…has been scrubbed, due to a failed static-fire test today. Seems to be an umbilical problem.
Maybe next week.
[Update late morning]
Here‘s the full story. As as often the case, it’s a range constraint. I’m sure that’s one of the big motivations to go to Texas. I recall seeing Gwynne wandering the hall at an AIAA conference about eight years ago (when they were getting screwed over at Vandenberg) muttering, “I hate ranges, I hate ranges.”
The last Dragon’s still up there.
Is SpaceX prepared for two simultaneous sets of orbital ops? (Two mission controls?) Or are people switching back and forth and planning to avoid overlap?
I don’t think there are any orbital ops with Dragon until it has to come home.
But is that ‘return date’ going to be blocking their possible launch dates?
Because that Dragon -is- supposed to return soonish, right? (Cygnus is supposed to have a mission RSN…)
I don’t know. I think they can walk and chew gum. They have to be able to handle multiple activities if they get to the kind of flight rates they want to.
It’s likely that their Dragon orbital ops team is a different bunch of people than their Falcon launch team. There won’t be a lot of orbital ops for the Falcon except perhaps during the deployment phase.
Crap. I was taking the family over for the launch, too. Grumble.
Lol, you should know better. Bummer though, would have been great fun.
True, but I thought THIS time. . . .
Range ops are going to be a serious sticking point in any ramp up in space activity. A key question is: what kind of inspection/licensing will SpaceX have to go through with their own range in Texas? Building one from scratch has huge potential for improvements in operations, but will the government deem something new ‘safe enough’?
That’s not really an issue. Kodiak has their own private range. This isn’t anything new.
The earlier Orbcomm satellites were mostly in orbits with a 45 degree inclination. While I don’t know for sure, it’s likely that their new satellites will be in a similar inclination. I don’t know if Brownsville will support that inclination due to overflight constraints. I think it’s mostly intended for GTO launches.
Based on the Brownsville site latitude, they’d need to launch on an azimuth of 51.8 degrees or 128.2 degrees to put something into a 45 degree inclination. 51.8 degrees is definitely out because it’d overfly the US. It’ll be a while before they let that happen (SpaceX is no more immune from launch failures than anyone else). The 128.2 degree launch azimuth might work by splitting between Cancun, Mexico and Cuba. It’d be pretty tight.
Hadn’t thought of Kodiak. Thanks. Hope SpaceX in Brownsville plays out the same way. Cool to see that Kodiak has no endangered species to deal with.
http://www.akaerospace.com/docs/media_Nov08_PileBuck_KLC.pdf
Hi Rand,
How is a SpaceX hardware failure a range constraint issue? Just like airlines using limited runway facilities (I wonder why that example comes to mind?), you schedule time for access to them. If you miss your slot, you wait for the next available slot.
We’re all glad to see these guys and enjoy their success, wish them the best, etc., but I think they should talk a little less smack and get in touch with the reality that this is a hard business and lots will go wrong.
They’re still early in the learning curve, and a little humility would go a long way.
Just like airlines using limited runway facilities (I wonder why that example comes to mind?), you schedule time for access to them.
The “runway” shouldn’t be that limited. In fact, there’s no good reason that they shouldn’t be able to do multiple launches per day, from a technology standpoint. But the procedures and equipment are antiquated.
Precisely, Rand. No one would accept this sort of nonsense from an airport, and we should’t accept it from a launch site. But we do because space has not been important enough to improve the support facilities and methods at government sites. Then when there’s a delay like this, it falsely “proves” how hard it is to launch on time for anyone, ever.
Huh? I don’t think Rand meant to imply that the range was to blame for the SpaceX pad issue that is causing this delay.
But the range availability does matter for when the next launch opportunity can be.
And talk about “humility”… sounds an awful lot like “what goes around comes around” comments from LM employees on other sites. Geez. You know SpaceX are doing something right if people attached to the competitors feel threatened enough to publicly post on every issue.
I don’t think Rand meant to imply that the range was to blame for the SpaceX pad issue that is causing this delay.
No, the pad problem is on SpaceX. But the fact that they can’t just turn it around quickly, and have to wait till later in the month is in fact due to range constraints. A modern range would be able to walk and chew gum.
What is involved in reconfiguring the range for different launch vehicles? Back in the 1960s, launch rates at the Cape were much higher than today and there were more varieties of rockets being launched. Is this a recent problem?
I don’t honestly know.
I’m not sure the issue is reconfiguration so much as not being able to walk and chew gum simultaneously. I would imagine that SpaceX has taken more pains than they want to in order to be compatible with the range.
rickl,
You can look the rates up online, but consider the staffing and realities of the range as our government has chosen to operate it. Try to remember if you don’t like the saddle that’s on the horses back, the horse had very little to do with it.
Again, I know folks are very happy to see SpaceX out here doing good stuff-
That’s my point. “As the government has chosen to operate it.”
Florida lost to Texas at least partially because they haven’t set up their own, modern range.
It’s a bit like people taking attacks on NASA’s direction (or lack thereof) as an attack on every employee. Or any comment on shuttle safety as “an insult” to everyone in the program.
I have seen large organisation where (a) 97% of the employees were in the “I-would-hire-them-with-my-own-money”, and (b) 100% of the organisations decisions were essentially… stupid.
I would bet that the range is actually run (at the lower management/tech level) by a bunch of very hard working, clever, innovative people. Who are spending much of their time holding it together with chewing gum and tape.
No, it isn’t a recent problem. I read Air Force documents over 10 years ago that complained of the high costs, slow turnaround time, and inflexibility of the launch ranges. It just never was a high enough priority (in the age of massive cost overruns on programs like SBIRS and AEHF) to fix the ranges.
From what I remember, the problems are with how the various range radars and systems must be configured to support each launch. I don’t remember the specifics, though. As to why it didn’t seem to be a problem earlier, the Wikipedia article mentioned there used to be many more radars in the range. With fewer radars, you’re more limited in the number of launches you can support.
As to why it didn’t seem to be a problem earlier, the Wikipedia article mentioned there used to be many more radars in the range. With fewer radars, you’re more limited in the number of launches you can support.
OK, that makes sense.
Would it be feasible for SpaceX to build their own radar installation?
Perhaps they don’t need to build a radar at all. Just because radars is the way it has been done, it doesn’t mean that’s the best or only way it can be done.
They could use GPS receivers on the rocket or information from the vehicle guidance system to transmit position and velocity vectors to the ground. A simple receiving station is a lot easier and cheaper to build than a radar. For a launch out of Texas, they might want another receiving station in Florida or possibly use an Iridium satellite link.
Another idea is they could have the rocket monitor its own trajectory with an independent system and self-destruct if it goes off course.
No, that does not fulfill the need. The need is to be able to track debris as well as an intact rocket.
As SpaceX ramps up its launch tempo at existing pads and brings new ones on-line, its influence at existing ranges will grow. I’m guessing the trend toward private parties taking over use of more and more extant infrastructure will continue. The government will either have to provide modern improvements or let coalitions of users, or even single user companies, do the job in lieu of government investment in these straightened budgetary times. SpaceX and ULA already do all the launches from Kennedy/Canaveral. They may not see eye-to-eye on much, but I have a feeling that range improvements might be a significant exception. Nor do I see Blue Origin and Orbital, if either ever initiates flight ops from K/C, opposing such initiatives. Both SpaceX and ULA are at least attempting to increase their flight rates. This time around, it’s a pair of ULA missions that may push a SpaceX mission to near month’s-end. In a year or so it will probably be a toss-up as to which launch services provider’s missions potentially interfere with the other’s more often in this way. Beyond a year, I’m guessing ULA is likelier to be the blocked party. I see the basis for a common front on the matter of range improvements.
Every launch that this company had done has been experimental in some aspect. Implying that “this is operational vehicle, we don’t need external tracking and range safety devices” at this stage is hilarious.
STS after three decades of launches was STILL experimental.
These flight rates are probably about two orders of magnitude less than what would prompt significant rethinking of range ops.
Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that range ops in Florida are a government program that haven’t changed significantly in tech in decades because there’s no institutional incentive to do so.
With launch ops limited by range infrastructure, the point was that boosting ops by even a factor of two, let alone “two orders of magnitude” is not in the cards absent some improvements. I gather that, on the Atlantic Test Range, a “new” radar is somewhat like a “new” car in Cuba – something from the early 60’s. As I noted above, before having an opportunity to read your comment, neither ULA nor SpaceX can be very happy with the current state of affairs. That being so, there would seem to be some basis for supposing improvements can be negotiated and arranged before matters get entirely out of hand.