Author Topic: Pad 39A - Transition to SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut - Thread 1  (Read 187945 times)

Offline AndyX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 181
Another article that shows this is easily the best site for SpaceX news.

Online StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 53
I'm actually a little surprised to see they didn't sit the hangar back a little further so as to allow the crawler way to still be usable all the way to the pad.  With their clean pad approach I could see them having a scenario where a crawler could bring a vertically integrated payload to the pad.  Putting the hangar another hundred feet back would have allowed for this while still giving them a straight shot up the ramp with their rails.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 01:02 AM by StuffOfInterest »

Offline TomH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1806
  • CA
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 176
I'm actually a little surprised to see they didn't sit the hangar back a little further so as to allow the crawler way to still be usable all the way to the pad.  With their clean pad approach I could see them having a scenario where a crawler could bring a vertically integrated payload to the pad.  Putting the hangar another hundred feet back would allowed for this while still giving them a straight shot up the ramp with their rails.

Protected wetlands severely limited where they could construct it. If you look at photos, there are places where there is water on both sides of the crawlerway.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 4553
  • Likes Given: 1065
Is it just me, or do the illustrations show the FH side boosters to be the same height as the core stage?  For a long time, it was said the side boosters would be longer, but it doesn't appear that way in the latest pictures.

their is going to be both versions that have cross feeds form the boosters and non cross feed versions. i would assume its the depiction of an non cross feed version and in which case it would be a waste to use extended boosters.

Well, nothing so nuanced  ;) Much of the FH depicted here is notional based on info available and whatever else can be found with some artistic license where there is little to no info available (boosters are connected with something fairly generic).   How stretched should the boosters be?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2579
  • California
  • Liked: 2029
  • Likes Given: 1137
Pad 39A - SpaceX laying the groundwork for Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #24 on: 11/18/2014 06:36 AM »
All the SpaceX artwork that has been released (not much) is consistent - the booster tanks extend about 2/3rds up the interstage. Then the nose cone is on top of that. Here is the view from the web site:
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 11:22 AM by Chris Bergin »

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 4553
  • Likes Given: 1065
All the SpaceX artwork that has been released (not much) is consistent - the booster tanks extend about 2/3rds up the interstage. Then the nose cone is on top of that. Here is the view from the web site:

Ah ok, yeah, thats the one I built mine off of, though the paint job is based on the flying Falcon 9 with the Falcon logo on the white interstage, .  Heres a quick orthogonal view; the Merlin Vac is under the FH logo.

Offline Chris Bergin

The renderings are from L2 and will only be worked and refined in there. People showing screenshots from a mural created over five years ago is not a refinement. Thread trimmed.

Thanks to those with the kind words, but let's discuss the content as it's a news story and you've all missed one of the key bits of info.

Offline tesla

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Germany
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 75
you've all missed one of the key bits of info.

And what's that?  ;D The structural reinforcements of the shuttle tower? Or that FH will try to return all 3 boosters to the land again? ... Lots of work to do for our friends over in Hawthorne. ;)

Offline Chris Bergin

you've all missed one of the key bits of info.

And what's that?  ;D The structural reinforcements of the shuttle tower? Or that FH will try to return all 3 boosters to the land again? ... Lots of work to do for our friends over in Hawthorne. ;)

The potential timeline to the WDR. They could be going from piledrivers to a facility with three cores and on the pad by July! That's stunning in my eyes.

Dates are subject to change of course, but still!

Offline MTom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • EU / Hungary
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 433
you've all missed one of the key bits of info.

And what's that?  ;D The structural reinforcements of the shuttle tower? Or that FH will try to return all 3 boosters to the land again? ... Lots of work to do for our friends over in Hawthorne. ;)

The potential timeline to the WDR. They could be going from piledrivers to a facility with three cores and on the pad by July! That's stunning in my eyes.

Dates are subject to change of course, but still!

It't really sporty.
However, avoiding heavy modifications of FSS/RSS allowing parallel working on the hangar and the pad itself.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 193
No, they are just delaying its destruction.  It is not a good idea to reuse it.

In addition to not being needed in SpaceX's mode of operation, the RSS is probably a royal pain to maintain in working order and a money pit.  SPX is probably thinking they will get the pad useful again quicker by delaying the removal of RSS until later.  They can't just take it down with explosives like they did with the old Titan facility.
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 405
No, they are just delaying its destruction.  It is not a good idea to reuse it.

In addition to not being needed in SpaceX's mode of operation, the RSS is probably a royal pain to maintain in working order and a money pit.  SPX is probably thinking they will get the pad useful again quicker by delaying the removal of RSS until later.  They can't just take it down with explosives like they did with the old Titan facility.

But they wanted to!
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.

Offline RoboGoofers

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • NJ
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 110
In addition to not being needed in SpaceX's mode of operation, the RSS is probably a royal pain to maintain in working order and a money pit.  SPX is probably thinking they will get the pad useful again quicker by delaying the removal of RSS until later.  They can't just take it down with explosives like they did with the old Titan facility.

By delaying the deconstruction, they can also push that budget item to a more profitable/less risky year.

Offline happyflower

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Earth
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 13
Sorry if its been answered already. But if they launch the F9H from pad 39A, where will they land the 3 cores simultaneously?
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 11:29 PM by happyflower »

Offline 411rocket

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Retired RCEME w/ tours in Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia
  • Vancouver Island
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 113
Sorry if its been answered already. But if they launch the F9H from pad 39A, where will they land the 3 cores simultaneously?

They currently have a barge in the works, until they get the ok to land at the Cape. Then it may get used for the center core, which will be too far away for RTLS.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7256
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4158
  • Likes Given: 2841
Sorry if its been answered already. But if they launch the F9H from pad 39A, where will they land the 3 cores simultaneously?

They currently have a barge in the works, until they get the ok to land at the Cape. Then it may get used for the center core, which will be too far away for RTLS.

If they try to recover all 3 cores early, they presumably would need 2 barges, one for the boosters (that would be a spectacular view!!! two cores landing near simultaneously at opposite ends) and another for the center core, farther downrange...
"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 411rocket

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Retired RCEME w/ tours in Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia
  • Vancouver Island
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 113
Sorry if its been answered already. But if they launch the F9H from pad 39A, where will they land the 3 cores simultaneously?

They currently have a barge in the works, until they get the ok to land at the Cape. Then it may get used for the center core, which will be too far away for RTLS.


If they try to recover all 3 cores early, they presumably would need 2 barges, one for the boosters (that would be a spectacular view!!! two cores landing near simultaneously at opposite ends) and another for the center core, farther downrange...

I figure they will go for, 2 out of three with the FH, but they may also try a core boost back to the barge. This may be possible, if the barge is far enough out where, the boosters basically drop straight down, or boost forward a bit. Then the core may also be saved, as well.

Offline happyflower

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Earth
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 13
I did see Elon stating that they will use a barge next time. Lets assume that the barge landing is successful, at some point they will need to land on ground (presumably close to launch site). So is there a large enough location at the cape to facilitate the return of 3 F9s at the same time?

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 5066
I did see Elon stating that they will use a barge next time. Lets assume that the barge landing is successful, at some point they will need to land on ground (presumably close to launch site). So is there a large enough location at the cape to facilitate the return of 3 F9s at the same time?

That is being discussed on (probably, more than one) other threads.  Here's one.

Probably best if we don't repeat all of that now on this thread too.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3936
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2149
  • Likes Given: 437
So is there a large enough location at the cape to facilitate the return of 3 F9s at the same time?

As was said above, the center core will not have enough residual propellant to do a boostback to land. They will either let it sink or maybe try to land on the barge.

So there will never be 3 stages returning to land from one launch. 2 at most. The KSC/Cape master plan map shows a proposed generic landing area near the shore north of the launch complexes, but there aren't any details yet.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2014 03:38 AM by Kabloona »

Tags: