencies, road closures, etc.
- Ed Kyle
The Range is not an endless resource of unlimited people, unlimited hours, unlimited time, and unlimited equipment. The coordination that is undertaken for each rocket, the reconfiguration of range equipment for communications, tracking, response, night-based operations with lights that move from pad to pad – all of that takes time, resources, and people who have limits to how much they can work per day.
While roadblocks are a key element to what Range support provides, the communications equipment can only be configured for one rocket at a time. Thus, since those communication assets are 100% needed for a Falckn Heavy static fire, those assets are not available to SpaceX when an Atlas V is launching – and a launch takes priority.
Off topic - but connected to this conversation.
What Chris G is saying above is
exactly why SpaceX needs Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy ops (although no one seems to know, or hasn't spoken up, how Range Safety will be handled when launching from Boca Chica).
With all this talk of how Range communications can only be set up for only one launch vehicle at a time - even if it's "just" a static fire, and other limited resource tie-ups - isn't it plainly clear that it would be completely impossible to meet the desired future SpaceX launch cadence with these external criteria and all of the east coast pads tied to these resources (as well as the requirements of other launch providers who demand these resources at an even higher level due to lack of AFTS). I don't even know if it'll be possible to hit their 2018 targets looking at how the flow currently works, that's without even factoring in planned range down times on both coasts...
-
#1147
by
Jim
on 17 Jan, 2018 13:32
-
What Chris G is saying above is exactly why SpaceX needs Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy ops (although no one seems to know, or hasn't spoken up, how Range Safety will be handled when launching from Boca Chica).
Not true. There will still be some shared resources or conflicts between the two.
-
#1148
by
jpo234
on 17 Jan, 2018 13:57
-
What Chris G is saying above is exactly why SpaceX needs Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy ops (although no one seems to know, or hasn't spoken up, how Range Safety will be handled when launching from Boca Chica).
Not true. There will still be some shared resources or conflicts between the two.
Meaning that Boca Chica would somehow be part of the eastern range?
-
#1149
by
kaiser
on 17 Jan, 2018 13:59
-
Ok, just wanted to go see it. Hard to figure a vacation time.
***NEVER *** schedule a vacation around a SpaceX Test schedule.
This is correct, what you do is you schedule your vacation for a time that you feel is highly likely to be clear of the test/launch. That way you ensure that it happens then.
Note: This only works if you are critical personnel for the actual test/launch.
-
#1150
by
Jim
on 17 Jan, 2018 14:01
-
What Chris G is saying above is exactly why SpaceX needs Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy ops (although no one seems to know, or hasn't spoken up, how Range Safety will be handled when launching from Boca Chica).
Not true. There will still be some shared resources or conflicts between the two.
Meaning that Boca Chica would somehow be part of the eastern range?
No, it just might use some resources.
-
#1151
by
deruch
on 17 Jan, 2018 14:03
-
Off topic - but connected to this conversation.
What Chris G is saying above is exactly why SpaceX needs Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy ops (although no one seems to know, or hasn't spoken up, how Range Safety will be handled when launching from Boca Chica).
With all this talk of how Range communications can only be set up for only one launch vehicle at a time - even if it's "just" a static fire, and other limited resource tie-ups - isn't it plainly clear that it would be completely impossible to meet the desired future SpaceX launch cadence with these external criteria and all of the east coast pads tied to these resources (as well as the requirements of other launch providers who demand these resources at an even higher level due to lack of AFTS). I don't even know if it'll be possible to hit their 2018 targets looking at how the flow currently works, that's without even factoring in planned range down times on both coasts...
No because the conflicts won't apply for when SpaceX is launching from the Eastern Range and Boca Chica. The Commander of the 45th Space Wing, Gen. Monteith, talked about AFTS and range upgrades already enabling 2 SpaceX launches in the same day (using different pads). So, the limits are really only for SpaceX vs. non-SpaceX operations on the range. Until another launcher is starting to be as heavy a user as SpaceX it shouldn't be a big issue. Hopefully, further investment in the range's launch support capabilities and expanded adoption of AFTS by other providers will decrease the potential for future conflicts.
-
#1152
by
Jim
on 17 Jan, 2018 14:05
-
Off topic - but connected to this conversation.
What Chris G is saying above is exactly why SpaceX needs Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy ops (although no one seems to know, or hasn't spoken up, how Range Safety will be handled when launching from Boca Chica).
With all this talk of how Range communications can only be set up for only one launch vehicle at a time - even if it's "just" a static fire, and other limited resource tie-ups - isn't it plainly clear that it would be completely impossible to meet the desired future SpaceX launch cadence with these external criteria and all of the east coast pads tied to these resources (as well as the requirements of other launch providers who demand these resources at an even higher level due to lack of AFTS). I don't even know if it'll be possible to hit their 2018 targets looking at how the flow currently works, that's without even factoring in planned range down times on both coasts...
No because the conflicts won't apply for when SpaceX is launching from the Eastern Range and Boca Chica. The Commander of the 45th Space Wing, Gen. Monteith, talked about AFTS and range upgrades already enabling 2 SpaceX launches in the same day (using different pads). So, the limits are really only for SpaceX vs. non-SpaceX operations on the range. Until another launcher is starting to be as heavy a user as SpaceX it shouldn't be a big issue. Hopefully, further investment in the range's launch support capabilities and expanded adoption of AFTS by other providers will decrease the potential for future conflicts.
Payloads use of resources can still cause conflicts
-
#1153
by
abaddon
on 17 Jan, 2018 15:16
-
Payloads use of resources can still cause conflicts
Wouldn't that only apply to government-type launches? E.g. stuff using TDRS or whatever.
What shared resources would any two commercial comsats (the likely launch candidates for BC) use?
-
#1154
by
SLC
on 17 Jan, 2018 15:38
-
<snip>
SpaceX comes out of FH development a much more mature and knowledgeable space launch company. The kind of lead they have been building up can only be acquired through the sweat and tears of actual rocket building. FH will take them ahead of other new actors for a long time to come.
... and if/when they launch a couple of tourists round the back of the Moon with the FH they'll learn even more. With Crew Dragon to the ISS it'll be a bit like flying with your instructor (NASA) in the right-hand seat. With FH + Dragon to the Moon, SpaceX will be flying solo. It'll feel different, and they need that experience.
-
#1155
by
JonathanD
on 17 Jan, 2018 17:17
-
... and if/when they launch a couple of tourists round the back of the Moon with the FH they'll learn even more. With Crew Dragon to the ISS it'll be a bit like flying with your instructor (NASA) in the right-hand seat. With FH + Dragon to the Moon, SpaceX will be flying solo. It'll feel different, and they need that experience.
IMHO eventually they will get talked out of, or talk themselves out of, the moon shot with Dragon. Huge risks, and as we've seen there are many parties in the wings waiting to jump on any SpaceX slip-up. A couple of dead space tourists would mean open season.
-
#1156
by
Lar
on 17 Jan, 2018 17:28
-
Range conflicts and how Boca Chica will or won't share resources? MIGHT be just a WEE bit off topic?
-
#1157
by
alexterrell
on 17 Jan, 2018 18:05
-
Can someone please educate me? Is it that static fires must be treated as if they could result in a launch?
Well that, and the static fire could disastrously end like that of the Falcon 9 carrying Amos-6 in September 2016. Now imagine THREE core boosters exploding like that simultaneously.
You don't want any other rocket on a pad at the Cape under that circumstance...even if it's situated more than a mile away.
This interesting article explains why it's been tricky getting Falcon Heavy in position to fire her engines:
https://www.teslarati.com/whats-causing-spacex-falcon-heavy-delays/
That was interesting. Can they do the refuelling testing with something safer than LOx and Kerosene? LOx and water for example?
The shrinkage issue must have been even worse for the shuttle, with LH2 and non shrinking SRBs.
-
#1158
by
ugordan
on 17 Jan, 2018 18:11
-
That was interesting. Can they do the refuelling testing with something safer than LOx and Kerosene? LOx and water for example?
Test like you fly.
-
#1159
by
AC in NC
on 17 Jan, 2018 18:34
-
... and if/when they launch a couple of tourists round the back of the Moon with the FH they'll learn even more. With Crew Dragon to the ISS it'll be a bit like flying with your instructor (NASA) in the right-hand seat. With FH + Dragon to the Moon, SpaceX will be flying solo. It'll feel different, and they need that experience.
IMHO eventually they will get talked out of, or talk themselves out of, the moon shot with Dragon. Huge risks, and as we've seen there are many parties in the wings waiting to jump on any SpaceX slip-up. A couple of dead space tourists would mean open season.
SpaceX has bigger problems if they can't throw a couple folks around the moon and get them back. SpaceX doesn't exist to sit on its laurels.