XPost: sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei  wrote:   
      
   >On 2017-06-01 19:15, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >>   
   >> It all depends on how many range safety people and how much gear you   
   >> have that would allow working in parallel.  And that 'one day shift'   
   >> is actually several days worked back to back with no interrupting   
   >> sleep.   
   >>   
   >   
   >So, that would mean you agree that the time needed is to prepare for a   
   >flight, not to switch from one flight to another. This discussion arose   
   >from the premise that it took forever to switch from one flight to   
   >another to re-orient antennas, recalculate everything etc.   
   >   
      
   That rather depends on the difference between the orbits the flights   
   are going to and the booster vehicles.  If you don't have to re-orient   
   anything, the time gets shorter (which ought to be obvious to even the   
   most brain-dead observer).  If one flight is going to a 23 degree   
   inclination and the next is going to 54 degrees, it all takes longer.   
   The 'recalculate' part can be done during that 5,000 feet of the mile   
   that you don't want to count as part of the race, given enough advance   
   notice and enough duplicate capacity, but you still have to program   
   the motions into the range equipment even if you're going to the same   
   orbit if the performance characteristics of the two boosters are   
   significantly different.   
      
   You know, you'd probably do a lot better if you started thinking and   
   stopped trying to go for some 'gotcha' moment.   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)