NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Facilities and Fleets => Topic started by: Beittil on 09/01/2016 07:20 pm

Title: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Beittil on 09/01/2016 07:20 pm
So, at first people thought the T/E got away relatively unscratched, but since the US Launch Report video came it the opposite became quite obvious. Not only is all the plumbing totally fried, the payload+fairing almost darn near ripped off the entire top section, seems fairly obvious that it may well be scrapped.

My thought since... could they take the T/E frame from 39A and fit that to the SLC-40 pad? It would save a good deal of time as opposed to building a completely new T/E for SLC-40 right away?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/01/2016 07:22 pm

My thought since... could they take the T/E frame from 39A and fit that to the SLC-40 pad? It would save a good deal of time as opposed to building a completely new T/E for SLC-40 right away?

No, too big for SLC-40 hangar and pad
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Beittil on 09/01/2016 07:47 pm
Hypothetical: How soon could 39A be ready for launching in case the root cause turned out to be something on the T/E? If it turns out Falcon 9 isn't to blame then obviously operations at Vandy could resume as scheduled, but how soon could 39A take over east coast ops?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/01/2016 07:55 pm
LC-39A was supposed to have been ready for launches within the next couple months (Jim probably knows more exactly). Depending on whether or not TEL or GSE equipment will have to be modified or redesigned, it could be ready fairly soon. If the problem was with the rocket, it may be a moot point.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: yokem55 on 09/01/2016 07:59 pm
Hypothetical: How soon could 39A be ready for launching in case the root cause turned out to be something on the T/E? If it turns out Falcon 9 isn't to blame then obviously operations at Vandy could resume as scheduled, but how soon could 39A take over east coast ops?
A few months? But they are going to want to make darn sure that the issue is fixed first.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: WindnWar on 09/01/2016 08:06 pm
LC-39A was supposed to have been ready for launches within the next couple months (Jim probably knows more exactly). Depending on whether or not TEL or GSE equipment will have to be modified or redesigned, it could be ready fairly soon. If the problem was with the rocket, it may be a moot point.

39A was designed to be able to launch both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy from the beginning. Remember they initially planned on doing test firings of the returned stages on 39A at one point but decided to do that at McGregor instead.

Given that, other than need to complete wet dress rehearsals whenever the pad is ready, there is nothing to modify or change. The only mods needed might be if something that caused today to happen is part of the GSE or the vehicle umbilical design. If so that would need the change.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/01/2016 08:14 pm
LC-39A was supposed to have been ready for launches within the next couple months (Jim probably knows more exactly). Depending on whether or not TEL or GSE equipment will have to be modified or redesigned, it could be ready fairly soon. If the problem was with the rocket, it may be a moot point.

39A was designed to be able to launch both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy from the beginning. Remember they initially planned on doing test firings of the returned stages on 39A at one point but decided to do that at McGregor instead.

Given that, other than need to complete wet dress rehearsals whenever the pad is ready, there is nothing to modify or change. The only mods needed might be if something that caused today to happen is part of the GSE or the vehicle umbilical design. If so that would need the change.
LC-39A was originally designed to launch Saturn rockets. Then modified for Shuttle operations, now SpaceX is modifying it for Falcon 9 and Heavy. Modifications for SpaceX use are still not complete.

Other than that probable misunderstanding, I think we're in agreement.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: WindnWar on 09/01/2016 09:16 pm
By designed for I didn't mean the original design of 39A, I meant the design of the modifications SpaceX is making.

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/01/2016 09:49 pm
Good idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.

New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: TomH on 09/01/2016 09:51 pm
By designed for I didn't mean the original design of 39A, I meant the design of the modifications SpaceX is making.

I completely understood it that way.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 09/01/2016 10:05 pm
Good idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.

New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.

The 0A pad got away almost unscathed! The lightning rods melted because they were mush smaller for the smaller pad with much less lightning. The rocket impacted near but not on the launch platform and most of their fueling system was intact.

LC-40 appears to have the TEL destroyed, the pad based fuel cooling/storage seems likely destroyed based on the later explosion, any plumbing or electronics anywhere near the launch platform is destroyed. It seems to me like basically all the GSE will have to be rebuilt. They have the concrete structure, the lightning towers and their pre-owned O2 tank left.

I think this is going to be closer to $40 million rather than O-ATKs $15 million.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rcoppola on 09/01/2016 10:17 pm
So my basic question will be: (There is no way to answer without understanding full damage report and what the root cause/fix will be)

Can they finish and fully activate LC39A before they could rebuild and re-actvate LC40?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/01/2016 10:26 pm
New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.

I wonder what the pad-end of the HIF looks like. Shrapnel or heat damage? I also believe any exposed GSE within a few hundred feet of the base of the pad is likely to have serious heat damage, if it wasn't consumed entirely in the subsequent extended fire.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/02/2016 02:12 am
So my basic question will be: (There is no way to answer without understanding full damage report and what the root cause/fix will be)

Can they finish and fully activate LC39A before they could rebuild and re-actvate LC40?

That's what I've been wondering.  I'd have to think the answer is yes -- it may take the better part of a year to rebuild Pad 40.  Heck, it may make more sense, and be done faster, just to speed up building at Boca Chica, and use 39A for the ETR launches until then.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/02/2016 03:35 am
A big question for me is how much damage the flame trench (exhaust duct) suffered.  Much of SLC 40 is (or was) underground.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Beittil on 09/02/2016 07:19 am
Good idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.

New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.

The 0A pad got away almost unscathed! The lightning rods melted because they were mush smaller for the smaller pad with much less lightning. The rocket impacted near but not on the launch platform and most of their fueling system was intact.

Lets also not forget that 0A's lightning masts were also pretty built onto the launch pad itself, MUCH closer to the rocket than the giant towers at SLC-40 are. In the video you can clearly see the SLC-40 masts getting baked a bit from the heat, but it seems as of none of them were actually impacted.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 09/02/2016 10:37 am
Good idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.

New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.

Emphasis mine.
That's exactly why I think the damage at LC-40 is probably worse than what was seen at pad OA. Most of OA's ground elements were protected from the Antares blast behind a lot of concrete. No such thing on LC-40. Apart from the flame trench elements and a wall protecting the LOX storage, the pad is mostly flat and 'open'. Given the close proximity of the HIF, I can only imagine that it will be holed pretty good with substantial damage to indoors systems and hardware due to ballistics and heat. Same goes for other nearby 'soft' structures.
The only reason why the TEL is still standing is because it is 80 percent open structure and hardened for the launch environment.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vanoord on 09/02/2016 11:44 am
I'd imagine that commissioning a new TEL would be quicker (and simpler) than trying to recover some parts from the damaged one, testing them - and then having to replace most of it anyway.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Hywel1995 on 09/02/2016 11:50 am
Weren't SpaceX holding the old NASA radars systems by LC-40 ready for Boca?

Any status on those?

Edit: I derped on my sentence.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/02/2016 01:06 pm
Good idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.

New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.

Emphasis mine.
That's exactly why I think the damage at LC-40 is probably worse than what was seen at pad OA. Most of OA's ground elements were protected from the Antares blast behind a lot of concrete. No such thing on LC-40. Apart from the flame trench elements and a wall protecting the LOX storage, the pad is mostly flat and 'open'. Given the close proximity of the HIF, I can only imagine that it will be holed pretty good with substantial damage to indoors systems and hardware due to ballistics and heat. Same goes for other nearby 'soft' structures.
The only reason why the TEL is still standing is because it is 80 percent open structure and hardened for the launch environment.

Here are some aerials looking at the complex. The USLaunchReport footage was shot from the west-south-west direction, and I don't see any large debris flying past the lightening towers. As you can see from the WNW view, that end of the HIF is composed almost entirely of a large folding door, and it's 550 feet away from the pad, compared to the lightening towers 250 feet away.

I wouldn't expect any HIF damage other than superficial scorching and maybe some dents from smaller flying debris.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/02/2016 02:31 pm
A big question for me is how much damage the flame trench (exhaust duct) suffered.  Much of SLC 40 is (or was) underground.

 - Ed Kyle

I've walked through it's twin, SLC 41, years ago and that would be the very least of my concerns.  The size and thickness is very significant (feet thick) a 45 minute fire won't damage it. 

The rest of the pad looks thoroughly scorched. 

Yesterday I was thinking a best case would be 6 months, today I'm with holding estimates.

Perhaps, like the Six Million Dollar Man, they can rebuild it so that pad is better, stronger, faster than it use to be.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/02/2016 03:32 pm
Maybe not rebuilt? Have 39a and Boca handle everything? They always seem to adapt to conditions as they exist. Plus, this may mean the back log will shrink so they will not have as many launches reducing the need for two pads on the East Coast.

39a should be ready by the time the investigation is over. Boca in 2018. If 40 reconstruction takes a year, waiting on Boca may be reasonable.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 09/02/2016 03:40 pm
Assuming that the TEL is a loss, rather than just the top section needing replacement, I wonder if we'll see the LC-39A TEL style on the next iteration?  All three existing TEL (and the first one at LC-40) are open latice design but the 39A TEL just has a different look to it with the flat panels.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gordo on 09/02/2016 03:46 pm
I would very surprised is the team did not focus all efforts on 39a now.  They have a significant backlog to launch, which would be significantly affected by what I would expect to be significant damage to a lot of the systems at 40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: John Alan on 09/02/2016 03:54 pm
SLC-40 may have launched it's last rocket with JCSAT-16 earlier in August...  :o
They will finish 39A and get it online first...
Decide if Boca can be done sooner then later...
THEN make a choice... as to IF SLC-40 is worth repairing... or not...

MY 'gut' is telling me the damage is extensive to GSE piping and equipment...  :'(

Just my opinion on topic...  ???
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Mark S on 09/02/2016 03:54 pm
Here are some aerials looking at the complex.

Can you give some details on the source of those photos, when they were taken, etc? They look photoshopped beyond all reason. Were they taken before SpX took over the site? Thanks.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/02/2016 03:58 pm
Here are some aerials looking at the complex.

Can you give some details on the source of those photos, when they were taken, etc? They look photoshopped beyond all reason. Were they taken before SpX took over the site? Thanks.

They're just screencaps from Google Earth.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: launchwatcher on 09/02/2016 04:17 pm
There are some eyewitness reports from a CCAFS firefighter at the scene here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/50rr9v/falcon_9_amos6_static_fire_anomaly_faq_summary/d76pjdb
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/02/2016 04:31 pm
There are some eyewitness reports from a CCAFS firefighter at the scene here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/50rr9v/falcon_9_amos6_static_fire_anomaly_faq_summary/d76pjdb
From the link:
Quote
The hangar actually doesn't appear damaged but I'm sitting on the opposite side of the pad right now and can't see it close up. As for concrete, I'm not sure yet but plumbing and piping leading into/out of the pad definitely is.

That sounds about right. Anything that's not concrete and is closer than the lightening towers most likely has to be replaced, IMO.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AS-503 on 09/02/2016 04:34 pm
Here are some aerials looking at the complex.

Can you give some details on the source of those photos, when they were taken, etc? They look photoshopped beyond all reason. Were they taken before SpX took over the site? Thanks.

Before SpaceX took over the site?

SLC-40 had the Titan IV mobile launch tower and other support infrastructure/buildings that are not in those "photoshoped" images.

In the third photo you can see Elon himself breaking ground for the "new" SLC-40 with the old Titan launch tower in the background.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/02/2016 04:37 pm
Before SpaceX took over the site?

SLC-40 had the Titan IV mobile launch tower and other support infrastructure/buildings that are not in those "photoshoped" images.

In the third photo you can see Elon himself breaking ground for the "new" SLC-40 with the old Titan launch tower in the background.

Yeah, SLC-40 looks very different now than it did pre-SpaceX.

They're just screencaps from Google Earth.

Exactly. They are aerials that are digitally composited onto a detailed terrain map to give a 3D view. Not sure how old they are, but they a post-SpaceX upgrades. That's the SpaceX TEL in on the pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/02/2016 04:52 pm
SLC-40 may have launched it's last rocket with JCSAT-16 earlier in August...  :o
They will finish 39A and get it online first...
Decide if Boca can be done sooner then later...
THEN make a choice... as to IF SLC-40 is worth repairing... or not...

MY 'gut' is telling me the damage is extensive to GSE piping and equipment...  :'(

Just my opinion on topic...  ???


Doubtful, I thought LC39A was intended to be the FH, NASA and DoD pad.  Crew, Cargo, defense payloads.  That would be 6+ launches a year for customers that have pretty fixed launch windows.

They may not need it for a year or so, but if they really want to get to 40-50 launches a year they will need SLC 40.

Certainly a change up to whatever their plans were before yesterday morning.  But as others have said, they have proven flexible.

IMHO, SLC40 will be back.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2016 05:03 pm
No more talk of SLC-40 seeing its last launch.  It is too important in Spacex plans
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: PahTo on 09/02/2016 05:15 pm

Thanks Jim--good words.  I'm reposting part of a post from yesterday, as it pertains to this thread:


Bummer--my thoughts with SpX and the spaceflight community.

Having said that, and in keeping with my career at a project manager, a couple thoughts:

Based on the MARS experience, it would appear SLC40 will be out of commission for quite some time (a year?).  This would indicate ramping up pad 39A completion to get back to launch capability asap.  However, as padrat and others would attest, the skills required to get a pad flight ready are somewhat specialized, so the conundrum:  get 39A ready at the expense of repairing SLC40?  If the team(s) is split, that slows down both efforts.  This is a tough one for sure!

(edit:  I think it safe to say they'll focus effort on 39A before SLC40, but the clean up should proceed with alacrity so the site is ready when they have the staff to effect repairs.)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rockets4life97 on 09/02/2016 05:21 pm
Are there folks around with the experience of building pads that SpaceX could quickly increase their pad construction team(s)?

From a financial perspective, it seems like SpaceX needs to get an East Coast pad up and running as soon as they can (and they probably need both pads) to have any chance of making up the backlog on their manifest in the coming 2 years. So, if there are people to be hired than it seems like SpaceX would hire them.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jak Kennedy on 09/02/2016 05:28 pm
Perhaps they can divert some of the GSE that was destined for Boca Chica to SLC-40? Have SpaceX already started on building the Boca Chica TEL?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/02/2016 05:38 pm
Based on the MARS experience, it would appear SLC40 will be out of commission for quite some time (a year?).  T
A year at least and likely longer.  After AC-5 did something similar to LC 36A in 1965 nearly 16 months passed before another launch took place from that pad. 

 - ED Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/02/2016 05:47 pm
SLC-40 may have launched it's last rocket
...
Doubtful, I thought LC39A was intended to be the FH, NASA and DoD pad.  Crew, Cargo, defense payloads.  That would be 6+ launches a year for customers that have pretty fixed launch windows.

They may not need it for a year or so, but if they really want to get to 40-50 launches a year they will need SLC 40.
...
IMHO, SLC40 will be back.

No more talk of SLC-40 seeing its last launch.  It is too important in Spacex plans

If SpaceX have to do major rebuild of the GSE to get LC-40 back into service.

Should they just put up a new hangar and redo the fire trench to be compatible with the Falcon Heavy also?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: spacenut on 09/02/2016 05:50 pm
They will probably figure which can be completed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time wise, then concentrate on the first one, say 39a.  Then if Boca Chica can be completed before 40, then concentrate on it, or if 40 can be rebuilt before Boca Chica, then concentrate of 40.  Simple.  Like someone said, they have a huge launch manifest.  However, they have to get the 2nd stage problems fixed also and fast. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/02/2016 05:51 pm
SLC-40 may have launched it's last rocket
...
Doubtful, I thought LC39A was intended to be the FH, NASA and DoD pad.  Crew, Cargo, defense payloads.  That would be 6+ launches a year for customers that have pretty fixed launch windows.

They may not need it for a year or so, but if they really want to get to 40-50 launches a year they will need SLC 40.
...
IMHO, SLC40 will be back.

No more talk of SLC-40 seeing its last launch.  It is too important in Spacex plans

If SpaceX have to do major rebuild of the GSE to get LC-40 back into service.

Should they just put up a new hangar and redo the fire trench to be compatible with the Falcon Heavy also?

"Redo[ing] the [flame] trench" would mean demolishing the entire pad. They're not going to do that.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: bstrong on 09/02/2016 05:56 pm
"Redo[ing] the [flame] trench" would mean demolishing the entire pad. They're not going to do that.

Back before they got 39A, they planned to launch FH from 40. Presumably they had a plan for doing that didn't require that they stop launching for a year+ while they demolished and rebuilt the entire pad.

But I agree that now would be a bad time to do anything more than the minimum necessary to bring it back online.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: John Alan on 09/02/2016 05:58 pm
They will probably figure which can be completed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time wise, then concentrate on the first one, say 39a.  Then if Boca Chica can be completed before 40, then concentrate on it, or if 40 can be rebuilt before Boca Chica, then concentrate of 40.  Simple.  Like someone said, they have a huge launch manifest.  However, they have to get the 2nd stage problems fixed also and fast.

Exactly... thanks for saying it better then I did up top...  :-[

And because SLC-40 can't do Heavy... they have to decide where to be with it in 5 years time...
1) repaired as a FT only pad...
2) rebuilt into a Heavy/FT pad...
3) decide 39A and Boca is enough and walk away from it...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2016 06:02 pm

Back before they got 39A, they planned to launch FH from 40. Presumably they had a plan for doing that didn't require that they stop launching for a year+ while they demolished and rebuilt the entire pad.


They were going to add another pad to 40 for FH and not rebuild the existing one.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 09/02/2016 06:27 pm
I really don't get this talk of walking away from SLC-40.  Even if the TEL and GSE are trashed, they have a lot of other valuable hardware at that pad which will not have been destroyed.  If anything there is probably already an order for steel going in to build a new TEL and designs are up on the screens in Hawthorne for an improved layout of the GSE.  This is probably a good time to work on SLC-40.  LC-39A is just about done and heavy work can't start at Boca Chica pad until the ground settling operations are done.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Patchouli on 09/02/2016 06:36 pm


"Redo[ing] the [flame] trench" would mean demolishing the entire pad. They're not going to do that.

The flame trench looks like it's probably mostly intact along with many if the out buildings as rocket appears to have mostly went up in a deflagration vs a detonation.

A detonation would have completely or partly stripped the steel buildings.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2016 06:39 pm
The most important object other than the flame trench at SLC-40 would be the LOX sphere and I believe it survived.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/02/2016 06:41 pm
Well, another stand down and customers start looking for alternatives. We saw this before, not launching costs revenue. Launching sooner means revenue starts sooner. If customer find another ride and the SX backlog shrinks, how many launch pads are needed?

I hope everyone is correct and no customer walks away.

Of course, they may have their new BFR site now.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AS-503 on 09/02/2016 06:42 pm
Are there folks around with the experience of building pads that SpaceX could quickly increase their pad construction team(s)?

From a financial perspective, it seems like SpaceX needs to get an East Coast pad up and running as soon as they can (and they probably need both pads) to have any chance of making up the backlog on their manifest in the coming 2 years. So, if there are people to be hired than it seems like SpaceX would hire them.

Well, they already have an exceptionally qualified ex-NASA engineer named John Muratore working on 39a.
With regard to your first question, one would think he is capable of putting together and managing a first class team. Photos are screen grabs from John's LinkedIn page (b.t.w. his previous job experience is impressive to say the least).

Buidling/commisioning a pad is one thing, but what if the mishap was process/QC related?

Wayne Hale had this to say about John...
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/jfm-to-the-rescue/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/02/2016 06:43 pm


"Redo[ing] the [flame] trench" would mean demolishing the entire pad. They're not going to do that.

The flame trench looks like it's probably mostly intact along with many if the out buildings as rocket appears to have mostly went up in a deflagration vs a detonation.

A detonation would have completely or partly stripped the steel buildings.

If the rocket had a full load of LOX, it would have been a MUCH larger detonation.  I suppose, if it turned out to be a umbilical related or tower related issue, then, if they had to do a crash rebuild, it looks as though they could have everything back together in a month.  Operational?  Don't know for sure on that.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rockets4life97 on 09/02/2016 06:45 pm
Well, another stand down and customers start looking for alternatives. We saw this before, not launching costs revenue. Launching sooner means revenue starts sooner. If customer find another ride and the SX backlog shrinks, how many launch pads are needed?

I hope everyone is correct and no customer walks away.

Of course, they may have their new BFR site now.

To take a leaf out of Jim's book: wrong. If SLC-40 is too small for FH, then it is definitely too small for BFR.

Also, where are the commercial customers going to go?
Arlene 5 is booked through 2017.
Proton: Arguably facing many more challenges with failures than SpaceX right now.
Atlas? I haven't seen any indication that ULA could ramp up flights for Atlas, not to mention the higher cost.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/02/2016 06:49 pm
Well, another stand down and customers start looking for alternatives. We saw this before, not launching costs revenue. Launching sooner means revenue starts sooner. If customer find another ride and the SX backlog shrinks, how many launch pads are needed?

I hope everyone is correct and no customer walks away.

Of course, they may have their new BFR site now.

To take a leaf out of Jim's book: wrong. If SLC-40 is too small for FH, then it is definitely too small for BFR.

Also, where are the commercial customers going to go?
Arlene 5 is booked through 2017.
Proton: Arguably facing many more challenges with failures than SpaceX right now.
Atlas? I haven't seen any indication that ULA could ramp up flights for Atlas, not to mention the higher cost.

The Russians would be the only other viable launch provider and I somehow doubt that they could just magically produce a bunch of launch vehicles out of thin air.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jdeshetler on 09/02/2016 07:10 pm
They were going to add another pad to 40 for FH and not rebuild the existing one.
That's the one Jim is referring to.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.msg1250946#msg1250946

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.msg1250962#msg1250962

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.msg1251043#msg1251043

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.msg1251222#msg1251222
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2016 07:13 pm
No, that was before they got LC-39
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2016 07:14 pm


"Redo[ing] the [flame] trench" would mean demolishing the entire pad. They're not going to do that.

The flame trench looks like it's probably mostly intact along with many if the out buildings as rocket appears to have mostly went up in a deflagration vs a detonation.

A detonation would have completely or partly stripped the steel buildings.

If the rocket had a full load of LOX, it would have been a MUCH larger detonation.  I suppose, if it turned out to be a umbilical related or tower related issue, then, if they had to do a crash rebuild, it looks as though they could have everything back together in a month.  Operational?  Don't know for sure on that.

It has a full or nearly full load of LOX
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/02/2016 07:15 pm
ULA could ramp up
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/02/2016 07:30 pm
To take a leaf out of Jim's book: wrong. If SLC-40 is too small for FH, then it is definitely too small for BFR.

Also, where are the commercial customers going to go?
Arlene 5 is booked through 2017.
Proton: Arguably facing many more challenges with failures than SpaceX right now.
Atlas? I haven't seen any indication that ULA could ramp up flights for Atlas, not to mention the higher cost.

Don't remember Jim saying 40 was too small for anything. He did say SX will still need 40.

And that is correct if the backlog doesn't shrink. The backlog now goes beyond 2017.

But how long will customers wait?

So we could see Ariane 5 take on customers in the 2018 and beyond range.

ULA can buy as many RD-180s they want for commercial. Can they build cores faster? Maybe not. Companies and people can do amazing things if given the chance.

I would agree that Proton is not a likely choice.

So if you are correct, the delay will not lose customers and they will need 40 more than ever.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/02/2016 07:56 pm
The most important object other than the flame trench at SLC-40 would be the LOX sphere and I believe it survived.

Is that the white spherical tank visible on the right-hand side of the USLaunchReport footage? It appears to be in good shape in the video.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: floss on 09/02/2016 08:01 pm
What will this disaster do to Space X insurance costs ?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ugordan on 09/02/2016 08:02 pm
The most important object other than the flame trench at SLC-40 would be the LOX sphere and I believe it survived.

Didn't they have to augment that storage tank with additional smaller, cylindrical tanks?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: NaN on 09/02/2016 08:12 pm
Are there folks around with the experience of building pads that SpaceX could quickly increase their pad construction team(s)?

If anything, SpaceX has more recent pad-planning, building and upgrading experience than anyone else. Major work at Vandy, a pending new pad at Boca Chica, nearly completed 39A conversion, and subcooling and TEL improvements before that.
There will be lead time on some items they will need to repair/rebuild LC-40, but they shouldn't need to increase specialized expertise for this. It's more a matter of prioritization, particularly relative to Boca Chica which has the complete new build slated. I would imagine they would prioritize this higher than Boca Chica work if they even do come into conflict.

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/02/2016 08:13 pm


"Redo[ing] the [flame] trench" would mean demolishing the entire pad. They're not going to do that.

The flame trench looks like it's probably mostly intact along with many if the out buildings as rocket appears to have mostly went up in a deflagration vs a detonation.

A detonation would have completely or partly stripped the steel buildings.

If the rocket had a full load of LOX, it would have been a MUCH larger detonation.  I suppose, if it turned out to be a umbilical related or tower related issue, then, if they had to do a crash rebuild, it looks as though they could have everything back together in a month.  Operational?  Don't know for sure on that.

It has a full or nearly full load of LOX

Hmmm... Then it was more than likely an external combustion event.

      An internal explosion of LOX would have sent the payload flying.  (The old dynamite under the bucket concept)

      As the conflagration seems to have ruptured the LOX and Kerosene tanks, THEN lit them on fire, the payload stayed pretty much where it was, until its mass and the heat bent the tower's clamp until it fell.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: PahTo on 09/02/2016 08:34 pm
The most important object other than the flame trench at SLC-40 would be the LOX sphere and I believe it survived.

Didn't they have to augment that storage tank with additional smaller, cylindrical tanks?

Correct--in a link to a post from a firefighter upthread, those tanks were totally destroyed (quote was "five or six" tractor-trailer sized clusters).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ugordan on 09/02/2016 08:36 pm
Didn't they have to augment that storage tank with additional smaller, cylindrical tanks?

Correct--in a link to a post from a firefighter upthread, those tanks were totally destroyed (quote was "five or six" tractor-trailer sized clusters).

LOX tanks aren't the only tanks there, though. Could have been the RP-1 farm tanks.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: PahTo on 09/02/2016 08:41 pm

Please allow me to correct my previous post--here is the exact quote:
"Dozens of pressurized vessels and tanks were destroyed including 5-6 pressurized rail cars."

I infer from this that LOX is involved, but have no definitive proof.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/02/2016 08:43 pm
Not to mention GN2 and GHe tanks.  The heat from the fire alone will cause them to burst.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 09/02/2016 08:45 pm

Please allow me to correct my previous post--here is the exact quote:
"Dozens of pressurized vessels and tanks were destroyed including 5-6 pressurized rail cars."

I infer from this that LOX is involved, but have no definitive proof.
The rail cars are presumably the helium tankers...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/02/2016 11:08 pm
Per a just released SpaceX statement, 39A is undamaged and remains on track for a first flight in November, and should be able to support all Cape operations then.

Looks like repairing 40 won't be absolutely critical then. RTF might well happen long before 40 is ready.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 09/03/2016 12:16 am
Per a just released SpaceX statement, 39A is undamaged and remains on track for a first flight in November, and should be able to support all Cape operations then.

Looks like repairing 40 won't be absolutely critical then. RTF might well happen long before 40 is ready.

Edit: found the Statement from SpaceX here http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

September 2, 6:45pm EDT

Relevant piece of Information:

As for the Launch Pad itself, our teams are now investigating the status of SLC-40.  The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined.  We will share more data as it becomes available.  SpaceX currently operates 3 launch pads – 2 in Florida and 1 in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base.  SpaceX's other launch sites were not affected by yesterday's events.  Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base is in the final stages of an operational upgrade and Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center remains on schedule to be operational in November.  Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches.  We are confident the two launch pads can support our return to flight and fulfill our upcoming manifest needs.

edit 2, added date and time of release
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronpur50 on 09/03/2016 12:38 am
Are there folks around with the experience of building pads that SpaceX could quickly increase their pad construction team(s)?

From a financial perspective, it seems like SpaceX needs to get an East Coast pad up and running as soon as they can (and they probably need both pads) to have any chance of making up the backlog on their manifest in the coming 2 years. So, if there are people to be hired than it seems like SpaceX would hire them.

Well, they already have an exceptionally qualified ex-NASA engineer named John Muratore working on 39a.
With regard to your first question, one would think he is capable of putting together and managing a first class team. Photos are screen grabs from John's LinkedIn page (b.t.w. his previous job experience is impressive to say the least).

Buidling/commisioning a pad is one thing, but what if the mishap was process/QC related?

Wayne Hale had this to say about John...
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/jfm-to-the-rescue/

I met John a few weeks ago very briefly.  It was August 13 and he had just come down from Pad 40 preparing for the launch that night.  The impression I got was he was just full of energy and absolutely brilliant, and a darn nice guy!  I wish him well in getting things recovered.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: deruch on 09/03/2016 12:41 am
While I'm sure the task of rebuilding and reactivating SLC-40 will be a large task, given all of SpaceX's pad builds/rebuilds/modifications/remodifications/activating/planning/etc. over the relatively recent past, I can't imagine them seeing it as a terribly daunting one. 

Even if the pad was down for a year, why are people hypothesizing that SpaceX would forgo reconstruction?  Unless they are also predicting a very significant retrenchment in their launch ambitions, having 2 working East Coast pads will be absolutely necessary.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 09/03/2016 01:43 am
 Boca Chica is being built on muck. A good part of the time required is just piling up dirt and waiting for it to settle. It looks like they're getting ready to start on the actual pad, and I don't know how much they could speed the process. Since they did the base for the pad warehouse first, I hope it means the pad itself will be quicker. It only took a couple of weeks to do pilings for the Stargate facility next to the control center, so that area shouldn't take as long as the pad area. I wouldn't think the causeway bases will take too long since settling a few inches over the decades would be no big deal with them.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: yokem55 on 09/03/2016 01:53 am
One implication of relying on LC-39A for east coast launches, is that they may be reluctant to rolling Falcon Heavy out until LC 40 can support launches again. Should a similar fate befall a heavy, they will truly be out of commission on the east coast.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: PahTo on 09/03/2016 02:14 am
One implication of relying on LC-39A for east coast launches, is that they may be reluctant to rolling Falcon Heavy out until LC 40 can support launches again. Should a similar fate befall a heavy, they will truly be out of commission on the east coast.

Hmm, interesting supposition--and certainly well considered.  Of course, SpX is known for pushing the boundaries.  Not to stray from the topic, but figuring out the 2nd stage is clearly the most important factor at this point.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: catdlr on 09/03/2016 05:28 am
SpaceX to shift Florida launches to new pad after explosion

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-shift-florida-launches-pad-explosion-003208139--finance.html?ref=gs

Quote
With its launch pad likely facing major repairs, SpaceX said it would use a second Florida site, called 39A, which is located a few miles north at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and was used for space shuttle missions.

The pad is on schedule to be operational in November, SpaceX said. The company had planned to use the pad for the first time later this year for a test flight of its new Falcon Heavy rocket.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/03/2016 07:45 am
So this might be an uncomfortable question for sure, but should they rebuild LC-40? With a second East coast pad already almost online, and the third Texas site in the works do they even need LC-40 in the future?  Could they just use the LC-40 Hangar to process a second Falcon 9/TEL and move it to LC-39A? Or alternatively check out stages before moving them to 39A, shortening the launch process?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: hamerad on 09/03/2016 07:53 am
I think they will still want slc40 incase of a problem in the future, either with another F9 or when FH launches.

Boca Chica could still be awhile coming if they have to do alot of groundwork.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Beittil on 09/03/2016 09:50 am
I also believe they wanted to keep SLC-40 anyway for future DoD work! 39A was for NASA/manned launches, 40 for DoD/Commercial and Boca Chica for commercial.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/03/2016 10:35 am
It is always good to have another east coast pad ready to go in the event of one of them blowing up. The Texas site won't be up and running for a few years. SpaceX has expressed the intention to massively ramp up its flight rate over the next few years and having 4 pads available nicely dovetails with this goal.

I hope they are able to rebuild SLC-40 swiftly.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2016 12:01 pm
So this might be an uncomfortable question for sure, but should they rebuild LC-40? With a second East coast pad already almost online, and the third Texas site in the works do they even need LC-40 in the future?  Could they just use the LC-40 Hangar to process a second Falcon 9/TEL and move it to LC-39A? Or alternatively check out stages before moving them to 39A, shortening the launch process?

SLC-40 TEL was on rails and a short distance to the pad.  The road would no support a long vehicle like the SLC-4 TEL.
They are ready have a place to check out stages before integration.

SLC-40 is still further along than TX
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: alang on 09/03/2016 12:29 pm
Dumb question:
I get the impression from my NSF browsing that launch pads are vehicle specific or designed for a 'family' of vehicles.
If true then does it have to be that way or would it just be prohibitively expensive to make them more generic?
The purpose of this question is to look forward to a world with a lot of spaceflight and a need for more generic facilities.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2016 12:41 pm
Dumb question:
1.  I get the impression from my NSF browsing that launch pads are vehicle specific or designed for a 'family' of vehicles.

2.If true then does it have to be that way or would it just be prohibitively expensive to make them more generic?
The purpose of this question is to look forward to a world with a lot of spaceflight and a need for more generic facilities.

1.  They are

2.  Because the vehicles are designed by different companies to different requirements.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Sam Ho on 09/03/2016 01:12 pm
Dumb question:
1.  I get the impression from my NSF browsing that launch pads are vehicle specific or designed for a 'family' of vehicles.

2.If true then does it have to be that way or would it just be prohibitively expensive to make them more generic?
The purpose of this question is to look forward to a world with a lot of spaceflight and a need for more generic facilities.

1.  They are

2.  Because the vehicles are designed by different companies to different requirements.

Wandering a bit off topic here, but the new 39B is designed for multiple users. Of course, none of those users has flown yet.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: alang on 09/03/2016 01:14 pm
Dumb question:
1.  I get the impression from my NSF browsing that launch pads are vehicle specific or designed for a 'family' of vehicles.

2.If true then does it have to be that way or would it just be prohibitively expensive to make them more generic?
The purpose of this question is to look forward to a world with a lot of spaceflight and a need for more generic facilities.

1.  They are

2.  Because the vehicles are designed by different companies to different requirements.

Wandering a bit off topic here, but the new 39B is designed for multiple users. Of course, none of those users has flown yet.

Yes, a bit off topic but the pad doesn't have to be rebuilt in exactly the same way.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: yokem55 on 09/03/2016 01:46 pm
Dumb question:
1.  I get the impression from my NSF browsing that launch pads are vehicle specific or designed for a 'family' of vehicles.

2.If true then does it have to be that way or would it just be prohibitively expensive to make them more generic?
The purpose of this question is to look forward to a world with a lot of spaceflight and a need for more generic facilities.

1.  They are

2.  Because the vehicles are designed by different companies to different requirements.

Wandering a bit off topic here, but the new 39B is designed for multiple users. Of course, none of those users has flown yet.
This is in large part because the 'pad' that really matters at 39b is the mobile launch platform. So, if you want to launch at 39b, you'll have to adapt one of the existing MLP's to your vehicle, or build and bring your own.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Brovane on 09/03/2016 02:35 pm
It is always good to have another east coast pad ready to go in the event of one of them blowing up. The Texas site won't be up and running for a few years. SpaceX has expressed the intention to massively ramp up its flight rate over the next few years and having 4 pads available nicely dovetails with this goal.

I hope they are able to rebuild SLC-40 swiftly.

The fact that SpaceX would have a backup pad at the Cape was listed as a strength in the CRS-2 source selection statement. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: docmordrid on 09/03/2016 03:09 pm
It is always good to have another east coast pad ready to go in the event of one of them blowing up. The Texas site won't be up and running for a few years. SpaceX has expressed the intention to massively ramp up its flight rate over the next few years and having 4 pads available nicely dovetails with this goal.

I hope they are able to rebuild SLC-40 swiftly.

The fact that SpaceX would have a backup pad at the Cape was listed as a strength in the CRS-2 source selection statement.

And those services don't begin until 2019. Are you saying they can't get it fixed in over 2 years?

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-international-space-station-cargo-transport-contracts
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cebri on 09/03/2016 04:05 pm
A bit OT but, during LC-40 repairs could Dragon be launched from VB? i've read elon said it could as they could launch payload into orbit from there in an inclination up to 51º, which would be enough to send it to the ISS. However i read in another website that VB is, as i originally thought, just for polar/near polar orbits and no launch to the ISS could be done because then the rocket would fly over habitated areas.  Could someone put some light into this?

Thanks,
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: launchwatcher on 09/03/2016 04:27 pm
Dumb question:
I get the impression from my NSF browsing that launch pads are vehicle specific or designed for a 'family' of vehicles.
If true then does it have to be that way or would it just be prohibitively expensive to make them more generic?
The purpose of this question is to look forward to a world with a lot of spaceflight and a need for more generic facilities.
Well, for one, there is no real shortage of potential launch pad locations.    Look at a map of CCAFS - there are a lot of pads not currently in use; just to the north at KSC there are two large pads (39A & B) and room for two or three more the same size that were never needed.   Likewise at other space centers -- Kourou and Baikonur -- there's a lot of room for additional pads if they were needed.

So why is making the pad generic hard?

Consider the "footprint" of a bunch of different rockets.   They've got differing diameters, engines in different places and arrangements, and differ in where it's possible to attach hold-downs.   Most have a circular core, but then there are various strap-on booster arrangements.   One vehicle may need a hold-down where another needs a flame trench. 

And that's just in the plane of the engines.

Now look at the vertical axis - the first stages are all different heights, and different upper stages need different fuels and fluids supplied at different heights.   Plus air conditioning for the payload fairing, white room for manned rockets.   All the details are different. 

Much simpler to build vehicle-specific or vehicle-family-specific pads, with vehicle-family-specific assembly/work/hangar spaces nearby.   

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: PahTo on 09/03/2016 04:54 pm
A bit OT but, during LC-40 repairs could Dragon be launched from VB? i've read elon said it could as they could launch payload into orbit from there in an inclination up to 51º, which would be enough to send it to the ISS. However i read in another website that VB is, as i originally thought, just for polar/near polar orbits and no launch to the ISS could be done because then the rocket would fly over habitated areas.  Could someone put some light into this?

Thanks,
Timely question--it is being discussed here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40157.new;topicseen#new
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cebri on 09/03/2016 05:13 pm
A bit OT but, during LC-40 repairs could Dragon be launched from VB? i've read elon said it could as they could launch payload into orbit from there in an inclination up to 51º, which would be enough to send it to the ISS. However i read in another website that VB is, as i originally thought, just for polar/near polar orbits and no launch to the ISS could be done because then the rocket would fly over habitated areas.  Could someone put some light into this?

Thanks,
Timely question--it is being discussed here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40157.new;topicseen#new

Is L2? Cant seem to access.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: HMXHMX on 09/03/2016 05:22 pm
A bit OT but, during LC-40 repairs could Dragon be launched from VB? i've read elon said it could as they could launch payload into orbit from there in an inclination up to 51º, which would be enough to send it to the ISS. However i read in another website that VB is, as i originally thought, just for polar/near polar orbits and no launch to the ISS could be done because then the rocket would fly over habitated areas.  Could someone put some light into this?

Thanks,
Timely question--it is being discussed here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40157.new;topicseen#new

Is L2? Cant seem to access.

Yes, L2.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: CorvusCorax on 09/03/2016 05:56 pm
A bit OT but, during LC-40 repairs could Dragon be launched from VB? i've read elon said it could as they could launch payload into orbit from there in an inclination up to 51º, which would be enough to send it to the ISS. However i read in another website that VB is, as i originally thought, just for polar/near polar orbits and no launch to the ISS could be done because then the rocket would fly over habitated areas.  Could someone put some light into this?

Thanks,
Timely question--it is being discussed here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40157.new;topicseen#new


I think that can be spun even further (Didn't want to post that in L2 as the speculation is hardly L2 worthy)

Couldn't SpaceX even launch GEO sats from Vandenberg?

Since you don't want to overfly inhabited areas, you'd have to launch unto a polar or even a retrograde orbit, which rules out traditional GTO's .  But with modern, especially electric propulsion sats you don't need a traditional GTO. All that's needed is limit the time in the van allen belt and make sure you are within the delta v budget of sat and launch vehicle.

As such. I think Falcon9 should have enough "juice" to launch sats into a polar or retrograte transfer orbit to Earth-Moon L1 or L2

From there its only 1.8 or 1.9 km/s to GEO, which should be well in the range of most GEO sats budget.

Transit times would be negligible compared to the required boost times with electrical propulsion. With chemical propulsion you'd end up with an extra week of transit.

http://www.newspaceraces.com/2015/05/23/an-examination-of-delta-v-in-cis-lunar-space/

The disadvantage would be that even F9FT would likely have to fly fully expendable for these launches except for the lightest of sats. Might be worth the effort for certain customers that can't afford to wait until November + x months schedule catchup.

Can anyone do the math for up to what sat tonnage a FT could reach lunar L1 with a polar launch?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2016 06:08 pm

I think that can be spun even further (Didn't want to post that in L2 as the speculation is hardly L2 worthy)

Couldn't SpaceX even launch GEO sats from Vandenberg?


Not any existing GEO sat with the same lifetime.   It takes too much DV to get rid of the inclination

For the shuttle, it took the Centaur G' to provide the same performance as the Centaur G  from KSC.  It also required a bi elliptical transfer orbit
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: CorvusCorax on 09/03/2016 06:20 pm

I think that can be spun even further (Didn't want to post that in L2 as the speculation is hardly L2 worthy)

Couldn't SpaceX even launch GEO sats from Vandenberg?


Not any existing GEO sat with the same lifetime.   It takes too much DV to get rid of the inclination

For the shuttle, it took the Centaur G' to provide the same performance as the Centaur G  from KSC.  It also required a bi elliptical transfer orbit

What if you go to lunar L1 to get rid of the inclination for (basically) free? It might limit your launch windows to once or twice a month and might need more punch from the launch vehicle, but from L1 to GEO should be well within the DV budget of most sats ( comparable to GTO-1800 )
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2016 06:25 pm

1.  What if you go to lunar L1 to get rid of the inclination for (basically) free?

2.  It might limit your launch windows to once or twice a month and might need more punch from the launch vehicle, but from L1 to GEO should be well within the DV budget of most sats ( comparable to GTO-1800 )

1.  it is not for free

2.  No, it would be more than GTO-1800 just to get to Lunar L1
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: CorvusCorax on 09/03/2016 06:47 pm

1.  What if you go to lunar L1 to get rid of the inclination for (basically) free?

2.  It might limit your launch windows to once or twice a month and might need more punch from the launch vehicle, but from L1 to GEO should be well within the DV budget of most sats ( comparable to GTO-1800 )

1.  it is not for free

2.  No, it would be more than GTO-1800 just to get to Lunar L1

Let me rephrase:
You would use the moon itself or its lagrange points as a "hinge" for inclination change as well as for a swing-by to raise the orbital periapsis to GEO hight.


Since the moon's orbit is inclined towards the equator, you can "choose" the inclination of the orbital segment relative to the moon (or its lagrange points) simply by timing the launch correctly in respect to the moon's position relative to the equator. (Which repeat once a month)

You launch on an orbit with a periapsis in LEO or even within the atmosphere and the apoapsis close enough to the moon to exploit its gravity. The sat would then make a (non propulsive) swing by and would end up on an orbit with zero inclination and periapsis in GEO altitude, only the apoapsis would be too high.

The sat would then have to lower its apoapsis to GEO hight propulsively. That's around 1800 m/s if I'm not mistaken, which is the same as for a GTO-1800 - just the maneuver is different.


The launch vehicle indeed has  more work, as it has to launch the sat into a near lunar trajectory.

Reaching lunar L1 is  around 300 m/s more than to reach GEO. As such it would be 1800 m/s more than a traditional GTO-1500.

You have to add another 300 m/s because you can't use the earth rotation from Vandenberg when launching polar.

But that's compensated because you can again save on any d/v that the launch vehicle would normally have needed to spend on inclination change from the cape, as you can launch directly into the transfer orbit.

Now the question is, up to which weight can F9 FT provide an extra 1800 m/s ?

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2016 06:50 pm

But that's compensated because you can again save on any d/v that the launch vehicle would normally have needed to spend on inclination change from the cape, as you can launch directly into the transfer orbit.


That is only a few degrees of inclination

A. the spacecraft are not designed for that environment
b.  It is going to still cost spacecraft lifetime since the DV is more.

Time for a new thread if you want to continue this
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: CorvusCorax on 09/03/2016 07:08 pm

But that's compensated because you can again save on any d/v that the launch vehicle would normally have needed to spend on inclination change from the cape, as you can launch directly into the transfer orbit.


That is only a few degrees of inclination

A. the spacecraft are not designed for that environment
b.  It is going to still cost spacecraft lifetime since the DV is more.

Time for a new thread if you want to continue this

done, if anyone with mod privileges wants to move stuff I don't mind:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41079
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Survtech on 09/06/2016 06:52 pm
In all of the talk about SpaceX abandoning SLC-40 I've never seen mention of what the actual owners of the pad, USAF, would have to say.  It seems to me the Air Force might not be thrilled with losing the pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ZachS09 on 09/06/2016 08:48 pm
Have we even seen what SLC-40 looked like after the explosion?

I feel like there's only speculations being passed around.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/06/2016 08:50 pm
In all of the talk about SpaceX abandoning SLC-40 I've never seen mention of what the actual owners of the pad, USAF, would have to say.  It seems to me the Air Force might not be thrilled with losing the pad.

Only the land is the USAF's.  They gave all the remaining hardware to Spacex
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/06/2016 08:54 pm
Dumb question:
1.  I get the impression from my NSF browsing that launch pads are vehicle specific or designed for a 'family' of vehicles.

2.If true then does it have to be that way or would it just be prohibitively expensive to make them more generic?
The purpose of this question is to look forward to a world with a lot of spaceflight and a need for more generic facilities.

1.  They are

2.  Because the vehicles are designed by different companies to different requirements.

I imagine that if one were to make SLC-40 a multi-vehicle pad, that you'd have to both use a smaller, reconfigurable platform, much like the ones used at 39A and B, as well as setting the area up to handle different fuels and connectors, both fuel and electrical?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/06/2016 08:55 pm
In all of the talk about SpaceX abandoning SLC-40 I've never seen mention of what the actual owners of the pad, USAF, would have to say.  It seems to me the Air Force might not be thrilled with losing the pad.

Only the land is the USAF's.  They gave all the remaining hardware to Spacex

I thought that they were leasing the Pad for 20 years.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/06/2016 08:58 pm
In all of the talk about SpaceX abandoning SLC-40 I've never seen mention of what the actual owners of the pad, USAF, would have to say.  It seems to me the Air Force might not be thrilled with losing the pad.

Only the land is the USAF's.  They gave all the remaining hardware to Spacex

I thought that they were leasing the Pad for 20 years.

The leaser is still the owner

edited
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Survtech on 09/06/2016 09:09 pm
Tell that to the dealer you lease your car from.  If you total that, they won't just let you walk away.  ::)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/06/2016 09:25 pm
Tell that to the dealer you lease your car from.  If you total that, they won't just let you walk away.  ::)

The provisions of the lease govern the required condition of the leasehold property at the end of the lease term. For major real estate leases, very often the landowner (in this case, the USAF) cares only about the actual land itself, especially if the property being leased contains old, obsolescent or crumbling infrastructure that would have to be repaired or torn down anyway.

So my take-away from what Jim is saying is that the terms of the SpaceX lease of LC-40 are pretty much as above: the Air Force ceded control of the property to SpaceX for the term, with the understanding that SpaceX would build or modify the improvements and fixtures to suit their own needs. Which is, in fact, what SpaceX spent some time and some millions of dollars doing prior to the first F9 launch and has continued to do as the vehicle and its infrastructure needs have evolved.

Your typical consumer auto lease bears only the slightest resemblance in legal terms to the type of lease involved for government-owned real property.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Survtech on 09/06/2016 09:47 pm
OK, perhaps SpaceX could walk away from SLC-40 if the damage was great enough to make rebuilding the pad uneconomical.  But I assume they would still have to pay for cleanup of any hazardous substances. 

Then, the bigger question is would 39A be enough to support all launches SpaceX wants to do from Canaveral?  If not, where else would? I assume SLC-37B would be retained by ULA for Vulcan or whatever else they decide to build after Delta is dropped.  SLC-41 is for Atlas V.  36A, 36B and 46 are leased to Spaceport Florida for Blue Origin and Orbital ATK.  39B will supposedly be the home to SLS.  The rest are pretty much all demolished or museums.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: zodiacchris on 09/06/2016 10:07 pm
Where is the logic in that? Even if the entire LC40 launch infrastructure is toast and needs replacing, it'd still be cheaper than moving to an other site and starting from scratch there. Road infrastructure, the assembly building, logistics set up, permitting are all in place, so why go somewhere else?

I concur with Jim further up, we can stop talking about giving up LC40 and focus on something more productive...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/06/2016 10:46 pm
In all of the talk about SpaceX abandoning SLC-40 I've never seen mention of what the actual owners of the pad, USAF, would have to say.  It seems to me the Air Force might not be thrilled with losing the pad.

MY 2 cents: They are not going to abandon the pad.  If SpaceX isn't at SLC40 its because there isn't a SpaceX anymore.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/07/2016 02:32 am
Have we even seen what SLC-40 looked like after the explosion?

I feel like there's only speculations being passed around.

A firefighter who was on scene did an AMA on the SpaceX Reddit with pretty detailed descriptions of the appearance of the pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 09/07/2016 04:08 am
I think this thread, which is about rebuilding, has had enough of the "they shouldn't rebuild" talk. That can go to a different thread (and has) rather than here. Word to the wise.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Scylla on 09/07/2016 03:03 pm
Matthew Travis –  ‏@MatthewBTravis

#SpaceX #Falcon9 #SLC40 launch pad this morning is a mess still, top of lightning tower leans
https://twitter.com/MatthewBTravis/status/773504050075668480

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: chrisking0997 on 09/07/2016 04:37 pm
it doesnt look like its leaning to me.  Did a screen cap of the pic and the front and rear towers seem to be parallel
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/07/2016 05:04 pm
Matthew Travis –  ‏@MatthewBTravis

#SpaceX #Falcon9 #SLC40 launch pad this morning is a mess still, top of lightning tower leans
https://twitter.com/MatthewBTravis/status/773504050075668480

The pad-facing side of the HIF and part of the vehicle door are visible in this photo. They don't look scorched or physically damaged from this distance.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SLC17A5 on 09/07/2016 05:11 pm
I weep for the fate of my fellow SLC.

What order of magnitude will it cost to rebuild SLC-40?

Is SpaceX insured against self-inflicted damage to its ground facilities? (Is anyone?)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Prober on 09/07/2016 07:14 pm
In all of the talk about SpaceX abandoning SLC-40 I've never seen mention of what the actual owners of the pad, USAF, would have to say.  It seems to me the Air Force might not be thrilled with losing the pad.

Only the land is the USAF's.  They gave all the remaining hardware to Spacex

I thought that they were leasing the Pad for 20 years.


No, first Lease was for 5 years (look up the history).  The contract will drive what happens to SLC-40.  In the first lease it was much like the Blue dust up on 39, with several companies using the same pad.  IMHO SpaceX will need to do major repairs and can't pick up and just abandon SLC-40.  Should be all in the contract(s).
 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/07/2016 07:27 pm
I thought that they were leasing the Pad for 20 years.
No, first Lease was for 5 years (look up the history).  The contract will drive what happens to SLC-40.  In the first lease it was much like the Blue dust up on 39, with several companies using the same pad.  IMHO SpaceX will need to do major repairs and can't pick up and just abandon SLC-40.  Should be all in the contract(s).

Regardless of whether they can, they won't. They need 2 east coast pads, and 40 can be up and running cheaper and quicker than any other option (not counting 39A). Most of the major pad items except the TEL appear to be in good shape (HIF, LOX tank, flame trench, lightning towers). There are some detailed pics here: https://imgur.com/a/se8bK
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Survtech on 09/07/2016 07:37 pm
I think this thread, which is about rebuilding, has had enough of the "they shouldn't rebuild" talk. That can go to a different thread (and has) rather than here. Word to the wise.
I'm not saying they should (or should not, for that matter) rebuild SLC-40.  My main questions in that regard would be the cleanup and repair/rebuild cost versus refurbishing one of the many abandoned launch complexes.  I suppose that also brings up a question that apparently can't be answered yet: How much damage was done and how much can be repaired versus has to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch?  How much hazardous material remains and can it all be cleaned up?  Does Hydrazine get absorbed into concrete?  Can it be removed or must the concrete be removed and buried in a hazardous materials site?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: RonM on 09/07/2016 07:49 pm
Moving to a different pad would require negotiations for a new lease, design work to plan how to utilize the new site, and who knows how many more details to be worked out. The planning alone could take more time than rebuilding SLC-40.

Time is money. Even if a move saved money over fixing SLC-40, the increased schedule delay would cost money and might lose business.

Best bet to get launching more payloads is to rebuild SLC-40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 09/07/2016 07:49 pm
I think this thread, which is about rebuilding, has had enough of the "they shouldn't rebuild" talk. That can go to a different thread (and has) rather than here. Word to the wise.
I'm not saying they should (or should not, for that matter) rebuild SLC-40.  My main questions in that regard would be the cleanup and repair/rebuild cost versus refurbishing one of the many abandoned launch complexes.  I suppose that also brings up a question that apparently can't be answered yet: How much damage was done and how much can be repaired versus has to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch?  How much hazardous material remains and can it all be cleaned up?  Does Hydrazine get absorbed into concrete?  Can it be removed or must the concrete be removed and buried in a hazardous materials site?
The cost of cleanup doesn't matter. They have to clean up the mess no matter what else they do.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/07/2016 08:28 pm
Does Hydrazine get absorbed into concrete?  Can it be removed or must the concrete be removed and buried in a hazardous materials site?

it burned or decomposed
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/07/2016 10:03 pm
Moving to a different pad would require negotiations for a new lease, design work to plan how to utilize the new site, and who knows how many more details to be worked out. The planning alone could take more time than rebuilding SLC-40.

Time is money. Even if a move saved money over fixing SLC-40, the increased schedule delay would cost money and might lose business.

Best bet to get launching more payloads is to rebuild SLC-40.


I worked at SLC41 for a few years, it's almost the same as SLC40.  The amount of work in site civil (dirt, utilities, clearing) and the solid infrastructure in concrete is worth probably 18-24 months on it's own.

I work for a construction company, we do complex, odd and difficult things regularly and there is nothing at SLC40 that would intimidate or worry anyone. 

SpaceX does their own work and they have LC39A to finish and they're doing some level of work in Boca Chica.  Maybe they shift attention from Boca to SLC40, that'd be the quickest path to adding launch capacity.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 09/08/2016 08:35 am
Just as a thought.

SpaceX is often optimizing things in rather unorthodox ways, so that it allows faster and usually cheaper processing.


Could it be that they already have plans how to optimize a pad (in this case for SLC-39A and Boca Chica) for weekly or even daily launches. since we know the launch rate on SLC-41, 1 launch every 6 weeks at best case, and we know that SpaceX already has done a second launch 3 weeks after the first one.

But since those optimizisations take time on their own and sometimes require larger periods without regular launch operations, they could not change what they would've needed to change (My guess, with 39A operational, they would have spit forces to build Boca Chica and the optimization of SLC-40 with a longer downtime. Now, the loss of the recent mission may accelerate plans.

They'll need those optimiziations, because used boosters have to launch from somewhere too, and Hawthorne continues to spit out one booster every 3 weeks.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gospacex on 09/08/2016 09:30 am
How much damage was done and how much can be repaired versus has to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch?  How much hazardous material remains and can it all be cleaned up?  Does Hydrazine get absorbed into concrete?

All hazardous material remains forever and can't be cleaned up. No way.
Hydrazine get absorbed into everything and causes horrible mutations in plants, animals and rocks.

Seriously. What's up with this defeatist and "can't do" attitude?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 09/08/2016 10:56 am
How much damage was done and how much can be repaired versus has to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch?  How much hazardous material remains and can it all be cleaned up?  Does Hydrazine get absorbed into concrete?

All hazardous material remains forever and can't be cleaned up. No way.
Hydrazine get absorbed into everything and causes horrible mutations in plants, animals and rocks.

Seriously. What's up with this defeatist and "can't do" attitude?
I know you're 'joking', but hydrazine can be mutagenic. Of course, with any decent exposure, you're going to be dead long before the effects of that kicks in. They were valid questions, and one that I was wondering about myself. I don't see any defeatism.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gospacex on 09/08/2016 04:59 pm
How much damage was done and how much can be repaired versus has to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch?  How much hazardous material remains and can it all be cleaned up?  Does Hydrazine get absorbed into concrete?

All hazardous material remains forever and can't be cleaned up. No way.
Hydrazine get absorbed into everything and causes horrible mutations in plants, animals and rocks.

Seriously. What's up with this defeatist and "can't do" attitude?
I know you're 'joking', but hydrazine can be mutagenic. Of course, with any decent exposure, you're going to be dead long before the effects of that kicks in. They were valid questions, and one that I was wondering about myself. I don't see any defeatism.

Hydrazine fuel is in use for some 60+ years already. There were spills of this (and worse) stuff, on concrete too.

The "can it all be cleaned up?" question implies that the person asking the question does in fact think that it might be not possible to clean it up, and the pad may need to be "demolished and rebuilt from scratch".

Take it as you will, but for me that sounds as "can't do" attitude.

(Of course, quick googling about hydrazine and Proton failures would tell anyone that it decomposes rather quickly when exposed to air and water, let alone to a large puddle of burning kerosene it fell into and exploded, but I can accept that asking person decided to just post a quick forum question instead. My response wasn't about not googling it up.)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Survtech on 09/08/2016 05:59 pm
Take it as you will, but for me that sounds as "can't do" attitude.
It was not an "attitude" but a legitimate question. But there appears to be little tolerance for legitimate questions in some circles.

Basically, I'm just trying to find out how difficult cleanup will be.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/08/2016 06:23 pm
I think a bigger obstacle to rebuilding than hazmat cleanup would be heat damage to the concrete structure due to the extended fire.  The (since removed) posts from the CCAFS firefighter indicated a fair amount of cracking and spalling to the pad base and the flame tunnel areas.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: smoliarm on 09/08/2016 07:28 pm
Take it as you will, but for me that sounds as "can't do" attitude.
It was not an "attitude" but a legitimate question. But there appears to be little tolerance for legitimate questions in some circles.

Basically, I'm just trying to find out how difficult cleanup will be.

OK, here is a legitimate answer to your legitimate concern about "cleanup issue"
As a chemist who worked for some years for Dyncorp Environmental Services (subcontractor for EPA at the time) I can tell you that this problem is non-existent or very close to such.
Why it's non existent?
1.
Flame is an effective cleaning for hydrazine. Although in this case - it is pretty expensive cleaning :)
2.
One of the first things firefighters do on such sites - immediately after the fire is contained or put out - they perform chemical hazard assessment. Without this no person can enter the site not wearing isolating breathing device.
As per USAF firefighter's report:
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/50v8ac/iama_firefighter_at_cape_canaveral_air_force/
this was done on pad 40 a few hours after explosion and the site was OK'ed to work on w/out gas mask.
This tells me that all the hydrazine (or almost all) was gone - in flames.
3.
Hydrazine is common and wide-spread chemical. Unfortunately, the same thing one can say about hydrazine spills - they are pretty common too. Therefore, the hydrazine cleanup procedures are well-established and not very expensive. Also, the environmental persistence of hydrazine is low - it reacts readily with oxygen in presence of water.

To summarize, the hydrazine problem will be the least problem for SpaceX in terms ob both money and time.

Quote
Does Hydrazine get absorbed into concrete?
Yes, to some extent.
However, this 'absorbed' hydrazine will decompose pretty quickly, even faster than hydrazine in the soil.

Quote
Can it be removed ...
It will do it by itself.  But there are ways to help :)

Quote
... or must the concrete be removed and buried in a hazardous materials site?
No.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Scylla on 09/10/2016 01:46 am
Space Launch Complex 40 pad damage from VAB roof
Photo Credit: WEREPORTSPACE.COM
https://imgur.com/a/Mxs2L

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Michael Baylor on 09/10/2016 03:22 am
Space Launch Complex 40 pad damage from VAB roof
Photo Credit: WEREPORTSPACE.COM
https://imgur.com/a/Mxs2L
It doesn't look bad, until you enlarge the image. If you look closely I see a lot of damage. This isn't look good. Especially at the base of the pad where the rocket would have come down on. Looks like a pile of charred metal. TE is totaled for sure. Lightning tower also got charred, but that is the least of there concerns and probably a very easy fix. Good news is the LOX sphere is totally fine.

From the image of course we cannot see all the plumbing and electrical stuff, but I am guessing there is only bad news with regards to that.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Michael Baylor on 09/11/2016 04:30 pm
More images! https://imgur.com/r/spacex/se8bK HIF looks ok in the background.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/11/2016 05:48 pm
More images! https://imgur.com/r/spacex/se8bK HIF looks ok in the background.

"The image you have requested is no longer available."
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: georgegassaway on 09/11/2016 09:03 pm
"The image you have requested is no longer available."

Link works for me.  Perhaps down for some reason earlier.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: deruch on 09/12/2016 04:37 am
More images! https://imgur.com/r/spacex/se8bK HIF looks ok in the background.

"The image you have requested is no longer available."
Try https://imgur.com/a/se8bK 

same album different path.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: pippin on 09/12/2016 12:41 pm
For me they were originally reported as unavailable and opening the link again right afterwards they worked fine. So maybe a load issue or something
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: robert_d on 09/12/2016 10:44 pm
Is there a Thread for modifications that might be proposed to Vandenberg and/or 39-A if a root cause is not found? This might include a test program that would help eliminate some possibilities for the incident as they check out and activate/reactivate the pads.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: BrightLight on 09/13/2016 03:33 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes
Shotwell: Not 100% certain if we'll launch from VAFB or CCAFS for next flight. Depends on customer. Both pads will be ready.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jirka Dlouhy on 09/13/2016 04:08 pm
And launcher ????
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 09/13/2016 04:09 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes
Shotwell: Not 100% certain if we'll launch from VAFB or CCAFS for next flight. Depends on customer. Both pads will be ready.

I assume she meant KSC (39A is not within CCAFS), not VAFB? Or do they think they can rebuild SLC-40 that fast?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/13/2016 04:15 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes
Shotwell: Not 100% certain if we'll launch from VAFB or CCAFS for next flight. Depends on customer. Both pads will be ready.

I assume she meant KSC (39A is not within CCAFS), not VAFB? Or do they think they can rebuild SLC-40 that fast?

I think she must be referring to LC-39A.  Since this seems to be someone at this business satellite conference presentation, sending quotes out to PBDS and he then tweeting them, it may getting muddled, a la the "telephone game", in transmission...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 09/13/2016 04:38 pm
https://twitter.com/pbdes
Shotwell: Not 100% certain if we'll launch from VAFB or CCAFS for next flight. Depends on customer. Both pads will be ready.

I assume she meant KSC (39A is not within CCAFS), not VAFB? Or do they think they can rebuild SLC-40 that fast?

I think she must be referring to LC-39A.  Since this seems to be someone at this business satellite conference presentation, sending quotes out to PBDS and he then tweeting them, it may getting muddled, a la the "telephone game", in transmission...

Yes, looks like pbdes just fixed his tweet, it now says 39A.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: tleski on 09/23/2016 06:37 pm
According to the SpaceX statement (see below) the pad is not in a such bad shape as many people assumed.

Quote
While substantial areas of the pad systems were affected, the Falcon Support Building adjacent to the pad was unaffected, and per standard procedure was unoccupied at the time of the anomaly. The new liquid oxygen farm – e.g. the tanks and plumbing that hold our super-chilled liquid oxygen – was unaffected and remains in good working order. The RP-1 (kerosene) fuel farm was also largely unaffected. The pad’s control systems are also in relatively good condition.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2016 06:44 pm
According to the SpaceX statement (see below) the pad is not in a such bad shape as many people assumed.

Quote
While substantial areas of the pad systems were affected, the Falcon Support Building adjacent to the pad was unaffected, and per standard procedure was unoccupied at the time of the anomaly. The new liquid oxygen farm – e.g. the tanks and plumbing that hold our super-chilled liquid oxygen – was unaffected and remains in good working order. The RP-1 (kerosene) fuel farm was also largely unaffected. The pad’s control systems are also in relatively good condition.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

Read into it.  No where does it discuss the TEL, launch mount, flame trench, etc
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 09/23/2016 06:46 pm
According to the SpaceX statement (see below) the pad is not in a such bad shape as many people assumed.

Quote
While substantial areas of the pad systems were affected, the Falcon Support Building adjacent to the pad was unaffected, and per standard procedure was unoccupied at the time of the anomaly. The new liquid oxygen farm – e.g. the tanks and plumbing that hold our super-chilled liquid oxygen – was unaffected and remains in good working order. The RP-1 (kerosene) fuel farm was also largely unaffected. The pad’s control systems are also in relatively good condition.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

Read into it.  No where does it discuss the TEL, launch mount, flame trench, etc
Looking at the bright side is not your strong point, is it Jim?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2016 06:51 pm

Looking at the bright side is not your strong point, is it Jim?


No, that was the information I was looking for.  The rest was basically obviously from the photos supplied.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: tleski on 09/23/2016 07:02 pm

Looking at the bright side is not your strong point, is it Jim?


No, that was the information I was looking for.  The rest was basically obviously from the photos supplied.

On the other hand, it is nice to have it officially confirmed. This is in stark contrast to the stories circulating a few days after the explosion about numerous blown RP1 tanks.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 09/23/2016 07:07 pm

Looking at the bright side is not your strong point, is it Jim?


No, that was the information I was looking for.  The rest was basically obviously from the photos supplied.
No, not quite. From publically available images it is pretty obvious that the TEL is a write-off. But the images give no clue about the condition of the launch mount, let alone the flame trench.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Roy_H on 09/24/2016 02:38 pm

Looking at the bright side is not your strong point, is it Jim?


No, that was the information I was looking for.  The rest was basically obviously from the photos supplied.
No, not quite. From publically available images it is pretty obvious that the TEL is a write-off. But the images give no clue about the condition of the launch mount, let alone the flame trench.

Of course not, Jim was asking about what couldn't be seen in images. Why would you take him to task for hoping that SpaceX would provide information about what was not visible?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 09/24/2016 05:18 pm

On the other hand, it is nice to have it officially confirmed. This is in stark contrast to the stories circulating a few days after the explosion about numerous blown RP1 tanks.

Weren't those stories about 'tanker cars', i.e. not the permanent fixtures but the vehicles used to bring RP-1 to the pad?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2016 05:35 pm
Helium or nitrogen tankers that are now use for high pressure gas storage vs transportation
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/24/2016 05:38 pm
On the other hand, it is nice to have it officially confirmed. This is in stark contrast to the stories circulating a few days after the explosion about numerous blown RP1 tanks.
There were reports of damage to one or more of the railcars that mounted a number of pressurized tanks (maybe helium?).  These old railcars were left at the site after Titan vacated as a quick way to provide whatever tank capacity they provided.  I've seen a photo of at least one of these railcars with damage.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 09/24/2016 07:51 pm
On the other hand, it is nice to have it officially confirmed. This is in stark contrast to the stories circulating a few days after the explosion about numerous blown RP1 tanks.
There were reports of damage to one or more of the railcars that mounted a number of pressurized tanks (maybe helium?).  These old railcars were left at the site after Titan vacated as a quick way to provide whatever tank capacity they provided.  I've seen a photo of at least one of these railcars with damage.

 - Ed Kyle

The picture upthread shows three of the style of tanker with multiple thin cylindrical tanks (with hemispherical ends) that were used for helium elsewhere and are speculated to be used for that here too. the one closest to the pad has some discoloration. Not sure how much damage that implies or if there are more out of sight.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: mvpel on 09/26/2016 02:51 pm
Helium or nitrogen tankers that are now use for high pressure gas storage vs transportation

I remember seeing a compressed nitrogen pipeline on a KSC tour - I assume that doesn't extend into CCAFS?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 09/26/2016 03:16 pm
Helium or nitrogen tankers that are now use for high pressure gas storage vs transportation

I remember seeing a compressed nitrogen pipeline on a KSC tour - I assume that doesn't extend into CCAFS?

It does extend into CCAFS
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/26/2016 05:32 pm

Looking at the bright side is not your strong point, is it Jim?


No, that was the information I was looking for.  The rest was basically obviously from the photos supplied.
No, not quite. From publically available images it is pretty obvious that the TEL is a write-off. But the images give no clue about the condition of the launch mount, let alone the flame trench.

Of course not, Jim was asking about what couldn't be seen in images. Why would you take him to task for hoping that SpaceX would provide information about what was not visible?

Because he is onsite and an expert at these matters.

However he has no reason/duty/need/desire/access to walk over and dig through the remains and report on what's actually there. Nor does SX have same to "public". It's proprietary info, like with ULA/BO/OA/...

One gets a lot on this site. But there are bounds ...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: virnin on 10/06/2016 05:38 pm
I hope they've completed all the physical inspections and debris recovery necessary because it looks like the hurricane is going to have a huge impact on SLC-40, amongst others.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/06/2016 05:54 pm
I hope they've completed all the physical inspections and debris recovery necessary because it looks like the hurricane is going to have a huge impact on SLC-40, amongst others.

The pad and buildings are very extremely strong.  They'll be fine, power distribution and debris on roads will be the biggest problem.

We should note, during this storm, that leaving a booster outside on the pad like the ITS animation without protection is a very poor idea.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Sam Ho on 10/06/2016 07:20 pm
We should note, during this storm, that leaving a booster outside on the pad like the ITS animation without protection is a very poor idea.

For Shuttle, the limits were 40 knots with the RSS open and 70 knots with the RSS closed.  VAB was designed for 114 mph sustained/125 gust.  Newer buildings are designed for 130 mph.

Quote
The Space Shuttle will be rolled back from the launch pad if the peak wind is forecast to reach 70 knots (79 mph). The rotating service structure cannot be moved after the sustained wind exceeds 40 knots (46 mph). Rollback of the Space Shuttle from the launch pad to the Vehicle Assembly Building must be completed before the sustained wind reaches 40 knots (46 mph), 60 knots (69 mph) in gusts with no lightning within 20 nautical miles.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/153728main_hurricane-plan.pdf
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: starsilk on 10/06/2016 08:13 pm
We should note, during this storm, that leaving a booster outside on the pad like the ITS animation without protection is a very poor idea.

so like ships, you'd move it out of the way, parked in orbit.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 10/06/2016 08:20 pm
We should note, during this storm, that leaving a booster outside on the pad like the ITS animation without protection is a very poor idea.

so like ships, you'd move it out of the way, parked in orbit.

     Eh, not so much.  They could park the actual manned craft in orbit, but the booster would have to land someplace other than the Cape during a hurricane.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 10/06/2016 08:29 pm
Obviously there will be some way to take it down and roll it inside. They aren't going to build it and maintain it outdoors.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jirka Dlouhy on 10/07/2016 08:26 am
Matthew will clean SLC-40 perfectly, i think.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nibb31 on 10/07/2016 06:13 pm
We should note, during this storm, that leaving a booster outside on the pad like the ITS animation without protection is a very poor idea.

so like ships, you'd move it out of the way, parked in orbit.

     Eh, not so much.  They could park the actual manned craft in orbit, but the booster would have to land someplace other than the Cape during a hurricane.
The booster should fit in the VAB.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DJPledger on 10/07/2016 07:25 pm
Matthew will clean SLC-40 perfectly, i think.
The center of Matthew missed the Cape so SLC-40 should have not suffered too much more damage.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: MarekCyzio on 10/08/2016 08:41 pm
Matthew will clean SLC-40 perfectly, i think.
The center of Matthew missed the Cape so SLC-40 should have not suffered too much more damage.

Matthew Travis on Facebook reports otherwise. Looks like various SpaceX facilities suffered serious damage.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2016 08:48 pm
Matthew will clean SLC-40 perfectly, i think.
The center of Matthew missed the Cape so SLC-40 should have not suffered too much more damage.

Matthew Travis on Facebook reports otherwise. Looks like various SpaceX facilities suffered serious damage.

Based on ... what?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jdeshetler on 10/08/2016 09:03 pm
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154002673462358&set=pcb.10154002676447358&type=3&theater
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2016 09:19 pm
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154002673462358&set=pcb.10154002676447358&type=3&theater

That is the Spacex side
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2016 09:25 pm
The west side is the Spacex PPF and the north part is where the Dragon is processed.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 10/09/2016 11:36 am
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154002673462358&set=pcb.10154002676447358&type=3&theater
So much for that building supposedly being hurricane-proof.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/09/2016 03:08 pm
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154002673462358&set=pcb.10154002676447358&type=3&theater
So much for that building supposedly being hurricane-proof.
The Solid Motor Assembly Building was originally constructed in 1963-64, ish.  It is the oldest tall building on the Cape, I think.  The newer and taller SMARF has beveled corners, while the SMAB is all right-angles.

I'm wondering about the condition of the SLC 41 VIF and SLC 40, and also about the ASOC, which is a mile or so south of the SMAB and had a Centaur inside.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: catdlr on 10/09/2016 06:13 pm
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154002673462358&set=pcb.10154002676447358&type=3&theater
So much for that building supposedly being hurricane-proof.
The Solid Motor Assembly Building was originally constructed in 1963-64, ish.  It is the oldest tall building on the Cape, I think.  The newer and taller SMARF has beveled corners, while the SMAB is all right-angles.

I'm wondering about the condition of the SLC 41 VIF and SLC 40, and also about the ASOC, which is a mile or so south of the SMAB and had a Centaur inside.

 - Ed Kyle

Chris is doing an inventory starting at this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41394.msg1596990#msg1596990
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/17/2016 09:41 pm
https://www.instagram.com/p/BK5-efbA0Ej/

Video of the status of LC-40
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/17/2016 09:46 pm
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154002673462358&set=pcb.10154002676447358&type=3&theater


Here is a higher resolution image:

https://www.instagram.com/buckeyesblue16/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Phillip Clark on 10/22/2016 05:15 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/22/2016 09:32 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 10/22/2016 09:43 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?

March/April was mentioned in the leaked comments from Elon's NRO talk.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/23/2016 02:27 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?

March/April was mentioned in the leaked comments from Elon's NRO talk.
Looks like those comments are scrubbed from the internet now.  March/April sounds optimistic to me - I would expect the better part of a year -  but at least there is that hint that rebuilding is planned.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Phillip Clark on 10/23/2016 02:44 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.
 - Ed Kyle

Personally, I do not think Elon Musk should be given another launch pad to play with until he has fully-restored SLC-40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 10/23/2016 03:00 pm
Looks like those comments are scrubbed from the internet now.  March/April sounds optimistic to me - I would expect the better part of a year -  but at least there is that hint that rebuilding is planned.

 - Ed Kyle

April would be 7 months, so it's somewhat realistic (depending on the actual damage).  Factor in Elon time, and hopefully it will be May?  Wouldn't be a bad idea to have it back online by the Falcon Heavy Demo, just in case.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 10/23/2016 05:19 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.
 - Ed Kyle

Personally, I do not think Elon Musk should be given another launch pad to play with until he has fully-restored SLC-40.
When USAF leased SLC-40 to SpaceX it wasn't a functional launch pad to begin with. The status now is no different from back then. So why exactly should that prevent Elon from playing with another pad?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/23/2016 10:12 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.
 - Ed Kyle

Personally, I do not think Elon Musk should be given another launch pad to play with until he has fully-restored SLC-40.
When USAF leased SLC-40 to SpaceX it wasn't a functional launch pad to begin with. The status now is no different from back then. So why exactly should that prevent Elon from playing with another pad?

And for that matter, Elon Musk (e.g., SpaceX) "has been playing with" LC-39A for quite a while now, well before the AMOS-6 incident.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/23/2016 10:49 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.

They could have already started ordering the material they need to rebuild SLC 40, which is something that happens in the offices in Hawthorne.  We wouldn't see the results of this activity until the material starts being delivered and staged nearby.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/21/2016 07:51 pm
Repairs to the SMAB/SpaceX PPF underway:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BM2YqvRDE9f/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JamesH65 on 11/22/2016 10:50 am
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.
 - Ed Kyle

Personally, I do not think Elon Musk should be given another launch pad to play with until he has fully-restored SLC-40.

1. He wasn't given it, I pretty sure he pays to use it. And repair it.
2. He doesn't play with them, he launches rockets from them. That is not a game.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 11/22/2016 12:38 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.
 - Ed Kyle

Personally, I do not think Elon Musk should be given another launch pad to play with until he has fully-restored SLC-40.
When USAF leased SLC-40 to SpaceX it wasn't a functional launch pad to begin with. The status now is no different from back then. So why exactly should that prevent Elon from playing with another pad?
They've said before that serious engineering at Boca Chica would start when 39A was finished. That implies they don't have the resources for serious work on two pads at once. But, construction in Texas requiring major engineering efforts from SpaceX might still be a ways off, so there might not be a conflict there.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 11/22/2016 03:16 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.
 - Ed Kyle

Personally, I do not think Elon Musk should be given another launch pad to play with until he has fully-restored SLC-40.
When USAF leased SLC-40 to SpaceX it wasn't a functional launch pad to begin with. The status now is no different from back then. So why exactly should that prevent Elon from playing with another pad?
They've said before that serious engineering at Boca Chica would start when 39A was finished. That implies they don't have the resources for serious work on two pads at once. But, construction in Texas requiring major engineering efforts from SpaceX might still be a ways off, so there might not be a conflict there.
Texas will be delayed as the folks wrapping up work on LC-39A will go to SLC-40 first for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 11/22/2016 03:26 pm
What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?
I haven't heard of any plans to rebuild.  All energy seems focused on moving to LC 39A as soon as possible.  That is all that I remember hearing from SpaceX to date.  I do expect SpaceX to use the SLC 40 HIF for Dragon processing, however, given the loss of SMAB/SPIF.
 - Ed Kyle

Personally, I do not think Elon Musk should be given another launch pad to play with until he has fully-restored SLC-40.
When USAF leased SLC-40 to SpaceX it wasn't a functional launch pad to begin with. The status now is no different from back then. So why exactly should that prevent Elon from playing with another pad?
They've said before that serious engineering at Boca Chica would start when 39A was finished. That implies they don't have the resources for serious work on two pads at once. But, construction in Texas requiring major engineering efforts from SpaceX might still be a ways off, so there might not be a conflict there.

Could also be that they need to allow the soil in the areas that are going to undergo "serious engineering" to be compacted better, prior to laying the foundations.  If they were to lay the foundations on too soft a ground, the results get messy.  (Yes, even with foundations on pilings.  If the soil is too loose, the pilings can shist and mess time again).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/03/2017 07:37 am
While some casual references to roughly  mid-2017 abound, is there any formal estimated completion date yet for LC40 coming online again?

Or any update thread for progress with the repairs, now that 39A appears to be complete?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/06/2017 02:13 am
SLC 40 will probably be finished by mid-late summer, with RTF in the fall
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 01/06/2017 08:07 am
SLC 40 will probably be finished by mid-late summer, with RTF in the fall
That's not what I'm hearing. Work finished in fall 2017, RTF end of 2017.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: baldusi on 01/06/2017 03:54 pm
SLC 40 will probably be finished by mid-late summer, with RTF in the fall
That's not what I'm hearing. Work finished in fall 2017, RTF end of 2017.
He probably meant Southern Hemisphere summer  :P
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 01/06/2017 05:46 pm
SLC 40 will probably be finished by mid-late summer, with RTF in the fall
That's not what I'm hearing. Work finished in fall 2017, RTF end of 2017.

The actual truth is no one has any idea.  The rebuild of 40 is unlike anything we have ever done, so despite any "expert" opinion anyone may have they're all pretty random guesses.  We'll bust ass on it and it'll fly when we're done.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/07/2017 12:10 am
Yeah, we don't even know exactly what survived, what didn't, and what needs to be repaired. I know the TE is 100% ded, the pad is probably charred and busted up in a few places, the suppress system is probably in bad shape.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/07/2017 12:19 am
I'm highly surprised that after 4+ months even detailed inspection of the pad has yet to be done, let alone any necessary re-design work of the pad. :o IIRC for Wallops pad 0A works were done continuously even with chemical contamination and state/federal funding mangling going on, with the pad back in operation in 11 months.

Was it a manpower or funding issue that slowed down progress?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 01/07/2017 12:34 am
I'm highly surprised that after 4+ months even detailed inspection of the pad has yet to be done, let alone any necessary re-design work of the pad. :o IIRC for Wallops pad 0A works were done continuously even with chemical contamination and state/federal funding mangling going on, with the pad back in operation in 11 months.

Was it a manpower or funding issue that slowed down progress?

Where did you get the impression that a detailed inspection of the pad hasn't been done?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/07/2017 12:43 am
There's only one Antares pad. There are three operational Falcon 9 pads including LC40 plus another under construction in Texas. And it has only been 4 months.

I bet it'll be rebuilt by the end of the year, but there's not the same urgency as Antares.

SpaceX was able to launch up to once every two or three weeks with a single pad. I don't think they'll be primarily constrained by LC40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/07/2017 12:44 am
I'm highly surprised that after 4+ months even detailed inspection of the pad has yet to be done, let alone any necessary re-design work of the pad. :o IIRC for Wallops pad 0A works were done continuously even with chemical contamination and state/federal funding mangling going on, with the pad back in operation in 11 months.

Was it a manpower or funding issue that slowed down progress?

Where did you get the impression that a detailed inspection of the pad hasn't been done?

See post #193/194. I would have expected that the extent of replacement of at least some of these systems would be known by now - maybe even contracting some of the works out.  :-[
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 01/07/2017 12:47 am
I'm highly surprised that after 4+ months even detailed inspection of the pad has yet to be done, let alone any necessary re-design work of the pad. :o IIRC for Wallops pad 0A works were done continuously even with chemical contamination and state/federal funding mangling going on, with the pad back in operation in 11 months.

Was it a manpower or funding issue that slowed down progress?

Where did you get the impression that a detailed inspection of the pad hasn't been done?

See post #193/194. I would have expected that the extent of replacement of at least some of these systems would be known by now - maybe even contracting some of the works out.  :-[

Post 193 appears to be from a SpaceX employee and I assume when he says "we" he means SpaceX.
Post 194 does not appear to be from a SpaceX employee and I assume when he says "we" he means himself.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: tleski on 01/07/2017 12:48 am
I'm highly surprised that after 4+ months even detailed inspection of the pad has yet to be done, let alone any necessary re-design work of the pad. :o IIRC for Wallops pad 0A works were done continuously even with chemical contamination and state/federal funding mangling going on, with the pad back in operation in 11 months.

Was it a manpower or funding issue that slowed down progress?

Where did you get the impression that a detailed inspection of the pad hasn't been done?

See post #193/194. I would have expected that the extent of replacement of at least some of these systems would be known by now - maybe even contracting some of the works out.  :-[

Not a single word on inspections in post#193. This is your opinion only.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/07/2017 12:53 am
I'm not so sure Ian is an authority on the matter.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/07/2017 01:16 am
I phrased that post I made wrong, it should have said something like "I think the pad will probably...."
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 01/07/2017 01:18 am
I'm highly surprised that after 4+ months even detailed inspection of the pad has yet to be done, let alone any necessary re-design work of the pad. :o IIRC for Wallops pad 0A works were done continuously even with chemical contamination and state/federal funding mangling going on, with the pad back in operation in 11 months.

Was it a manpower or funding issue that slowed down progress?

Where did you get the impression that a detailed inspection of the pad hasn't been done?

See post #193/194. I would have expected that the extent of replacement of at least some of these systems would be known by now - maybe even contracting some of the works out.  :-[

Not a single word on inspections in post#193. This is your opinion only.

People jump to some wild conclusions.  Of course 40 has been inspected and then some.  But until yesterday when the FAA signed off 40 was also the scene of a major accident investigation.  The priority is activating 39A, that's no secret. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/07/2017 06:54 am
I've skimmed the thread and so far the only estimate for how soon 40 will be back in operation seems to be EdKyle' comment about the AC-15 launch failure taking about 18 months to repair, while Jim notes 40 is too important to SX plans to abandon.

I voted 18 launches for this year assuming 39A would be ready (which seemed reasonable), a 1 launch a month average and a 40 being back in action by the end of June, also at 1 launch a month.

Does anyone recall how long the original conversion from Titan took?  Logically you can subtract out the time to remove the Titan only stuff and then estimate the how much of the rest is still intact.

One thing that studying how old buildings are renovated teaches is that there's a point when the time and cost spent doing a detailed enough structural survey to design support into the structure to be sure it will remain standing with confidence is so great it's just a lot easier to demolish the thing and rebuild from scratch. I'm not sure how that transfers to launch complexes.

Another more general lesson is the "2nd system effect." I'm sure what SX learned doing SLC-40 the first time has taught them a lot about doing it faster/better a second time, along the line of "If we'd known that earlier we wouldn't have spent so much time doing..."

While not much may have changed on site in the months since the accident I'd be very surprised if SX have not been going through their BOM and contractor data base to start the rebuild ASAP. The tricky part, IMHO would be to separate out the stuff that won't be affected by an investigation, so can go ahead normally, with stuff that may have to be re-worked depending on the findings, potentially one of those "how long is a piece of string" questions.  :(



Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 01/07/2017 12:56 pm
I've skimmed the thread and so far the only estimate for how soon 40 will be back in operation seems to be EdKyle' comment about the AC-15 launch failure taking about 18 months to repair, while Jim notes 40 is too important to SX plans to abandon.
...

You missed these exchanges:

What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?

March/April was mentioned in the leaked comments from Elon's NRO talk.
Looks like those comments are scrubbed from the internet now.  March/April sounds optimistic to me - I would expect the better part of a year -  but at least there is that hint that rebuilding is planned.

 - Ed Kyle

Elon time, of course, is likely no more accurate than anyone else's guess.

SLC 40 will probably be finished by mid-late summer, with RTF in the fall
That's not what I'm hearing. Work finished in fall 2017, RTF end of 2017.

The actual truth is no one has any idea.  The rebuild of 40 is unlike anything we have ever done, so despite any "expert" opinion anyone may have they're all pretty random guesses.  We'll bust ass on it and it'll fly when we're done.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/07/2017 05:18 pm
You missed these exchanges:

What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?

March/April was mentioned in the leaked comments from Elon's NRO talk.
Looks like those comments are scrubbed from the internet now.  March/April sounds optimistic to me - I would expect the better part of a year -  but at least there is that hint that rebuilding is planned.

 - Ed Kyle

Elon time, of course, is likely no more accurate than anyone else's guess.

SLC 40 will probably be finished by mid-late summer, with RTF in the fall
That's not what I'm hearing. Work finished in fall 2017, RTF end of 2017.

The actual truth is no one has any idea.  The rebuild of 40 is unlike anything we have ever done, so despite any "expert" opinion anyone may have they're all pretty random guesses.  We'll bust ass on it and it'll fly when we're done.
I think that last PoV is a bit pessimistic (although sadly possibly the best informed  :(  ),  given this has been done once. The problem is not completely unbounded (but I'm not sure what the original schedule came out to be).

SX have probably learned a lot about ground ops over the life of this and I guess a big question will be what they choose to incorporate into the new pad and what will stay in the "bottom drawer."
"Give us what you gave us the last time" (to their contractors) seems to be the quickest option but obviously just recovers what was already there.

The other issue would be if they can spare the necessary  experienced  staff to supervise, monitor and ultimately acceptance test it from other matters. obviously that depends on how well their other operations are running and how vital it is to them to get 40 back in operation.  I have no sense of this.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/07/2017 08:25 pm
I'm honestly thinking that they will change some structures' designs during the rebuild, to make them stronger/more efficient/more modern/whatever
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 01/07/2017 08:34 pm
39A is the latest pad built, so I'd expect to see something similar at LC-40, instead of rebuilding their oldest design.  Even Vandy is newer and lots of rework done since it was built.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Req on 01/07/2017 09:18 pm
Relatively quick and inexpensive recovery after an on-pad RUD would be a great feature to build into a launch complex if you intend to launch lots of rockets.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/07/2017 10:05 pm
39A is the latest pad built, so I'd expect to see something similar at LC-40, instead of rebuilding their oldest design.  Even Vandy is newer and lots of rework done since it was built.
Using 39A as a template sounds like the next simplest option. Beyond that they're into ground up redesign. Potentially the option for the most improvement but with longest design lead time.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 01/07/2017 10:31 pm
You missed these exchanges:

What is the current thinking on how soon SLC-40 will be ready to host a new launch?

March/April was mentioned in the leaked comments from Elon's NRO talk.
Looks like those comments are scrubbed from the internet now.  March/April sounds optimistic to me - I would expect the better part of a year -  but at least there is that hint that rebuilding is planned.

 - Ed Kyle

Elon time, of course, is likely no more accurate than anyone else's guess.

SLC 40 will probably be finished by mid-late summer, with RTF in the fall
That's not what I'm hearing. Work finished in fall 2017, RTF end of 2017.

The actual truth is no one has any idea.  The rebuild of 40 is unlike anything we have ever done, so despite any "expert" opinion anyone may have they're all pretty random guesses.  We'll bust ass on it and it'll fly when we're done.
I think that last PoV is a bit pessimistic (although sadly possibly the best informed  :(  ),  given this has been done once. The problem is not completely unbounded (but I'm not sure what the original schedule came out to be).

SX have probably learned a lot about ground ops over the life of this and I guess a big question will be what they choose to incorporate into the new pad and what will stay in the "bottom drawer."
"Give us what you gave us the last time" (to their contractors) seems to be the quickest option but obviously just recovers what was already there.

The other issue would be if they can spare the necessary  experienced  staff to supervise, monitor and ultimately acceptance test it from other matters. obviously that depends on how well their other operations are running and how vital it is to them to get 40 back in operation.  I have no sense of this.

Go look at old pictures of 40 GSE and you'll see the launch pad has gone through several revisions.  We've done it more than once, but to imply we've tried to rebuild a pad that got burnt to a crisp for hours is a stretch. 

39A is a terrible yard stick to use as an example.  Construction on it started in 2014. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: spacekscblog on 01/07/2017 11:17 pm
Some folks here are mistakenly assuming that SpaceX wants to restore Pad 40 to the way it was ... Once 39A is operational, SpaceX can resume their commercial launch manifest over there, meaning 40 can be down for any upgrades that they may want.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rpapo on 01/07/2017 11:23 pm
Some folks here are mistakenly assuming that SpaceX wants to restore Pad 40 to the way it was ... Once 39A is operational, SpaceX can resume their commercial launch manifest over there, meaning 40 can be down for any upgrades that they may want.
Like the ability to handle FH, perhaps?  Though that would require a major upgrade to the HIF too.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/08/2017 12:26 am
Some folks here are mistakenly assuming that SpaceX wants to restore Pad 40 to the way it was ... Once 39A is operational, SpaceX can resume their commercial launch manifest over there, meaning 40 can be down for any upgrades that they may want.
Like the ability to handle FH, perhaps?  Though that would require a major upgrade to the HIF too.
I doubt this. Boca Chica, LC39A and (to some extent) Vandy* were/will be capable of launching Falcon Heavy. LC40 would need a new ramp built and a new flame trench and a whole bunch of work to make it compatible with Falcon Heavy. And it doesn't really buy you any new inclinations or anything. The only reason I can think they'd want to do it is to provide redundancy with LC39A in case of an on-pad explosion. I that case, they could launch most FH missions from Boca Chica in a pinch anyway.


I don't think they'll be flying Heavy often enough to justify that expense.

*Vandy was the first site to be built capable of launching Falcon Heavy, i.e. a big HIF, big TEL, big flametrench, etc... but they've made a LOT of changes to FH since then, so I don't think it's compatible any longer. They might need a lot of rebuilding there to make it work with FH.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 01/08/2017 12:31 am
 I'm hoping they don't make the very common mistake of trying to salvage things that would have ended up better to have replaced.
 It would be nice to have a much improved pad, but they're going to be without a backup until it's finished. Another incident would be far worse than the last one, with no extra pad laying around to fall back on. Maybe they need to go for speed and worry about time consuming improvements after Boca Chica is running.  (That sounded 100% impartial, right?)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/08/2017 12:40 am
Some folks here are mistakenly assuming that SpaceX wants to restore Pad 40 to the way it was ... Once 39A is operational, SpaceX can resume their commercial launch manifest over there, meaning 40 can be down for any upgrades that they may want.
Like the ability to handle FH, perhaps?  Though that would require a major upgrade to the HIF too.
Not possible without rotating the HIF 90 degrees around the diameter of the pad due to the TEL mounting interfaces and Flame Trench. They would need a lot of Capital do that.
Jim on here and others have repeatedly said that 39A became the new FH pad and SLC-40 reconfiguration was shelved as filed with USAF officials and other agencies.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Gotorah on 01/08/2017 01:39 am
Yeah, we don't even know exactly what survived, what didn't, and what needs to be repaired. I know the TE is 100% ded, the pad is probably charred and busted up in a few places, the suppress system is probably in bad shape.
What ? Does SpaceX need to send us an EMail on every status change in their Company ? If Musk's Tesla has a flat, do you want to be notified ?  The TEL was obsolete and none of it needs to be done one thing at a time and choreographed by us.
 Do your thing, SpaceX. We'll wait.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 01/08/2017 01:42 am

What ? Does SpaceX need to send us an EMail on every status change in their Company ?
Yes
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 01/08/2017 11:50 am
I doubt we'll see major design changes at SLC-40 other than moving some of the fragile systems further away or underground.  A lot of the design was dictated by the existing facilities available.  Although a lot of things were damaged, the places those items were located are still there along with conduits and pipes.  Redesigning the entire layout would be a lot more expensive than replacing damaged systems.  Also, upgrading for Heavy would be too big of lift based on several past discussions regarding the flame trench and hangar location.

That's not to say I don't think there will be some improvements.  Just looking at the evolution of the TEL over the years you can see there is a lot of room to evolve a component without changing where it goes.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 01/08/2017 01:52 pm
Relatively quick and inexpensive recovery after an on-pad RUD would be a great feature to build into a launch complex if you intend to launch lots of rockets.

Not feasible
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 01/08/2017 01:59 pm
There are only so many things that can be changed on 40.  The propellant tank locations are fixed.  The flame trench is fixed.  The underground terminal rooms are fixed.  The umbilical receptacles on the first and second stages are fixed.  The hangar is basically fixed (unless they are going to really start over).  They already upgraded the pad hydraulics for raising the TEL (it may have to be replaced, but upgrading is not very likely).  That just leaves the TEL.  Since it is not going to be for heavies, it will be near the same size as the old one.  So what remains is whether it uses wheel or the rails.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Roy_H on 01/08/2017 03:38 pm
There are only so many things that can be changed on 40.  The propellant tank locations are fixed.  The flame trench is fixed.  The underground terminal rooms are fixed.  The umbilical receptacles on the first and second stages are fixed.  The hangar is basically fixed (unless they are going to really start over).  They already upgraded the pad hydraulics for raising the TEL (it may have to be replaced, but upgrading is not very likely).  That just leaves the TEL.  Since it is not going to be for heavies, it will be near the same size as the old one.  So what remains is whether is used wheel or the rails.

And since they chose rails for 39A I don't think they will change that either.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: john smith 19 on 01/08/2017 05:11 pm
Go look at old pictures of 40 GSE and you'll see the launch pad has gone through several revisions.  We've done it more than once, but to imply we've tried to rebuild a pad that got burnt to a crisp for hours is a stretch. 
That I did not realize.

My baseline was to take the time it took from conversion start (at 40) to first launch and strip out the work that involved removing Titan specific hardware.

Repeated updates would then suggest the current design is at (or close to) SoA with regard to pad operations.
Quote
39A is a terrible yard stick to use as an example.  Construction on it started in 2014.
IE A bit over 2 to almost 3 years depending on start date.  I guess a lot will depend on what priority this work has.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/08/2017 06:03 pm
I think the horse is already dead, please stop beating it.

Wasn't aware it was an existing horse at all. I missed Robotbeat's previous post on it. Apologies.

EDIT

And the follow on posts after that. Anyway, my question has been fully answered. Thanks guys.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 01/08/2017 06:11 pm

Bolded refers. Sorry for my ignorance, but does this mean that they are not intending to launch the Falcon Heavy from SLC-40 at all?

One would think that the more options you have the better, surely. What if LC39 has a catastrophic failure and they need a backup launch facility for the Falcon Heavy? It is going to be some time before the Texas site is ready.

Seems like if you are rebuilding it anyway, you might as well make it ready to launch everything you have.

Never.  The existing pad and hangar can not accommodate a heavy.   The hangar is too small and the TEL approach is 90 degrees from the wrong direction.  When Spacex was going to fly a heavy from 40, it was going to build another launch mount and hangar.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 01/08/2017 06:13 pm

Bolded refers. Sorry for my ignorance, but does this mean that they are not intending to launch the Falcon Heavy from SLC-40 at all?

One would think that the more options you have the better, surely. What if LC39 has a catastrophic failure and they need a backup launch facility for the Falcon Heavy? It is going to be some time before the Texas site is ready.

Seems like if you are rebuilding it anyway, you might as well make it ready to launch everything you have.

Never.  The existing pad and hangar can not accommodate a heavy.   The hangar is too small and the TEL approach is 90 degrees from the wrong.  When Spacex was going to fly a heavy from 40, it was going to build another launch mount and hangar.

Thank you, Jim.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Semmel on 01/09/2017 06:20 am
I completely agree that updates to 40 in the magnitude of support for FH is very unlikely.  But I would like to understand why the hanger would have to be rotated 90 degrees  around the pad for it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2017 06:52 am
I completely agree that updates to 40 in the magnitude of support for FH is very unlikely.  But I would like to understand why the hanger would have to be rotated 90 degrees  around the pad for it.

It is because of the flame trench orientation... It is sized for three cores (It did launch Titan IV after all), but they are oriented inline with the TEL approach instead of perpendicular.

See this image I made a while back. The flame trench opening(s) are the red rectangular box. The FH cores are the blue dots - see how they are aligned all wrong? That's why an FH would have to be rolled up from the side, as marked in green.

Now a flame trench can be rebuilt from scratch, but it would cost a lot, and with SLC39A being built as FH ready, there is not much point to it. (And Texas will be FH ready as well)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Semmel on 01/09/2017 07:23 am
Thanks Lars! So in case we see a new hanger going up at SLC-40 at the 90-degrees position we pretty definitely know its for FH. Thats a nice prediction, however unlikely it is. But who knows? Maybe SpaceX intends to launch their satellite family with a FH? Dont know if that would make sense but that is the only reason I can come up with for a FH conversion of SLC-40 at the moment.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: baldusi on 01/09/2017 02:30 pm
Look for SLC-40B. When they were studying options for Heavy and DoD payloads they proposed that it was cheaper to built a new HIF and pad within the limits of the property. It would have gone in a NE-SW diagonal, just North of SLC-40A (as the existing pad would be renamed), with the HIF at NE and the pad at SW. IT would have included a Vertical Integration Tower for DoD's payloads. Now SLC-39A took care of everything.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2017 02:59 pm
Thanks Lars! So in case we see a new hanger going up at SLC-40 at the 90-degrees position

Not going to happen.  Would need bunch of fill dirt.  Also, displaces AC building and other pad utilities.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2017 04:12 pm
Look for SLC-40B. When they were studying options for Heavy and DoD payloads they proposed that it was cheaper to built a new HIF and pad within the limits of the property. It would have gone in a NE-SW diagonal, just North of SLC-40A (as the existing pad would be renamed), with the HIF at NE and the pad at SW. IT would have included a Vertical Integration Tower for DoD's payloads. Now SLC-39A took care of everything.

Here is an image of the SLC-40B proposal that was abandoned:
(Source - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.0 )
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/09/2017 04:14 pm
Source?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/09/2017 04:18 pm
Source?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.0
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 01/09/2017 04:31 pm
Source?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.0

Two additional images from the PDF that Jim posted in that thread:
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: dglow on 01/09/2017 06:35 pm
Great images, thank you. Re: the 90-degree flame trench mismatch, why was rotating the TEL not an option?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2017 07:08 pm
Great images, thank you. Re: the 90-degree flame trench mismatch, why was rotating the TEL not an option?

It is on rails.

The pad is not flat.  The rail and pad are on a "ridge" and the terrain drops off on either side of it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: dglow on 01/09/2017 07:29 pm
Great images, thank you. Re: the 90-degree flame trench mismatch, why was rotating the TEL not an option?

It is on rails.

The pad is not flat.  The rail and pad are on a "ridge" and the terrain drops off on either side of it.

Thank you, understood. Some non-trivial construction would have been required... but compared to building an entire pad? There must have been other factors at play. It's interesting that they made that trade.

EDIT: Thinking about it further; since this was pre-LC39, I imagine any downtime to LC-40 was a significant consideration for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2017 08:14 pm
Thank you, understood. Some non-trivial construction would have been required... but compared to building an entire pad? There must have been other factors at play. It's interesting that they made that trade.

EDIT: Thinking about it further; since this was pre-LC39, I imagine any downtime to LC-40 was a significant consideration for SpaceX.

The mods would have been like building a new pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: baldusi on 01/10/2017 06:48 pm
Thank you, understood. Some non-trivial construction would have been required... but compared to building an entire pad? There must have been other factors at play. It's interesting that they made that trade.

EDIT: Thinking about it further; since this was pre-LC39, I imagine any downtime to LC-40 was a significant consideration for SpaceX.

The mods would have been like building a new pad.

You could build SLC-40B while the F9 was not on the pad, which would be a just a few days per month. Rebuilding SLC-40 would require to deactivate the pad for (I would guess) at least 18 months. Among other things, it would require significant earth movement.
So you wouldn't lose SLC-40 and it would probably be cheaper anyways. Building is usually cheaper than demolishing, cleaning up and rebuilding.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jfallen on 02/05/2017 01:56 pm
Has anyone spotted any recent activity at SLC-40.  As things wind down at 39A, I would expect at least some additional assessments at that location.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 02/07/2017 11:29 am
Rebuilding SLC-40 should cost "far less than half" than new pad according to Gwynne Shotwell in this Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-idUSKBN15M03N). New pad costs about $100 Million, so less than $50 Million.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 02/08/2017 07:51 pm
Tweet from Jeff Foust: (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/829431073863897088)
Quote
Koenigsmann said after the panel SpaceX hopes to have SLC-40 ready for launches again within a few months. #CST2017
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/09/2017 07:56 pm
Work going on at LC-40:

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SWGlassPit on 02/10/2017 03:05 pm
That's a big saw.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/10/2017 03:54 pm
I'm trying to figure out where this big saw cut is being made.  It seems to be north of the launch pad itself.  They're cutting right through the railroad tracks, etc.  This obviously is not a repair to the damaged pad.  It is a cut being made to install something new, which implies that they are changing the pad design somewhat during this rebuild.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: stcks on 02/10/2017 04:03 pm
I'm trying to figure out where this big saw cut is being made.  It seems to be north of the launch pad itself.  They're cutting right through the railroad tracks, etc.  This obviously is not a repair to the damaged pad.  It is a cut being made to install something new, which implies that they are changing the pad design somewhat during this rebuild.

Definitely a cut along the rail but its in no way indicative of a new installation. Could be, but probably just cutting out damaged surface or getting access below.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Paul_G on 02/10/2017 04:33 pm
I'm trying to figure out where this big saw cut is being made.  It seems to be north of the launch pad itself.  They're cutting right through the railroad tracks, etc.  This obviously is not a repair to the damaged pad.  It is a cut being made to install something new, which implies that they are changing the pad design somewhat during this rebuild.

 - Ed Kyle

If you look closely through the yellow iron work on the left hand side of the photo I think you can see 39a.

Playing with Google Maps, and I would put that location in the red box below:

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Sohl on 02/10/2017 05:27 pm
That's a big saw.
That's a big understatement.   ;)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: dorkmo on 02/10/2017 05:36 pm
maybe a section got mutalated and need to jack hammer it out.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DOCinCT on 02/10/2017 07:04 pm
I'm trying to figure out where this big saw cut is being made.  It seems to be north of the launch pad itself.  They're cutting right through the railroad tracks, etc.  This obviously is not a repair to the damaged pad.  It is a cut being made to install something new, which implies that they are changing the pad design somewhat during this rebuild.
 - Ed Kyle
If you look closely through the yellow iron work on the left hand side of the photo I think you can see 39a.
Playing with Google Maps, and I would put that location in the red box below:
Damn sharp eyes you have there Paul
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: dglow on 02/10/2017 07:08 pm
If you look closely through the yellow iron work on the left hand side of the photo I think you can see 39a.

Playing with Google Maps, and I would put that location in the red box below:

Nice work! Then he isn't cutting through rail lines for the TEL. What are (were?) those other lines for, and the white boxcar-like items on them? They border the pad and run parallel a short distance north, then terminate.

Jim would know.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: stcks on 02/10/2017 07:11 pm
What are (were?) those other lines for, and the white boxcar-like items on them? They border the pad and run parallel a short distance north, then terminate.

They were for the helium rail cars
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 02/10/2017 07:13 pm
What are (were?) those other lines for, and the white boxcar-like items on them? They border the pad and run parallel a short distance north, then terminate.

They were for the helium rail cars

I thought those rail cars were for RP-1?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/10/2017 07:22 pm
If you look closely through the yellow iron work on the left hand side of the photo I think you can see 39a.

Playing with Google Maps, and I would put that location in the red box below:

Nice work! Then he isn't cutting through rail lines for the TEL. What are (were?) those other lines for, and the white boxcar-like items on them? They border the pad and run parallel a short distance north, then terminate.

Jim would know.

They were for the Titan IV MST
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/10/2017 07:24 pm
What are (were?) those other lines for, and the white boxcar-like items on them? They border the pad and run parallel a short distance north, then terminate.

They were for the helium rail cars

I thought those rail cars were for RP-1?

RP-1 tanks are in the SW quadrant of the pad
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: biosehnsucht on 02/11/2017 01:57 am
Maybe they're cutting the rails to remove them to get at the plumbing that runs under them (which may be damaged)? Could be difficult to repair that area with the rails in the way if you need to crane in/out some long section of pipe.

I'm also now wondering how feasible it would be to build a "Falcon 9 MST" on what's left of the rails (and/or repairing the rails after this surgery if full length needed) for vertical integration purposes. Somehow I never noticed those rails before...

Would such a construction interfere with some of the proposed ideas for building a second flame trench for FH in the SLC40 area (since enlarging SLC40 itself to handle FH might be too costly / similar cost to simply adding a new pad/trench, and adding new is doable inbetween missions vs more total downtime of SLC40)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/11/2017 03:15 am
What are (were?) those other lines for, and the white boxcar-like items on them? They border the pad and run parallel a short distance north, then terminate.

They were for the helium rail cars

I thought those rail cars were for RP-1?

RP-1 tanks are in the SW quadrant of the pad
If memory serves, the rail cars were being used for Helium storage.  Some were damaged in the explosion.  When it took over SLC 40, SpaceX parked them on the rails that had formerly been used by the MST.  I suspect they've now been removed.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Comga on 02/11/2017 04:23 am
If you look closely through the yellow iron work on the left hand side of the photo I think you can see 39a.

Playing with Google Maps, and I would put that location in the red box below:

Nice work! Then he isn't cutting through rail lines for the TEL. What are (were?) those other lines for, and the white boxcar-like items on them? They border the pad and run parallel a short distance north, then terminate.

Jim would know.

They were for the Titan IV MST

I agree with DocInCT, dglow, and Jim.
That's darned good spotting Paul.
And yes, those are some of the outside rails on which the Movable Support Tower (?) rode. 
(There was a great TV show on it being demolished where they showed the wheels and rails and all.)

And Google Earth with the 3D rendition of LC-40 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.5597357,-80.5776961,54a,20y,13.64h,83.55t/data=!3m1!1e3) with the TEL at the end of the rails is really neat.
It would be even neater if they hadn't agreed to leave most of the LC-39 complex, from the VAB to the launch pads, flat.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: dglow on 02/11/2017 06:55 am
Hmm, I could have sworn Google Earth once showed the VAB as a 3D building. What's worse, they seem to have swapped 39A and 39B with as B still showing the FSS and RSS.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: douglas100 on 02/11/2017 09:23 pm
I'll make a small prediction that the new TEL being built for SLC-40 will have throwback capability.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 02/11/2017 09:47 pm
I'll make a small prediction that the new TEL being built for SLC-40 will have throwback capability.

I wonder how much of the delays getting LC-39A ready was due to the new throwback capability and how much of these problems they will have the second time around.

Also, is the need for throwback larger with FH?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 02/11/2017 09:51 pm
Also, is the need for throwback larger with FH?

Without definitively knowing what TE throwback is even for, no one can really say.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/11/2017 09:55 pm
Also, is the need for throwback larger with FH?

Without definitively knowing what TE throwback is even for, no one can really say.

I saw an a NSF article that the throwback is for 'crew safety', I'm not entirely sure what safety the throwback would give.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 02/11/2017 10:03 pm
Also, is the need for throwback larger with FH?

Without definitively knowing what TE throwback is even for, no one can really say.

I saw an a NSF article that the throwback is for 'crew safety', I'm not entirely sure what safety the throwback would give.

Can you find the article?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/11/2017 10:08 pm
Also, is the need for throwback larger with FH?

Without definitively knowing what TE throwback is even for, no one can really say.

I saw an a NSF article that the throwback is for 'crew safety', I'm not entirely sure what safety the throwback would give.

Can you find the article?

I apologize, I misremembered (is that a word?) that information. I was thinking I was mentioning this article https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/dragon-pulls-rank-lc-39a-readiness-spacex/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/dragon-pulls-rank-lc-39a-readiness-spacex/) (2/3 of the way down the page), but I was wrong. It just talks about how different it is to the other TELs.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Paul_G on 02/11/2017 10:14 pm
I'm not entirely sure what safety the throwback would give.

Could it be that by not retracting earlier in the count, it is easier to quickly bring the crew arm back to the capsule in the event of a scrub late in the count? So the crew can get out quickly?

Paul
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 02/11/2017 10:18 pm
I'm not entirely sure what safety the throwback would give.

Could it be that by not retracting earlier in the count, it is easier to quickly bring the crew arm back to the capsule in the event of a scrub late in the count? So the crew can get out quickly?

Paul

My speculation is along those lines, that it mostly has to do with the crew access arm needing to stay put until liftoff. And the added benefit of lessening the wear and tear on the umbilicals. Hopefully SpaceX tells us the actual reason during the webcast.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 02/11/2017 10:41 pm
Informed opinion seems to be a combination of speedy pad turnaround by preventing the umbilicals from being toasted on every launch (requiring replacement before next launch from pad) and improved pad safety due to leaving the TEL and crew access arm in place as late in the count as possible. No definitive word from SpaceX, but both of those explanations are reasonable.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jcc on 02/11/2017 11:02 pm
Sorry if I missed this, but how do we know they are building a new TEL and not repairing the old one?

ShawnGSE referred to TEL construction as a "long massive project" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41017.msg1634001#msg1634001. Now that they have a final design and procedures, it could probably go a lot quicker than for 39A, but otherwise, they will not be able to resume launches by "mid-2017" if they have to build it from scratch.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 02/11/2017 11:11 pm
Sorry if I missed this, but how do we know they are building a new TEL and not repairing the old one?

ShawnGSE referred to TEL construction as a "long massive project" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41017.msg1634001#msg1634001. Now that they have a final design and procedures, it could probably go a lot quicker than for 39A, but otherwise, they will not be able to resume launches by "mid-2017" if they have to build it from scratch.

It was, it's like no other TE we have constructed as you see.  The 40 TE will not need to be nearly as robust. 

None of the delays had to do with the throwback system.  That has worked as advertised.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 02/12/2017 09:09 am
Sorry if I missed this, but how do we know they are building a new TEL and not repairing the old one?

It seems there was near consens in the forum that the TE is toast. But it was also near consens that the flame trench needs rebuild. The announced speed of rebuild indicates that the flame trench can be repaired by thorough resurfacing. My private impression was that the TE can also be rebuilt. Except of the top part that was grilled by the upper stage explosion.

Rebuilding the TE may not save much money but it may save time. The fire near ground level can not be that hot. LOX must have been quickly gassified and dissipated.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jcc on 02/12/2017 01:10 pm
Sorry if I missed this, but how do we know they are building a new TEL and not repairing the old one?

It seems there was near consens in the forum that the TE is toast. But it was also near consens that the flame trench needs rebuild. The announced speed of rebuild indicates that the flame trench can be repaired by thorough resurfacing. My private impression was that the TE can also be rebuilt. Except of the top part that was grilled by the upper stage explosion.

Rebuilding the TE may not save much money but it may save time. The fire near ground level can not be that hot. LOX must have been quickly gassified and dissipated.

A clue would be if the old TE is still sitting outside. If it is in the HIF, then it may be repaired, or else parts taken off of it for the new one.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/12/2017 01:32 pm

A clue would be if the old TE is still sitting outside. If it is in the HIF, then it may be repaired, or else parts taken off of it for the new one.

Not if it is at junkyard
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: douglas100 on 02/12/2017 02:26 pm

My speculation is along those lines, that it mostly has to do with the crew access arm needing to stay put until liftoff. And the added benefit of lessening the wear and tear on the umbilicals. Hopefully SpaceX tells us the actual reason during the webcast.

It was the lessening of wear on the strongback and umbilicals that I had in mind when I suggested that throwback would be used at SLC-40. Not sure about the crew access arm argument, which in any case obviously doesn't apply to SLC-40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jcc on 02/12/2017 03:44 pm

A clue would be if the old TE is still sitting outside. If it is in the HIF, then it may be repaired, or else parts taken off of it for the new one.

Not if it is at junkyard

Do you know which junkyard that is, and if it actually went there?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/12/2017 03:52 pm
I honestly think they will keep and refurbish most of the TEL structure, and re-implement all the feed lines.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: pb2000 on 02/12/2017 04:04 pm
I honestly think they will keep and refurbish most of the TEL structure, and re-implement all the feed lines.
Depends on what sort of steel alloy was used to create the TEL; that sort of heat and fire and may have changed it at a molecular level. With that sort of unknown, the risk analysis probably leads directly to the scrap yard.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/12/2017 06:30 pm
I honestly think they will keep and refurbish most of the TEL structure, and re-implement all the feed lines.

Not feasible.  It was damaged.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/12/2017 07:21 pm
I honestly think they will keep and refurbish most of the TEL structure, and re-implement all the feed lines.
Depends on what sort of steel alloy was used to create the TEL; that sort of heat and fire and may have changed it at a molecular level. With that sort of unknown, the risk analysis probably leads directly to the scrap yard.
I've seen even garden variety building fires bend and warp steel support structures.  Adding kerosene and LOX to the fueling mixture has to be even worse.  If it were my decision, I would have ordered this structure to the scrapper without hesitation, which is what must have happened. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 02/12/2017 07:38 pm
I honestly think they will keep and refurbish most of the TEL structure, and re-implement all the feed lines.

Not feasible.  It was damaged.

I wouldn't back myself into the not feasible corner without some absolute certainty. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 02/12/2017 08:41 pm
Does the TEL structure even matter very much?  It looks like a bunch of box section steel weldments.  Surely this stuff can be fabbed cheaply in thousands of shops all across the U.S.  CNC plasma cutting and welding is something that people got really efficient at a long time ago.

I'd think it would be running all that plumbing and electrical, and the hydraulic rams and sensors and control and so forth that would cost.  That stuff has got to be toast.  Once it's gone, I'd think it would be cheaper to build a new TEL than to rip all the broken stuff off the old one.  Heck, just painting it has to be a significant fraction of the structure build cost.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/12/2017 09:03 pm
I honestly think they will keep and refurbish most of the TEL structure, and re-implement all the feed lines.

Not feasible.  It was damaged.

I wouldn't back myself into the not feasible corner without some absolute certainty. 

He said "refurbish most of the TEL structure"
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: southshore26 on 02/13/2017 01:18 am
I honestly think they will keep and refurbish most of the TEL structure, and re-implement all the feed lines.

Pretty sure Jim was giving you a hint as to the status oh the original TEL
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 02/13/2017 11:02 am
And ShawnGSE was giving a hint as well. The trick with two experts making oracular pronouncements[1] is to tease out a path to the truth where both of them are not giving incorrect cryptic clues... Because the way to bet is that neither is being deliberately false[2].

1 - Jim is oracular by nature[3], terseness would be his middle name if it wasn't so wordy, ShawnGSE no doubt because he's constrained in what he can say by the desire to remain employed.
2 - One of my favorite authors as a youth had one of her characters say "If you see an apparent contradiction, check your premises" and it's still great advice.
3 - and we love him for it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 02/13/2017 01:11 pm
Does the TEL structure even matter very much?  It looks like a bunch of box section steel weldments.  Surely this stuff can be fabbed cheaply in thousands of shops all across the U.S.  CNC plasma cutting and welding is something that people got really efficient at a long time ago.

I'd think it would be running all that plumbing and electrical, and the hydraulic rams and sensors and control and so forth that would cost.  That stuff has got to be toast.  Once it's gone, I'd think it would be cheaper to build a new TEL than to rip all the broken stuff off the old one.  Heck, just painting it has to be a significant fraction of the structure build cost.

It's always more complicated than it looks from the outside.  All the TEs have a lot of precision machine work on bore lines and contact points that are very time consuming. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 02/13/2017 01:55 pm

It's always more complicated than it looks from the outside.  All the TEs have a lot of precision machine work on bore lines and contact points that are very time consuming. 
Then I should get started. When can you drop the pieces off?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 02/13/2017 02:18 pm

It's always more complicated than it looks from the outside.  All the TEs have a lot of precision machine work on bore lines and contact points that are very time consuming. 
Then I should get started. When can you drop the pieces off?

If only it were that easy.  This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do).  You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Joaosg on 02/13/2017 02:23 pm

It's always more complicated than it looks from the outside.  All the TEs have a lot of precision machine work on bore lines and contact points that are very time consuming. 
Then I should get started. When can you drop the pieces off?

If only it were that easy.  This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do).  You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums.

Good luck on Texas next summer :)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: mheney on 02/13/2017 04:04 pm

It's always more complicated than it looks from the outside.  All the TEs have a lot of precision machine work on bore lines and contact points that are very time consuming. 
Then I should get started. When can you drop the pieces off?

If only it were that easy.  This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do).  You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums. 


And we love you for doing that!  (In, you know, that nerdy kind of way ...)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: abaddon on 02/13/2017 04:09 pm
...and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums.
Too bad, guess you can't use the HIF for this?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/13/2017 04:26 pm
"Off" bug repellent.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 02/13/2017 05:20 pm
"Off" bug repellent.

I appreciate the recommendation but we kinda thought of that already.  When you're sweating like a pig Off is effective for maybe an hour, and only against mosquitoes.  It does absolutely nothing to ward off noseeums. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/13/2017 05:35 pm
"Off" bug repellent.

I appreciate the recommendation but we kinda thought of that already.  When you're sweating like a pig Off is effective for maybe an hour, and only against mosquitoes.  It does absolutely nothing to ward off noseeums.

Darn!
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DanielW on 02/13/2017 06:15 pm
"Off" bug repellent.

I appreciate the recommendation but we kinda thought of that already.  When you're sweating like a pig Off is effective for maybe an hour, and only against mosquitoes.  It does absolutely nothing to ward off noseeums.

both are attracted to heat and CO2. My uncle is the broke researcher who invented this style of trap. http://insectcop.net/best-selling-mosquito-traps-reviewed/

You'd need a bunch of the good ones around the perimeter but a few weeks in should see a drop in population.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 02/13/2017 06:56 pm
"Off" bug repellent.

I appreciate the recommendation but we kinda thought of that already.  When you're sweating like a pig Off is effective for maybe an hour, and only against mosquitoes.  It does absolutely nothing to ward off noseeums. 
I just got back from the Amazon jungle. I also lived in Congo-Brazzaville for 5 months and the Mississippi delta for more than a year. I've never seen mosquitoes as bad as Boca Chica. You'll also get use to checking for Fire ants, scorpions, centipedes, rattlesnakes and tarantulas before you reach for anything. And I think I saw a tribble the other day. Good luck.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 02/13/2017 07:18 pm
can we keep this on topic....
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AndyH on 02/13/2017 08:16 pm
can we keep this on topic....
Not so much. But there's good learning happening in the cracks.  ;D
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vandersons on 02/13/2017 08:22 pm
But it's already on topic. Never knew the precision stuff can and actually has to be done on location (while fighting flying blood sucking parasites).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: southshore26 on 02/13/2017 08:25 pm
can we keep this on topic....

Discussion centered around the personnel that are rebuilding pad 40... how is it off topic?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: watermod on 02/13/2017 08:46 pm
Re skeeters.
An ex-coworker's father used to be one of the top inventors at Johnson.
Deep Wood's Off and Deet were some of his toys.
He got real curious about why Deet worked and followed it all the way to the answer.
A mosquito has a very small stimulus driven brain.  The scent of Deet would over stimulate it and cause a epilepsy like seizure.  When the scent disappears the mosquito gets up and flies away.
So he looked at stimulating it the same way you do epilepsy with strobes of light or sound.
The problem is it drives people crazy so he looked at their senses for inputs people didn't have.
Mosquitoes see near IR too!   Whoo!
So first prototype was a string of IR LEDs and and variable speed square wave generator.
He and his son were muskie fishermen so they took the gear up to the  Boundary Waters region  on the border between Minnesota and Canada.   They discovered the frequency of seizure was different for each species of  mosquito and when they hit the proper frequency for the main species on each different lake they would know it as the water would boil with muskies hitting the mosquitoes.   Johnson patented it but only releases it as rentals for outdoor concerts with giant IR flood lights.   The reason they don't sell a unit is selling one would be a one time cost and you keep buying cans of Off.

The point of this being... you could rent one of IR flood systems from Johnson.

Oh and they caught their limit of muskie every day of the trip.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: mattstep on 02/13/2017 11:26 pm
Re skeeters.
An ex-coworker's father used to be one of the top inventors at Johnson.
Deep Wood's Off and Deet were some of his toys.
He got real curious about why Deet worked and followed it all the way to the answer.
A mosquito has a very small stimulus driven brain.  The scent of Deet would over stimulate it and cause a epilepsy like seizure.  When the scent disappears the mosquito gets up and flies away.
So he looked at stimulating it the same way you do epilepsy with strobes of light or sound.
The problem is it drives people crazy so he looked at their senses for inputs people didn't have.
Mosquitoes see near IR too!   Whoo!
So first prototype was a string of IR LEDs and and variable speed square wave generator.
He and his son were muskie fishermen so they took the gear up to the  Boundary Waters region  on the border between Minnesota and Canada.   They discovered the frequency of seizure was different for each species of  mosquito and when they hit the proper frequency for the main species on each different lake they would know it as the water would boil with muskies hitting the mosquitoes.   Johnson patented it but only releases it as rentals for outdoor concerts with giant IR flood lights.   The reason they don't sell a unit is selling one would be a one time cost and you keep buying cans of Off.

The point of this being... you could rent one of IR flood systems from Johnson.

Oh and they caught their limit of muskie every day of the trip.


I can find no evidence such a system exists. Can you provide proof?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 02/13/2017 11:41 pm
Possibly related to the "IR floodlight" story: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2011/11/01/using-a-light-barrier-to-repel-mosquitoes/

My assumption would be that the "Johnson won't sell this because it would eat into profits from Off" is a bit of a tall tale: my brief research here indicates that the effects seem to be very specific to mosquito species, and folks tend to underestimate how many species of mosquitoes there are: 3000 in the world, 176 in the US alone. My assumption would be that the IR light may indeed drive mosquitoes crazy, but the effect was too species-specific to make a sufficiently broad effect across species to have practical value. The research mentioned in Forbes targets the single species which carries malaria, which is a more achievable target.

(Incidentally, this may be why genetic engineering to completely make extinct the single species that carries malaria might be reasonable: because there are enough other mosquito species that this wouldn't leave an ecological gap. Lots more "biting things" than "disease-carrying biting things". Luckily.)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: watermod on 02/14/2017 12:30 am
Cscott and Mattstep - Check your messages as to whom you can get proof from.
Do the patent database search on the father too.   I sent his name.  Put that in for inventor and for company put in Johnson
If you don't have Johnson or Johnson wax or like combo you will hit the son's patents that are numerous to.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: watermod on 02/14/2017 12:45 am
Work back and forth from US Patent 5,145,604
And said inventor.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 02/14/2017 01:22 am
This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do).  You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums.

The Falcon 9 is 230 feet tall.  A steel structure that tall is going to grow 0.018" per degree F, a bit more than an inch over the expected operational temperature range.  Just the heat differential from the sunny to the shady side will swing the top of it around a fair bit.  It must have mechanisms so that it can do its job despite all this movement.

Can you say anything of a general nature about what constraints lead to the need for high precision in such a machine?  I know, for instance, that the hinges on my front door must have their bores fairly well aligned or the door will not swing easily.  When I design with bearings, I use bearing pairs that can tolerate a bit of bore misalignment to avoid this problem.  So if I had an application that required at least three bearings on the same bore, I'd have to think a bit to figure out how to avoid a tight accuracy requirement on those bores.  Do you have something like that?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 02/14/2017 01:41 pm
This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do).  You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums.

The Falcon 9 is 230 feet tall.  A steel structure that tall is going to grow 0.018" per degree F, a bit more than an inch over the expected operational temperature range.  Just the heat differential from the sunny to the shady side will swing the top of it around a fair bit.  It must have mechanisms so that it can do its job despite all this movement.

Can you say anything of a general nature about what constraints lead to the need for high precision in such a machine?  I know, for instance, that the hinges on my front door must have their bores fairly well aligned or the door will not swing easily.  When I design with bearings, I use bearing pairs that can tolerate a bit of bore misalignment to avoid this problem.  So if I had an application that required at least three bearings on the same bore, I'd have to think a bit to figure out how to avoid a tight accuracy requirement on those bores.  Do you have something like that?

Our tolerances are super tight because of tolerance stack-up.  You give tooling the smallest window possible so production can have the largest as a general rule.  The parts we machine are mostly constrained so they don't grow anywhere near .018 a degree, but there is some movement.  Generally our work is done indoors at least to maintain a consistent environment even if it is hot.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: atsf90east on 02/14/2017 04:08 pm
This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do).  You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums.

The Falcon 9 is 230 feet tall.  A steel structure that tall is going to grow 0.018" per degree F, a bit more than an inch over the expected operational temperature range.  Just the heat differential from the sunny to the shady side will swing the top of it around a fair bit.  It must have mechanisms so that it can do its job despite all this movement.

Can you say anything of a general nature about what constraints lead to the need for high precision in such a machine?  I know, for instance, that the hinges on my front door must have their bores fairly well aligned or the door will not swing easily.  When I design with bearings, I use bearing pairs that can tolerate a bit of bore misalignment to avoid this problem.  So if I had an application that required at least three bearings on the same bore, I'd have to think a bit to figure out how to avoid a tight accuracy requirement on those bores.  Do you have something like that?

Our tolerances are super tight because of tolerance stack-up.  You give tooling the smallest window possible so production can have the largest as a general rule.  The parts we machine are mostly constrained so they don't grow anywhere near .018 a degree, but there is some movement.  Generally our work is done indoors at least to maintain a consistent environment even if it is hot.

And then there is the distortion and warpage from welding to contend with.  At least you're not working in 304 or 316 stainless steel.  some of the parts we make come out looking like bananas after welding, and have to be straightened after media blast or passivation.  Not a good situation where tight tolerances are involved.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ShawnGSE on 02/14/2017 05:06 pm
That's exactly why our machining must be done in place.  The fixtures are welded out entirely before we get them so we can avoid heat induced distortion. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: John Alan on 02/14/2017 05:12 pm
A wise old machinist and millwright once told me...

"There is no such thing as a straight edge, a round hole, or a flat surface" 
"Cause somebody will build a better way to measure such things and prove your wrong"...  :P
"The reality is... straight enough, round enough. flat enough... to do the required job at hand"...  ???

Once you wrap your head around that bit of trivia... it all makes sense...  8)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Flying Beaver on 02/14/2017 06:53 pm
Part of the new TE for 40?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BQfqLhFh6Dj/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/14/2017 07:32 pm
Part of the new TE for 40?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BQfqLhFh6Dj/

its a GSE LOX cyro pipe
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 02/14/2017 09:27 pm
The parts we machine are mostly constrained so they don't grow anywhere near .018 a degree, but there is some movement.

Well of course.  Your transporter/erector has many interesting dimensions which are much smaller than 230 feet, and so those dimensions won't grow that much.

For a dimension to grow less because it is physically constrained would require a constraint structure stiffer than the structure, and would require the restraint to be made of something with either less CTE than steel, or thermally regulated.  For instance, fiberglass or carbon fiber, or steel pipe with water circulated through it.  None of these would be subtle details.

One of the interesting things about the TEL is that, made of steel, it has a CTE of around 11 ppm/K, but the aluminum-lithium rocket it supports has a CTE of around 21.4 ppm/K.  The TEL has to hold the rocket in such a way that it doesn't break it during temperature changes, especially during shocks like propellant loading.  Even something seemingly innocuous like pressurizing the tanks with nitrogen for a cross-country trip can put an interesting thermal shock into the system.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/15/2017 10:48 pm
This is slightly off-topic, but will the TEL need to be upgraded for Block 5?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 02/15/2017 11:59 pm
This is slightly off-topic, but will the TEL need to be upgraded for Block 5?

I don't see why... From my point of view, there appears to be no real difference in F9 to TEL interface from block 3 (v1.2?) to block 5.

If there is a difference, I can't see there being a big change. But I'm sure a SpaceX'er would know better.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/16/2017 02:45 pm
This is slightly off-topic, but will the TEL need to be upgraded for Block 5?

I don't see why... From my point of view, there appears to be no real difference in F9 to TEL interface from block 3 (v1.2?) to block 5.

If there is a difference, I can't see there being a big change. But I'm sure a SpaceX'er would know better.

Not sure what an 'upgraded' TEL would mean or do differently, but if anything the opportunity to build a new one that applies lessons learned from a clean start could produce a better TEL. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 02/16/2017 05:00 pm
This is slightly off-topic, but will the TEL need to be upgraded for Block 5?

I don't see why... From my point of view, there appears to be no real difference in F9 to TEL interface from block 3 (v1.2?) to block 5.

If there is a difference, I can't see there being a big change. But I'm sure a SpaceX'er would know better.

Not sure what an 'upgraded' TEL would mean or do differently, but if anything the opportunity to build a new one that applies lessons learned from a clean start could produce a better TEL.

True, but the Q seemed to be whether or not a TEL upgrade would be needed between block 4 and 5 - which is what seems doubtful.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: biosehnsucht on 02/17/2017 05:56 am
The only "obvious" upgrade I can think of from block 3 to 5 would be if there was a major design change like adding LOX recirculation (both to potentially extend launch windows and try to appease NASA if NASA doesn't come around to "load and go"). You'd obviously need extra LOX hookups to recirculate it...

Otherwise, if it's just tweaking things, TEL probably doesn't need to really change.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DanseMacabre on 02/17/2017 05:24 pm
Regarding re-using components from Pad 40 (copied from instagram):

https://imgur.com/a/IDG96

"This is a piece that came back to the shop to be repaired, it's from spacex and is actually a part from the launchpad that got damaged when their rocket exploded a couple weeks ago during testing. #phpk #spacex #stainlesssteel #rocketstuff #rockets"
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/17/2017 07:32 pm
Shotwell confirmed during the CRS-10 conference that 40 will be back up and running during the Summer.

My thoughts: With SpaceX time, probably August-September
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DOCinCT on 02/17/2017 08:37 pm
Shotwell confirmed during the CRS-10 conference that 40 will be back up and running during the Summer.
My thoughts: With SpaceX time, probably August-September
I would think early in that time frame.  They need to work on 39A to meet milestone for commercial crew.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/18/2017 07:57 pm
It would look like the SpaceX crew working on 39A have really hit their stride and have the process well under control. This bodes well for 40. If the same crew / contractors are utilized for SLC-40 while it's still fresh in their collective memory thenI can see the potential for recommissioning the pad this summer. Too bad Boca Chica won't be ready for them to move right over there after 40...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: mme on 02/18/2017 08:52 pm
Shotwell confirmed during the CRS-10 conference that 40 will be back up and running during the Summer.

My thoughts: With SpaceX time, probably August-September
She said June for Pad 40, not summer.  It doesn't change the timeframe you expressed, but summer this year is June 20th through September 22nd and the implication that August-September is not summer hurt my brain. :)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: mikelepage on 02/22/2017 04:43 am
Shotwell confirmed during the CRS-10 conference that 40 will be back up and running during the Summer.

My thoughts: With SpaceX time, probably August-September
She said June for Pad 40, not summer.  It doesn't change the timeframe you expressed, but summer this year is June 20th through September 22nd and the implication that August-September is not summer hurt my brain. :)

A) it was Jessica Jensen, not Gwynne Shotwell.
B) As an Aussie, I have this brain hurt every single time North Americans refer to "summer" when they mean June-September (strangely enough, no other northern-hemisphere people do this).  Summer for me is right now ;)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DOCinCT on 02/22/2017 01:07 pm
Shotwell confirmed during the CRS-10 conference that 40 will be back up and running during the Summer.

My thoughts: With SpaceX time, probably August-September
She said June for Pad 40, not summer.  It doesn't change the timeframe you expressed, but summer this year is June 20th through September 22nd and the implication that August-September is not summer hurt my brain. :)
June 20 is the official occurrence of the mid-year solstice, considered by some the start of summer
Meteorological summer is June 1 to Aug 31
So it could be summer or it could be fall.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: 2megs on 02/22/2017 10:31 pm
From the EchoStar 23 Update thread...
L2 39A schedule has updated. No target for the Static Fire yet, but the launch date is NET March 12. Mainly to do with range availability.

So they'll finish the requirements of the 39A post launch "shakedown" work for turnaround to host the next F9, but will have to wait until the Range clears after the Delta IV launches, then have a Static Fire. They need the Range for the Static Fire, so you can see how March 12 is a NET based on WGS-8 scheduled for March 8...

Just a general question that this brings up....what "range assets" are or aren't shared between KSC and CCAFS? The WGS-9 launch (assuming WGS-8 was a typo) is from CCAFS SLC-37B and it's blocking SpaceX at KSC LC-39A. Even assuming two completely independent pad crews with both SLC-40 and LC-39A fully operational, how much parallelism is achievable with two pads on a common range?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 02/22/2017 10:37 pm
From the EchoStar 23 Update thread...
L2 39A schedule has updated. No target for the Static Fire yet, but the launch date is NET March 12. Mainly to do with range availability.

So they'll finish the requirements of the 39A post launch "shakedown" work for turnaround to host the next F9, but will have to wait until the Range clears after the Delta IV launches, then have a Static Fire. They need the Range for the Static Fire, so you can see how March 12 is a NET based on WGS-8 scheduled for March 8...

Just a general question that this brings up....what "range assets" are or aren't shared between KSC and CCAFS? The WGS-9 launch (assuming WGS-8 was a typo) is from CCAFS SLC-37B and it's blocking SpaceX at KSC LC-39A. Even assuming two completely independent pad crews with both SLC-40 and LC-39A fully operational, how much parallelism is achievable with two pads on a common range?

It will help when they have flights such as Falcon Heavy, Commercial Crew, National Security payloads, etc. that might want to take a little more time in launch preparation.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/23/2017 12:19 am

Just a general question that this brings up....what "range assets" are or aren't shared between KSC and CCAFS? The WGS-9 launch (assuming WGS-8 was a typo) is from CCAFS SLC-37B and it's blocking SpaceX at KSC LC-39A. Even assuming two completely independent pad crews with both SLC-40 and LC-39A fully operational, how much parallelism is achievable with two pads on a common range?

Hazardous ops on one pad can shut down another.
KSC doesn't have range assets to support a launch (other than some visual tracking).  The Air Force provides those. 
As for range assets, there is comm, camera sites, tracking sites, GN2 pipe line and radar blanking.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Req on 02/23/2017 02:18 pm
Just out of curiosity, would additional tracking and/or comms hardware enable quicker turnaround, or is it mainly a matter of working through the administrative hurdles that takes up most of the time?  For example, could mobile(ground and/or ship-bourne) military fire control radar systems be brought in if there was some pressing need for back-to-back or near simultaneous launches?  Has anything like that ever happened before?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 02/23/2017 02:43 pm
The last Hubble servicing mission was one in which quick turnaround was required. (With a rescue orbiter prepped and ready to launch.) I'd assume all possible stops were out for that one.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/23/2017 02:47 pm
Just out of curiosity, would additional tracking and/or comms hardware enable quicker turnaround, or is it mainly a matter of working through the administrative hurdles that takes up most of the time?  For example, could mobile(ground and/or ship-bourne) military fire control radar systems be brought in if there was some pressing need for back-to-back or near simultaneous launches?  Has anything like that ever happened before?

wrong kind of radars.   Anyways, they are going to GPS based tracking.

Comm depends on who and what have to talk to each other
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2017 04:58 pm
Word of warning. There's some (likely contractors) occasionally posting selfies from the pad. It may not be of anything sensitive on the pad, but you can be sure it's not worth the risk to link such social media photos here as that would probably not end well for that person taking the photo.

Pads as as sensitive as rockets when it comes to Proprietary etc. I never want this site to ever risk the chance of helping someone get fired.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ChrisC on 02/26/2017 04:34 am
What's the policy on downloading a photo from social media and reposting it here WITHOUT a link to the social media source?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: pippin on 02/26/2017 04:37 am
What's the policy on downloading a photo from social media and reposting it here WITHOUT a link to the social media source?
That would be a copyright violation so you don't really need a policy for that...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: dglow on 02/26/2017 05:10 am
Man, if somebody publicly posts a sensitive photo to their own social media, then the blame for their getting fired certainly doesn't lie with NSF or anywhere else it gets cross-posted. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 02/26/2017 05:18 am
true.

But how about we don't help make that happen.

NSF runs a really tight ship. Our sources all know that. The industry players all know that. So we get stuff that other sites don't, because we are super good at scrupulously honoring copyrights, and at keeping things in L2 when that is where they belong, and in doing our best to keep a lid on things until the people who get to decide actually decide it's time.

(consider how well we played with the fishlips camera people, even when they accused us of stuff that wasn't true and made all kinds of threats. we NEVER trimmed off their logo, and when they said no direct links we didn't do any direct links and when they said no links at all, we did none at all... if we can do that for a small time webcam outfit, imagine how careful we are when Dr. Soros or Gwynn S tells us something.)

Chris knows some amazing things. Heck, even I know a few amazing things. but you won't hear us talking about them at all. Not even in L2.

Thank you.  I'm really proud to be an NSFer, and you should be too. Thanks for letting me soapbox.

(note, not directed at anyone in particular, this was a message for all of us to contemplate)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: georgegassaway on 02/26/2017 06:31 am
Word of warning. There's some (likely contractors) occasionally posting selfies from the pad. It may not be of anything sensitive on the pad, but you can be sure it's not worth the risk to link such social media photos here as that would probably not end well for that person taking the photo.

Pads as as sensitive as rockets when it comes to Proprietary etc. I never want this site to ever risk the chance of helping someone get fired.

Good point.  That very thing happened this week in California, workers at the damaged Oroville dam fired for pics they posted.

"Oroville dam workers fired for posting photos online"

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article134189689.html
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/27/2017 12:17 am
Since all NASA, Government and Dragon missions will be moved to 39A, and (from what I know) all GTO missions moved to that will only leave commercial LEO missions from 40. Out of 32 missions, 2 were commercial LEO missions (the ORBCOMMs). That would leave about 1 mission per year from 40. I'm sure once they get really going with the launches they'll have a few GTO missions from 40 per year and possibly a few from 39A.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 02/27/2017 01:12 am
Since all NASA, Government and Dragon missions will be moved to 39A, and (from what I know) all GTO missions moved to that will only leave commercial LEO missions from 40. Out of 32 missions, 2 were commercial LEO missions (the ORBCOMMs). That would leave about 1 mission per year from 40. I'm sure once they get really going with the launches they'll have a few GTO missions from 40 per year and possibly a few from 39A.

Why would GTO missions move to 39A with a functional 40?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 02/27/2017 01:13 am
40 will be used for GTO
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/27/2017 02:22 am
I thought Boca would handle all GTO missions
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rpapo on 02/27/2017 10:08 am
I thought Boca would handle all GTO missions
Not for the next couple of years it isn't.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/16/2017 10:56 am
Any updates on progress?

One way of looking at it is that every month they move the completion date forward by, potentially equates to 2 extra launches they can fit into 2017. At $60m a launch, that's $120m per month that they gain in revenue for 2017.

Is that not worth throwing some extra labour and resources at it? Not to mention that it might actually make a 2017 launch of Falcon Heavy that much more plausible.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gospacex on 03/16/2017 11:42 am
Any updates on progress?

One way of looking at it is that every month they move the completion date forward by, potentially equates to 2 extra launches they can fit into 2017. At $60m a launch, that's $120m per month that they gain in revenue for 2017.

Is that not worth throwing some extra labour and resources at it?

I suspect SpaceX can do this math too. If it's worth doing faster, they are doing it faster.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/16/2017 12:10 pm
Any updates on progress?

One way of looking at it is that every month they move the completion date forward by, potentially equates to 2 extra launches they can fit into 2017. At $60m a launch, that's $120m per month that they gain in revenue for 2017.

Is that not worth throwing some extra labour and resources at it?

I suspect SpaceX can do this math too. If it's worth doing faster, they are doing it faster.

So given that, any updates on progress?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 03/16/2017 12:39 pm
Any updates on progress?

One way of looking at it is that every month they move the completion date forward by, potentially equates to 2 extra launches they can fit into 2017. At $60m a launch, that's $120m per month that they gain in revenue for 2017.

Is that not worth throwing some extra labour and resources at it? Not to mention that it might actually make a 2017 launch of Falcon Heavy that much more plausible.

The crew doing this kind of pad work can not just be hired and fired. They must be a special kind of specialists. It really does not make that much sense IMO to build up a capacity that is not needed after one job. Even after they lost one pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 03/16/2017 01:00 pm

The crew doing this kind of pad work can not just be hired and fired. They must be a special kind of specialists.

Not really, most of the work is general construction and is done by local contractors
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Folgers25 on 03/16/2017 04:09 pm
Any updates on progress?

As Jim mentioned it is being done through local contractors.

There are a few temporary construction-type jobs popping up around here. The job descriptions say the contract goes through the late summer time frame, perhaps longer. Maybe that will give some insight on progress.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 03/16/2017 04:57 pm

The crew doing this kind of pad work can not just be hired and fired. They must be a special kind of specialists.

Not really, most of the work is general construction and is done by local contractors

Where do you see a contradiction? I was talking about the specific jobs the existing SpaceX pad building crew does, like the TEL and comissioning. The things the SpaceX crew did on LC-39A.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 03/16/2017 05:05 pm

Where do you see a contradiction? I was talking about the specific jobs the existing SpaceX pad building crew does, like the TEL and comissioning. The things the SpaceX crew did on LC-39A.


Most of the work needed on 40 is not the TEL but "brick and mortar" stuff.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/16/2017 05:10 pm

The crew doing this kind of pad work can not just be hired and fired. They must be a special kind of specialists.

Not really, most of the work is general construction and is done by local contractors

Where do you see a contradiction? I was talking about the specific jobs the existing SpaceX pad building crew does, like the TEL and comissioning. The things the SpaceX crew did on LC-39A.

Well, your original comment would imply that the duration of the job cannot be significantly shortened because allocating additional resources is not easily achievable due to the nature of the specialists required.

My reading of Jim's comment is that in fact, the bulk of the work is of a general construction nature, which presumably CAN be shortened by allocating more general construction resources to it.

Of course, I don't wish to put words into people's mouths, so if my interpretation is wrong, the fault is mine.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 03/16/2017 05:12 pm
My reading of Jim's comment is that in fact, the bulk of the work is of a general construction nature, which presumably CAN be shortened by allocating more general construction resources to it.

Which is well known and discussed.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/16/2017 05:16 pm
My reading of Jim's comment is that in fact, the bulk of the work is of a general construction nature, which presumably CAN be shortened by allocating more general construction resources to it.

Which is well known and discussed.

Ok, fair enough. But then what was the point of saying that these are special kind of specialists that can't just be hired and fired, in response to my question as to why more resources cannot temporarily be added to hasten the completion date?

Because it would seem then that the special kind of specialists aren't the major constraint in speeding up the job. Instead, it would be the general construction type resources, which can in fact be hired and fired.

Again, unless I'm missing the boat, which is always quite possible.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 03/16/2017 05:25 pm
The TEL will be the long pole.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/16/2017 06:00 pm
I thought Boca would handle all GTO missions
Not for the next couple of years it isn't.

IIRC, Boca is permitted at 12 launches a year.  They may need more capacity for GTO.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 03/16/2017 06:05 pm
I thought Boca would handle all GTO missions
Not for the next couple of years it isn't.

IIRC, Boca is permitted at 12 launches a year.  They may need more capacity for GTO.

That's probably not very difficult to change.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: philw1776 on 03/17/2017 03:28 pm
The TEL will be the long pole.

We see what you did there!  ;D
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: deruch on 03/18/2017 02:58 am
The TEL will be the long pole.

We see what you did there!  ;D
For clarity: The majority of the work is of general construction type.  But, the thing that will take the longest to finish is the TE, even though that does not represent a major portion of the total work needed to be done.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jcc on 03/18/2017 11:07 am
The TEL will be the long pole.

We see what you did there!  ;D
For clarity: The majority of the work is of general construction type.  But, the thing that will take the longest to finish is the TE, even though that does not represent a major portion of the total work needed to be done.

Yes, and to underscore guckyfan's point, they can't just hire more TEL builders and get it done twice as fast, right?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vanoord on 03/18/2017 05:48 pm
Yes, and to underscore guckyfan's point, they can't just hire more TEL builders and get it done twice as fast, right?

Probably correct, although working more shifts per week might speed things up a bit.

However... starting on the TEL earlier could have speeded things up - i.e. work at LC40 couldn't start until the investigation was complete, but work on building a new TEL could have preceded that.

(I'm of the opinion that it was apparent very soon after the explosion that the original TEL was damaged beyond repair, so the decision to manufacture a new one would have been made very early in the process - particularly as it was going to be the number one problem item on the critical path).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 03/18/2017 06:11 pm
The decision, yes. 
That would have triggered the design phase, not fabrication.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/18/2017 06:16 pm
The TEL will be the long pole.

We see what you did there!  ;D
For clarity: The majority of the work is of general construction type.  But, the thing that will take the longest to finish is the TE, even though that does not represent a major portion of the total work needed to be done.

Yes, and to underscore guckyfan's point, they can't just hire more TEL builders and get it done twice as fast, right?

Not that simple - the TEL is a LOT of metalwork cutting and welding, which can be done by any competent worker. Kitting it out, not so much I suppose. The hydraulics are a fairly well known topic, as are the railway pats. it's only the rocket specific stuff that requires in house knowledge.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 03/18/2017 06:47 pm


Not that simple - the TEL is a LOT of metalwork cutting and welding, which can be done by any competent worker. Kitting it out, not so much I suppose. The hydraulics are a fairly well known topic, as are the railway pats. it's only the rocket specific stuff that requires in house knowledge.

ShawnGSE gave us some hints about the process just a few pages back.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 03/21/2017 08:46 am
Hello! Could you help me for some information?!
1. What way of filling oxidizer tank and fuel tank of space launch vehicle does Spacex use? I mean they use a pump or tank pressurization?
2. What approach does Spacex use to cool LOX and RP-1? The temperature of LOX is too low – minus 206 degrees! How can they make it?
3. Why does not Spacex chill fuel down mines 30, for example? I think it allows increasing payload capability of booster?
4. What type of heat insulation does Spacex use for LOX pipeline? I wonder they apply multilayer insulation for LOX pipeline or something else?

Thanks for the answers! u
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/21/2017 12:57 pm
Hello! Could you help me for some information?!
1. What way of filling oxidizer tank and fuel tank of space launch vehicle does Spacex use? I mean they use a pump or tank pressurization?
2. What approach does Spacex use to cool LOX and RP-1? The temperature of LOX is too low – minus 206 degrees! How can they make it?
3. Why does not Spacex chill fuel down mines 30, for example? I think it allows increasing payload capability of booster?
4. What type of heat insulation does Spacex use for LOX pipeline? I wonder they apply multilayer insulation for LOX pipeline or something else?

Thanks for the answers! u
SpaceX has not published much on this, so these answers are not certain.
1.) SpaceX uses pumps.  At least pumps have been the problems with launches before.
2.) There are commercial LOX plants and likely SpaceX does no different, or buys LOX.  It is not publically known, I believe, how they sub-cool it.  NASA used liquid nitrogen.   It's also possible they could draw a vacuum above it and let it boil to cool it.
3) SpaceX has not said how they pick the fuel temperature.  The cooler the denser, but at some point the fuel gets so viscous that the engines won't work.
4) Again, SpaceX has not said to my knowledge.  Multi-layer?  Vacuum? Let frost form and insulate it?  We don't know...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 03/21/2017 01:12 pm
Hello! Could you help me for some information?!
1. What way of filling oxidizer tank and fuel tank of space launch vehicle does Spacex use? I mean they use a pump or tank pressurization?
2. What approach does Spacex use to cool LOX and RP-1? The temperature of LOX is too low – minus 206 degrees! How can they make it?
3. Why does not Spacex chill fuel down mines 30, for example? I think it allows increasing payload capability of booster?
4. What type of heat insulation does Spacex use for LOX pipeline? I wonder they apply multilayer insulation for LOX pipeline or something else?

Thanks for the answers! u

Those would be ITAR/propriety type answers and so you are not going to get an official answer.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 03/22/2017 12:42 am
There was a NASA technical report on lox supercooling posted a while back with details on a process which is likely broadly similar to SpaceX's.  IIRC it operated at ambient pressure. SpaceX achieved greater cooling than the NASA prototype equipment did; speculation is that they are drawing a partial vacuum in order to achieve the lower temperatures.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 03/22/2017 04:52 pm
Hello! Could you help me for some information?!
1. What way of filling oxidizer tank and fuel tank of space launch vehicle does Spacex use? I mean they use a pump or tank pressurization?
2. What approach does Spacex use to cool LOX and RP-1? The temperature of LOX is too low – minus 206 degrees! How can they make it?
3. Why does not Spacex chill fuel down mines 30, for example? I think it allows increasing payload capability of booster?
4. What type of heat insulation does Spacex use for LOX pipeline? I wonder they apply multilayer insulation for LOX pipeline or something else?

Thanks for the answers! u
SpaceX has not published much on this, so these answers are not certain.
1.) SpaceX uses pumps.  At least pumps have been the problems with launches before.
2.) There are commercial LOX plants and likely SpaceX does no different, or buys LOX.  It is not publically known, I believe, how they sub-cool it.  NASA used liquid nitrogen.   It's also possible they could draw a vacuum above it and let it boil to cool it.
3) SpaceX has not said how they pick the fuel temperature.  The cooler the denser, but at some point the fuel gets so viscous that the engines won't work.
4) Again, SpaceX has not said to my knowledge.  Multi-layer?  Vacuum? Let frost form and insulate it?  We don't know...

Thank you for your answers!

Of course, I understand that only Spacex provides correct information! But I want to know your opinion based on open information and analysis of Launch Complex photo!

Could you tell me where I can read this information about problems with pump in detail?

1. I found the photo with  LOX pump. And first I thought about it too, but I was confused by high pressurization pressure in spherical tank (MAWP 100 psig). If we look at the cylindrical tank we can see that the pressurization pressure even higher (MAWP 150 psig) than in spherical tank. What for? Pump usually needs less pressure at its inlet! I think it is enough, maybe, 50 psig, for example.
2. What gas do they use for pressurization the tanks? I do not see an air-heated vaporizers. I think they use gases nitrogen, do not they?
3. Can you see those photo below? Do I understand correctly where the LOX and fuel tanks are situated? 

There was a NASA technical report on lox supercooling posted a while back with details on a process which is likely broadly similar to SpaceX's.  IIRC it operated at ambient pressure. SpaceX achieved greater cooling than the NASA prototype equipment did; speculation is that they are drawing a partial vacuum in order to achieve the lower temperatures.
How can I read this report?

Other question is arrangement ground support equipment relative to launch vehicle. It is situated too close by launch vehicle, is not it? Does Spacex risk in this case? By the way what distance between LOX tank and launch vehicle? I think it is about 50-70 meters, am I right?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/22/2017 07:16 pm

Thank you for your answers!

Of course, I understand that only Spacex provides correct information! But I want to know your opinion based on open information and analysis of Launch Complex photo!
Everything we know about the SpaceX is from their statements, Google, and pictures.  So the people who can reply don't know any more than is public.  The people who DO know cannot say.

Quote
Could you tell me where I can read this information about problems with pump in detail?
Here's one article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/spacex-falcon-9-v1-1-hot-fire-slc-40/), but not too much detail.

Quote
There was a NASA technical report on lox supercooling posted a while back with details on a process which is likely broadly similar to SpaceX's.  IIRC it operated at ambient pressure. SpaceX achieved greater cooling than the NASA prototype equipment did; speculation is that they are drawing a partial vacuum in order to achieve the lower temperatures.
How can I read this report?
It's here. (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100035154.pdf)

Anything else, distances, etc. your guess from photos is as good as anyone's.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 03/23/2017 10:35 am
Thanks for the links!
I have another some questions.
1.How much time does it takes to filling first stage and second stage?
2.Unfortunately, I can not found information about mass of propellants, which fill in Falcon 9 FT. Can you help me with it?
3.What kind of ground equipment was destroyed the most, except erector, of course? I see that spherical tank haven't  damaged and what about other tanks?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/23/2017 10:48 am
Thanks for the links!
I have another some questions.
1.How much time does it takes to filling first stage and second stage?
2.Unfortunately, I can not found information about mass of propellants, which fill in Falcon 9 FT. Can you help me with it?
3.What kind of ground equipment was destroyed the most, except erector, of course? I see that spherical tank haven't  damaged and what about other tanks?
You can find all the information below with google, so it's all guesses.

1.  Falcon 9 launch timeline is  here (http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-ft-countdown-timeline/).  All times are guesses - they changed since the AMOS explosion, but we don't know by how much.
2.  The only masses we have from SpaceX were from before densified fuel, and they changed the design since then.  So these are also guesses.  It's about 430,000 kg for the first stage, and 111,000 kg for the second.
3) SpaceX said  all tanks are OK (http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates), or only minor damage.  Otherwise ground equipment damage is not known.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 03/23/2017 04:41 pm
Note that some of the "tank shaped" objects you identify in your photos might be heat exchangers, based on similar equipment shown in that NASA report.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 03/26/2017 05:06 pm
Note that some of the "tank shaped" objects you identify in your photos might be heat exchangers, based on similar equipment shown in that NASA report.

Thanks for the note!
I revised my opinion. And I though about other equipment location on this pad. Maybe (1) is the heat exchanger for LOX. (2) is the LOX tank. (3) are the LNG tanks for feeding  heat exchanger. (4) is the LOX tank (by the way What for?). (5) is filling
pipeline.
But I have a question. Are they cooling LOX during fiilling launch vehicle or before? Because I see only one LOX filling pipeline (5), but it do not go into heat exchanger? What are you thinking about? Is this variant of equipment location more correct?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 04/02/2017 01:07 pm
Hello!

I am thinking about my own questions, about pumps especially. Some things went through my mind, what if they do not have voltage enough  for their pumps? I want to say that powerful pumps need high voltage, for example 220 V or even 380 V. Because of it they pressurize LOX tank with high pressure for creating overall flow rate. Actually, I do not see the powerful energy station near. Do you know what voltage is in the launch pad?

Could you tell me, who did the land equipment, for instance, LOX tanks?  I mean what is the company designed and manufactured this tanks for Spacex?

I used only Wikipedia and official site of Spacex for finding photos, could you tell me the site with more good photos of launch missions? For example, I am finding this photo (from side of fuel tanks) below with good quality.

Thanks a lot!
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/02/2017 10:11 pm
I am thinking about my own questions, about pumps especially. Some things went through my mind, what if they do not have voltage enough  for their pumps? I want to say that powerful pumps need high voltage, for example 220 V or even 380 V. Because of it they pressurize LOX tank with high pressure for creating overall flow rate. Actually, I do not see the powerful energy station near. Do you know what voltage is in the launch pad?

The power needs are not extreme.   Say you need to push 500,000 kg of LOX up 50m in 20 minutes.  You don't need to worry about back pressure since the tanks are not pressurized at this point.  So the power needed is roughly 500000*50*9.8/(20*60) = 204 kw.  But a quick web search finds a LOX pump built for NASA, designed for loading rockets (http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/pumps/cryogenic-pumps/liquid-oxygen-pumps).   It's rated at about 200 hp, or reasonably close to 200 kw.   So this back of the envelope calculation is not too bad, and standard hardware can meet the power requirements.  For example, here's  a list of available 200 HP motors (http://www.weelectricmotors.com/200-HP_c_139.html), all of which which run on 460 or 575 volts, 3 phase.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/12/2017 06:53 pm
SLC_40 update included in this article by Chris Gebhardt:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/falcon-heavy-build-up-slc-40-pad-rebuild-progressing/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 04/14/2017 12:49 pm
OK, I'm confused here.  Are the tail service masts part of the platform on the transporter-erector, or are they part of the pad structure?  The pictures in the article appear to show the former but the text of the article seems to infer the later.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 04/14/2017 12:56 pm
OK, I'm confused here.  Are the tail service masts part of the platform on the transporter-erector, or are they part of the pad structure?  The pictures in the article appear to show the former but the text of the article seems to infer the later.

They're part of the strongback
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 04/14/2017 01:54 pm
OK, I'm confused here.  Are the tail service masts part of the platform on the transporter-erector, or are they part of the pad structure?  The pictures in the article appear to show the former but the text of the article seems to infer the later.

They're part of the strongback
I thought the TSMs (tail service masts) are part of the launch table, which I understand to be a separable part of the transporter-erector, but the table can also be left on the pad without the strongback.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 04/14/2017 02:00 pm

I thought the TSMs (tail service masts) are part of the launch table, which I understand to be a separable part of the transporter-erector, but the table can also be left on the pad without the strongback.

Launch table and strong back make up the transporter-erector.  They can be separated but can not be used separated.  The strongback alone can't do anything.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 04/14/2017 02:01 pm
Once the launch table was joined to the strong back, my understanding was that they will not likely ever be unmated.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rpapo on 04/14/2017 06:38 pm
Once the launch table was joined to the strong back, my understanding was that they will not likely ever be unmated.
Though that seems to be the case with Vandenberg and with 39A, it doesn't look like it was that way with 40, at least not for a while.  The first time I remember seeing the launch table affixed to the strong-back was in the early pictures HeloDriver got us from Vandenberg.

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 04/14/2017 10:55 pm
Once the launch table was joined to the strong back, my understanding was that they will not likely ever be unmated.
Though that seems to be the case with Vandenberg and with 39A, it doesn't look like it was that way with 40, at least not for a while.  The first time I remember seeing the launch table affixed to the strong-back was in the early pictures HeloDriver got us from Vandenberg.

No it has pretty much always been that way. They are joined, but since the strongback can fold 180 degrees off the launch table, sometimes the launch table is there but not showing. Once joined, they are rarely separated. The VAFB one was separated to allow F9 FT upgrades to the launch table, but that seems to have been an exception.

Here are some F9v1.0 (pre-VAFB) shows of the strongback and launch table being attached:

EDIT: Here are two videos of SLC-40 rollouts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQpinRNmjEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1dfNoNV7k
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: corrodedNut on 04/26/2017 02:19 pm
Repairs underway, Google Earth images from this March:
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: chrisking0997 on 04/26/2017 04:01 pm
is that the old TE on the left?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: corrodedNut on 04/26/2017 06:51 pm
is that the old TE on the left?

It appears that way to me
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 04/26/2017 07:20 pm
Looks to be about 180 vehicles on site.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vanoord on 05/06/2017 09:08 pm
is that the old TE on the left?

It appears that way to me

On the basis that it wasn't there in earlier photographs, logic suggests it must be.

Looks a bit wider than I'd have expected, but a comparison with 'before' photographs suggests it was indeed wider than it looked.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Norm38 on 05/06/2017 10:06 pm
What are those little oval roads out in the brush?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 05/06/2017 11:44 pm
What are those little oval roads out in the brush?
Crop circles. But, NASA says weather balloons.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Mangala on 05/26/2017 06:15 am
Nothing new from there? There is someone in a French forum, who used to have very good confidential inside info from SpaceX, and who posted a week ago about SLC-40 rebuilding process being well behind scheduled and that it will not be operational before fall, at the very least. And also, because of that, final work in adapting LC-39A to the Heavy will be behind scheduled for one more month, with first launch of the Heavy only possible in 2018. :(
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: BobHk on 05/26/2017 11:28 am
Nothing new from there? There is someone in a French forum, who used to have very good confidential inside info from SpaceX, and who posted a week ago about SLC-40 rebuilding process being well behind scheduled and that it will not be operational before fall, at the very least. And also, because of that, final work in adapting LC-39A to the Heavy will be behind scheduled for one more month, with first launch of the Heavy only possible in 2018. :(

Le Links?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 05/26/2017 12:51 pm
What are those little oval roads out in the brush?

Camera sites
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Mangala on 05/26/2017 03:11 pm
Nothing new from there? There is someone in a French forum, who used to have very good confidential inside info from SpaceX, and who posted a week ago about SLC-40 rebuilding process being well behind scheduled and that it will not be operational before fall, at the very least. And also, because of that, final work in adapting LC-39A to the Heavy will be behind scheduled for one more month, with first launch of the Heavy only possible in 2018. :(

Le Links?

Post of @Space Opera member in May 13: http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t17713p50-spacex-lancement-falcon-heavy-xx-xxxxx-2017
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: manoweb on 05/26/2017 03:34 pm
If the rumors are confirmed, I am not surprised SLC-40 will slip at least until the fall. Thing is, why people think, what elements are there, to support it will be done by the fall? That might be optimistic...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/26/2017 03:51 pm
Nothing new from there? There is someone in a French forum, who used to have very good confidential inside info from SpaceX, and who posted a week ago about SLC-40 rebuilding process being well behind scheduled and that it will not be operational before fall, at the very least. And also, because of that, final work in adapting LC-39A to the Heavy will be behind scheduled for one more month, with first launch of the Heavy only possible in 2018. :(

LC40 will get there, be patient.  Other than FH, LC39A can handle the manifest for the rest of 2017

I want to see FH fly as badly as anyone, but as long as they keep flying every 2 weeks I'll be entertained and they'll do well booking revenue.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/26/2017 03:52 pm
Nothing new from there? There is someone in a French forum, who used to have very good confidential inside info from SpaceX, and who posted a week ago about SLC-40 rebuilding process being well behind scheduled and that it will not be operational before fall, at the very least. And also, because of that, final work in adapting LC-39A to the Heavy will be behind scheduled for one more month, with first launch of the Heavy only possible in 2018. :(

What does this bolded part mean?  "Used to" as in "This person has been right in the past, but they haven't had any reliable information recently" or "They've always been right and I'm just being cautious when posting this"?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Mangala on 05/26/2017 04:19 pm
More like : "This person has been right in the past but I'm just being cautious when posting this". I don't remember when it was, but I remember seeing a right information given by him, maybe two or three time in the past, well before seeing it here or in reddit. That has the value that it has, nothing more. I was only trying to obtain information (confirmation or denied) from other reliable source, like NSF, before commenting his post in this French Forum.
 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/26/2017 04:24 pm
Didn't we already know that SLC 40 was not going to be ready until "Fall" at the earliest?  Autumn in the northern hemisphere doesn't end until December 21!

I have always expected at least a one-year effort to restore the site to service. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: manoweb on 05/26/2017 05:09 pm
edkyle99 I think the time it takes really is more a function of priorities than anything else. I think it's evident they decided to prioritize other stuff and leave the pad behind, not because it's physically impossible to repair it sooner; am I wrong on this? What I am trying to say is that they decided to leave it behind, because of a compromise given their launch backlog, cash flow, actual available resources (hiring people is a time consuming and expensive process) etc etc
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rsdavis9 on 05/26/2017 05:11 pm
I for one am more than happy with the launch cadence instead of flashy new stuff.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: pb2000 on 05/26/2017 05:19 pm
Maybe they've cleaned out NASA's scrap yard, and can't find any good deals on ebay.

Musk needs a new heavy industries company to fabricate all the steel and such for rocket pads and other less exciting (boring) endeavours he might embark on.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 05/26/2017 05:23 pm
Maybe they've cleaned out NASA's scrap yard, and can't find any good deals on ebay.

Musk needs a new heavy industries company to fabricate all the steel and such for rocket pads and other less exciting (boreing) endeavours he might embark on.

This is the 4th pad and T/E construction effort, so I think they have enough experience by now.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ThePonjaX on 05/26/2017 05:48 pm
edkyle99 I think the time it takes really is more a function of priorities than anything else. I think it's evident they decided to prioritize other stuff and leave the pad behind, not because it's physically impossible to repair it sooner; am I wrong on this? What I am trying to say is that they decided to leave it behind, because of a compromise given their launch backlog, cash flow, actual available resources (hiring people is a time consuming and expensive process) etc etc

We've the confirmation of this situation ? Because until now I just read a post about someone who "can" have inside information. 

I've to say I love the "new stuff" but as several people here say the cadence at this moment is more important.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DOCinCT on 05/26/2017 05:48 pm
Didn't we already know that SLC 40 was not going to be ready until "Fall" at the earliest?  Autumn in the northern hemisphere doesn't end until December 21!
I have always expected at least a one-year effort to restore the site to service. 
 - Ed Kyle
Meteorological winter starts on Dec 1; autumn Sep 1.  Pick your "poison".

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/26/2017 06:32 pm
Didn't we already know that SLC 40 was not going to be ready until "Fall" at the earliest?  Autumn in the northern hemisphere doesn't end until December 21!

I have always expected at least a one-year effort to restore the site to service. 

 - Ed Kyle

No.  Latest we have is that SLC-40 is on track for August activation.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/26/2017 06:35 pm
Maybe they've cleaned out NASA's scrap yard, and can't find any good deals on ebay.

Musk needs a new heavy industries company to fabricate all the steel and such for rocket pads and other less exciting (boring) endeavours he might embark on.

Hey, rig up his boring machines to cut through nickle-iron and send them to 16 Psyche!  He'd have plenty of metal to build with then!
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Mangala on 05/26/2017 09:05 pm
Didn't we already know that SLC 40 was not going to be ready until "Fall" at the earliest?  Autumn in the northern hemisphere doesn't end until December 21!

I have always expected at least a one-year effort to restore the site to service. 

 - Ed Kyle

No.  Latest we have is that SLC-40 is on track for August activation.

Glad to see that Chris. My purpose was not to attack the post of this guy in the French Forum, as he was very neutral in his comment. No, what's bothered me is that others jumped, or could have jumped, very quickly in attacking SpaceX, or Elon Musk, just because!
Having good arguments about SpaceX difficulties to restore the pad is one thing, bashing SpaceX only because some hopeful communication about the time they would clear the work in SLC-40 it is like taking vantage of true difficulties to feed their despise against SpaceX and what it represents. So, finding here, or elsewhere, good arguments to counter these bashing naysayers is always better than commenting without arguments and risking to appear like some one who has some blinding faith, cult about Elon Musk or having drinking too much SpaceX kool-aid... ;)

And I tried to find the last info he made like this one, I didn't succeed, but now I'm not sure he referred, at that time, having inside info from SpaceX or rather from someone in KSC, the latter sounds now more familiar to me.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 05/26/2017 09:33 pm
Didn't we already know that SLC 40 was not going to be ready until "Fall" at the earliest?  Autumn in the northern hemisphere doesn't end until December 21!

I have always expected at least a one-year effort to restore the site to service. 

 - Ed Kyle

No.  Latest we have is that SLC-40 is on track for August activation.

But in fairness, we also had information LC-39A was "activated" several months before the first launch so ...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: john smith 19 on 05/29/2017 02:26 pm

We've the confirmation of this situation ? Because until now I just read a post about someone who "can" have inside information. 

I've to say I love the "new stuff" but as several people here say the cadence at this moment is more important.
Good point. Last time I checked the manifest SX wanted to launch 25 payloads this year.  IIRC this is possible if they can maintain a 3 week launch cadence at VAFB and a 2 week launch cadence at the Cape. They did this for 2 launches in a row but the question is can they keep it up? It also needed SLC40 to come back on line on time and of course to have no more launch mishaps causing another stand down.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rsdavis9 on 05/29/2017 02:54 pm

We've the confirmation of this situation ? Because until now I just read a post about someone who "can" have inside information. 

I've to say I love the "new stuff" but as several people here say the cadence at this moment is more important.
Good point. Last time I checked the manifest SX wanted to launch 25 payloads this year.  IIRC this is possible if they can maintain a 3 week launch cadence at VAFB and a 2 week launch cadence at the Cape. They did this for 2 launches in a row but the question is can they keep it up? It also needed SLC40 to come back on line on time and of course to have no more launch mishaps causing another stand down.

I am hoping they get to at least 18 for this year. Its the guess I did at the beginning of the year.  :)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/29/2017 06:40 pm
  Manifest excerpt  Count  LC40" "  SLC4E" "  LC39A
" "" " Interval  Launch date  Interval  Launch date  Interval  Launch date
  Dragon (CRS-11)  7  " "  " "  " "  " "  0  06/01/17
  BulgariaSat-1  8  " "  " "  " "  " "  15  06/16/17
  Intelsat 35e         9  " "  " "  " "  " "  15  07/01/17
  Iridium NEXT (Flight 2)   10  " "  " "  0  06/25/17  " "  " "
  SES-11/Echostar 105  11  " "  " "  " "  " "  15  07/16/17
  Formosat-5  12  " "  " "  21  07/16/17  " "  " "
  Koreasat 5A  13  " "  " "  " "  " "  15  07/31/17
  Iridium NEXT (Flight 3)        14  " "  " "  21  08/06/17  " "  " "
  RTLS  Dragon (CRS-12)  15  0  08/25/17  " "  " "  " "  " "
  Falcon Heavy Demo Flight  16  " "  " "  " "  " "  60  09/29/17
                  25-1 (B) B1023  RTLS
                       (B)        RTLS
  US Air Force (STP-2)  17  " "  " "  " "  " "  30  10/29/17
  SES-16/GovSat  18  45  10/09/17  " "  " "  " "  " "
  Iridium NEXT (Flight 4)  19  " "  " "  45  09/20/17  " "  " "
  PAZ  20  " "  " "  21  10/11/17  " "  " "
  SAOCOM 1A  21  " "  " "  21  11/01/17  " "  " "
  Dragon (CRS-13)  22  21  10/30/17  " "  " "  " "  " "
  SES-14 / GOLD  23  30  11/29/17  " "  " "  " "  " "
  CCTCAP In-Flgt Abrt Test  24  " "  " "  " "  " "  45  12/13/17
  Iridium NEXT (Flight 5)  25  " "  " "  30  12/01/17  " "  " "
  Bangabandhu-1     26  21  12/20/17  " "  " "  " "  " "

Edited: corrected table line up and understandability
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AJW on 05/30/2017 04:30 am
Jim stated earlier in this thread that the TEL would be the long pole in the schedule.   Would there be any advantage to building two TELS at this time, or as the Brits say, an heir and a spare?  Could this shorten the delay in the event of another pad failure, or speed up processing if one is damaged during a launch?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 05/30/2017 04:42 am
Jim stated earlier in this thread that the TEL would be the long pole in the schedule.   Would there be any advantage to building two TELS at this time, or as the Brits say, an heir and a spare?  Could this shorten the delay in the event of another pad failure, or speed up processing if one is damaged during a launch?
It wouldn't make much sense to spend time and resources building a spare when there are other, working TELs that need building or upgrading. Maybe in another year or two. Having an extra to swap in while they're working on the other one could make sense in Florida. Keep from taking a pad down every time you need to do something to a TEL.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 05/30/2017 12:21 pm
Jim stated earlier in this thread that the TEL would be the long pole in the schedule.   Would there be any advantage to building two TELS at this time, or as the Brits say, an heir and a spare?  Could this shorten the delay in the event of another pad failure, or speed up processing if one is damaged during a launch?

Read what Shawn told us about the TEL construction:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=52072
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: bob the martian on 05/30/2017 04:16 pm

We've the confirmation of this situation ? Because until now I just read a post about someone who "can" have inside information. 

I've to say I love the "new stuff" but as several people here say the cadence at this moment is more important.
Good point. Last time I checked the manifest SX wanted to launch 25 payloads this year.  IIRC this is possible if they can maintain a 3 week launch cadence at VAFB and a 2 week launch cadence at the Cape. They did this for 2 launches in a row but the question is can they keep it up? It also needed SLC40 to come back on line on time and of course to have no more launch mishaps causing another stand down.

I am hoping they get to at least 18 for this year. Its the guess I did at the beginning of the year.  :)

I'm getting the feeling that SpaceX are finally in third gear - they've been there on the manufacturing end for a while, and now they're getting there in pad operations.  In a way it's kind of a good thing they've built up this backlog, because it gives them the opportunity to establish and maintain a rapid cadence over a longish period of time, allowing them to optimize operations and lower costs even further. 

If they can make it a full year with no kabooms, then the end result will be nothing less than stunning - routine rocket launches and landings of the sort that STS promised but could never deliver.  And in a ridiculously short amount of time, all things considered. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 05/30/2017 04:20 pm
Jim stated earlier in this thread that the TEL would be the long pole in the schedule.   Would there be any advantage to building two TELS at this time, or as the Brits say, an heir and a spare?  Could this shorten the delay in the event of another pad failure, or speed up processing if one is damaged during a launch?
It wouldn't make much sense to spend time and resources building a spare when there are other, working TELs that need building or upgrading. Maybe in another year or two. Having an extra to swap in while they're working on the other one could make sense in Florida. Keep from taking a pad down every time you need to do something to a TEL.

The TELs are pad-specific, so there's no greater reason to have a spare in Florida as opposed to VAFB or Boca. Except, perhaps, because the Florida pads might see higher flight rates so it's more important to keep them operating.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2017 08:04 pm
There was a NASA technical report on lox supercooling posted a while back with details on a process which is likely broadly similar to SpaceX's.  IIRC it operated at ambient pressure. SpaceX achieved greater cooling than the NASA prototype equipment did; speculation is that they are drawing a partial vacuum in order to achieve the lower temperatures.
Sorry for a bit of necro on this thread, but the NASA process put the LO2 through one LN2 bath boiling at atmospheric pressure, followed by another boiling in partial vacuum (maintained by extraction fan, IIRC).

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vanoord on 06/07/2017 11:23 am
Slightly newer image (May 8th).

Thanks due to Deimos Imaging, who dug this out by request  :)

https://twitter.com/deimosimaging/status/872410477489512448
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Roy_H on 06/09/2017 10:30 am
This appears to be a lot more rebuild than I had imagined. It looks to me that the ramp and tracks from the HIF are being rebuilt too.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 06/09/2017 10:37 am
This appears to be a lot more rebuild than I had imagined. It looks to me that the ramp and tracks from the HIF are being rebuilt too.

Maybe matching the LC-39A configuration?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2017 11:10 am
This appears to be a lot more rebuild than I had imagined. It looks to me that the ramp and tracks from the HIF are being rebuilt too.

Maybe matching the LC-39A configuration?

Not feasible
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Roy_H on 06/09/2017 11:19 am
This appears to be a lot more rebuild than I had imagined. It looks to me that the ramp and tracks from the HIF are being rebuilt too.

Maybe matching the LC-39A configuration?

Not feasible

The track width for LC39A was chosen for the Falcon Heavy, and I don't believe the FH will ever fly from LC40 so I agree with Jim, but am I just not seeing clearly, or was there sufficient damage to the tracks and ramp to warrant this?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2017 11:57 am
Likely just modifying the erector mechanisms.  And as stated many times, FH can't fly from the F9 pad at 40
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 06/09/2017 01:39 pm
This appears to be a lot more rebuild than I had imagined. It looks to me that the ramp and tracks from the HIF are being rebuilt too.

I don't see anything to indicate that. The reddish hue make it look like earth-moving is happening, but that is all actually concrete and grass.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: yokem55 on 06/09/2017 01:39 pm
Granted, that image is a month old now, but I really don't see how they can credibly say that they are still targeting August for 40 given the state in that picture. I suppose the new TEL, reaction frame, and sundry equipment could be coming together elsewhere and it will all come together as soon as the dirt and concrete work is done, but that seems unlikely to me.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/09/2017 02:14 pm
Granted, that image is a month old now, but I really don't see how they can credibly say that they are still targeting August for 40 given the state in that picture. I suppose the new TEL, reaction frame, and sundry equipment could be coming together elsewhere and it will all come together as soon as the dirt and concrete work is done, but that seems unlikely to me.

Surely you're use to the Elon style of hopelessly optimistic deadlines?

You are correct, pre-fabing things off site can have some benefits, but there is still integration of the hardware at a job site.  Then all the thinks that need to be complete end to end: electrical conductors, piping, controls power, then all the checkout, testing and finally fully integrated testing with a vehicle.

They are not a few months from being complete. 

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 06/09/2017 03:02 pm
Granted, that image is a month old now, but I really don't see how they can credibly say that they are still targeting August for 40 given the state in that picture. I suppose the new TEL, reaction frame, and sundry equipment could be coming together elsewhere and it will all come together as soon as the dirt and concrete work is done, but that seems unlikely to me.

What dirt and concrete work? The latest TerraServer images from mid-February show the concrete is pristine, aside from the immediate area of the pad.

https://www.terraserver.com/view?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_text=&searchLat=&searchLng=&lat=28.56185&lng=-80.577278&bbox=&center=
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Zucal on 06/09/2017 04:50 pm
The flame bucket was absolutely wrecked, and there was major spalling elsewhere. The Terraserver imagery doesn't show that.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/09/2017 05:48 pm
That makes me think about some long term plans of SpaceX. If they upgraded the flame trench to handle a Blk 5 FH (it was already almost to that point because of its heritage as a pad for Titan heavy variants), so that at some later time that they could upgrade the pad and HIF to handle FH launches and crew launches so that LC39A could be upgraded to handle ITS.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 06/09/2017 07:19 pm
The flame bucket was absolutely wrecked, and there was major spalling elsewhere. The Terraserver imagery doesn't show that.

And neither does the Deimos imagery, for that matter. Can you point out more detailed information on damage to the concrete? I don't recall seeing it in this thread.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 06/09/2017 07:20 pm
That makes me think about some long term plans of SpaceX. If they upgraded the flame trench to handle a Blk 5 FH (it was already almost to that point because of its heritage as a pad for Titan heavy variants), so that at some later time that they could upgrade the pad and HIF to handle FH launches and crew launches so that LC39A could be upgraded to handle ITS.

They would need a new HIF and ramp to approach the pad from the west.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 06/09/2017 09:43 pm
They would need a new HIF and ramp to approach the pad from the west.

Yes, but most of it could be built while the pad is operational. Though a very high launch rate like 1 every 2 weeks would hamper the progress.

Edit: Present status is they won't fly FH from SLC-40.  But would they upgrade the flametrench when it does not slow down progress? Quite possible
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2017 09:57 pm
Not at all.  Too much underground infrastructure north of it
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jdeshetler on 06/09/2017 10:07 pm
It was discussed in this post but that was 3 yrs ago.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35559.msg1251222#msg1251222

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Kansan52 on 06/09/2017 10:27 pm
SX will spend nothing on changes to SLC-40 for FH because it is not needed. 39a can handle any FH launches planned.

The basis for such a statement, posts here on NSF.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 06/11/2017 01:56 am
[SpaceflightNow] SpaceX aims to restore damaged launch pad to service by end of summer (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/10/spacex-aims-to-restore-damaged-launch-pad-to-service-by-end-of-summer/)
Quote
The state of Florida is contributing $5 million through Space Florida, an economic development agency focused on the aerospace industry, to help pay for upgrades at pad 40. The money was approved at a Space Florida board meeting June 1 to go toward an improved flame trench and enhanced acoustic suppression capability at pad 40, Dale Ketcham, Space Florida’s chief of strategic alliances, wrote in an email to Spaceflight Now.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/11/2017 03:23 am
After reading the article, the improved flame trench and acoustic water suppression is so that LC-40 can launch twice a month without as much concern over having to make small fixes to the concrete. Although it could include FH capability for sometime several years from now, it is not indicated that it is for a FH capability by the context of the rest of the article.

Added: A BTW that would mean SpaceX would have this year capable of performing as a combined capability a launch a week just from these two pads (~48 a year).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 06/11/2017 10:10 am
After reading the article, the improved flame trench and acoustic water suppression is so that LC-40 can launch twice a month without as much concern over having to make small fixes to the concrete. Although it could include FH capability for sometime several years from now, it is not indicated that it is for a FH capability by the context of the rest of the article.

Added: A BTW that would mean SpaceX would have this year capable of performing as a combined capability a launch a week just from these two pads (~48 a year).

This is the pace assuming static fire in each cycle... may change after Block 5 is flying regularly (next year).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: tvg98 on 06/18/2017 03:16 pm
Reddit user /u/aftersteveo claims to have spoken to an employee involved with the restoration of SLC-40, and it seems the hold down clamps have been installed, and that it may finish all the work in August after all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/19/2017 12:15 pm
I wonder what is happening with the new TEL.  Has anyone heard if it is being built in pieces in Hawthorne and trucked to Florida or are they building it in the hangar at SLC-40?  Considering the evolution of the various TELs built over the last few years, I'm really curious what this one will come out looking like.
Title: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 06/19/2017 12:26 pm
...I'm really curious what this one will come out looking like.

Very similar (if not identical) to Pad 39A's, but with a smaller reaction frame.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 06/19/2017 12:33 pm
I wonder what is happening with the new TEL.  Has anyone heard if it is being built in pieces in Hawthorne and trucked to Florida or are they building it in the hangar at SLC-40?  Considering the evolution of the various TELs built over the last few years, I'm really curious what this one will come out looking like.

39A's was built at the Cape
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/01/2017 02:06 pm
The flame bucket was absolutely wrecked, and there was major spalling elsewhere. The Terraserver imagery doesn't show that.

Latest Terraserver image from May 29th shows a hole where the flame bucket used to be, looks like new concrete lining it

https://www.terraserver.com/view?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_text=&searchLat=&searchLng=&lat=28.4859&lng=-80.5444&bbox=&center=
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: abaddon on 07/28/2017 01:38 pm
Elon tweeting a November date for FH maiden launch suggests that SpaceX is now confident that SLC-40 will be reactivated in time to allow that to happen.  IIRC SpaceX has said it would take 60 days to retrofit 39A for FH; working backwards and assuming the end of November, that means we have a tentative date of no later than the end of September, or roughly two months, for SLC-40 to be reactivated.  I'd imagine they are not currently shooting for the end of that window, so I'd imagine we should start hearing some more news about SLC-40 nearing reactivation next month.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 07/28/2017 03:44 pm
Elon tweeting a November date for FH maiden launch suggests that SpaceX is now confident that SLC-40 will be reactivated in time to allow that to happen.  IIRC SpaceX has said it would take 60 days to retrofit 39A for FH; working backwards and assuming the end of November, that means we have a tentative date of no later than the end of September, or roughly two months, for SLC-40 to be reactivated.  I'd imagine they are not currently shooting for the end of that window, so I'd imagine we should start hearing some more news about SLC-40 nearing reactivation next month.
They're not launching the day the 39A retrofit is finished. Three months from 40 activation would be a more reasonable guess.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 07/28/2017 04:03 pm
Elon tweeting a November date for FH maiden launch suggests that SpaceX is now confident that SLC-40 will be reactivated in time to allow that to happen.  IIRC SpaceX has said it would take 60 days to retrofit 39A for FH; working backwards and assuming the end of November, that means we have a tentative date of no later than the end of September, or roughly two months, for SLC-40 to be reactivated.  I'd imagine they are not currently shooting for the end of that window, so I'd imagine we should start hearing some more news about SLC-40 nearing reactivation next month.
They're not launching the day the 39A retrofit is finished. Three months from 40 activation would be a more reasonable guess.

Exactly.  It's 60 days to get Pad-A and the TEL and launch mount ready to handle Falcon Heavy.  Once all of that is done, then you have fit checks, fueling testing, integration tests, and possibly more than one static fire.  Even if we assume late-November to FH's liftoff, working that back, that still points to August as the date that SLC-40 is complete.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: abaddon on 07/28/2017 04:14 pm
Was looking at a very rough NLT date here, guys.  Agreed three months is more realistic than the bare minimum 60 days quoted, which puts us at the end of August, which means we should start hearing more about SLC-40 nearing reactivation next month (which was the point I was really trying to make).

I'll try to be less sloppy showing my work next time :).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 07/28/2017 05:56 pm
First sign will probably be seeing tests of the TEL. It was over a year between when they first the erected the TEL to first launch at 39A, but there were extenuating circumstances. I'd say we should see tests of the SLC-40 TEL in the next couple weeks if they are going to hit the deadline.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 08/07/2017 12:49 am
So When are we expecting a launch from SLC-40 in late August or Early September.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 08/07/2017 12:52 am
So When are we expecting a launch from SLC-40 in late August or Early September.

Not in August.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: MP99 on 08/08/2017 09:01 pm
So When are we expecting a launch from SLC-40 in late August or Early September.
When did LC-40 become SLC-40?

Does it mean SpaceX Launch Complex 40?

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/08/2017 09:10 pm
So When are we expecting a launch from SLC-40 in late August or Early September.
When did LC-40 become SLC-40?

Does it mean SpaceX Launch Complex 40?

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

It has been SLC-40 for a long time now, I don't think it has been called LC-40 since the 60s.

It means Space Launch Complex, it's the designation that the Air Force uses for their launch sites.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Kasponaut on 08/08/2017 09:14 pm
So When are we expecting a launch from SLC-40 in late August or Early September.
When did LC-40 become SLC-40?

Does it mean SpaceX Launch Complex 40?

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk



AFAIK they have always used the term SLC at VAFB and it stands for Space Launch Complex.
At CCAFS and KSC they have always used the term LC and it stands for Launch Complex.
So the correct designation for pad 40 is LC-40 (not SLC-40).
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 08/08/2017 09:23 pm
I believe we have had this argument at least a few times before. Let's not have it again.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/08/2017 09:28 pm
So When are we expecting a launch from SLC-40 in late August or Early September.
When did LC-40 become SLC-40?

Does it mean SpaceX Launch Complex 40?

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk



AFAIK they have always used the term SLC at VAFB and it stands for Space Launch Complex.
At CCAFS and KSC they have always used the term LC and it stands for Launch Complex.
So the correct designation for pad 40 is LC-40 (not SLC-40).

"The term in use at the Cape today is "Space Launch Complex" abbreviated "SLC" and pronounced "slick."

http://afspacemuseum.org/ccafs/

It looks like active launch sites use the SLC designation, while inactive sites are referred to as Launch Complexes.

e.g., the use of the term "Space Launch Complex 40" used in this article on a fire that resulted from a static firing of the Falcon 9, from the 45th Space Wing.

http://www.patrick.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/938481/emergency-management-a-behind-the-scenes-look-on-the-eastern-range/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 08/08/2017 10:18 pm
So When are we expecting a launch from SLC-40 in late August or Early September.
When did LC-40 become SLC-40?

Does it mean SpaceX Launch Complex 40?

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk



AFAIK they have always used the term SLC at VAFB and it stands for Space Launch Complex.
At CCAFS and KSC they have always used the term LC and it stands for Launch Complex.
So the correct designation for pad 40 is LC-40 (not SLC-40).

The change was done in the early 90's.  The change applied to all Cape active complexes, except LC-39, which is NASA's
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 08/08/2017 10:25 pm
I believe we have had this argument at least a few times before. Let's not have it again.
I believe we have had this argument at least a few times before. Let's not have it again...[1]. Can we let Jim's post be the last one please?

1 - do I hear an echo? [2]
2 - you don't like echos??? Me either!
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: smfarmer11 on 08/09/2017 10:22 am
I feel like the SES-Echostar mission might be the first one to come off the new SLC-40 judging by the timeline.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/09/2017 10:25 am
Do we actually know anything about the progress of works or are we just speculating in a news vacuum?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/09/2017 12:46 pm
Do we actually know anything about the progress of works or are we just speculating in a news vacuum?
There is L2 info.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 08/09/2017 04:54 pm
I feel like the SES-Echostar mission might be the first one to come off the new SLC-40 judging by the timeline.

That is very possible, and OTV-5 might even be the SLC-40 RTF mission if they do finish repairs by mid-late August.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 08/19/2017 05:48 am
I'm seeing a launch from SLC-40 in October on SpaceX schedule.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Steve D on 08/21/2017 03:23 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jim on 08/21/2017 03:44 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX. 
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 08/21/2017 03:50 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

There's SpaceX launch site at Boca Chica,Texas. but no activity there till SpaceX is done with LC-40 and
LC-39A.  Activity or Contruction  at SpaceX Boca Chica will start probably later this year they are aiming for a late 2018 launch.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Steve D on 08/21/2017 03:52 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Considering the projected flight rate they are planning and the huge hit they took when they lost SLC 40 wouldn't it make sense to set up another pad at the Cape?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 08/21/2017 03:54 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Considering the projected flight rate they are planning and the huge hit they took when they lost SLC 40 wouldn't it make sense to set up another pad at the Cape?

Only if they continue to destroy launch pads every year, which is a trend I’m sure they’re trying everything to avoid.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Tomness on 08/21/2017 04:01 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Considering the projected flight rate they are planning and the huge hit they took when they lost SLC 40 wouldn't it make sense to set up another pad at the Cape?

Range Conflicts/ Base Conflicts with ITAR, etc. Get SLC-40, 39A Ramp up & Boca Chica  Built they  should be good for awhile.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 08/21/2017 04:05 pm
Is there any site at the cape where they could build a pad and flame trench big enough for their 12 or 15m BFR? That could tempt them to build a pad from scratch, instead of conflicting with operations on LC-39A.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/21/2017 04:07 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

There's SpaceX launch site at Boca Chica,Texas. but no activity there till SpaceX is done with LC-40 and
LC-39A.  Activity or Contruction  at SpaceX Boca Chica will start probably later this year they are aiming for a late 2018 launch.

I'm questioning the value of Boca Chica.  With 2 FL pads and improved operation cycle times per laucnh They won't need Boca Chica for several years to come at best.

Maybe they won't abandon Boca Chica, but I maybe a nice slow steady pace instead.

Edit: As for SLC 40, bring it on, looking forward to it going again at the FH conversion.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 08/21/2017 04:24 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

There's SpaceX launch site at Boca Chica,Texas. but no activity there till SpaceX is done with LC-40 and
LC-39A.  Activity or Contruction  at SpaceX Boca Chica will start probably later this year they are aiming for a late 2018 launch.

I'm questioning the value of Boca Chica.  With 2 FL pads and improved operation cycle times per laucnh They won't need Boca Chica for several years to come at best.

Maybe they won't abandon Boca Chica, but I maybe a nice slow steady pace instead.

Edit: As for SLC 40, bring it on, looking forward to it going again at the FH conversion.

SpaceX Boca Chica will launch once a month which isn't much like the FL Pads.  SpaceX wouldn't abandoned there privately owned site built from scratch and not leased.  I'm also excited to see a first launch from 40 soon.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/21/2017 04:37 pm
It's not yet confirmed which mission will get SLC-40....just so everyone is on the same page. But it is going to be known soon. Meetings soon to take place on status.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Rebel44 on 08/21/2017 06:45 pm
Is there any site at the cape where they could build a pad and flame trench big enough for their 12 or 15m BFR? That could tempt them to build a pad from scratch, instead of conflicting with operations on LC-39A.


IMO:

The least problematic option for that monster might be a custom made semi-submersible launch platform - similar to large oil rigs.

Launch pad on the ground would likely be problematic due to high noise if they want to launch often.

9 meter ITSy is likery the biggest rocket that can be launched from 39A without major changes
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 09/05/2017 06:06 am
SpaceX has confirmed that the combined Echostar-105/SES-11 mission will be launched in October 2017 from LC-39A. See: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

What this means is that LC-40 is not ready to host launches yet. Earlier this year it was estimated that LC-40 would be back in action in August.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: biosehnsucht on 09/05/2017 11:25 pm
Was it expected to be actively launching or just be "activated" (as LC-39A was for quite some time before any launch occurred) ?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vaporcobra on 09/05/2017 11:57 pm
SpaceX has confirmed that the combined Echostar-105/SES-11 mission will be launched in October 2017 from LC-39A. See: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

What this means is that LC-40 is not ready to host launches yet. Earlier this year it was estimated that LC-40 would be back in action in August.

Less "confirmed", more all but guaranteed to use LC-39A. I'm sure there is still a chance that LC-40 will be activated before then, but better safe than sorry in case of teething issues at an effectively new pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vaporcobra on 09/05/2017 11:59 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Was gonna say the same thing. With the ground nearly settled at BC (a process that has taken more than a year), the most tedious work is done in Texas. Actual construction can begin once the whole building-on-a-sand-beach thing is taken care of.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/06/2017 02:12 am
SpaceX has confirmed that the combined Echostar-105/SES-11 mission will be launched in October 2017 from LC-39A. See: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

What this means is that LC-40 is not ready to host launches yet. Earlier this year it was estimated that LC-40 would be back in action in August.

Less "confirmed", more all but guaranteed to use LC-39A. I'm sure there is still a chance that LC-40 will be activated before then, but better safe than sorry in case of teething issues at an effectively new pad.

No reports of fit checks or GSE or WDR. Look how long it took to activate 39A, or handle earlier 40 refits. Haven't even seen the TEL. You'll get plenty of warning.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vaporcobra on 09/06/2017 02:38 am
SpaceX has confirmed that the combined Echostar-105/SES-11 mission will be launched in October 2017 from LC-39A. See: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

What this means is that LC-40 is not ready to host launches yet. Earlier this year it was estimated that LC-40 would be back in action in August.

Less "confirmed", more all but guaranteed to use LC-39A. I'm sure there is still a chance that LC-40 will be activated before then, but better safe than sorry in case of teething issues at an effectively new pad.

No reports of fit checks or GSE or WDR. Look how long it took to activate 39A, or handle earlier 40 refits. Haven't even seen the TEL. You'll get plenty of warning.

My overly-optimistic outlook betrays me... You make fair points. To play the devil's advocate, while LC-39A did demonstrate just how difficult activating a new launch pad can be, reactivating what is likely a nearly-identical version of a pad that was already activated and in use is probably somewhat easier than what had to be done with the conversion of LC-39A.

With any large engineering project, individual products are definitely guaranteed to be their own animals, so to speak, but I suspect that the expertise developed during the activation of LC-40 will hasten the process while it's repeated.

TL;DR: Milestones could occur more rapidly during the reactivation of LC-40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Steve D on 09/06/2017 03:13 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Was gonna say the same thing. With the ground nearly settled at BC (a process that has taken more than a year), the most tedious work is done in Texas. Actual construction can begin once the whole building-on-a-sand-beach thing is taken care of.

But if spacex wanted to have more pads at the Cape there are other unused pads they could rebuild, correct?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 09/06/2017 03:26 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Was gonna say the same thing. With the ground nearly settled at BC (a process that has taken more than a year), the most tedious work is done in Texas. Actual construction can begin once the whole building-on-a-sand-beach thing is taken care of.

But if spacex wanted to have more pads at the Cape there are other unused pads they could rebuild, correct?

There are old pads, but as Jim said they would really just be leasing an area to build a new launch pad from scratch, there aren't more pads that still have useful infrastructure that can be upgraded.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vanoord on 09/06/2017 05:22 pm
There are old pads, but as Jim said they would really just be leasing an area to build a new launch pad from scratch, there aren't more pads that still have useful infrastructure that can be upgraded.

Plus they would be subject to the same range availability constraints - arguably worse if SpaceX keep up a good cadence at 39a and 40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/06/2017 05:46 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Was gonna say the same thing. With the ground nearly settled at BC (a process that has taken more than a year), the most tedious work is done in Texas. Actual construction can begin once the whole building-on-a-sand-beach thing is taken care of.

But if spacex wanted to have more pads at the Cape there are other unused pads they could rebuild, correct?

What others said above.  But also they are a very very long way from needing more access at the cape.  They can't make enough flight hardware to keep 2 pads + VAFB with a 2 week cadence going. 

If capacity was needed multiple HIFs with a clean pad concept would get you more capacity at a far cheaper price and shorter schedule as well.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cppetrie on 09/06/2017 08:50 pm
There are old pads, but as Jim said they would really just be leasing an area to build a new launch pad from scratch, there aren't more pads that still have useful infrastructure that can be upgraded.

Plus they would be subject to the same range availability constraints - arguably worse if SpaceX keep up a good cadence at 39a and 40.
I thought I saw that with AFTS the same provider could launch multiple rockets in the same day.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/06/2017 09:39 pm
There are old pads, but as Jim said they would really just be leasing an area to build a new launch pad from scratch, there aren't more pads that still have useful infrastructure that can be upgraded.

Plus they would be subject to the same range availability constraints - arguably worse if SpaceX keep up a good cadence at 39a and 40.
I thought I saw that with AFTS the same provider could launch multiple rockets in the same day.
Contingency flight termination is not the only services the launch range and host facility provide.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/06/2017 09:49 pm
Are there other pads at the Cape that Spacex could take over? It seems to me the more pads the better. Less impact to the schedule if they lose one.

The remaining would require as much construction as South TX.

Was gonna say the same thing. With the ground nearly settled at BC (a process that has taken more than a year), the most tedious work is done in Texas. Actual construction can begin once the whole building-on-a-sand-beach thing is taken care of.

But if spacex wanted to have more pads at the Cape there are other unused pads they could rebuild, correct?

There are old pads, but as Jim said they would really just be leasing an area to build a new launch pad from scratch, there aren't more pads that still have useful infrastructure that can be upgraded.

Don't forget the soon to be vacated SLC-37 after the Delta IV Heavy is phased out.
Title: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cppetrie on 09/07/2017 01:44 am
There are old pads, but as Jim said they would really just be leasing an area to build a new launch pad from scratch, there aren't more pads that still have useful infrastructure that can be upgraded.

Plus they would be subject to the same range availability constraints - arguably worse if SpaceX keep up a good cadence at 39a and 40.
I thought I saw that with AFTS the same provider could launch multiple rockets in the same day.
Contingency flight termination is not the only services the launch range and host facility provide.
I understand that, but I got the impression from the statements made that configuring for FTS was the thing that prevented them from launching twice in the same day by the same provider. I'll see if I can find the info in the articles about AFTS from February.

Edit: found the quote in an article from SFN

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/25/auto-destruct-safety-system-seen-as-key-to-ramping-up-launch-tempos/

Quote
While the range is still involved in launch operations, “there is not an antenna pointing at the vehicle, so that in itself, I think, will make our lives easier,” Koenigsmann said. “I could easily imagine that we’ll have two launches on the same day because of that.”
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 09/07/2017 01:49 am
Don't forget the soon to be vacated SLC-37 after the Delta IV Heavy is phased out.

Delta IV Heavy has flights booked through at least 2023.  If a payload slips a year that's easily 2024, and it would only become available if they don't get more orders.  I wouldn't really call that "soon".
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JBF on 09/07/2017 02:43 am
Don't forget the soon to be vacated SLC-37 after the Delta IV Heavy is phased out.

Delta IV Heavy has flights booked through at least 2023.  If a payload slips a year that's easily 2024, and it would only become available if they don't get more orders.  I wouldn't really call that "soon".

Even with the Delta IV gone, ULA is leasing the pad and they may want to do something with it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DJPledger on 09/07/2017 12:57 pm
Don't forget the soon to be vacated SLC-37 after the Delta IV Heavy is phased out.

Delta IV Heavy has flights booked through at least 2023.  If a payload slips a year that's easily 2024, and it would only become available if they don't get more orders.  I wouldn't really call that "soon".
SpaceX may not have their own way if they want SLC-37 as there is a rumor BO may want it for their NA. Hopefully SLC-40 will be operational again soon.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 09/07/2017 01:39 pm
Don't forget the soon to be vacated SLC-37 after the Delta IV Heavy is phased out.

Delta IV Heavy has flights booked through at least 2023.  If a payload slips a year that's easily 2024, and it would only become available if they don't get more orders.  I wouldn't really call that "soon".

Even with the Delta IV gone, ULA is leasing the pad and they may want to do something with it.
That is not ULA's plan as I understand things. 

 - Ed Kyle
Correct. Down-sizing the rocket fleet by getting rid of Delta also allows for additional cost-savings by getting rid of two launchpads (one for Delta IV at VABF and one for Delta IV at CCAFS).
The plan right now is to launch Vulcan from the (modified) Atlas V pads.

But, we're veering OT here given that this is not an ULA thread.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/12/2017 12:40 pm
How is it that we get so few photographs or bits of news on the progress at LC40, compared to Boca Chica where it feels like we have pictures every time a mound of dirt is moved from one spot to the next?

It feels like there is a curious silence around the actual progress at LC40. Is there some intent behind it, or is the information just difficult to come by for some reason? Like tighter access control to the site, or some such reason?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 09/12/2017 12:56 pm
How is it that we get so few photographs or bits of news on the progress at LC40, compared to Boca Chica where it feels like we have pictures every time a mound of dirt is moved from one spot to the next?

It feels like there is a curious silence around the actual progress at LC40. Is there some intent behind it, or is the information just difficult to come by for some reason? Like tighter access control to the site, or some such reason?

I agree, but LC-40 will be activated in mid-October then onto LC-39A.  We will find out more about the progress at 40 once everything is ok after the hurricane.  And actually there's just a dirt mound for the HIF only at Boca Chica.  While there isn't really anything going on at Boca, you can see what's up there with SpaceX. But at 40 you just can't get too close I'm guessing that's the problem. Don't  really know.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: abaddon on 09/12/2017 12:58 pm
It's on an Air Force Base.  Compare that to Boca Chica which has a few chain link fences at best.  Seems pretty straightforward to me...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/12/2017 01:03 pm
It's on an Air Force Base.  Compare that to Boca Chica which has a few chain link fences at best.  Seems pretty straightforward to me...

Thanks for the answer. Living on the other side of the world, I am not actually familiar with the access control and/or external line of sight opportunities at these launch sites. Plus, if we move away from photographs for a moment, during the LC39 construction I seem to recall unofficial updates from members of the construction crew etc on a more regular basis.

Anyway, the wait is almost over, it would seem.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: tleski on 09/12/2017 02:36 pm
The reason we have so many more photos of the LC39 is that it is located on NASA property (Kennedy Space Center), which allows for bus tours of the facility. The buses pass by the CL39 pad giving people plenty of opportunities to take pictures. On the other hand SLC-40 is on the grounds of the neighboring Air Force base where access is limited and no tour buses come close. Military installations have usually much stricter rules regarding photography than civilian facilities, so I don't think the construction crews want to risk their employment and publish photo updates although we saw occasional photos on Twitter and Instagram. The pad is really far form any publicly accessible areas, so it is impossible to get any photos from outside of the base in contrast to SpaceX's McGregor facilities or Boca Chika, which can be photographed from nearby public roads.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/12/2017 02:40 pm
Plus, if we move away from photographs for a moment, during the LC39 construction I seem to recall unofficial updates from members of the construction crew etc on a more regular basis.

LC-39A is on the NASA (civilian) Kennedy Space Center, and there are regular bus tours that go by the pad. SLC-40 is on the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (military) so access is extremely limited, there is one tour of the base by the bus at best and it doesn't go anywhere near the pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/12/2017 04:43 pm
The silence and lack of dynamic activity (TEL moving up or down), even Pre-Irma, doesn't give me confidence that SLC-40 is even close to being operational.

Mid September and silence.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vanoord on 09/13/2017 12:07 pm
A brief comments from Gwynne Shotwell, speaking in Paris, reported by spaceflightnow.com

"I was frankly more worried about Launch Complex 40, where we’re finishing up."

"We had a lot of equipment, lots of piping to be welded, and I’m a little bit more worried about that. That won’t hold up a launch in the near-term, but we’re waiting to get that information back ... I don’t anticipate it being an issue though"

edit/gongora:  Always give the source of your quotes!  (There is some other good info in that article.)
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/09/13/launch-operators-expect-minimal-delays-from-hurricane-irma/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/09/13/launch-operators-expect-minimal-delays-from-hurricane-irma/)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/13/2017 10:28 pm
edit/gongora:  Always give the source of your quotes!  (There is some other good info in that article.)
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/09/13/launch-operators-expect-minimal-delays-from-hurricane-irma/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/09/13/launch-operators-expect-minimal-delays-from-hurricane-irma/)
Thank you gongora!
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Gotorah on 09/20/2017 05:48 pm
Note the new TEL on pad 40 from Google Earth.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 09/20/2017 05:57 pm
Note the new TEL on pad 40 from Google Earth.

Old TE, I believe this was discussed upthread already.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 09/20/2017 06:06 pm
SpaceflightNow had set The Cape launch date on October 14th for
KoreaSat 5a is that correct.  40 was supposed to launch
SES11/ Echostar but LC-39A took that. Now there probably launching KoreaSat.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: RDMM2081 on 09/20/2017 06:15 pm
Note the new TEL on pad 40 from Google Earth.

That looks "different" than the other TELs to me.  Not sure if it is some sort of weird "3d-ifying" type thing that Google sometimes does to their images, or if its melted (indeed, if it is the old one) or if this is yet another iteration of advancing the design of the TEL for decreased turnaround times.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/20/2017 06:31 pm
I will be interested to see if the TEL(s) built for Boca Chica strongly resemble any of the existing three, as well.

Somehow, it feels like whenever SpaceX has a chance to build a new TEL, they throw out all the old designs and pull out clean sheets of paper.  I understand that at least the one at 39A is designed to support either F9 or FH, but it just, from looking at them, seems that each of the existing TELs has its own particular design features, both gross and in detail...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 09/20/2017 06:37 pm
I will be interested to see if the TEL(s) built for Boca Chica strongly resemble any of the existing three, as well.

Somehow, it feels like whenever SpaceX has a chance to build a new TEL, they throw out all the old designs and pull out clean sheets of paper.  I understand that at least the one at 39A is designed to support either F9 or FH, but it just, from looking at them, seems that each of the existing TELs has its own particular design features, both gross and in detail...

SLC-40’s original TE and SLC-4E’s TE were the same design, but different sizes.

SLC-40’s new TE and Pad 39A’s TE are the same design, but different sizes.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 09/20/2017 06:50 pm
Size difference? Horizontally or vertically or ?
Title: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 09/20/2017 06:53 pm
Size difference? Horizontally or vertically or ?

Difference in the width of the reaction frames (and the bottom of the strongback). Both versions of SLC-40’s TE are single stick width, while SLC-4E and Pad 39A are three cores wide for FH.

But my point is that there have only really been two designs. Originally they were open trusses with a traditional fall-back mechanism, and now they’re paneled trusses with the throwback mechanism.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/20/2017 07:08 pm
Oh, sure -- I meant to say that I understand the difference between a TEL designed to support FH, and one designed just to support F9.

My point was that the old TEL at LC-40 had more of an open framework design than the other two, had sort of kludgey-looking blast shields placed over certain critical lines but otherwise had propellant, air and electrical/command lines snaking all through it.

The TELs at 39A and SLC-4 are each designed in a more, I don't know, finished manner, with mostly enclosed structures that contain the various feed lines that run up and down the TEL.  But the one at 39A, just from memory, looks different from the one at SLC-4, the latter being more enclosed and having almost no open framework, while 39A's has more open framework.  And, IIRC, the TEL at SLC-4 uses a somewhat different hydraulic setup for erection than the ones at the Cape, and these two TELs have different retract protocols just before and just at launch.

Again, similar designs to do the same functions, but some features of the basic frameworks seem different, and many of the apparent ways in which the feed lines, etc., are run through them seem particular to each TEL.  I mean, I get the fact that the one at LC-40 was their first attempt, and as such it likely sort of "growed like Topsy".  But again, just sort of wondering if we are seeing fresh design teams being put to work on each successive TEL, or if this is simply aggressive iteration of the design, to the point that each new TEL is significantly different from the last...
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: stcks on 09/20/2017 07:26 pm
Note the new TEL on pad 40 from Google Earth.

That looks "different" than the other TELs to me.  Not sure if it is some sort of weird "3d-ifying" type thing that Google sometimes does to their images, or if its melted (indeed, if it is the old one) or if this is yet another iteration of advancing the design of the TEL for decreased turnaround times.

This has come up a few times already. That image is extremely old. The flame trench you see there is circa 2014
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/20/2017 07:38 pm
so one specific thing that I think will happen is that SpaceX will install a third hydraulic arm to pivot the strongback. As you can see from the screenshot of the hydraulic arms/tel from CRS-7 attached here, the pad previously only used two. When you look at imagery from Terraserver up until 14th Feb, you can clearly see two trenches where the hydraulic arms rested. In the latest update from 10th of August, there are now three trenches, hence why I think there will be three hydraulic arms.

Terraserver link is : https://www.terraserver.com/view?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_text=&searchLat=&searchLng=&lat=28.56352&lng=-80.57815&bbox=&center=
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/23/2017 11:07 am
So this might be something, I compared the Planet imagery from 1 September with the 20th, and one work tent is not there any more. I know they took them down for the hurricane, however with one not reappearing might be a sign that work is starting to finish up?

https://www.planet.com/explorer
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/25/2017 11:54 pm
L2 report the SLC-40 TEL - being built in the SLC-40 HIF - has a fair amount of work to go:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09/spacex-realign-manifest-double-launch-salvo/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Comga on 09/26/2017 08:48 pm
Quote
Tweet from Stephen Clark (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/912713399083130881)
SpaceX sets Oct. 7 & 9 launch dates for next two Falcon 9 flights from East and West Coasts. Koreasat 5A in late Oct. confirmed from pad 39A
That says that the "fair amount of work" left on LC-40 is at least a month's worth.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Zingpc on 09/27/2017 03:11 am
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 09/27/2017 03:19 am
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.

Then all the Iridium missions, FORMOSAT, and other missions would have been pushed back by about a year. Also take into account that it takes time and money to dismantle and rebuild the TEL.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/27/2017 04:16 am
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.

It’s clear that they are limited by how many staff they have working on launch facilities.  LC39 took longer than quoted.  LC40 largely waited till 39 was done and almost nothing happening in Boca Chica.

I think it’s fine, they can control construction costs and have more control over the whole venture.

As long as 39A is still launching then SpaceX is making money on the east coast.

They need 40 but a month or two isn’t the biggest problem they’ve ever faced.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 09/27/2017 01:22 pm
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.

Then all the Iridium missions, FORMOSAT, and other missions would have been pushed back by about a year. Also take into account that it takes time and money to dismantle and rebuild the TEL.

Also the SLC-4E TEL is sized for Falcon Heavy, I don't think it would fit in the HIF on on the pad at LC-40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cppetrie on 09/27/2017 05:31 pm
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.

Then all the Iridium missions, FORMOSAT, and other missions would have been pushed back by about a year. Also take into account that it takes time and money to dismantle and rebuild the TEL.

Also the SLC-4E TEL is sized for Falcon Heavy, I don't think it would fit in the HIF on on the pad at LC-40.
Plus it doesn’t utilize the new throwback method, which would presumably limit turn-around time. Turnaround at LC-40 will be important whereas it is less so at Vandenberg because there is far fewer launches per year off the west coast.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 09/27/2017 07:38 pm
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.

Then all the Iridium missions, FORMOSAT, and other missions would have been pushed back by about a year. Also take into account that it takes time and money to dismantle and rebuild the TEL.

Also the SLC-4E TEL is sized for Falcon Heavy, I don't think it would fit in the HIF on on the pad at LC-40.
Plus it doesn’t utilize the new throwback method, which would presumably limit turn-around time. Turnaround at LC-40 will be important whereas it is less so at Vandenberg because there is far fewer launches per year off the west coast.

Cutting apart a TEL and putting it back together probably would cost more and take longer than building a new one.  Since the West Coast will be venue for launching a bunch of the Starlink sats, I suspect a new throw-back, FH TEL will be built out there, too... when the queue allows.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 09/28/2017 04:56 am
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.
All new TEL's will be 39A TEL design with slight changes since 39A is a special case. SLC-40 TEL is a single stick version of the 39A TEL
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Comga on 09/28/2017 07:09 pm
Have we had enough responses to Zingpc's simple if curious question? 
It appears that consensus has been reached on a negative response, despite many contributors convictions about what SpaceX "should have done".
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 09/28/2017 08:55 pm
Some time ago there was a post from ShawnGSE where he explained that the TEL has to be assembled in place. Drilling the holes is done in place because of thermal expansion.

That's exactly why our machining must be done in place.  The fixtures are welded out entirely before we get them so we can avoid heat induced distortion.



If only it were that easy.  This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do).  You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums.

If I understand this correctly, than the TELs are not interchangeable and unique to their pad.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/28/2017 09:37 pm
Technically, TELs would be unique to the rocket its launching, but they also have to be integrated to the GSE equipment that's built into the pad that it's at as well, all of which are different.

If SpaceX had clean-built all of its launch pads to the same design, then they could use interchangeable TELs.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: rpapo on 10/01/2017 07:02 pm
If SpaceX had clean-built all of its launch pads to the same design, then they could use interchangeable TELs.
SpaceX do something the exact same way twice?  I don't think even the Falcons are all identical, what with the forever ongoing tweaks they do.  The chances of them making two identical launch pads, even only months apart, are (IMHO) quite small.

Correction: I don't think there are two identical Falcons out there.  Obviously can't even come close to that over the entire (40+) production run so far.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Colonist on 10/01/2017 08:07 pm
I have been trying to find out when SLC-40 will return to operational status. I have found no news articles here about it since the one on April 12. Almost no other site has even mentioned it. The one site I have found a reference to it is on Spaceflight101 that lists Koreasat-5A as launching from it in 2 weeks. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
https://spaceflight101.com/calendar/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 10/01/2017 08:11 pm
I have been trying to find out when SLC-40 will return to operational status. I have found no news articles here about it since the one on April 12. Almost no other site has even mentioned it. The one site I have found a reference to it is on Spaceflight101 that lists Koreasat-5A as launching from it in 2 weeks. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
https://spaceflight101.com/calendar/

KoreaSat-5A was planned for SLC-40, but got bumped back to Pad 39A because SLC-40 isn’t ready yet.

I wouldn’t hold your breath for SLC-40 reactivation, or even news about it. SpaceX has been keeping it very much under the radar.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Colonist on 10/02/2017 02:55 am
This was a tweet someone thought proved that CRS 13 would be going from 39A. I think this is incorrect. The request clearly identifies the launch vehicle as experimental. At this point, I do not think the Falcon 9 is still experimental. Also, why would they be installing 4 new transmitters to support the same launches that have been going on for almost a year now?
It is more likely that the transmitters are there to support the test launches of the Falcon Heavy. The request defines a time period of 5 months that I believe cover the 2 test launches of the Falcon Heavy.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/913806233626431489
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 10/02/2017 03:30 am
This was a tweet someone thought proved that CRS 13 would be going from 39A. I think this is incorrect. The request clearly identifies the launch vehicle as experimental. At this point, I do not think the Falcon 9 is still experimental. Also, why would they be installing 4 new transmitters to support the same launches that have been going on for almost a year now?
It is more likely that the transmitters are there to support the test launches of the Falcon Heavy. The request defines a time period of 5 months that I believe cover the 2 test launches of the Falcon Heavy.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/913806233626431489

No.  Launch vehicles don't have an assigned range of frequencies reserved for their use.  For EVERY launch SpaceX has to get a Special Temporary Authority to use the frequencies.  This is done through the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology's Experimental Licensing System.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/07/2017 10:51 pm
Had to remove a couple of photos as they were probably taken without SpaceX approval (not by any member here, I'd add. Found on instagram).

It's basically what you already know....40 is a while away yet because the TEL is still being constructed.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 10/08/2017 12:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: DaveS on 10/08/2017 01:13 am
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.
Doesn't SpaceX only have two pad teams, one for Vandenberg and one for the Cape? The Cape team was busy modding and activating 39A at the time, so that team wasn't freed up until 39A had been activated and supported its first F9 launch. So that would have delayed any significant work of 40.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/08/2017 02:12 am
Don't forget that several storms/hurricanes that disrupt the schedule.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: crandles57 on 10/11/2017 02:00 pm
Quote
SLC-40 is not expected to be ready to support a launch until at least the end of November.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/falcon-9-second-launch-week-ses-11/
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Mike_1179 on 10/12/2017 01:23 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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: joncz on 10/12/2017 03:43 pm
Interesting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online.

Long pole - think tent poles.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase 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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SDSmith 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.

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest 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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: octavo 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 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000) 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 :(
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: paolozamparutti on 10/14/2017 09:15 am
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword 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

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t 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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: ChrisGebhardt 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

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t 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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: octavo 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

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t 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?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vaporcobra 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

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t 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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: deruch 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

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t 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.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 10/23/2017 03:57 pm
Is LC-40 still set to be active and launch CRS-13 December 4th?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: mn on 10/23/2017 07:59 pm
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.

Why would they not lower the TEL to do this?

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cppetrie on 10/23/2017 08:24 pm
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.

Why would they not lower the TEL to do this?
Changes gravity loading direction?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 10/23/2017 08:47 pm
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.

Why would they not lower the TEL to do this?

Even if they lower it, it's still 3 stories tall.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: abaddon on 10/26/2017 09:37 pm
CRS-13 confirmed as first flight from SLC-40, NET December: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1742416#msg1742416.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 11/05/2017 05:39 pm
Hello!

As far as I know SpaceX modified the launch pad in 2013 in order to support launches of the Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle. I suppose SpaceX did not design the launch pad itself (or did?). I wonder, what company designed, constructed and built this pad (and I am interested in SLS-4E too) for SpaceX?

Thank you in advance for your answer!

Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 11/05/2017 05:51 pm
Hello!

As far as I know SpaceX modified the launch pad in 2013 in order to support launches of the Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle. I suppose SpaceX did not design the launch pad itself (or did?). I wonder, what company designed, constructed and built this pad (and I am interested in SLS-4E too) for SpaceX?

Thank you in advance for your answer!

“Launch pad” is a very vague term. NASA (and the Air Force?) designed and built all of SLC-40 and SLC-4E in the early 60s. That includes the support buildings, the majority of the plumbing and electrical, the flame trench, etc.

When SpaceX leased those pads they built the new HIFs and TEs, and upgraded whatever needed to be upgraded such as the propellant farms. As far as we know, SpaceX doesn’t contract other companies to design things for them, however they do use general contractors for things like welding and concrete pouring.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 11/05/2017 06:27 pm
Yes, I meant the period of time when SpaceX leased those pads! Does SpaseX have departmant to design filling, gas, electrical and etc. ground system?! Ok, but SpaceX do not produce valve, cryogenics tanks, pumps, I think!? Maybe you know what companies produced those equipment?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 11/05/2017 06:48 pm
The LOX sphere at SLC-40 is from Apollo. SpaceX salvaged it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/05/2017 06:50 pm
CRS-13 confirmed as first flight from SLC-40, NET December: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1742416#msg1742416.
That's incredibly fast work given the earlier photos, since deleted.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 11/05/2017 06:55 pm
Does SpaseX have departmant to design filling, gas, electrical and etc. ground system?!

Yes, they do. Browse through these job listings (http://www.spacex.com/careers/list?field_job_category_tid%5B%5D=806&field_job_category_tid%5B%5D=451&field_job_category_tid%5B%5D=731&field_job_category_tid%5B%5D=456&field_job_category_tid%5B%5D=466).

Ok, but SpaceX do not produce valve, cryogenics tanks, pumps, I think!? Maybe you know what companies produced those equipment?

SpaceX does actually produce cryogenic valves for Falcon, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them making GSE valves either. As jpo234 noted, SpaceX likes to salvage old equipment and refurbish it whenever they can instead of designing and building brand new.

You're right in that they obviously don't make everything themselves and undoubtedly buy a good amount of GSE hardware, but we have no idea what they buy or who they buy it from.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 11/05/2017 07:16 pm
Thanks!

I've read an article recently and notice that SpaceX chills the RP-1 from ambient temperature down to approximately -7°C. What method do they employ to chill the RP-1? And I want to clarify did I understand correctly if they have ambient temperature for example +20°C they will chill down the RP-1 till +13°C or they will chill it down to -7°C?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 11/05/2017 07:56 pm
Thanks!

I've read an article recently and notice that SpaceX chills the RP-1 from ambient temperature down to approximately -7°C. What method do they employ to chill the RP-1? And I want to clarify did I understand correctly if they have ambient temperature for example +20°C they will chill down the RP-1 till +13°C or they will chill it down to -7°C?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/677666779494248449

Quote
@lukealization yes, from 70F to 20 F

20F is -6,66667°C, so the -7°C is about right.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 11/05/2017 08:12 pm
The LOX sphere at SLC-40 is from Apollo. SpaceX salvaged it.
is it one from SLC-34 or SLC-37 Pad A/Pad B??
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 11/05/2017 08:23 pm
The LOX sphere at SLC-40 is from Apollo. SpaceX salvaged it.
is it one from SLC-34 or SLC-37 Pad A/Pad B??
I read 34. The article included this image:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/CCAFS-LC34.jpg)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Alesandro on 11/06/2017 05:46 pm
Thanks!

I've read an article recently and notice that SpaceX chills the RP-1 from ambient temperature down to approximately -7°C. What method do they employ to chill the RP-1? And I want to clarify did I understand correctly if they have ambient temperature for example +20°C they will chill down the RP-1 till +13°C or they will chill it down to -7°C?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/677666779494248449

Quote
@lukealization yes, from 70F to 20 F

20F is -6,66667°C, so the -7°C is about right.

Thank you for the link!
Unfortunately, Elon did not answer about the equipment for chilled RP-1. Do you have any conjectures how he chills RP-1?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/06/2017 06:09 pm
Thanks!

I've read an article recently and notice that SpaceX chills the RP-1 from ambient temperature down to approximately -7°C. What method do they employ to chill the RP-1? And I want to clarify did I understand correctly if they have ambient temperature for example +20°C they will chill down the RP-1 till +13°C or they will chill it down to -7°C?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/677666779494248449

Quote
@lukealization yes, from 70F to 20 F

20F is -6,66667°C, so the -7°C is about right.

Thank you for the link!
Unfortunately, Elon did not answer about the equipment for chilled RP-1. Do you have any conjectures how he chills RP-1?

-7C is a high enough temperature that one could easily use a commercial chiller with a glycol solution and run it through a heat exchanger, likely a plate and frame. 

No need to get exotic or use a consumable.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 11/06/2017 06:24 pm
How RP1 is chilled is off topic.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 11/07/2017 12:36 am
How RP1 is chilled is off topic.
Unless someone were to explain how SpaceX accomplishes this with the GSE at SLC-40, that would be cool.


(no pun intended)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/22/2017 03:18 pm
SLC-40's comeback closing in. At least one visual sighting of the new TEL being rolled out and erected at the pad (likely for fit checks). Big test will be the Static Fire for CRS-13 next week. TEL certainly appears to be on track to support!
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Scylla on 11/29/2017 07:50 pm
SpaceX - Pad 40 - New Strongback Vertical 11-29-2017
USLaunchReport

https://youtu.be/vucGbXyKJDQ
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 12/05/2017 03:50 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/12/05/spacex-now-targeting-dec-12-launch-iss-supplies-ksc/922714001/

From December 4th to December 8th to December 9th too now December 12th hopefully we get to see this launch soon. Hopefully.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 12/05/2017 07:56 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/12/05/spacex-now-targeting-dec-12-launch-iss-supplies-ksc/922714001/

From December 4th to December 8th to December 9th too now December 12th hopefully we get to see this launch soon. Hopefully.

LC-40 was supposed to be available in August, if you recall.  Then September...

Good thing LC-39A was up and running, or there would have been zero or one East Coast launch in 2017.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: JBF on 12/05/2017 08:26 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/12/05/spacex-now-targeting-dec-12-launch-iss-supplies-ksc/922714001/

From December 4th to December 8th to December 9th too now December 12th hopefully we get to see this launch soon. Hopefully.

LC-40 was supposed to be available in August, if you recall.  Then September...

Good thing LC-39A was up and running, or there would have been zero or one East Coast launch in 2017.

If LC-39A was not ready you would have seen them really move rapidly on SLC-40.  Since they had a back-up every indication is that they did not just rebuild it, but made a lot of improvements to it.  Rebuilding something exactly how it was it relatively easy and fast. All the design work is done you just have to clear out the damage, repair and replace.  The key driver will be the re-manufacture of parts. Improving the pad as you go takes time; since  first you have to complete the new design, then manufacturer parts and finally install them.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/05/2017 09:39 pm
No surprise little delays. Bit of a surprise they got it ready this fast, given the earlier deleted pictures that looked like to me that another few months were in store.

Nice to see the pictures of the TEL, although they're not detailed enough to show if anything is missing (looks a little "bare").

What we have not seen are the fit checks and any WDR/cold flow. These you'd like to see well before a hotfire/launch.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Formica on 12/05/2017 10:12 pm
If LC-39A was not ready you would have seen them really move rapidly on SLC-40.  Since they had a back-up every indication is that they did not just rebuild it, but made a lot of improvements to it.  Rebuilding something exactly how it was it relatively easy and fast. All the design work is done you just have to clear out the damage, repair and replace.  The key driver will be the re-manufacture of parts. Improving the pad as you go takes time; since  first you have to complete the new design, then manufacturer parts and finally install them.

Mmhmm. We know from General Monteith's recent public statements that SLC-40 has been improved pretty dramatically, up-armoring many above ground components and moving key infrastructure underground. He believes a RUD similar to AMOS-6 would only knock out SLC-40 for two months, now. Quite a lot of improvement, I'd say  :)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 12/05/2017 10:21 pm
If the improvements get them to a two-week cadence* instead of the three to four week one prior to AMOS, then the extra effort will quickly pay for itself.

* Potentially one week when static fires go away with Block 5 reflights.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/05/2017 10:26 pm
If the improvements get them to a two-week cadence* instead of the three to four week one prior to AMOS, then the extra effort will quickly pay for itself.

* Potentially one week when static fires go away with Block 5 reflights.

I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented lessons learned from 39A into 40 and might have gotten turnaround time to less than 2 weeks (I'd guess around 10-12 days)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Flying Beaver on 12/05/2017 10:37 pm
If the improvements get them to a two-week cadence* instead of the three to four week one prior to AMOS, then the extra effort will quickly pay for itself.

* Potentially one week when static fires go away with Block 5 reflights.

I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented lessons learned from 39A into 40 and might have gotten turnaround time to less than 2 weeks (I'd guess around 10-12 days)

The pad itself at 39A has never been the issue, it's by all accounts ready to launch again immediately. Processing another Booster/S2/Payload in the HIF, rolling the TEL back, as well as prop delivery, are where the turnaround constraints lie.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: woods170 on 12/06/2017 06:43 am
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/12/05/spacex-now-targeting-dec-12-launch-iss-supplies-ksc/922714001/

From December 4th to December 8th to December 9th too now December 12th hopefully we get to see this launch soon. Hopefully.

LC-40 was supposed to be available in August, if you recall.  Then September...

Good thing LC-39A was up and running, or there would have been zero or one East Coast launch in 2017.

It began with SpaceX announcing (in January 2017) that LC-40 would be back in action in the summer of 2017. That quickly became August. Next it was delayed to September and then it became November. We are now in December and the first launch is (fortunately) rapidly approaching.

But, given the experience we have with the overly optimistic estimates coming from SpaceX it really should be no surprise that LC-40 re-activation took 5 months longer than originally announced.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: guckyfan on 12/06/2017 07:11 am
At least part of the delay was the decision to work on both pads in parallel, to get LC-39A ready for FH. Another part was very likely the decision to build a very much enhanced LC-40.

Initially I think the plan was to rebuild LC-40 as is as fast as possible. Maybe they switched because LC-39A worked very well after initial bugs were ironed out.

Plus of course, there are always delays.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/06/2017 09:59 am
At least part of the delay was the decision to work on both pads in parallel, to get LC-39A ready for FH. Another part was very likely the decision to build a very much enhanced LC-40.

Initially I think the plan was to rebuild LC-40 as is as fast as possible. Maybe they switched because LC-39A worked very well after initial bugs were ironed out.

Plus of course, there are always delays.
One thing also worth mentioning is that quite often baked into the  ETDF (Elon Time Dilution Factor) is an outcome that is often enhanced in some way more than the original expectation.

In this case, as guckyfan mentions, SpaceX took the lessons learned from both the incident that destroyed the pad as well as from the knowledge gained from ops at 39A and applied them to the design and rebuild of 40. Sort of a LC-40 1.1
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: jpo234 on 12/06/2017 10:50 am
Sort of a LC-40 1.1

I would think more like 3.0...

1.0 for the original tic-tac-toe Falcon 9
2.0 for the Falcon 1.1 with Octaweb
2.5 for Falcon FT with densified LOX
3.0 Lessons learned from LC-39A

Were this major upgrades?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: envy887 on 12/06/2017 03:25 pm
If the improvements get them to a two-week cadence* instead of the three to four week one prior to AMOS, then the extra effort will quickly pay for itself.

* Potentially one week when static fires go away with Block 5 reflights.

I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented lessons learned from 39A into 40 and might have gotten turnaround time to less than 2 weeks (I'd guess around 10-12 days)

The pad itself at 39A has never been the issue, it's by all accounts ready to launch again immediately. Processing another Booster/S2/Payload in the HIF, rolling the TEL back, as well as prop delivery, are where the turnaround constraints lie.

And frequently just getting a booster/S2/fairing on site. Until they have boosters and fairings reflying frequently and convert mfg space to S2 production, they simple can't get a whole vehicle through the production / testing / transport pipeline every 10 days.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Jcc on 12/06/2017 10:08 pm
Anybody know why the new TEL is not painted white like the 39a TEL is? Looking forward to getting a good view of it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Tomness on 12/06/2017 10:22 pm
Anybody know why the new TEL is not painted white like the 39a TEL is? Looking forward to getting a good view of it.

(Opinion)
 with them finishing it to launch readniess and transferring back over to LC-39A and getting its pad ready for FH... these guys deserve a Christmas break.  Close out anything for first of the year... take good vacation.... than move on Texas Launch Site for Boca Chica or SLC-4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base ready for FH.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 12/07/2017 03:53 am
Anybody know why the new TEL is not painted white like the 39a TEL is? Looking forward to getting a good view of it.

TEL expected to be still mainly "grey" as they've only painted some of it as of today.

"expected", "mainly", "as of today" all point to the TEL eventually being white, but function being more important for the current timeline. Perhaps with the static fire complete, more could be painted before launch, but they may not want to risk changes before the launch. I (nobody) expect it'll be painted in time for Zuma.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 12/07/2017 04:21 am
Anybody know why the new TEL is not painted white like the 39a TEL is? Looking forward to getting a good view of it.

(Opinion)
 with them finishing it to launch readniess and transferring back over to LC-39A and getting its pad ready for FH... these guys deserve a Christmas break.  Close out anything for first of the year... take good vacation.... than move on Texas Launch Site for Boca Chica or SLC-4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base ready for FH.

New!!!
Static fire test from LC-40 for CRS-13 complete. December 12th for launch after that it is followed by and confirmed Zuma will launch on
pad 40 also.  I agree Tom with these repairs and modifications nearly done the employees need a lot of rest if there Scheduled to be sent to Boca Chica in early 2018. Building a whole launch complex SpaceX very first commercial launch site.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/07/2017 01:05 pm
Anybody know why the new TEL is not painted white like the 39a TEL is? Looking forward to getting a good view of it.

(Opinion)
 with them finishing it to launch readniess and transferring back over to LC-39A and getting its pad ready for FH... these guys deserve a Christmas break.  Close out anything for first of the year... take good vacation.... than move on Texas Launch Site for Boca Chica or SLC-4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base ready for FH.

New!!!
Static fire test from LC-40 for CRS-13 complete. December 12th for launch after that it is followed by and confirmed Zuma will launch on
pad 40 also.  I agree Tom with these repairs and modifications nearly done the employees need a lot of rest if there Scheduled to be sent to Boca Chica in early 2018. Building a whole launch complex SpaceX very first commercial launch site.
Final work at SLC-4E for FH has a higher priority than BC at this time.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: leetdan on 12/07/2017 01:08 pm
Final work at SLC-4E for FH has a higher priority than BC at this time.

Is that based on solely meeting EELV requirements, or is there other info pointing to this?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/07/2017 01:11 pm
Final work at SLC-4E for FH has a higher priority than BC at this time.

Is that based on solely meeting EELV requirements, or is there other info pointing to this?
all I can say is there is info in L2 and there are going to be some surprises at the pad that are new since the last launch at SLC-4E.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: abaddon on 12/07/2017 01:44 pm
all I can say is there is info in L2 and there are going to be some surprises at the pad that are new since the last launch at SLC-4E.
Some surprises that will be evident during the Iridium-4 launch campaign?  Or some date later?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 12/07/2017 02:03 pm

all I can say is there is info in L2 and there are going to be some surprises at the pad that are new since the last launch at SLC-4E.

Could you provide a link to L2 so those of us on L2 are clear about what you're referring to? It's quite possible I've missed some L2 thread, but I'm a little foggy on what the "surprises" might be.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 12/07/2017 03:10 pm
Anybody know why the new TEL is not painted white like the 39a TEL is? Looking forward to getting a good view of it.

(Opinion)
 with them finishing it to launch readniess and transferring back over to LC-39A and getting its pad ready for FH... these guys deserve a Christmas break.  Close out anything for first of the year... take good vacation.... than move on Texas Launch Site for Boca Chica or SLC-4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base ready for FH.

New!!!
Static fire test from LC-40 for CRS-13 complete. December 12th for launch after that it is followed by and confirmed Zuma will launch on
pad 40 also.  I agree Tom with these repairs and modifications nearly done the employees need a lot of rest if there Scheduled to be sent to Boca Chica in early 2018. Building a whole launch complex SpaceX very first commercial launch site.
Final work at SLC-4E for FH has a higher priority than BC at this time.
Actually both are a high priority next year, while SpaceX California is very close to SLC-4E also it’s probaly already ready for the FH. SpaceX deadline to get Boca Chica operational is sept 30th, 2018 the delay for Boca Chica Contruction was Becuase of the LC-40 incident.

“Now, with our launch construction projects in Florida wrapping up by early 2018, SpaceX will be able to turn more attention to our work in South Texas,”  Spacex spokesman jamesGleeson said. http://www.expressnews.com/business/technology/article/Progress-slow-at-SpaceX-s-planned-South-Texas-12389760.php
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 12/07/2017 03:16 pm
Actually both are a high priority next year, while SpaceX California is very close to SLC-4E also it’s probaly already ready for the FH. SpaceX deadline to get Boca Chica operational is sept 30th, 2018 the delay for Boca Chica Contruction was Becuase of the LC-40 incident.

SLC-4E is not ready for FH, and it's unclear when it needs to be.  I don't recall seeing any info on that in L2.

There is no deadline to get Boca Chica operational by September 30th, and it's not going to happen.

Further discussion on Boca Chica should probably move to the Boca Chica thread.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: SPITexas on 12/07/2017 03:27 pm
Actually both are a high priority next year, while SpaceX California is very close to SLC-4E also it’s probaly already ready for the FH. SpaceX deadline to get Boca Chica operational is sept 30th, 2018 the delay for Boca Chica Contruction was Becuase of the LC-40 incident.

SLC-4E is not ready for FH, and it's unclear when it needs to be.  I don't recall seeing any info on that in L2.

There is no deadline to get Boca Chica operational by September 30th, and it's not going to happen.

Further discussion on Boca Chica should probably move to the Boca Chica thread.

I like your opinion well we’ll see what SpaceX does in 2018. Big stuff happening.  SpaceX has 3 launch pads now. That is all I wants to say. Thanks.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/07/2017 03:52 pm

all I can say is there is info in L2 and there are going to be some surprises at the pad that are new since the last launch at SLC-4E.

Could you provide a link to L2 so those of us on L2 are clear about what you're referring to? It's quite possible I've missed some L2 thread, but I'm a little foggy on what the "surprises" might be.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42426.msg1756248#msg1756248
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/07/2017 03:57 pm
Considerable work to ready SLC-4E although originally scarred for FH earlier version. As well as the needs to support such missions, as well as perhaps improvements in pad durability following AMOS6 - that's a direct follow through from rebuilding 40.

Wouldn't you want to parallel 39A/40 changes after they are proven, soonest?

Also, if FH had a successfully RTLS at CCAFS, wouldn't there be some pressure to "catch up" landing at VAFB?

As to carry-over for BC, has SX even told the story of what BC now will do, as it has when it talks of 4E, 40, and 39A?

(Oh, and one other thing. If they do HSF lunar free return adventurer Dragon flights, there's a unique advantage for high latitude launch that you cannot get from CCAFS. And, you don't have to have adventurer missions interspersed with national missions either, as well as add to the usually underutilized VAFB cadence. But that would need crew access, or a means to effectively add it if that were to come to pass.)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/07/2017 04:49 pm
all I can say is there is info in L2 and there are going to be some surprises at the pad that are new since the last launch at SLC-4E.
Some surprises that will be evident during the Iridium-4 launch campaign?  Or some date later?
Yes and yes.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: cscott on 12/07/2017 06:02 pm

all I can say is there is info in L2 and there are going to be some surprises at the pad that are new since the last launch at SLC-4E.

Could you provide a link to L2 so those of us on L2 are clear about what you're referring to? It's quite possible I've missed some L2 thread, but I'm a little foggy on what the "surprises" might be.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42426.msg1756248#msg1756248
I also found http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43994.msg1756828.msg#1756828 for those in L2.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lars-J on 12/07/2017 06:06 pm
The discussion about where to find stuff is L2 is absolutely fascinating ::) , but perhaps you can move it elsewhere so that people who like to discuss things in the open can discuss here?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/08/2017 06:53 pm
Quote
In telecon today, SpaceX's John Muratore said company spent about $50M rebuilding SLC-40. It's a total upgrade, not just fixing damage from Sept 1 2016 explosion. Praised "partnership" w/45th Space Wing, support of NASA, FAA and customers.

https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/939218872514772993

Edit to add:

Quote
Muratore said one great outcome is that all 3 pads SpaceX uses (CCAFS SLC-40, KSC LC-39A, VAFB SLC-4 East) are similar now so can move people around easily to do operations, maintenance.

https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/939220413388853248
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/08/2017 08:34 pm
Here’s Jeff Foust’s write-up of John Muratore’s remarks, with a few more details:

http://spacenews.com/new-and-improved-florida-pad-ready-to-resume-falcon-9-launches/ (http://spacenews.com/new-and-improved-florida-pad-ready-to-resume-falcon-9-launches/)

SpaceX are aiming to be able to turn the pad around between launches in a week or less.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/08/2017 09:01 pm
I've collated all the new info from Mulatore's statements. Lots of good stuff!

Quote
•   $50m spent on reconstruction and upgrades after Amos-6

•   Designed to have continuity with 39A and SLC-4E (VAFB), common hardware
     o   “we can move people around as we hit normal surges of lots of activity, or gaps in activity”

•   Strongback (TEL) can now handle higher winds and stresses of throwback, can lift booster five times faster than the old TEL

•   Upgrades will improve reliability, mission assurance, and resilience
     o   ~7 day turnaround possible at 40, compared to 39A’s 12 day record

•   After the Amos accident on September 1, 2016, the pad was on lockdown until late November or early December. After that, SpaceX performed some environmental remediation. Construction of the upgraded pad began in earnest in February 2017.

•   A “really augmented” water system will protect the pad from damage to the launch, and improvements to the flame trench to limit erosion of the concrete there, allowing for much longer static-fire tests, like testing a previously-flown first stage after replacing one of its engines

•   “In this tragedy, we had an opportunity to rebuild.”

•   Took longer than expected to repair and upgrade
    o   One issue he said SpaceX encountered was that the 50-year-old documentation from the pad’s original construction didn’t reflect where plumbing and wiring was actually located.
    o   “We could have gotten the pad back in operation sooner, but we wouldn’t have had the pad we wanted to keep for the next 10 to 20 years.”
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/08/2017 09:01 pm
There was a silver lining to RUD at SLC40, to quote $6M Man.

"We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.
a  faster more stronger pad."
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/08/2017 09:11 pm
I've collated all the new info from Mulatore's statements. Lots of good stuff!

Quote
•   A “really augmented” water system will protect the pad from damage to the launch, and improvements to the flame trench to limit erosion of the concrete there, allowing for much longer static-fire tests, like testing a previously-flown first stage after replacing one of its engines

Emphasis mine.

So does this mean 40 can do the minute-long test fires like what's done at McGregor? Or do they mean the 7-sec static fires?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/08/2017 09:29 pm
I've collated all the new info from Mulatore's statements. Lots of good stuff!

Quote
•   $50m spent on reconstruction and upgrades after Amos-6

•   Designed to have continuity with 39A and SLC-4E (VAFB), common hardware
     o   “we can move people around as we hit normal surges of lots of activity, or gaps in activity”

•   Strongback (TEL) can now handle higher winds and stresses of throwback, can lift booster five times faster than the old TEL

•   Upgrades will improve reliability, mission assurance, and resilience
     o   ~7 day turnaround possible at 40, compared to 39A’s 12 day record

•   After the Amos accident on September 1, 2016, the pad was on lockdown until late November or early December. After that, SpaceX performed some environmental remediation. Construction of the upgraded pad began in earnest in February 2017.

•   A “really augmented” water system will protect the pad from damage to the launch, and improvements to the flame trench to limit erosion of the concrete there, allowing for much longer static-fire tests, like testing a previously-flown first stage after replacing one of its engines

•   “In this tragedy, we had an opportunity to rebuild.”

•   Took longer than expected to repair and upgrade
    o   One issue he said SpaceX encountered was that the 50-year-old documentation from the pad’s original construction didn’t reflect where plumbing and wiring was actually located.
    o   “We could have gotten the pad back in operation sooner, but we wouldn’t have had the pad we wanted to keep for the next 10 to 20 years.”

Queue the fierce discussion on F9 flying for the next 10-20 years.  (Although if they can launch a F9 every 7 days for 20 years, that'd be neato.)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/08/2017 09:34 pm
So does this mean 40 can do the minute-long test fires like what's done at McGregor? Or do they mean the 7-sec static fires?

I think the former. SpaceX have been doing 7s static fires - occasionally - for quite some time and I don’t think a few extra seconds constitutes ‘much longer’.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Nomadd on 12/08/2017 09:44 pm
 Personally, I think upgrading 40 was a terrible idea, since it decreased the urgency to get Boca Chica on line.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/08/2017 09:55 pm
Personally, I think upgrading 40 was a terrible idea, since it decreased the urgency to get Boca Chica on line.

You're just saying that because you want to watch a launch from your backyard :p
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 12/08/2017 09:55 pm
Personally, I think upgrading 40 was a terrible idea, since it decreased the urgency to get Boca Chica on line.

Be patient, Nomadd.  You're going to be center stage for the start of the next race to the Moon, and then Mars.
(Did you hear, Boeing is going to get there before SpaceX!!!)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 12/08/2017 09:59 pm
I've collated all the new info from Mulatore's statements. Lots of good stuff!

Quote
•   $50m spent on reconstruction and upgrades after Amos-6

•   Designed to have continuity with 39A and SLC-4E (VAFB), common hardware
     o   “we can move people around as we hit normal surges of lots of activity, or gaps in activity”

•   Strongback (TEL) can now handle higher winds and stresses of throwback, can lift booster five times faster than the old TEL

•   Upgrades will improve reliability, mission assurance, and resilience
     o   ~7 day turnaround possible at 40, compared to 39A’s 12 day record

•   After the Amos accident on September 1, 2016, the pad was on lockdown until late November or early December. After that, SpaceX performed some environmental remediation. Construction of the upgraded pad began in earnest in February 2017.

•   A “really augmented” water system will protect the pad from damage to the launch, and improvements to the flame trench to limit erosion of the concrete there, allowing for much longer static-fire tests, like testing a previously-flown first stage after replacing one of its engines

•   “In this tragedy, we had an opportunity to rebuild.”

•   Took longer than expected to repair and upgrade
    o   One issue he said SpaceX encountered was that the 50-year-old documentation from the pad’s original construction didn’t reflect where plumbing and wiring was actually located.
    o   “We could have gotten the pad back in operation sooner, but we wouldn’t have had the pad we wanted to keep for the next 10 to 20 years.”

Queue the fierce discussion on F9 flying for the next 10-20 years.  (Although if they can launch a F9 every 7 days for 20 years, that'd be neato.)

Thanks to vaporcobra for the concise compilation and to wannamoonbase for firing the starting gun on my favorite tidbit in this incredibly transparent interview!

Take that, you Falcon 9 doubters.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/08/2017 10:19 pm
I've collated all the new info from Mulatore's statements. Lots of good stuff!

Quote
•   $50m spent on reconstruction and upgrades after Amos-6

•   Designed to have continuity with 39A and SLC-4E (VAFB), common hardware
     o   “we can move people around as we hit normal surges of lots of activity, or gaps in activity”

•   Strongback (TEL) can now handle higher winds and stresses of throwback, can lift booster five times faster than the old TEL

•   Upgrades will improve reliability, mission assurance, and resilience
     o   ~7 day turnaround possible at 40, compared to 39A’s 12 day record

•   After the Amos accident on September 1, 2016, the pad was on lockdown until late November or early December. After that, SpaceX performed some environmental remediation. Construction of the upgraded pad began in earnest in February 2017.

•   A “really augmented” water system will protect the pad from damage to the launch, and improvements to the flame trench to limit erosion of the concrete there, allowing for much longer static-fire tests, like testing a previously-flown first stage after replacing one of its engines

•   “In this tragedy, we had an opportunity to rebuild.”

•   Took longer than expected to repair and upgrade
    o   One issue he said SpaceX encountered was that the 50-year-old documentation from the pad’s original construction didn’t reflect where plumbing and wiring was actually located.
    o   “We could have gotten the pad back in operation sooner, but we wouldn’t have had the pad we wanted to keep for the next 10 to 20 years.”

Queue the fierce discussion on F9 flying for the next 10-20 years.  (Although if they can launch a F9 every 7 days for 20 years, that'd be neato.)

Thanks to vaporcobra for the concise compilation and to wannamoonbase for firing the starting gun on my favorite tidbit in this incredibly transparent interview!

Take that, you Falcon 9 doubters.
Just 10 years with 4 pads at 1 launch per month per pad average is 480 launches :)

Just think what it would be if the launches was 2 launches per pad. Just off of 40 that would be 240 launches in 10 years.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: AncientU on 12/08/2017 10:31 pm
I think that is an underestimate.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Razvan on 12/08/2017 10:46 pm
I think that is an underestimate.
Clearly!. More likely 160 launches a year.
IMO, they should work out improvements to make rocket safe to launches under any weather condition.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/08/2017 10:58 pm
Just think what it would be if the launches was 2 launches per pad. Just off of 40 that would be 240 launches in 10 years.

I think that is an underestimate.

Clearly!. More likely 160 launches a year.
IMO, they should work out improvements to make rocket safe to launches under any weather condition.

I think you guys missed the part I bolded from oldAtlas_Eguy; 1 pad (40) x 2 launches per month x 12 months per year x 10 years = 240 launches.

As for "any weather condition" launches, that's not going to happen. F9 FT is already an extremely high-fineness ratio rocket (length/diameter ratio). Winds aloft can produce tremendous shear and bending forces, which are bad for long skinny rockets. Further, for crewed missions there will always be tighter limits for potential rescue/recovery operations in case of abort. Plus considerations for solar proton flux, potential for lightning, etc.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 12/11/2017 06:40 pm
CRS-13 update thread has some closeups of the rocket.  I don't recall the TELs on the other pads having as form fitting of support pads as the new one at SLC-40 has.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 12/12/2017 01:08 am
CRS-13 update thread has some closeups of the rocket.  I don't recall the TELs on the other pads having as form fitting of support pads as the new one at SLC-40 has.

39A has had that since day one and SLC-4E currently has one, but the old SLC-40 TE never had it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 12/13/2017 11:54 pm
Quote
Spotted yesterday: the @SpaceX Falcon 9 that will be the first mission to fly a reused orbital rocket and spacecraft to resupply the @Space_Station. #GeoEye1 was 800km east of Cape Canaveral, tilted 49 degrees off-nadir, when it captured this image at 95cm resolution.

https://twitter.com/digitalglobe/status/941058951575212035
Looks like SpaceX has decided to forgo rebuilding the "car wash" at the exit of the flame trench.
 Curious how they achieve the same level of acoustic suppression without it.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: deruch on 12/14/2017 01:23 am
Quote
Spotted yesterday: the @SpaceX Falcon 9 that will be the first mission to fly a reused orbital rocket and spacecraft to resupply the @Space_Station. #GeoEye1 was 800km east of Cape Canaveral, tilted 49 degrees off-nadir, when it captured this image at 95cm resolution.

https://twitter.com/digitalglobe/status/941058951575212035
Looks like SpaceX has decided to forgo rebuilding the "car wash" at the exit of the flame trench.
 Curious how they achieve the same level of acoustic suppression without it.
They've actually upgraded their system so that now they can run extended static fires on the pad.  This is doubly useful as it both reduces the amount of repair and maintenance work that they will have to do between launches but it will also them to work refurbished boosters without having to send them back to McGreggor for a static fire if necessary.

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/muratore-safety-efficiency-went-hand-in-hand-rebuild-slc-40/

Quote from: John Muratore
...we have a really augmented water system because we found that a lot of water really protects the pad. And then we’ve obviously had to put in a lot of provisions to protect all the equipment on the pad from all the water we put on there. The most exciting thing for us is that we put in the flame trench—we’ve always struggled with erosion of the concrete in the flame trench—and we’ve gone and reworked the concrete many times on both pads. We put a water-cooled diverter on this pad. It consists of pipes running down the pad, and we run a large amount of water through it, and that enables long static-fires without any damage to the pad. 

It’s critical in two ways: the obvious one is if you don’t take damage on the pad, you can fly more often; but the not-so-obvious one is as we reuse rockets more and more, we’ll run into problems where we have to change an engine out, just as they change engines out in airplane hangars. With the water-cooled diverter, we can run very long static fires, so we can change an engine out, take it to the pad, and run for much longer periods of time.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: abaddon on 12/15/2017 03:23 pm
Welcome back SLC-40!  ;D
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: Lar on 12/15/2017 03:26 pm
The CRS-13 hosted webcast is worth watching again for the section where Tom talks about all the upgrades. I was surprised how much stuff was still around the pad but a fair bit of it was protected with blast walls and the like.  The pad apparently performed flawlessly for the actual launch (not that we know for sure but...)
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 12/15/2017 06:09 pm
Any idea why there is so much less shielding on this T/E? Because FH wont fly from this pad? Lessons learned about where the plume hits the tower on 39a?
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: old_sellsword on 12/15/2017 09:49 pm
Any idea why there is so much less shielding on this T/E? Because FH wont fly from this pad? Lessons learned about where the plume hits the tower on 39a?

Maybe they just haven't installed it yet.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/16/2017 02:09 pm
That is some TEL they built, it looks extra beefy.

Exciting new times on the east coast.
Title: Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
Post by: gongora on 11/19/2018 04:29 pm
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1064544995586248704