Author Topic: Blue Origin working towards making the Cape its Orbital Launch Site  (Read 30536 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Some more insights into Blue Origin on the Space Coast:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/blue-origin-making-cape-orbital-launch-site/

--

Many thanks to Noel Munson who proactively worked with the USAF PAO to acquire the latest update to the environmental impact report, as he did with the SpaceX update (which we reported on https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/spacex-air-force-landing-pads-dragon-lz-1/)

The report (it's a very long read, so thanks again to Noel for working with me to find the most interesting parts) is here:
http://tinyurl.com/mt9bf3m - pdf, shortened URL as the original URL is very long.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2017 01:28 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1347
  • United States
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 2139
Hi folks,

Here are some highlights and images from the 340 page report. I waded through it so you don't have to.

I did also note that there is zero discussion of Blue Shepard launches and crewed operations in this EA.

I've attached images I think work well and have value as well. 

From the FONSI:
The EA assesses the environmental impacts resulting from Blue Origin constructing and operating an engine test stand for the Blue Engine 4 (BE-4) engine, and constructing and operating a launch complex for launching an Orbital Launch Vehicle (OLV). The BE-4 engine test stand will be located at Launch Complex (LC)-11, and the launch facility will be located at adjacent complex LC-36 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida. Collectively the combined sites of LC-11, LC-36, and approximately 50 acres of surrounding land form a total of approximately 306 acres which are the subject of the EA and are referred to collectively as the Orbital Launch Site (OLS).

Here are some summary highlights from my reading of the 340-page EA document. These are all direct quotes.

The Proposed Action is to construct and operate an OLS at the combined areas of LC-11 and LC-36 at CCAFS, Florida. The commercial facility would contain infrastructure to test rocket engines, integrate launch vehicles, and conduct launches of liquid fueled, heavy-lift class orbital vehicles. Blue Origin’s long term intention is to sign a lease directly with the USAF for both LC-11 and LC-36. Space Florida is not expected to continue their license at the time Blue Origin acquires a license or lease directly from the USAF.

LC-11 History
The USAF operated LC-11 from 1958 through 1964 as a launch complex for the Atlas family of rockets. It was
constructed alongside launch complexes 12, 13, and 14 on what is known as “missile row.” From the time of the first launch on July 19, 1958, of an Atlas B to the last launch on April 1, 1964, of an Atlas F, thirty-two rockets were launched. Of these thirty-two missions, thirty-one were suborbital, and one was orbital. In June of 1967 following deactivation, the pad and service tower structures were dismantled, and in 2013 the blockhouse was demolished. The site is no longer being maintained.

LC-36 History
Throughout the nearly 43 years of operation of LC-36, the facility launched a combination of commercial and
government missions, including those for the USAF and NASA. Since NASA’s first launch of an Atlas/Centaur rocket
in 1962, LC-36 has hosted 145 rocket launches from its two pads (68 from LC-36A and 77 from LC-36B). The last
launch from LC-36A was an Atlas IIAS in 2004, and the last launch from LC-36B was an Atlas IIIB in 2005. LC-36 was deactivated in 2006 and much of the infrastructure was demolished in 2006 and 2007. The USAF granted a license to Space Florida in 2009 for the re-development of LC-36 for use as a launch complex for generic launch
vehicles (GLV) (USAF 2009a). The license was extended in 2014 under USAF License No.: USAF-AFSPC-DBEH-14-
2-0556. Blue Origin Florida, LLC. and Space Florida executed sub-license agreement No. 15-078 for LC-36 on May,
12, 2016. Collectively the combined sites of LC-11, LC-36, and approximately 50 acres (20 ha) of surrounding land form a total of approximately 306 acres (123.8 ha) which is the subject of this EA and will be referred to as the OLS.

The manufacturing of the large elements (e.g. first stage, second stage, PLF, etc.) will occur at the new facility located at Exploration Park (Phase 2) on KSC.

The major elements of the OLS at CCAFS are the launch pad, integration facility, engine test stand, and the systems to recover and refurbish reusable space systems such as the first stage. Once elements have been manufactured at the Exploration Park manufacturing facility, they would be transported by road to the integration facility at LC-36. The first and second stages, and a possible third stage, would then be mated together and integrated onto the transporter erector system. Following integration of the booster stages, the SC (or payloads) would be attached, and then the entire system would undergo a readiness test. The OLV would then be transported from the integration facility approximately 2000 ft. to the launch pad and erected for launch.

The OLV is currently under development and would consist of a first stage, second stage, and the payload. A third stage may be added in the future. The vehicle would be up to 350 ft. (106.68 m) tall, with a diameter of approximately 23 ft. (7 m). The thrust of the vehicle would reach approximately, 4.5 million lbf (2 MN). The first and second stages would be powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid oxygen (LOX). The possible third or alternative second stage would be powered by liquid hydrogen (LH2) and LOX. Impacts from launch vehicle testing and operations will not be significantly different than other launch operations on CCAFS. The launch rate anticipated for the OLV is 12 launches per year. The Proposed Action would include fuel and oxidizerstorage and transfer as described in the launch complex construction section below. A common integration and test facility located on the launch complex would be used for processing the launch vehicle.

Blue Origin considered locations within the continental United States as a starting point in its broad search for its OLV Program. This process began with internal reviews and assessments of locations and candidate sites. The search included coastal sites along the east and gulf coasts, as well as inland sites in remote areas of the southwest. The criteria for the ideal site included but were not limited to the following: safety, environmental setting, operational flexibility, business costs, risk profile, schedule, and workforce availability. This set of criteria helped to narrow the possible locations. The flight path for the OLV was not allowed to cross any populated area due to safety concerns of both Blue Origin and the FAA. West coast and interior state sites were eliminated as they did not meet the requirement for safe north easterly trajectories thus narrowing the search to states which are located along the eastern and gulf coastline. The complexity of orbital launch along with the governing regulatory standards drove Blue Origin to focus on coastal sites with adequate buffer zones and minimal overflight. Upon review of sites proposed by interested states and the project technical requirements, Blue Origin reduced the candidate list to four states—Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Of the states with potential sites to meet our project requirements, only Florida provided multiple locations. The candidate list includes six potential sites for consideration: Camden County Georgia, Hyde County North Carolina, Virginia’s Wallops Island, Florida’s Shiloh site on the border of Brevard County and Volusia County, Launch Complex 20 at CCAFS, and Launch Complex 11 and 36 at CCAFS. The site chosen for detailed assessment as the Preferred Alternative is Launch Complex 11 and 36 at CCAFS.

It is anticipated that primary commercial payload processing would occur at an off-site operations support area. Once primary payload processing is complete (to include fueling), the payload would be trucked to the OLS. Optionally, payloads would be fueled at the integration facility.

The general layout of the OLS is spread over existing LC-11 and LC-36, with the launch pad co-located on the former LC-36A area and the engine test stand on the former LC-11 area as previously shown in Figure 2-4. The deluge basin for the launch pad will be located east of the pad and would be approximately 200 ft. x 200 ft. (61 m x 61 m). An integration facility, refurbishment building, and GSE building will be constructed to support launch operations. Approximately 100 parking spaces will also be constructed for the facility workforce. Another GSE building will be constructed to support engine testing operations. LOX, and LNG, and LH2 storage tanks will be constructed in the vicinity of the launch pad for the purpose of supporting both launch vehicle fueling, as well as engine testing. A water tank will also be constructed between the launch pad and the engine test stand for water sound suppression and firefighting water supply.

The launch pad area would also include the structures required to access the launch vehicle. It provides a lightning
mitigation system to help protect the OLV when on the launch pad for extended periods of time. The OLV will roll to
the pad, be erected vertical, and then proceed into propellant loading and then launch. Permanent propellant and fuel storage would be constructed to meet requirements outlined in AFSPC manual 91-710, NFPA or industry standards, as applicable, for separation distances between fuel tanks and between fuels and the public. Approved spill containment systems would be constructed to contain liquid spills. Proposed launch vehicle testing and operations will not be substantially different than other launch operations conducted at CCAFS.

Estimated areas that make up the approximate 100 acres (40.5 ha) of construction related clearing include the planned clearings to build/support the various tanks to be installed (estimated at approximately 1.75 acres (0.7 ha)). Also included is “other” estimated clearing that might be required beyond current developed areas and would consist of approximately 2 acres (0.8 ha) for the main pad, 1.5 acres (0.6 ha) for the test-stand pad, 2 acres (0.8 ha) for the integration facility, 3 acres (1.2 ha) for various support facilities, and 9 acres (3.6 ha) for interconnectivity road/ramps/parking.

Refurbishment Building
The refurbishment building will be constructed at the entrance to the current LC-36 complex. After the recoverable first stage is retrieved and returned to the launch site from its offshore landing area, it must be washed to remove salt spray and possible contaminants associated with launch and re-entry. A wash water collection system would be designed and constructed to retain the water for recycling or approved discharge to the CCAFS waste water system.

Integration Facility
The integration facility, which will be located at LC-36, will be approximately 2,000 feet from the launch pad and have an area of approximately 150,000 sq. ft. (13,935 sq. m.) with a length of 500 ft. (152.4 m.), a width of 300 ft. It may contain office space in addition to the integration area. The purpose of this building will be for the final assembly of major elements of the OLV. The facility includes final mechanical and electrical connections, final integrated OLV readiness testing, and final ordnance connections prior to rolling the OLV out to the launch pad. Payload fueling operations may also be performed in the integration facility. The integration facility would be designed to minimize risks to roads and structures outside of Blue Origin’s licensed boundary due to explosive hazards.

Engine Test Stand
A single engine test stand will be constructed in the vicinity of LC-11 for engine acceptance testing of the BE-4 engine.
This stand could be designed with a vertical testing configuration for testing the BE-4 engine. The BE-4 will be indirectly fueled during testing through use of remote LNG and LOX tanks located in the vicinity of the test stand. The flame duct for the test stand is proposed to be directed in a north-northeast direction at approximately 5 degrees. The deluge basin will be located to the north of the engine test stand and will be approximately 100 ft. x100 ft. (30.5 m x 30.5 m).

Road-way Modifications
Some minor modification to roadways within the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Right-of-Way on both CCAFS and NASA property would be required, and may include up to 8,800 ft2 (817.5 sq. m) of new impervious area to provide alignment, turning radius, and grades that can accommodate the transportation of launch vehicle stages and payloads. Some signal lights would require modification or removal, and some power lines would need to be raised. A transportation survey study was developed to demonstrate adherence to FDOT standards for the transport system which may support such recommended modifications, and ensure existing roadways would support the transport vehicles.

Operations
As construction activities near completion, there will be a period during which system and integration testing occurs, and operations tempo begins to increase. Initial estimates indicate that Blue Origin would maintain approximately 60 individuals at the launch facility by 2018. It is estimated that this number may expand to approximately 100 people by the year 2025.

Engine Acceptance Testing
Acceptance testing of the BE-4 engine will occur at the engine test stand at the former LC-11 area of the OLS. Each engine tested would have a separate test plan. Each test plan would require a variety of engine test run durations (measured in seconds) with a maximum total run duration of approximately 500 seconds. The total duration of all engine testing would be approximately 30 minutes per month based on approximately 9 test events per month. Maximum test thrust for the BE-4 would be approximately 550,000 lbf (2.4 MN).

Transportation, Pre-Launch and Post Launch
The operation of the proposed OLS would include transportation of vehicle stages and/or payload elements. Launch
vehicle stages and payloads would arrive at the OLS at CCAFS by heavy truck (tractor-trailer) or specialized
transporter. The study commissioned to assess Proposed Action transportation impacts evaluated the loads on
roadways using a self-propelled multi-axle trailer system or pulled by a semi-tractor as the conveyance equipment.
The first stage element transport will require two trailers; an eight axle unit leading with a six axle unit in the rear. The second stage and payload element transport will use a single eight axle trailer, with the six axle trailer as a backup.

When employed, the third stage transport will use a single six axle trailer, with the eight axle trailer as a backup.
According to the transportation study, axle loading is expected to be less than 20,000 lbs. with maximum wheel loading of 100 psi and should not impose detrimental wear and tear on roads that meet FDOT specifications. The proposed primary route from the Exploration Park manufacturing facility to the OLS at CCAFS would be north on Kennedy Parkway, east on Saturn Causeway through KSC, south on Cape Road, east on Central Control Road and into the former LC-36 area entrance.

Prior to launch, a sequence of events must occur before the OLV is prepared for flight. After assembly in the integration facility, the OLV will be rolled out to the launch pad. Once at the pad, it will be erected to the vertical launch position where cryogenic fueling will commence. For the cargo or satellite missions, the payload accommodations will have been pre-loaded in the integration facility. Initial launch vehicle pre-flight testing could include a short on-pad static fire test of the full launch vehicle engine set and would be part of the launch pad operations. The Proposed Action would include mitigating actions to minimize impacts to operations on CCAFS.

Up to 12 launches of the OLV would be conducted per year beginning in 2018. Of these 12 launches, ten are expected to be conducted during daylight hours, and two may be conducted during night time hours.

Post Launch and First Stage Recovery
After a successful launch of the OLV, the first stage would separate from the second stage at predetermined altitude. After separation, the first stage would return to Earth for recovery in an area in the Atlantic Ocean defined approximately by an ellipse centered on approximately latitude 29° 42’ 17.79” N and 71° 30’ 53.01” W with a length and width of approximately 630 miles (1013 km) and 440 miles (708 km) respectively, as shown in Figure 2-7. The first stage would land on an at-sea platform, be rendered safe, and be transported by ship, coordinated by Blue Origin, into Port Canaveral. Awaiting cranes would place the first stage on the transporter for transfer to Blue Origin facilities at LC-36 for refurbishment in preparation for a future flight. If the expended first stage could not be successfully landed on the at-sea platform, it would likely be due to damage, and in this case would land in the water and subsequently sink, and would not be recovered. The first stage would not have parachutes and would return to the at-sea platform under the power of re-ignited main engines.

The second and/or third stages would continue on the mission to orbit with the payload. They would be left in orbit and rendered safe per FAA and USAF regulations (14 CFR §431.25, 431.35), such as venting the vehicle and ensuring that the batteries have discharged. Eventually the second stage would be expected to deorbit and enter the atmosphere. Parts not consumed during re-entry would fall in the general broad ocean area of the central Indian Ocean. Should there be a third stage, it would be placed into a safe disposal orbit.

 The refurbishment and construction activities involved with the planned integration facility, which will
rise to a height of approximately 145 ft. MSL (44.2 m), will be installed at least 500 ft. (152.4 m) west of the beach dune area. This height is lower than the existing National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Eastern Processing Facility further inland of LC-11 and LC-36. Lightning protection towers may be approximately 534 ft. MSL (162.8 m) tall.


The expected sonic booms created by the landing event would occur over the open Atlantic Ocean, at least 250 miles down-range.

Blue Origin factored global climate change and water level rise into the design of the OLS. All new road-ways would
be constructed between 6 inches and 12 inches higher than existing roadways which are some of the highest in the
area. The design falls into accordance with the CCAFS General Plan guidance. Current roadways at LC-36 are
approximately 7.5 feet above the 100 year flood stage. Current design also calls for building floors to be at least 8.5 feet above 100 year flood stage.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2017 01:38 PM by sghill »
Bring the thunder Elon!

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 156
Well I had no idea they were going to do engine testing literally on site. A launch site and a mini-McGregor in one. Epic!

Offline Andy DC

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 94
Very, very interesting. I like the LV Wash Down. That's going to be one big washing machine!

Offline Prettz

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 16
Two questions. What becomes of their BE-4 test stand in Texas? And where do they test fire the first stage, on the launch pad?

Offline BrianNH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 288
According to the chart, Blue is planning 4 launches from LC-36 next year.  That is very difficult to accept unless they are talking about New Shepard.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 439
Those were certainly Blue Origin-centric launch projections.  They seem to assume that Blue Origin will conquer the space launch business, much as Amazon is currently in the business of out-competing brick-and-mortar retail.

It could happen, but I wouldn't assume it.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2017 04:25 PM by rpapo »
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
Those were certainly Blue Origin-centric launch projections.  They seem to assume that Blue Origin will conquer the space launch business, much as Amazon is currently in the business of out-competing brick-and-mortar retail.

It could happen, but I wouldn't assume it.

Hah, yes, I imagine SpaceX and ULA would dispute those launch projections.  ;D

Online fthomassy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Austin, Texas
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 1549
Quote
... that will accelerate the company forward even more ferociously.
Nice, I see what you did there. :D
gyatm . . . Fern

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
The assessment is dated November 2016 so the launch projections it is based upon must be older.
It's much easier justify a delay than to launch earlier. Maybe they'll surprise us. Has someone figured out if they could roll out a NG in Kent and get it to the water for shipping? ;)

Online Chris Bergin

Quote
... that will accelerate the company forward even more ferociously.
Nice, I see what you did there. :D

Thanks. I try, I really do! ;D

Online Chris Bergin

The assessment is dated November 2016 so the launch projections it is based upon must be older.
It's much easier justify a delay than to launch earlier. Maybe they'll surprise us. Has someone figured out if they could roll out a NG in Kent and get it to the water for shipping? ;)

Yeah, that almost put me off, but Noel literally got word of it being completed and available this week. So it's as updated as we'll have right now. But yeah, it was always going to take a lot of time to create such a meaty document.

Offline Flying Beaver

Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.
Watched B1019 land in person 21/12/2015.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10771
  • Likes Given: 321
Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.

BFR/ITS?  How about just F9/FH.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
The pad 36 plan does not show any landing pad, so that is certainly additional supporting evidence for them not doing any RTLS flights. (either as test flights or when margins allow)

(To be fair they could still use a landing pad nearby if needed)

But they are certainly putting all the eggs in a very small basket. The engine assembly, the engine test stand, and of course the rest of the pad. Any kind of on pad mishap (Like pad 40 but with a larger vehicle) could cause them to have to stand down for a significant time.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2017 08:35 PM by Lars-J »

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
In that case they better don't blow too many up. =) More realistically, in case something goes really wrong there is at minimum no chance to launch until the transporter erector gets repaired and the root cause is found and removed. Plenty of time to move engines to the Texas site for tests and back.


What is hydrogen peroxide used for? Figure 2-4 labels a tank of it at the southern tip of the areal.

Online stcks

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 246
Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.

I noticed this too. Seems pretty roundabout, can they not cross the bridge?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10771
  • Likes Given: 321
Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.

I noticed this too. Seems pretty roundabout, can they not cross the bridge?

nope, everything goes north

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8573
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2631
  • Likes Given: 6720
Nice meaty article, thank you gentlemen! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6031
  • Liked: 3838
  • Likes Given: 5309
Quote
The OLV is currently under development and would consist of a first stage, second stage, and the payload. A third stage may be added in the future. The vehicle would be up to 350 ft. (106.68 m) tall, with a diameter of approximately 23 ft. (7 m). The thrust of the vehicle would reach approximately, 4.5 million lbf (2 MN). The first and second stages would be powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid oxygen (LOX). The possible third or alternative second stage would be powered by liquid hydrogen (LH2) and LOX.

4.5Mlbf is 643klbf per engine... assuming seven, of course -- or 17% higher than advertised for BE-4 going to ULA. (also should be 20MN)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online stcks

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 246
Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.

I noticed this too. Seems pretty roundabout, can they not cross the bridge?

nope, everything goes north

can you explain why? just curious as the route from the port obviously doesn't go all the way to KSC first

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10771
  • Likes Given: 321
Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.

I noticed this too. Seems pretty roundabout, can they not cross the bridge?

nope, everything goes north

can you explain why? just curious as the route from the port obviously doesn't go all the way to KSC first

I meant going from KSC to the Cape

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3804
  • Liked: 1952
  • Likes Given: 1192
Quote
The OLV is currently under development and would consist of a first stage, second stage, and the payload. A third stage may be added in the future. The vehicle would be up to 350 ft. (106.68 m) tall, with a diameter of approximately 23 ft. (7 m). The thrust of the vehicle would reach approximately, 4.5 million lbf (2 MN). The first and second stages would be powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid oxygen (LOX). The possible third or alternative second stage would be powered by liquid hydrogen (LH2) and LOX.

4.5Mlbf is 643klbf per engine... assuming seven, of course -- or 17% higher than advertised for BE-4 going to ULA. (also should be 20MN)
That's about twice the thrust bump I'd expect from going from SL to vacuum, which should be 8-9%.

Online TrevorMonty

8x550k =4.4M. They be counting 2nd stage engine.

Offline KSC Sage

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 8
Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.

I noticed this too. Seems pretty roundabout, can they not cross the bridge?

nope, everything goes north

can you explain why? just curious as the route from the port obviously doesn't go all the way to KSC first

They need to keep the hardware level when transporting.  The bridge has a steep arch.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22446
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 277
Looks like Blue Origin has started clearing ground around LC-36 and LC-11:

From the Planet Beta Explorer Program

https://www.planet.com/explorer/#/center/-80.542,28.469/zoom/15

October-December 2016 and February 2017 Respectively
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6031
  • Liked: 3838
  • Likes Given: 5309
Are any site plans yet available?
We know there will be a test stand at LC-11 (top?) and pad at LC-36.

Will NS also launch from here along with NG?

There are bits shown here.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/blue-origin-making-cape-orbital-launch-site/
« Last Edit: 04/02/2017 09:52 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10771
  • Likes Given: 321
Love how the route to pad 36 goes right by 39A. So close Glenn could give BFR/ITS a high-five.

I noticed this too. Seems pretty roundabout, can they not cross the bridge?

nope, everything goes north

can you explain why? just curious as the route from the port obviously doesn't go all the way to KSC first

They need to keep the hardware level when transporting.  The bridge has a steep arch.

It is load limits and not the arch

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5414
  • Likes Given: 1531
Quote
Lots of demolition work at LC-36. It looks like the Atlas Centaur blockhouse is still there, but the old pads are now piles of concrete.

https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/862349907436425217

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12511
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3387
  • Likes Given: 687
Quote
Lots of demolition work at LC-36. It looks like the Atlas Centaur blockhouse is still there, but the old pads are now piles of concrete.

https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/862349907436425217
The pads were demolished years ago.

 - Ed Kyle

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22446
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 277
Update as of Thursday, this project is coming along quickly for the size and infrastructure involved. This is an overview of the site from the Planet Beta program:

https://www.planet.com/explorer/
« Last Edit: 07/15/2017 12:39 PM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3804
  • Liked: 1952
  • Likes Given: 1192
Is Blue planning to do full-duration stage 1 test burns at the engine test site or at the pad? Or somewhere else / not at all?

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22446
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 277
You can very distinctly see the outline of the flame trench taking shape in this update from Planet on 31 August:
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5414
  • Likes Given: 1531
Quote
Gradatiähm...errr...something...

LOX storage tanks for #NewGlenn's LC-36 launchpad arrive at Port Canaveral
#BlueOrigin facebook.com/photo.php?fbid…

https://twitter.com/auersusan/status/941664607470522369
« Last Edit: 12/15/2017 09:08 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6607
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1698
  • Likes Given: 1639
I have a question on pad size. Will the available safe area support a much bigger vehicle like New Armstrong?

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
I have a question on pad size. Will the available safe area support a much bigger vehicle like New Armstrong?

Impossible to answer since we know almost nothing about New Armstrong.

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 2758
I have a question on pad size. Will the available safe area support a much bigger vehicle like New Armstrong?

Impossible to answer since we know almost nothing about New Armstrong.
There has been a rumor that BO may be interested in LC-37 for NA after it has been vacated by D-IVH retirement.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6607
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1698
  • Likes Given: 1639
I have a question on pad size. Will the available safe area support a much bigger vehicle like New Armstrong?

Impossible to answer since we know almost nothing about New Armstrong.

I think it is a safe assumption it will have at least Saturn V thrust.

Online jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 215
Here's the latest 3-month average (Jul to Sep) and 1-month average (Nov) from Planet.

Given they're apparently delivering LOX storage tanks, I wonder how far along it is ...

--- Tony
« Last Edit: 12/17/2017 11:33 AM by jebbo »

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1421
  • Likes Given: 209
I wonder how much they’ll apply to this design based on what SpaceX did to “Slick 40”. It must be nice watching the leader and learning from their hard work to see what works and what doesn’t....
« Last Edit: 12/17/2017 11:06 AM by Johnnyhinbos »
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10011
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6837
  • Likes Given: 4618
I wonder how much they’ll apply to this design based on what SpaceX did to “Slick 40”. It must be nice watching the leader and learning from their hard work to see what works and what doesn’t....

"Fast Follower" ... it's in Amazon's DNA. Some of that leaked over to Blue for sure... (well maybe not the "fast" part, grin, duck run!)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 2758
I have a question on pad size. Will the available safe area support a much bigger vehicle like New Armstrong?
Impossible to answer since we know almost nothing about New Armstrong.
I think it is a safe assumption it will have at least Saturn V thrust.
I estimate that NA will have around 2x Saturn V thrust for it to be a meaningful step up from NG. LC-37 may be able to handle that with suitable reworking. Size of exclusion zone for anything over 2x Saturn V thrust will be likely prohibitive for operations from the Cape.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2017 02:04 PM by DJPledger »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
And what exactly is your “estimate” based on?

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6031
  • Liked: 3838
  • Likes Given: 5309
I have a question on pad size. Will the available safe area support a much bigger vehicle like New Armstrong?
Impossible to answer since we know almost nothing about New Armstrong.
I think it is a safe assumption it will have at least Saturn V thrust.
I estimate that NA will have around 2x Saturn V thrust for it to be a meaningful step up from NG. LC-37 may be able to handle that with suitable reworking. Size of exclusion zone for anything over 2x Saturn V thrust will be likely prohibitive for operations from the Cape.

2X Saturn V thrust wouldn't have worked on LC-39B, so this is probably an over the top estimate.
12 Mlbf is a more supportable estimate -- it is basically 3x New Glenn, and right around BFR, which isn't too shabby.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22446
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 277
Here's the latest 3-month average (Jul to Sep) and 1-month average (Nov) from Planet.

Given they're apparently delivering LOX storage tanks, I wonder how far along it is ...

--- Tony


Terraserver shows concrete pads of the LOX tanks already poured and ready on November 13th:

https://www.terraserver.com/view?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_text=&searchLat=&searchLng=&lat=28.4859&lng=-80.5444&bbox=&center=
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5414
  • Likes Given: 1531
Quote
LOX/LNG oxidizer and propellant tanks delivered to LC-36. Starting to look more and more like a launch pad! #NewGlenn

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/943478882052685825

Online jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 215
For the number of mounts on the concrete pads in the previous photo, I guess that's about half of the total they'll have?

--- Tony

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Just about that.
There are two sets, 7 and 5 tanks.

The other set is to the right of the view in the picture.
Slightly different positions than in the environmental assessment maps.

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 2758
I have a question on pad size. Will the available safe area support a much bigger vehicle like New Armstrong?
Impossible to answer since we know almost nothing about New Armstrong.
I think it is a safe assumption it will have at least Saturn V thrust.
I estimate that NA will have around 2x Saturn V thrust for it to be a meaningful step up from NG. LC-37 may be able to handle that with suitable reworking. Size of exclusion zone for anything over 2x Saturn V thrust will be likely prohibitive for operations from the Cape.

2X Saturn V thrust wouldn't have worked on LC-39B, so this is probably an over the top estimate.
12 Mlbf is a more supportable estimate -- it is basically 3x New Glenn, and right around BFR, which isn't too shabby.
BO may be able to modify LC-37 to handle higher thrust if they require it. There is plenty of space around LC-37 for expansion of it.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4132
  • Liked: 1412
  • Likes Given: 1165
Very, very interesting. I like the LV Wash Down. That's going to be one big washing machine!

Washing was determined to be unnecessary for SpaceX.
Another interesting differentiation
And the Peroxide Tank.  Was that previously announced as the ACS propellant?
Not very high performance, but pleasantly not toxic.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22446
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 277
According to this article, Blue Origin is considering using LC-36 for polar launches possibly negating the need to get a VAFB pad:

Quote
Blue Origin, which has a contract to launch OneWeb satellites into polar orbits in the 2020s, does not yet have a Vandenberg launch site and says those missions could launch from the Cape.

“New Glenn has the capability and performance to launch customers into polar orbit from Florida,” the company said in a statement. “We are working diligently to finish our launch site at Launch Complex 36 so we can meet the market demands of commercial, civil, and national security customers from the Space Coast.”

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/12/31/southbound-cape-rockets-may-fly-new-path-toward-poles/975027001/
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 32
So trajectory wise that would be hugging the coast and then dog-leg at St Pierre and Miquelon to go polar over Greenland, I'd guess?

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Liked: 366
  • Likes Given: 174
Nope, they are thinking of going south and dropping the first stage before cuba. The restriction is any rocket doing this must have automated range safety. So currently only Falcon 9 but I think all planned future rockets will have this too.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2018 12:33 PM by nacnud »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
Nope, they are thinking of going south and dropping the first stage before cuba. The restriction is any rocket doing this must have automated range safety. So currently only Falcon 9 but I think all planned future rockets will have this too.

Are you sure? because it't not just Cuba that is in the way... Bahamas and all that busy area off Miami as well. And the other Caribbean islands - The NG 1st stage lands pretty far away.

Which is also why all previous proposed polar launch trajectories from CCAFS/KSC went due north with a dog-leg. (but I could be wrong!) 
« Last Edit: 01/02/2018 07:57 PM by Lars-J »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3804
  • Liked: 1952
  • Likes Given: 1192
Nope, they are thinking of going south and dropping the first stage before cuba. The restriction is any rocket doing this must have automated range safety. So currently only Falcon 9 but I think all planned future rockets will have this too.

Are you sure? because it't not just Cuba that is in the way... Bahamas and all that busy area off Miami as well. And the other Caribbean islands - The NG 1st stage lands pretty far away.

Which is also why all previous proposed polar launch trajectories from CCAFS/KSC went due north with a dog-leg. (but I could be wrong!)

Once past Cuba (which is 400 to 500 miles south) there's nothing until Panama on a sun-sync trajectory (~95 degrees) or Venezuela on a polar trajectory (~85 degrees), both of which are over 1,300 miles away. Lots of room to drop a New Glenn booster on a ship in the south Caribbean.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
Nope, they are thinking of going south and dropping the first stage before cuba. The restriction is any rocket doing this must have automated range safety. So currently only Falcon 9 but I think all planned future rockets will have this too.

Are you sure? because it't not just Cuba that is in the way... Bahamas and all that busy area off Miami as well. And the other Caribbean islands - The NG 1st stage lands pretty far away.

Which is also why all previous proposed polar launch trajectories from CCAFS/KSC went due north with a dog-leg. (but I could be wrong!)

Once past Cuba (which is 400 to 500 miles south) there's nothing until Panama on a sun-sync trajectory (~95 degrees) or Venezuela on a polar trajectory (~85 degrees), both of which are over 1,300 miles away. Lots of room to drop a New Glenn booster on a ship in the south Caribbean.

They are not going to overfly Cuba with a first stage, that is fantasy land thinking.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3804
  • Liked: 1952
  • Likes Given: 1192
Nope, they are thinking of going south and dropping the first stage before cuba. The restriction is any rocket doing this must have automated range safety. So currently only Falcon 9 but I think all planned future rockets will have this too.

Are you sure? because it't not just Cuba that is in the way... Bahamas and all that busy area off Miami as well. And the other Caribbean islands - The NG 1st stage lands pretty far away.

Which is also why all previous proposed polar launch trajectories from CCAFS/KSC went due north with a dog-leg. (but I could be wrong!)

Once past Cuba (which is 400 to 500 miles south) there's nothing until Panama on a sun-sync trajectory (~95 degrees) or Venezuela on a polar trajectory (~85 degrees), both of which are over 1,300 miles away. Lots of room to drop a New Glenn booster on a ship in the south Caribbean.

They are not going to overfly Cuba with a first stage, that is fantasy land thinking.

How is a mostly empty first stage on a suborbital trajectory different than a mostly full upper stage + payload on a suborbital trajectory?

It's just one more IIP trace per launch. Run the numbers, and if they meet the FAA limits and the range can track it, what else do they need? Eastern range launches run IIPs across Europe and Africa all the time.

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Liked: 366
  • Likes Given: 174
NG first stage lands after about 800km, so it could come down before cuba.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
NG first stage lands after about 800km, so it could come down before cuba.

In theory, but not in practice. See my image. That will place the ship on the shores of Cuba, and that ignores overflying Bimini islands (part of Bahamas), not to mention many other issues such as a very busy shipping and aircraft filled water/air space as the launch trajectory basically follows the Florida coast. It ain't happening - at least not that way.

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Liked: 366
  • Likes Given: 174
I guess NG will just have to stage a bit early...

Online TrevorMonty

I read recent article about polar launches from Florida. Airforce thinks its possible. Can't remember where I read it but it was only few days ago.


Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
  • Liked: 366
  • Likes Given: 174

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
I guess NG will just have to stage a bit early...

Or do a much more pronounced dogleg. They have more spare performance than the rest.

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 465
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 87
I guess NG will just have to stage a bit early...

Or do a much more pronounced dogleg. They have more spare performance than the rest.

Since they are using wings primarily to slow down couldn't the first stage turn east after separation? Land in the space between Cuba and the Bahamas?


Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2894
  • Likes Given: 2249
I guess NG will just have to stage a bit early...

Or do a much more pronounced dogleg. They have more spare performance than the rest.

Since they are using wings primarily to slow down couldn't the first stage turn east after separation? Land in the space between Cuba and the Bahamas?
Not quite.

Not wings but fins. The vehicle strategy is to boost with maximum use of propellants, reserve only for landing downrange. Likely the booster body is the wing, and the fins are used to adjust attitude when the vehicle is in the atmosphere.

The idea is to use atmospheric drag maximally to consume the kinetic energy of the booster rather than boostback/entry burns, so that the reuse losses are at a minimum.

So back to your question - likely they are "doglegging" once offshore to the south, relying on AFTS to allow for enough coastal margin, then flying an optimal trajectory til stage sep - well before encountering the islands.

Then if the vehicle reuse strategy is best employed ... the booster post sep coasts as high and as long as possible to shed momentum with drag, using its attitude to gradually work off energy, and likely veering to avoid its IIP encountering land, where the recovery ship is located.

How close the vehicle is to any islands when it lands on the recovery ship only BO knows.

Likely there is considerable lost payload/margin for such a mission, but NG has a lot to lose to begin with.

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 1591
  • Likes Given: 2031
At long last, a vague and unintentional update on LC-36's progress. Did some perspective changes in Photoshop to make it more natural. The original came from NASA Kennedy's Flickr, it was presented during the second National Space Council meeting.

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 1763
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

Scott Henderson, Blue Origin: led site selection process for orbital launch site. Florida won, but strong competition from Texas, Georgia, North Carolina.

Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

Henderson: Blue Origin has invested more than $200M so far for just-completed manufacturing facility and launch complex under construction (LC-36).

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 286
NG first stage lands after about 800km, so it could come down before cuba.

In theory, but not in practice. See my image. That will place the ship on the shores of Cuba, and that ignores overflying Bimini islands (part of Bahamas), not to mention many other issues such as a very busy shipping and aircraft filled water/air space as the launch trajectory basically follows the Florida coast. It ain't happening - at least not that way.

You wouldn't want it landing that close to Cuba you may not get it back at least not right away and then it will have been taken halfway apart and reassembled and a few years later you'll see a Russian or Chinese rocket landing in the same manner.

« Last Edit: 02/28/2018 03:47 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 1763
A changing shade of Blue (Jeff Foust on The Space Review)
Quote
The Air Force, which operates the overall facility, limits work that can be done on “critical days” around launches, to avoid construction work that could cause mishaps—broken pipelines or severed cables—that would delay those launches. “Part of building is that you’ve actually got to be able to put a shovel into the ground,” Henderson said. “On a critical day at Cape Canaveral you cannot break the surface of the ground.”

The number of critical days has been growing, in part because of increased launch activity. In 10 of the previous 12 months, he said, more than half of the work days were deemed critical days. “It’s nearly impossible to build a project under those kinds of constraints,” he said.

He added he expected more infrastructure, from electrical systems to commodities, at the Cape than they’ve found. “I’m going to be brutally honest: when we chose Florida, we thought infrastructure was a no-brainer,” he said. “We are investing way too much money in putting what I would call core systems—new substations, pipelines, trying to figure out where commodities are going to come from. That’s less money invested in the really hard work of developing new and innovative launch systems, figuring out [concepts of operations], how to launch and re-launch.”

Those launch site issues have not, so far, affected launch plans for New Glenn, with the company still planning a first launch of the vehicle by the end of 2020.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • California
  • Liked: 3266
  • Likes Given: 2047
That "critical days" information is very interesting. It certainly would explain some of the "slow" progress at the pad.

I'm sure SpaceX is most upset that their increased flight rate also slows down Blue.  ;)

Online rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 218
A changing shade of Blue (Jeff Foust on The Space Review)
Quote
The Air Force, which operates the overall facility, limits work that can be done on “critical days” around launches, to avoid construction work that could cause mishaps—broken pipelines or severed cables—that would delay those launches. “Part of building is that you’ve actually got to be able to put a shovel into the ground,” Henderson said. “On a critical day at Cape Canaveral you cannot break the surface of the ground.”

The number of critical days has been growing, in part because of increased launch activity. In 10 of the previous 12 months, he said, more than half of the work days were deemed critical days. “It’s nearly impossible to build a project under those kinds of constraints,” he said.

He added he expected more infrastructure, from electrical systems to commodities, at the Cape than they’ve found. “I’m going to be brutally honest: when we chose Florida, we thought infrastructure was a no-brainer,” he said. “We are investing way too much money in putting what I would call core systems—new substations, pipelines, trying to figure out where commodities are going to come from. That’s less money invested in the really hard work of developing new and innovative launch systems, figuring out [concepts of operations], how to launch and re-launch.”

Those launch site issues have not, so far, affected launch plans for New Glenn, with the company still planning a first launch of the vehicle by the end of 2020.

The critical days work stoppage and the lack of infrastructure make SpaceX's choice of the port of LA for their factory look even better.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10771
  • Likes Given: 321

The critical days work stoppage and the lack of infrastructure make SpaceX's choice of the port of LA for their factory look even better.

No, not even related.  The factory would not have been on the Cape.  Just like Blue Origins factory is not on the Cape.  This issue is with pad construction.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2018 12:43 PM by Jim »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3804
  • Liked: 1952
  • Likes Given: 1192

The critical days work stoppage and the lack of infrastructure make SpaceX's choice of the port of LA for their factory look even better.

No, not even related.  The factory would not have been on the Cape.  Just like Blue Origins factory is not on the Cape.  This issue is with pad construction.

Right, the nearer corollary would be the Boca Chica facility. But the lack of infrastructure issue is probably even more limiting at BC than at CCAFS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10771
  • Likes Given: 321

The critical days work stoppage and the lack of infrastructure make SpaceX's choice of the port of LA for their factory look even better.

No, not even related.  The factory would not have been on the Cape.  Just like Blue Origins factory is not on the Cape.  This issue is with pad construction.

Right, the nearer corollary would be the Boca Chica facility. But the lack of infrastructure issue is probably even more limiting at BC than at CCAFS.

I don't know why they would think it would have been turnkey.  They are putting in more than just a pad at LC-36.  Engine test stands, vehicle processing facilities, etc all which take more utilities than just a pad.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3804
  • Liked: 1952
  • Likes Given: 1192

The critical days work stoppage and the lack of infrastructure make SpaceX's choice of the port of LA for their factory look even better.

No, not even related.  The factory would not have been on the Cape.  Just like Blue Origins factory is not on the Cape.  This issue is with pad construction.

Right, the nearer corollary would be the Boca Chica facility. But the lack of infrastructure issue is probably even more limiting at BC than at CCAFS.

I don't know why they would think it would have been turnkey.  They are putting in more than just a pad at LC-36.  Engine test stands, vehicle processing facilities, etc all which take more utilities than just a pad.

Why can't they isolate their systems and continue working on critical days? It can't be that difficult to bring in some generators, water tanks, etc. Construction is very frequently done without needing complete infrastructure tie-in for most of the work.

Online notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 88
Why can't they isolate their systems and continue working on critical days? It can't be that difficult to bring in some generators, water tanks, etc. Construction is very frequently done without needing complete infrastructure tie-in for most of the work.
Because they need to dig into the ground and that carries the risk that they could hit a buried utility vital for another entity's a launch. Even someone hand digging with a shovel carries that risk so they are not allowed to do so on those days.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3804
  • Liked: 1952
  • Likes Given: 1192
Why can't they isolate their systems and continue working on critical days? It can't be that difficult to bring in some generators, water tanks, etc. Construction is very frequently done without needing complete infrastructure tie-in for most of the work.
Because they need to dig into the ground and that carries the risk that they could hit a buried utility vital for another entity's a launch. Even someone hand digging with a shovel carries that risk so they are not allowed to do so on those days.

Do they not know where the utilities are located and have them marked?

There shouldn't be anything critical to other facilities that close to a pad anyway. What happens if a rocket blows up on the pad? IIRC that already happened with the AMOS-6 explosion affecting utilities to a nearby ULA facility.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32126
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10771
  • Likes Given: 321

Do they not know where the utilities are located and have them marked?

There shouldn't be anything critical to other facilities that close to a pad anyway.

Yes, and problems still happen, just like the real world too.  Installing infrastructure tie-ins can happen miles away from the main site.

Online notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 395
  • Likes Given: 88
Do they not know where the utilities are located and have them marked?

There shouldn't be anything critical to other facilities that close to a pad anyway. What happens if a rocket blows up on the pad? IIRC that already happened with the AMOS-6 explosion affecting utilities to a nearby ULA facility.
I have worked in the utility industry for a number of years (though not around The Cape) and you'd be surprise how often people dig into things. The utility company may know where everything is but that's not the whole picture. The excavator needs to submit a locate request a few days prior to digging. The utility company will send someone out with locating equipment out to find and mark the buried equipment. Sometimes the excavator fails to notify the utility. Sometimes the locator can't detect the utility or marks it wrong. Sometimes the excavator still hits the properly marked utilities.

Offline Aurora

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 21
Contractors certified to work on CCAFB understand protocol and procedures.   The key discussion is whether they are on target to complete and certify LC-36 for launch in 2020 to meet their ILC target.   The schedule should have accounted for critical days with margin.  So, hopefully they are on schedule for ILC target.   

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 1591
  • Likes Given: 2031

Online TrevorMonty


Do they not know where the utilities are located and have them marked?

There shouldn't be anything critical to other facilities that close to a pad anyway.

Yes, and problems still happen, just like the real world too.  Installing infrastructure tie-ins can happen miles away from the main site.
Last year in NZ the 100km avgas pipeline to our largest airport burst in middle of nowhere. Dozens of flights were cancelled, planes that did land were carrying return fuel on board at significant cost to airlines. Turns out pipe had been damaged by digger years ago, just took a few years to burst.

Online jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 215
That's more like it.

Pretty sure that's at least a month old. The latest terraserver image (27th Feb) shows 3 tanks fully installed at the further set at the top left.

Online deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
  • California
  • Liked: 1647
  • Likes Given: 3202
A changing shade of Blue (Jeff Foust on The Space Review)
Quote
He added he expected more infrastructure, from electrical systems to commodities, at the Cape than they’ve found. “I’m going to be brutally honest: when we chose Florida, we thought infrastructure was a no-brainer,” he said. “We are investing way too much money in putting what I would call core systems—new substations, pipelines, trying to figure out where commodities are going to come from. That’s less money invested in the really hard work of developing new and innovative launch systems, figuring out [concepts of operations], how to launch and re-launch.”

The infrastructure is that you have essentially automatic approval to tie in at whatever size needed and can put in new substations or pipelines without 2 years of planning and approvals prior to breaking ground on them.  If they are finding themselves with less than they expected, that means they did poor planning (or there was poor internal communication to ensure that everyone involved knew the score).
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5414
  • Likes Given: 1531
Quote
Good news for Space History fans. Turns out Hangar S at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is being leased by Blue Origin. It has been saved from demolition!

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/987710598229254145

Tags: