“SpaceX does not launch on schedule,” Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith (commander, 45th Space Wing) said Sept. 20 during a space warfighting panel at the annual Air Force Association Air Space Cyber Conference. “They launch on readiness.”This launch-when-we’re-ready-to-go attitude has had an impact on SpaceX operational needs and costs, said Monteith, who also is director of the Air Force Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.“They have forced us — and I mean forced us — to get better, infinitely better, at what we do,” he said. “We are adopting commercial business practices and becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable.“Working with them, we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”
Key part:Quote from: Mike Fabey“SpaceX does not launch on schedule,” Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith (commander, 45th Space Wing) said Sept. 20 during a space warfighting panel at the annual Air Force Association Air Space Cyber Conference. “They launch on readiness.”This launch-when-we’re-ready-to-go attitude has had an impact on SpaceX operational needs and costs, said Monteith, who also is director of the Air Force Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.“They have forced us — and I mean forced us — to get better, infinitely better, at what we do,” he said. “We are adopting commercial business practices and becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable.“Working with them, we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”High praise from USAF. And a 180 degrees reversal from USAF attitude towards SpaceX during certification.This also goes to fly in the face of some folks on this forum who claimed that the LSP has to conform to USAF wishes, no matter what. Turns out it is not quite that one-sided.What can be parsed as well from Monteith's remarks is that "launching on schedule" is no longer the holy grail with regards to NSS launches.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/21/2017 06:43 amKey part:Quote from: Mike Fabey“SpaceX does not launch on schedule,” Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith (commander, 45th Space Wing) said Sept. 20 during a space warfighting panel at the annual Air Force Association Air Space Cyber Conference. “They launch on readiness.”This launch-when-we’re-ready-to-go attitude has had an impact on SpaceX operational needs and costs, said Monteith, who also is director of the Air Force Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.“They have forced us — and I mean forced us — to get better, infinitely better, at what we do,” he said. “We are adopting commercial business practices and becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable.“Working with them, we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”High praise from USAF. And a 180 degrees reversal from USAF attitude towards SpaceX during certification.This also goes to fly in the face of some folks on this forum who claimed that the LSP has to conform to USAF wishes, no matter what. Turns out it is not quite that one-sided.What can be parsed as well from Monteith's remarks is that "launching on schedule" is no longer the holy grail with regards to NSS launches.I don't think the article says anything about NSS launches -- which, I suspect, still want to launch on schedule. This talks about the range responding to SpaceX who have a manifest backlog and must get as many launches off as they are ready to fly. As we saw in OTV-5 and the CRS-flights, the launch sequence/schedule revolves around the customer that has a fixed timetable.
The Department of Defense uses space systems in support of air, land, and sea forces to deter and defend against hostile actions directed at the interests of the United States. The Intelligence community uses space systems to collectintelligence. These programs, as a group, are referred to as National Security Space (NSS).
The point is that you can have some 'fixed' schedule payloads on the manifest and flow other payloads around them.
Quote from: AncientU on 09/21/2017 01:38 pmThe point is that you can have some 'fixed' schedule payloads on the manifest and flow other payloads around them. No, that is not the point. The point is moving the actual launch date to when they are ready vs keeping it on a fixed date (i.e. moving up a few days).BTW, CRS is fixed schedule
Quote from: Jim on 09/21/2017 01:41 pmQuote from: AncientU on 09/21/2017 01:38 pmThe point is that you can have some 'fixed' schedule payloads on the manifest and flow other payloads around them. No, that is not the point. The point is moving the actual launch date to when they are ready vs keeping it on a fixed date (i.e. moving up a few days).BTW, CRS is fixed scheduleI know CRS is fixed schedule -- the above question was rhetorical (if you read it before saying 'wrong').
Spacex has more flown boosters than it knows what to do with them and has been breaking them apart and scrapping them.
Quote from: Jim on 09/21/2017 02:05 pmSpacex has more flown boosters than it knows what to do with them and has been breaking them apart and scrapping them.I am sure SpaceX loves to have this kind of problem... And solution is on horizon already - Block 5 that is supposed to be actually reusable more than once.
May I just say, thank goodness for the well-reasoned commentary (even in disagreements) available here.
The SN comments sections have been a cesspool lately.
Wrong take aways. The launch on readiness vs schedule means the actual day of launch. Other contractors will keep to a launch date, Spacex will move up a few days, but it is still within a "launch period" much like a planetary. Launch on schedule has nothing to do with NSS specifically. NSS will mostly be launch on schedule because satellite production is programmed, especially for new constellations or new blocks of spacecraft. Even a satellite in storage takes a finite amount of time to prepare for launch. MUOS, SBIRS, AEHF, WGS, etc launches were scheduled based on production. NROL-76 was launched on schedule (within a certain period)
Given the flexibility applied by SpaceX to it's launch schedule it is a safe bet that the same will happen for the upcoming GPS launches.
Literally, everything in moderation...
Quote from: woods170 on 09/21/2017 08:12 pmGiven the flexibility applied by SpaceX to it's launch schedule it is a safe bet that the same will happen for the upcoming GPS launches.GPS launches are probably going to slip quite a bit anyway. Right now it's almost impossible for SpaceX to launch to a schedule because they're so far behind and constantly moving through new hardware and pad designs. Once everything settles down in 2019 or so (they'll be doing good to clear the backlog by the end of 2018) then it will be interesting to see how their launch scheduling evolves.
It is as Monteith named it: SpaceX does not launch on schedule. They launch when they are ready.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/22/2017 06:12 amIt is as Monteith named it: SpaceX does not launch on schedule. They launch when they are ready.While that is true, and will remain true, we might see a day sometime in the next year or two where SpaceX is regularly ready before payloads are. Maybe even including their own...
2018 would start with 1 used flight for every 3 new. And over the course of the year more used flights will occur which also means flight rates would increase. Now it is averaging at just less than 2 a month. By EOY 2018 it could be as high as 4 a month. But the problem is that SpaceX capability will quickly outpace available payloads over the course of the next year. This would have a very big significance for the AF/DOD/gov.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/22/2017 06:23 pm2018 would start with 1 used flight for every 3 new. And over the course of the year more used flights will occur which also means flight rates would increase. Now it is averaging at just less than 2 a month. By EOY 2018 it could be as high as 4 a month. But the problem is that SpaceX capability will quickly outpace available payloads over the course of the next year. This would have a very big significance for the AF/DOD/gov.A good overall view into the future, and I just wanted to add that 2018 will also be the transition point for SpaceX as they incorporate Block 5 1st stages into their mix. But because Block 5 should be far less expensive to reuse than the current Block 3/4, that could cause some temporary new vs used decisions that won't happen in the future.The other complication is how quickly they can produce Block 5 1st stages. We know there are certain customers (like Commercial Crew) that will require new Block 5 stages, which if they take longer to build could encourage some customers to rely on the reused Block 3/4 stages.A lot of factors at play here, and it's hard to know how it plays out without internal knowledge of what the priorities are. But it will be entertaining to watch it unfold...
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 09/21/2017 03:00 pmMay I just say, thank goodness for the well-reasoned commentary (even in disagreements) available here.Literally, everything in moderation... QuoteThe SN comments sections have been a cesspool lately.A certain SN poster has returned who tends to distract conversations away from the core topics - maybe that's what you're seeing.
In addition to the cost savings, there's another upside to launching reusable rockets. Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the 45th Space Wing, noted in an interview Tuesday that engineers can actually look at the hardware after it's flown.For instance, a Falcon rocket had a problem with its GPS systems that likely wouldn't have been discernible from the telemetry data alone, he said. Crews looked at the rocket when it came down and discovered that there wan't enough silicon around a screw.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-forces-air-force-to-revise-launch-mindset/Quote from: Mike Fabey“SpaceX does not launch on schedule,” Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith (commander, 45th Space Wing) said Sept. 20 during a space warfighting panel at the annual Air Force Association Air Space Cyber Conference. “They launch on readiness.”This launch-when-we’re-ready-to-go attitude has had an impact on SpaceX operational needs and costs, said Monteith, who also is director of the Air Force Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.“They have forced us — and I mean forced us — to get better, infinitely better, at what we do,” he said. “We are adopting commercial business practices and becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable.“Working with them, we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”Not that it isn't great to hear everyone rehash their favorite reusability points, but it seems that everyone is reading way too much into this article and quote including the OP. Based on the speaker and context, it seems clear that when Monteith says "reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent", he's talking about the range cost to the launch provider, not the cost of a launch to the Air Force. And when he says "SpaceX does not launch on schedule, They launch on readiness" he is talking about the range being responsive to his customers needs, not about the AF taking advantage of some SpaceX capability. The AF is not particularly "becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable" or "get to 48 launches a year". Montieth is a range director, not an acquisition official, when he says 'we' and 'us', he is talking about his area of responsibility, the Eastern Range or the ranges in general. The article is not about SpaceX allowing the AF to do new and great things, it's about the AF (ranges) saying look at us, how great we're doing, learning from industry and lowering our costs.My 2 cents, thanks; back to your tangents.
Quote from: IntoTheVoid on 09/22/2017 08:44 pmhttp://spacenews.com/spacex-forces-air-force-to-revise-launch-mindset/Quote from: Mike Fabey“SpaceX does not launch on schedule,” Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith (commander, 45th Space Wing) said Sept. 20 during a space warfighting panel at the annual Air Force Association Air Space Cyber Conference. “They launch on readiness.”This launch-when-we’re-ready-to-go attitude has had an impact on SpaceX operational needs and costs, said Monteith, who also is director of the Air Force Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.“They have forced us — and I mean forced us — to get better, infinitely better, at what we do,” he said. “We are adopting commercial business practices and becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable.“Working with them, we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”......The problem about the statement on costs is that it is unspecific and is general in nature. When the general nature of costs is talked about it is usually the complete costs and not a specific one.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-forces-air-force-to-revise-launch-mindset/Quote from: Mike Fabey“SpaceX does not launch on schedule,” Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith (commander, 45th Space Wing) said Sept. 20 during a space warfighting panel at the annual Air Force Association Air Space Cyber Conference. “They launch on readiness.”This launch-when-we’re-ready-to-go attitude has had an impact on SpaceX operational needs and costs, said Monteith, who also is director of the Air Force Eastern Range, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.“They have forced us — and I mean forced us — to get better, infinitely better, at what we do,” he said. “We are adopting commercial business practices and becom[ing] more efficient and more affordable.“Working with them, we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”...
Do you really remotely think that SpaceX has reduced the launch footprint of the AF by 60%?
“Working with them (SpaceX), we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they (SpaceX again) developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”
QuoteDo you really remotely think that SpaceX has reduced the launch footprint of the AF by 60%? yes, that is exactly what the article states:
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/21/2017 04:31 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 09/21/2017 03:00 pmMay I just say, thank goodness for the well-reasoned commentary (even in disagreements) available here.Literally, everything in moderation... QuoteThe SN comments sections have been a cesspool lately.A certain SN poster has returned who tends to distract conversations away from the core topics - maybe that's what you're seeing.I do wonder why SN can't or won't corral these people. The moderation is excellent at NSF, and most posters tend to refrain from ad hominem (or quickly learn to, anyway). It's such a relief after wading through threads at SN and, to a lesser extent, NW.
AFTS is probably the only way USAF will get to 48 launches... that and having a launch provider that brings that many payloads to the US launch facilities. Both AFTS and reusable launches are about cost of launch services... without SpaceX pushing the system incredibly hard, neither of these 'features' would be a part of the USAF's 'problem' because US launchers are otherwise too expensive for anything but USG launches (7-10 per year that are not SpaceX).
ULA won't switch to AFTS with Atlas and Delta. They will implement it on Vulcan. That's what has been discussed. No first hand knowledge by me.
AFTS is probably the only way USAF will get to 48 launches... that and having a launch provider that brings that many payloads to the US launch facilities. Both AFTS and reusable launches are about cost of launch services... without SpaceX pushing the system incredibly hard, neither of these 'features' would be a part of the USAF's 'problem' because US launchers are otherwise too expensive for anything but USG launches (7-10 per year that are not SpaceX).Congressional funding is completely irrelevant.QuoteDo you really remotely think that SpaceX has reduced the launch footprint of the AF by 60%? yes, that is exactly what the article states:Quote“Working with them (SpaceX), we have been able to reduce our main launch footprint by 60 percent and reduce the cost of a single launch by over 50 percent,” he said. “Based on the autonomous flight safety system they (SpaceX again) developed with us they will help us get to 48 launches a year.”...and they (SpaceX) are bringing the payloads (40+ of the 48).
Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing, said the successful launch with an Automated Flight Safety System, or AFSS, was a historic “game-changer,” demonstrating technology that will improve safety, lower costs and enable more launches from the Eastern Range.The company [SpaceX] did not need to buy the services of four Eastern Range systems normally used to track a rocket’s flight and enable its destruction, including radars and telemetry. As a result, nearly 150 fewer Range personnel than usual staffed the launch and flyback of the Falcon booster — a 60 percent drop. SpaceX will cut its Range-related expenses in half, Monteith said. (Those costs are considered proprietary.)Automated systems should enable faster turnarounds from one launch to another. Monteith said SpaceX could, in theory, launch twice within hours when both of its Cape pads are available. “For them I don’t think it’s really just about cost, I really believe it’s flexibility,” he said. “They launch on readiness.”Another business driver for SpaceX’s was the debut of its Falcon Heavy rocket ... SpaceX wants to land the two side boosters back at Cape Canaveral, while the middle booster flies on to a ship at sea, so all that three can be recovered and potentially reused. But current Range systems can’t track more than one returning booster. “If you want to fly multiple boosters back, they have got to be autonomous,” said Monteith. “Otherwise, they’ve got to put them in the ocean.”The Range’s goal is to be able support 48 launches a year by 2020...
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/ (Be sure to watch the video above the article, too. Very good.)QuoteBrig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing, said the successful launch with an Automated Flight Safety System, or AFSS, was a historic “game-changer,” demonstrating technology that will improve safety, lower costs and enable more launches from the Eastern Range.The company [SpaceX] did not need to buy the services of four Eastern Range systems normally used to track a rocket’s flight and enable its destruction, including radars and telemetry. As a result, nearly 150 fewer Range personnel than usual staffed the launch and flyback of the Falcon booster — a 60 percent drop. SpaceX will cut its Range-related expenses in half, Monteith said. (Those costs are considered proprietary.)Automated systems should enable faster turnarounds from one launch to another. Monteith said SpaceX could, in theory, launch twice within hours when both of its Cape pads are available. “For them I don’t think it’s really just about cost, I really believe it’s flexibility,” he said. “They launch on readiness.”
Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing, said the successful launch with an Automated Flight Safety System, or AFSS, was a historic “game-changer,” demonstrating technology that will improve safety, lower costs and enable more launches from the Eastern Range.The company [SpaceX] did not need to buy the services of four Eastern Range systems normally used to track a rocket’s flight and enable its destruction, including radars and telemetry. As a result, nearly 150 fewer Range personnel than usual staffed the launch and flyback of the Falcon booster — a 60 percent drop. SpaceX will cut its Range-related expenses in half, Monteith said. (Those costs are considered proprietary.)Automated systems should enable faster turnarounds from one launch to another. Monteith said SpaceX could, in theory, launch twice within hours when both of its Cape pads are available. “For them I don’t think it’s really just about cost, I really believe it’s flexibility,” he said. “They launch on readiness.”
Quote from: deruch on 09/23/2017 08:30 pmhttp://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/ (Be sure to watch the video above the article, too. Very good.)Quote<snip>The company [SpaceX] did not need to buy the services of four Eastern Range systems normally used to track a rocket’s flight and enable its destruction, including radars and telemetry. As a result, nearly 150 fewer Range personnel than usual staffed the launch and flyback of the Falcon booster — a 60 percent drop. SpaceX will cut its Range-related expenses in half, Monteith said. (Those costs are considered proprietary.)<snip>Is anyone else shocked that several hundred Range personnel are/were required for a launch? I had no idea it was so many. I'd love to see a rough breakdown on how they are employed. Security, emergency response, radar and optical tracking, etc., I suppose. I still wouldn't have thought it was 300 people.
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/ (Be sure to watch the video above the article, too. Very good.)Quote<snip>The company [SpaceX] did not need to buy the services of four Eastern Range systems normally used to track a rocket’s flight and enable its destruction, including radars and telemetry. As a result, nearly 150 fewer Range personnel than usual staffed the launch and flyback of the Falcon booster — a 60 percent drop. SpaceX will cut its Range-related expenses in half, Monteith said. (Those costs are considered proprietary.)<snip>
<snip>The company [SpaceX] did not need to buy the services of four Eastern Range systems normally used to track a rocket’s flight and enable its destruction, including radars and telemetry. As a result, nearly 150 fewer Range personnel than usual staffed the launch and flyback of the Falcon booster — a 60 percent drop. SpaceX will cut its Range-related expenses in half, Monteith said. (Those costs are considered proprietary.)<snip>
