Author Topic: Rebuilding SLC-40  (Read 196624 times)

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2686
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #540 on: 10/12/2017 03:50 PM »
Interesting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online.  SpaceX must have known that it needed replaced as soon as the fires were out.  I'd think they would have been working on it in the hangar as soon as they decided on any design changes and either before or at the same time as work started on the rest of the pad.

I think it's harder than most people believe to build a TEL. It may look like a big, dumb mass of steel truss with a few pipes running through it, but it's more complicated than that. There are some very tight tolerances that have to be held on a big structure that will bend under its own weight and then further when loaded with a vehicle and pumped full of cryo propellant. There was a post from one of the guys working on the LC-39 TEL where he mentioned having to haul his machining equipment up the truss while it was strapped to his back to do high-precision machining in situ. Holding gauge tolerances on something 200' tall is not a simple as cut-weld-paint.

Also, it's packed full of piping, duct work, electrical and controls and designed and built to survive a F9 launch a few feet away.

Rockets are hard, like really hard.
Excited to be finally into the first Falcon Heavy flow, we are getting so close!

Online SDSmith

  • Danny Smith
  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Georgia
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #541 on: 10/12/2017 04:16 PM »
Interesting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online.  SpaceX must have known that it needed replaced as soon as the fires were out.  I'd think they would have been working on it in the hangar as soon as they decided on any design changes and either before or at the same time as work started on the rest of the pad.

I think it's harder than most people believe to build a TEL. It may look like a big, dumb mass of steel truss with a few pipes running through it, but it's more complicated than that. There are some very tight tolerances that have to be held on a big structure that will bend under its own weight and then further when loaded with a vehicle and pumped full of cryo propellant. There was a post from one of the guys working on the LC-39 TEL where he mentioned having to haul his machining equipment up the truss while it was strapped to his back to do high-precision machining in situ. Holding gauge tolerances on something 200' tall is not a simple as cut-weld-paint.

Also, it's packed full of piping, duct work, electrical and controls and designed and built to survive a F9 launch a few feet away.

Rockets are hard, like really hard.
A steel fabricator has to do the initial work before SpaceX can start welding anything. The steel fabricator has to have the capacity to do the job. Once the job is started they have a massive list of steel to cut to a specific length and angle,then load the steel on to flat bed trailers grouping the steel in sections so they can start welding a section. I remember that 39A TEL is 1,500,000 pounds and at 40,000 pounds per load that will take 38 trailers to deliver. The LC40 TEL weight of 500,000 pounds (SWAG) that would be around 13 truck loads. A considerable amount of work has to be done before the welders get hold of the steel. I'm impressed as to what has been done.


Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #542 on: 10/13/2017 10:08 AM »
Interesting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online.

Long pole - think tent poles.


Ugg, brain and fingers don't always synchronize.

Offline octavo

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #543 on: 10/13/2017 02:10 PM »
Crossposting from the CRS-13 mission discussion thread :


November 28th per https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ Sept 30 change.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1440 says SLC-40 dating back to a change on 9th August but I cannot see source for that. sfn and launchphotography are not yet showing pad.

Is SLC-40 confirmed somewhere?

Yes. According official FCC application issued last week (3th Oct) SpaceX plans launch CRS-13 mission from Complex 40.

Discuss!

Is 40 further than we thought? Is there anything in L2 about this?

Edit: CRS-13 is NET 28 November, so I guess it fits :(
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 02:12 PM by octavo »


Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 401
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #545 on: 10/14/2017 03:16 PM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

Itís tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesnít mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5188
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 1773
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #546 on: 10/14/2017 03:46 PM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

Itís tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesnít mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.

Offline octavo

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #547 on: 10/15/2017 05:57 AM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

Itís tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesnít mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.
At the space council with the VPOTUS, didn't one of the agency heads promise they would move quickly to address regulatory issues identified in the SpaceX whitepaper?

Could such changes have already been made at the FAA, such that SpaceX is able to more easily and quickly amend the license?

Offline vaporcobra

Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #548 on: 10/15/2017 06:43 AM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

Itís tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesnít mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.

Pretty sure you're correct. If we are to take Shotwell's NSC comments at face value, it takes weeks to replace a launch license, as the FAA does not allow for modifications once they are provided (or it takes far longer than just filing for a new license). So they must be pretty confident in LC-40's progress. Either that or NASA and SpaceX are willing to stomach some slippage into the 6 month license.

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1452
  • California
  • Liked: 1120
  • Likes Given: 1526
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #549 on: 10/17/2017 07:18 AM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

Itís tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesnít mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.

Pretty sure you're correct. If we are to take Shotwell's NSC comments at face value, it takes weeks to replace a launch license, as the FAA does not allow for modifications once they are provided (or it takes far longer than just filing for a new license). So they must be pretty confident in LC-40's progress. Either that or NASA and SpaceX are willing to stomach some slippage into the 6 month license.
SpaceX currently has 2 FAA launch licenses for CRS missions-- LLS 14-087(Rev 2) and LLS 17-100.  One that covers launches from SLC-40 (the one that was in effect from before AMOS-6 and was never cancelled) and one from LC-39A.  So, there won't be any licensing issues for them on swapping pads for CRS launches.  The FCC is a different agency and is in charge of overseeing the radio emissions during the missions.  From what we can see as outsiders, dealing with the FCC and getting amendments and changes approved to their applications is very easy.  With the FAA it's not.  This isn't too surprising as the FAA is the agency with responsibility for ensuring that commercial launches aren't going to hurt people or damage property.  As opposed to the FCC being concerned that there might be an unacceptable level of radio interference.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Tags: