Author Topic: Air Force reveals plan for up to 48 launches per year from Cape Canaveral  (Read 37602 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
If someone really needs 70+ tonnes to LEO in about a week. Simply salvo 2 Falcon 9 from each pad in the expendable mode. The 4 F9 can supposedly lift about 90 tonnes to LEO in the same orbital inclination.

Hmm, 6 expendable F9 can lift 135 tonnes in 16 days to LEO at the launch rate of 1 per pad every 7 days with a 2 day separation between pads. :o

Presuming LC-40 can process the F9 through quickly with the smaller hangar.
You are aware that one pad is still being rebuilt following the F9 explosion on pad, right? I think that's offline till at least the start of Q317. 

I did not consider the VDB AFB pad as it would have severe difficulties delivering to the same orbit as the others.

"Single digit hour" pad turnaround is an SX stated goal. The quckest figures I found were here

[quote author=edkyle99 link=topic=35674.msg1393533#msg1393533 date=1435165238

Key figure. The best ever has been Ariane 4 (hypergolic fueled) with a launch every 6 days on 1 pad back in the 80's.

So this upgrade gives the US ranges what Arianespace could do in Guyana in the 1980's (and using a hypergol fueled rocket to boot)  IE it's the known state of practice within the industry.

To get to SX's goal of single digit hour turnaround you have to go about 13x better still.

As we've seen with first stage reuse if you set it as a design goal from day one it's a lot easier to do than to do it as a retro fit.

The question of course is wheather the SX staff knew of the A4 history and studied it or if they only looked at US and/or Russian experience in this area.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2017 07:35 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457

Key figure. The best ever has been Ariane 4 (hypergolic fueled) with a launch every 6 days on 1 pad back in the 80's.


I'm not sure where Ed got that figure. Ariane 1-4 launched about every one to two months. Maybe that was a typo for "6 weeks", which seems about the average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(1979%E2%80%931989)

Offline whitelancer64

It's incorrect either way, the all-time record for two launches from a single pad is less than 24 hours, between Vostok 3 and Vostok 4, launched on August 11 and August 12, 1962.
"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 john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
It's incorrect either way, the all-time record for two launches from a single pad is less than 24 hours, between Vostok 3 and Vostok 4, launched on August 11 and August 12, 1962.
Interesting.

So < 24 hours looks possible, although I'd wonder if that was designed in or not?

At the moment the 1 week turnaround looks like the current SoA in launch ranges. 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
And... just to nitpick... Ariane 4 was not a completely hypergolic LV, if used LH2/LOX on the 3rd stage

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
What happens when the ailing range tech breaks down? Atlas and Delta are grounded?

Tory Bruno replied to a question on SpaceX reddit. He said converting Atlas and Delta is not yet known.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
Note that SX have been involved in AFTS since they carried the 2nd generation prototype on an F1. The F1 failed but the AFTS correctly detected the real failure (it was set to test a simulated flight failure that would have triggered flight termination) and fired it's dummy self destruct package.

The test versions all seem to be based around POWERPC SBC's while  SX use ARM's in their core architecture. It also uses a custom programmed FPGA for some of it's switching functions.

It's not clear to me if LV mfgs will have to buy this exact hardware package to be compliant or if they can host the code on a sufficiently powerful processor and program a compliant FPGA they can keep the hardware in house. 

I think the key idea is that for LV's (as opposed to UAV's and sounding rockets, which this is also designed to support) there must be at least 2 of them and they must be hosted on processors separated from the main GNC computer.

So for SX this would be a couple of separate ARM boxes with a feed from their IMUs and GPS receivers (which I think are already redundant)
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

So for SX this would be a couple of separate ARM boxes with a feed from their IMUs and GPS receivers (which I think are already redundant)

No, AFSS is completely independent, standalone, separate system from the rest of the launch vehicle.   There are batteries, transmitters, receivers, antennas, processors, etc are all dedicated to the AFSS
« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 12:41 pm by Jim »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351

Key figure. The best ever has been Ariane 4 (hypergolic fueled) with a launch every 6 days on 1 pad back in the 80's.


I'm not sure where Ed got that figure. Ariane 1-4 launched about every one to two months. Maybe that was a typo for "6 weeks", which seems about the average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(1979%E2%80%931989)

I do not believe that is my quote.  What I said way back in 2015 was "... Ariane 4 during the 1990s, which flew an average of 0.167 times per week from its single launch pad."  That was about once every six weeks.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 01:49 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596

So for SX this would be a couple of separate ARM boxes with a feed from their IMUs and GPS receivers (which I think are already redundant)

No, AFSS is completely independent, standalone, separate system from the rest of the launch vehicle.   There are batteries, transmitters, receivers, antennas, processors, etc are all dedicated to the AFSS
Pity. Tapping the feed from the existing GPS and IMU sensors seemed harmless enough.

Fortunately all of this hardware has plummeted in weight so I guess each package does not have to be that heavy, unlike the days of 500lb gas powered IMU on Apollo.

I think the biggest winners for this may be smallsat launchers, as AFTS papers show the total charges for the FTS system add up to about $700k per launch, and these costs seem to be regardless of LV size.
I do not believe that is my quote.  What I said way back in 2015 was "... Ariane 4 during the 1990s, which flew an average of 0.167 times per week from its single launch pad."  That was about once every six weeks.

 - Ed Kyle
That was my mis interpretation. I inverted 0.167 and took the result as days per launch instead of weeks.  :(

That said now I'm thinking that seems a bit low. I keep thinking either Atlas or Delta have done better (3-4 weeks?)  but it's probably my memory playing tricks or ULA launching off multiple pads. I know they've been planning to cut operating pads but I don't recall if they've got round to doing it yet.

This announcement suggests that CCAFS is now the SoA globally in launch range turnaround. 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
That said now I'm thinking that seems a bit low. I keep thinking either Atlas or Delta have done better (3-4 weeks?)

Delta had two pads, 17A and B, at the Cape.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

Pity. Tapping the feed from the existing GPS and IMU sensors seemed harmless enough.


No, it isn't.  They could be in error or at fault.  The whole point is to be independent.  Also, most launch vehicles do not use GPS in their guidance system. 

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
"... Ariane 4 during the 1990s, which flew an average of 0.167 times per week from its single launch pad."  That was about once every six weeks.

 - Ed Kyle
That said now I'm thinking that seems a bit low. I keep thinking either Atlas or Delta have done better (3-4 weeks?)  but it's probably my memory playing tricks or ULA launching off multiple pads. I know they've been planning to cut operating pads but I don't recall if they've got round to doing it yet.
I was looking at longer term averages, over many months or years, so there may have been a single fast turnaround here or there, but Delta 2 and Atlas 2 both used two pads at the Cape and one at Vandenberg.  During the 1960s, Atlas and Thor/Delta used even more pads.  The result is that the per-pad average was lower for the U.S. launchers during any era than for Ariane 4 during the 1990s (and for R-7 during the 1980s, which flew even more often than Ariane 4 on a per-pad average).

It is the long-term pad turnaround average that matters rather than the occasional shorter-than-average time.  Pads have to be taken out of service periodically for maintenance, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 04:12 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
No, it isn't.  They could be in error or at fault.  The whole point is to be independent.  Also, most launch vehicles do not use GPS in their guidance system.
Noted.

It still seems like a net win in cost terms for small sat launchers, provided the fact they no longer rely on range assets for FTS is reflected in range charges.

On the more general topic of pad, rather than range turnaround, how ambitious does SX's stated goal of a "single digit hour" turnaround of a pad seem to you?
I was looking at longer term averages, over many months or years, so there may have been a single fast turnaround here or there, but Delta 2 and Atlas 2 both used two pads at the Cape and one at Vandenberg.  During the 1960s, Atlas and Thor/Delta used even more pads. 
I think you mentioned Thor had 6 live pads at one time.
Quote from: edkyle99
The result is that the per-pad average was lower for the U.S. launchers during any era than for Ariane 4 during the 1990s (and for R-7 during the 1980s, which flew even more often than Ariane 4 on a per-pad average).
Clearly once you have multiple pads you can run almost as fast you like, until you run out of fresh pads.
Quote from: edkyle99
It is the long-term pad turnaround average that matters rather than the occasional shorter-than-average time.  Pads have to be taken out of service periodically for maintenance, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Agreed.  And this announcement talks about the range, not the individual pads using it. But I think creating that capability will encourage new entrants (or new vehicles) to revise their pad layouts for faster turnaround.

I don't have a good sense of how much damage a take off does to a pad. Extremely high (lethal?) noise levels, high temperatures and lots of flame but what does the most damage and what's the toughest to repair? Possibly even more important is anything doing cumulative damage to the pad that the whole structure will have to be replaced?

On that note how ambitious is SX's plan for "single digit hour" pad turnaround? A week between launches off the same pad sounds like a pretty good starting point.



MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
What happens when the ailing range tech breaks down? Atlas and Delta are grounded?

Guess it depends on the break down. Relying on memory, one of the early Falcon 9 launches was delayed by a fire taking out a radar station.

The range staff worked their tails off and was back in operation in two weeks. Original estimates were for a longer stand down.

A radar problem would stop an FTS launch but not an AFTS.

But those types of problems seem unlikely because the range does so much maintenance.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
I don't have a good sense of how much damage a take off does to a pad. Extremely high (lethal?) noise levels, high temperatures and lots of flame but what does the most damage and what's the toughest to repair? Possibly even more important is anything doing cumulative damage to the pad that the whole structure will have to be replaced?
One area of effort involves repair of flame deflector and flame trench surfaces.  These are eroded by liftoff exhaust, as I understand things, and must be resurfaced.  There may be some type of spray-on high temperature concrete involved.  Other work would include inspection and if necessary repair of umbilicals, testing of GSE, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2426
  • Likes Given: 13596
One area of effort involves repair of flame deflector and flame trench surfaces.  These are eroded by liftoff exhaust, as I understand things, and must be resurfaced.  There may be some type of spray-on high temperature concrete involved.  Other work would include inspection and if necessary repair of umbilicals, testing of GSE, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle
Really? I'd thought those things were good for years and refurbishment was a major (months long) event.

In this regard I liked the sound of the system that was used on the Saturn 1. A pointed rectangular cone. Looked like the thing they used on the V2. All Copper IIRC and uncooled. I guess it didn't scale up too well, hence all the high temp concrete.  :(

It'll be interesting to see how fast SX make good on moving to SDH turnaround, given they now have a fair bit of experience on the actual damage a launch does to their pads. Presumably the rebuild of the explosion damaged pad will incorporate as much of their experience as possible. 
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
One area of effort involves repair of flame deflector and flame trench surfaces.  These are eroded by liftoff exhaust, as I understand things, and must be resurfaced.  There may be some type of spray-on high temperature concrete involved.  Other work would include inspection and if necessary repair of umbilicals, testing of GSE, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle
Really? I'd thought those things were good for years and refurbishment was a major (months long) event.

Fondu Fyre, it  is called, a refractory concrete.  A discussion of it and of launch deflector erosion during the Shuttle program, with some nice images, is included in the following document.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100031698.pdf

Similar materials may still be used, that have to be inspected after every launch and occasionally or periodically renewed.

It must be closely guarded.  I have yet to see an image of a flame deflector at a Falcon 9 launch site.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/24/2017 01:56 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
In this regard I liked the sound of the system that was used on the Saturn 1. A pointed rectangular cone. Looked like the thing they used on the V2. All Copper IIRC and uncooled.


It wasn't a pointed rectangular cone. It wasn't All Copper.  And it wasn't uncooled.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2017 12:49 pm by Jim »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Jupiter, on the other hand, used a kind of sloped pyramidal base plate.  Redstone used something similar. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/24/2017 01:04 pm by edkyle99 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1