Author Topic: Pad 39A - Transition to SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut - Thread 1  (Read 302750 times)

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 166
Do we honour the first place a jet engine was developed?
Do we honour the first place a rocket engine was developed?

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 50
Well, SLS/Orion will launch crews, and I am uncomfortable with SpaceX building on the actual crawler tracks at 39A. Just seems 39B would be more appropriate.

As for lesser historical sites, I'm all in favor of memorializing in some form - rather then honoring more in the breach than observance. But not relevant to 39A vs. 39B question.

Offline whitelancer64

Do we honour the first place a supersonic aircraft flew?


not the place (middle of nowhere in the deserts of California), but the aircraft is on display

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1#Aircraft_on_display

Do we honour the first place a jet engine was developed?
Do we honour the first place a rocket engine was developed?

actually, there are many memorials to the person who was primarily responsible for the development of the jet engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle#Memorials

and yes, to the rocket engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddard_Rocket_Launching_Site
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Well, SLS/Orion will launch crews, and I am uncomfortable with SpaceX building on the actual crawler tracks at 39A. Just seems 39B would be more appropriate.

As for lesser historical sites, I'm all in favor of memorializing in some form - rather then honoring more in the breach than observance. But not relevant to 39A vs. 39B question.

NASA modified 39B extensively for the Constellation Program / Ares I-X test flight. It has the most recent upgrades made by NASA for its use, which is why NASA has chosen to retain use of that site and was willing to lease out 39A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39#Project_Constellation_and_Pad_39B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39#Launch_Pad_39B
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
The Environmental Impact Statement with three different placements for the building is somewhere on this site; I don't have time to hunt for it right now.  The final location was really chosen by the environmental assessors, whoever set the land boundaries for the leased property, and the constraint that the building be a certain minimum distance from the pad.   If NASA wanted the crawlerway preserved, they could have written that into the lease.  And SpaceX might have then had to look for some other pad, since this site didn't give very many options if the crawlerway was sacrosanct.

You can always demolish the building and rebuild the pavement if you really think crawlers are going to re-emerge after SpaceX's lease is up.

EDIT: found it: http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/documents/FinalMultiuseEA.pdf
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 08:09 pm by cscott »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
What was the rationale for leasing SpaceX Pad 39A and not 39B? I'm a supporter of SpaceX, but given the role of 39A in the Apollo program (including Apollo 11) and Shuttle program (STS 1, etc.), I would argue that 39A could be considered a 'world historical site' worthy of 'preservation' to the extent practicable.

What if the best is yet to come to 39A?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
New SpaceX animation showing reusable FH launching from 39A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM&feature=youtu.be
« Last Edit: 01/27/2015 06:31 pm by Lars-J »

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Thanks for that.

Tell you what. If they ever (whenever) succeed in returning 3 cores to launch site it will be some sight to see.

Fingers crossed. Can't wait to see it happen.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
One interesting detail from the video... Although a lot of it seems notional (some artistic license), it does show is that FH is held anchored/held down by 8 hold-downs, as many speculated. 2 for the core, 3 for each side booster. (F9 is help by 4)
« Last Edit: 01/27/2015 06:34 pm by Lars-J »

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Looks like the all the cores decelerate at about 4 m/s/s when landing in the video.

Offline dmc6960

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 3
The side boosters do not appear to be longer than the central core in this video.
-Jim

Offline moralec

One interesting detail from the video... Although a lot of it seems notional (some artistic license), it does show is that FH is held anchored/held down by 8 hold-downs, as many speculated. 2 for the core, 3 for each side booster. (F9 is help by 4)

Seems like the natural extension of the original F9 design, as that will hold the entire booster from all sides:



Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
The side boosters do not appear to be longer than the central core in this video.

Right. It is either artistic license (shorthand by the animator), or a change. We'll find out soon.

Offline Chris Bergin

Loving that video! Always envisioned the two side boosters pretending to be Shuttle boosters, with the mirroring of what they were doing, but that's a level and a half up! Blimey! :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Hotblack Desiato

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Austria
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 52
Very interesting and well done video.

Regarding the center stage: from what I read here in the threads, the center stage will be too far away to attempt a flight back to the launchpad and is forced to land on the ASDS. Maybe something changed?

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Very interesting and well done video.

Regarding the center stage: from what I read here in the threads, the center stage will be too far away to attempt a flight back to the launchpad and is forced to land on the ASDS. Maybe something changed?

We've got two threads going on this video.  Orbiter suggested:
...
Utilizing an Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship positioned downrange of Vandenberg, allowing it to refuel and make the “hop” back to the West coast would become a potential solution.
...
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Very interesting and well done video.

Regarding the center stage: from what I read here in the threads, the center stage will be too far away to attempt a flight back to the launchpad and is forced to land on the ASDS. Maybe something changed?

Nothing has changed. It all depends on the margin. If this is a payload that it only marginally more than what the F9 can lift, FH may have enough margin to bring all cores back to the launch site.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
The side boosters do not appear to be longer than the central core in this video.

The core has the interstage, so it would naturally be around as tall as the side boosters with that taken into account, no?

Offline Chris Bergin

Oh yeah, we have a standalone thread. Let's use that:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36660.0


--

Edit:

But they kept coming, so split and merged them into that thread.
« Last Edit: 01/27/2015 09:24 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 3673
  • Likes Given: 3551
Based on this latest video:
1) The whole ramp is to be covered with cement with two recessed outer rails. So there will be no trace of crawlway gravels.....
2) The support for the upper TEL is on rubber wheel? Or it is the quality of the video makes the smaller inner rails that runs inside the HIF disappeared?
3) The blast trench to the north is covered with cement as a roof, to provide a more accessable and less blast effect on the rocket itself? It looks like non-bearing support thus mean no forklift or cranes in this area?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0