Did a quick search & didn't see anything specifically on point, so here goes....
My overall question:
"How much excess launch cadence capability do the facilities at both Kennedy Space Center (civilian side) and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (DoD side) currently have without needing to do much additional infrastructure build-out (and/or regulatory red tape) work?
Related sub-questions:
1) If they have more capacity as things currently exist now, how much is it? (i.e., Only at 50% capacity such that the cadence could still double without doing much addtional build-out, or are they already at 90% capacity?)
2) If they're approaching or at capacity now, how "heavy of a lift" will it be to open up additional capacity when needed? Is it relatively low hanging fruit? (e.g., They have the land, regulatory approval, and/or safety review/margins approved & it's just a matter of money & physically building/upgrading facilities?) Or are they already at a point where they'll be having to bushwack through a thicket of red tape, safety/enviornmental review & approvals, eminent domain/land acquisition battles, etc. just to get permission to break ground on a new infrastructure project?
Reasoning for my questions:
I know SpaceX has 39A and also some type of leasing rights for LC 49. However, it looks like their operational flights out of Boca Chica might be limited & it may be several years (or ever) before they ever get those sea platforms/oil rigs going.
That siad, I also think it's not unreasonable to expect the US Space Force launch activities will only grow over time. And whether they like it not, other commercial launch vendors will be dragged kicking & screaming into the fully reusable model within 10 years, which presumably means much faster on-site turn-around/relaunch times, flight plans that involve RTLS controlled landings immediately after launch, etc. So as much as SpaceX is the inspiration for my question, I think they're just a harbinger of what's to come.
Bottom Line: I think within the next 10-15 years, the overall raw number of launch & "return to landing site" controlled landings we see on an annual basis might substantially increase. Assuming that Cape Canaveral generally (between KSC & CCSFS) wants to remain the "O'Hare Airport" of the spaceflight industry, are they currently in a position to absorb that significantly increased cadence? If not, what's the "hard ceiling" they could theoretically grow into & how much resistance are they likely to face as they start moving towards that "hard ceiling" capacity? (e.g, Acquiring more land, if technically feasible/responsible, getting regulatory approvals to reduce the required geographic & time-based "safety margins"/"range clearances" between launches/RTLS landings at various pads along The Cape, etc.)
Slightly more recent thread on the topic:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48817.0
Thanks. Interesting threads, both of them. Three things struck me:
1) This drive to "48 launches per year"---is that just the Space Force base, or the entire Eastern Range? B/C for 2022, I think the Eastern Range is on pace to do about 60ish launches.
2) One little nugget burried in the older one you seemed to have posted:
From the ULA testimony at today's House hearing on Commercial Space Transportation Regulatory Reform: Stakeholder Perspective
https://transportation.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=402613
The following example illustrates one issue launch providers currently face as a
result of agency differences at the launch site:
During a commercial launch campaign, the FAA treats major operations at
nearby facilities (e.g. a static test firing at a different launch provider’s
facility) differently than the USAF does for one of its missions. One difference
relates to the Flight Hazard Area /Flight Caution Area. Specifically, the 45th
Space Wing is more accommodating when it comes to allowing ULA Mission
Essential Personnel to remain at Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) during
major operations at SLC-40 for non-FAA licensed missions. This enables
ULA to keep personnel working and not delay operations for the next Atlas V
launch. However, the FAA is less accommodating in allowing ULA personnel
to remain at SLC-41 during FAA licensed operations at SLC-40, which can
cause monumental delays and schedule perturbations. There can be several
FAA licensed missions per year at each launch site, and the resulting
deleterious effect on the other party’s launch operations are significant.
Launch providers and the USAF Range spend much time and significant
resources de-conflicting SLC-40 and SLC-41 operations due to the FAAunique
requirements that other agencies do not impose
The FAA..... our old friend.....
3) The improvements thus far seem to be incremental in nature. I’m still not clear on whether that’ll be sufficient to meet future needs. Even if SpaceX never hits that crazy 960 launches per year suggested in the older thread, it’s not improbable that they’d want 100 or 200 per year. First to service their massive Starlink constellation & second to do a bunch of refueling flights if there’s a paradigm shift and suddenly NASA & 3rd party exploration missions have big appetites for sending huge payloads for orbiters, telescopes, landers, etc beyond LEO. Is that going to create launch & RTLA authorization gridlock on the Eastern Range? Or is the incremental approach going to be enough to stay ahead of demand?
1) This drive to "48 launches per year"---is that just the Space Force base, or the entire Eastern Range? B/C for 2022, I think the Eastern Range is on pace to do about 60ish launches.
2. The FAA..... our old friend.....
1. range
2. Boca Chica issues are not the FAA's fault.
The Eastern Range is still working on speeding things up, 48 is no longer the goal.
The Eastern Range is still working on speeding things up, 48 is no longer the goal.
Presuming the goal is closer to the projected 60ish mention up thread?
The Eastern Range is still working on speeding things up, 48 is no longer the goal.
Counting one at MARS the Eastern Range is already at 24 for the first half of 2022. So they have probably attained the 48 goal. So kudos to them.
The Eastern Range is still working on speeding things up, 48 is no longer the goal.
Counting one at MARS the Eastern Range is already at 24 for the first half of 2022. So they have probably attained the 48 goal. So kudos to them.
MARS isn't part of the Eastern Range. It is part of the Wallops range