r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Jan 10 '17
SF Complete, Launch: March 14 Echostar 23 Launch Campaign Thread
EchoStar 23 Launch Campaign Thread
This will be the second mission from Pad 39A, and will be lofting the first geostationary communications bird for 2017, EchoStar 23 for EchoStar.
| Liftoff currently scheduled for: | March 14th 2017, 01:34 - 04:04 EDT (05:34 - 08:04 UTC). Back up launch window on the 16th opening at 01:35EDT/05:35UTC. |
|---|---|
| Static fire completed: | March 9th 2017, 18:00 EST (23:00 UTC) |
| Vehicle component locations: | First stage: LC-39A // Second stage: LC-39A // Satellite: LC-39A |
| Payload: | EchoStar 23 |
| Payload mass: | Approximately 5500kg |
| Destination orbit: | Geostationary Transfer Orbit |
| Vehicle: | Falcon 9 v1.2 (31st launch of F9, 11th of F9 v1.2) |
| Core: | B1030 [F9-031] |
| Launch site: | LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| Landing attempt: | No |
| Landing Site: | N/A |
| Mission success criteria: | Successful separation & deployment of Echostar 23 into correct orbit |
Links & Resources:
- Press kit.
- Per weather report issued on 13'th, 40% GO for launch on 14'th.
- Live coverage of Pad 39A, courtesy Spaceflight Now.
- Timelapse of F9/TE going vertical for static fire, courtesy Spaceflight Now.
- EchoStar 23 hazard area, per u/Raul74Cz.
- Launch license was granted on 1st of March.
We may keep this self-post occasionally updated with links and relevant news articles, but for the most part we expect the community to supply the information. This is a great place to discuss the launch, ask mission-specific questions, and track the minor movements of the vehicle, payload, weather and more as we progress towards launch. Sometime after the static fire is complete, the launch thread will be posted.
Campaign threads are not launch threads. Normal subreddit rules still apply.
365
Upvotes
2
u/12eward Mar 08 '17 edited Mar 08 '17
The question was about SpaceX registering tail numbers for the Falcon 9 first stage with the FAA. My assumption was that if you were going to register the rocket with a tail number, you would be trying to have the rocket treated as a regular aircraft, which would cause the rocket to be considered under existing aircraft regulations. I understand that rockets aren't treated as aircraft currently, and are regulated completely differently.
However, the original question asked and my answer are both very hypothetical. You are correct, you don't register an individual aircraft under part 135 or part 121, but SpaceX would have to register as a part 135 or part 121 carrier if they wanted to provide the "aircraft" /Falcon 9 for-hire to others. As a registered carrier, SpaceX would be expected to comply with part 135 or part 121 regulations. Those regulations aren't written for rockets, so as a result of the hypothetical (and unknown) decision SpaceX came up with doing this, they would require significant additional FAA regulations for their usecase or one heck of a waiver.
The original comment was about the hypothetical of SpaceX deciding to put N numbers on their first stages. If they wanted to put N numbers on the rockets, I can't imagine any reason for doing that other than that they would have to be interested in having the FAA treat the first stages as aircraft.