In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

I'm sure NASA reviewed that aspect of the hardware/software and was
convinced that early leg deployment wouldn't happen. As you say, the
flight has flown, so they must have been o.k. with it.

Jeff

You know, this got me looking at their launch history and it dawned on me,
they're doing decent turnaround.

April 18th launch - CCLC40
May 10 (planned) Launch - CCLC40
June Launch (planned) - CCLC40
July Launch (planned) - CCLC40
August 8 (planned) - CCLC40

That's pretty much 5 launches in 5 months (planned, subject of course to
change).

They're definitely making this an operational system.

(I consider the ability to stack and launch in such a short period of time a
good sign.)

Yes, they are, and it's a good sign if they can actually keep up that
pace. But this industry being what it is, delays seem to be inevitable.

It's also important to note that not all delays are even caused by
SpaceX. They've seen at least one significant delay due to range
issues. Minor delays due to range issues is very common at Cape
Canaveral since the USAF is in charge of range safety and they don't
seem to have much capability to support multiple launches in short time
periods very well anymore.

The above is one reason why SpaceX has been actively pursuing a launch
site in Texas. At least in Texas they'd be the only ones using that
launch range, so the sorts of launch range conflicts described above
wouldn't necessarily exist.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer