NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Facilities and Fleets => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 08/27/2016 04:36 pm
-
Third thread for Pad 39A work by SpaceX ahead of Falcon Heavy's debut flight (pad will also be used by F9).
Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36100.0
Thread 2:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38802.0
--
39A News Articles:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=39A
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/39A/
--
L2 39A - From shovel in the ground to the latest in updates and about 300 photos from KSC folk getting close to it - and rendering envisioning, etc.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34978.0
This is updates and discussion, but let's make sure posts are useful. This one is about the pad, remember.
-
Any recent photos that could possibly be shared on here? ;) Has RSS removal officially began?
-
As of a week ago, still nothing on the RSS
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJG_R1qg0L8/
-
I was out at pad 39A today. There was work going on at the pad, but no visible work on the RSS. The Falcon 9 rocket carrier was parked out in front of the HIF. Unfortunately, the door was closed on the HIF so I could not see the cores inside, although it was mentioned there were 3 of them. The big yellow crane was still parked and laying on the ground. A bit further away there was some work being done to a pair of flame trench deflectors but I suspect those are for 39B.
-
Thanks for sharing the photos!
-
Wait, is that a second T/E?
-
Wait, is that a second T/E?
Assuming you mean the vehicle in the 4th image, no it is not. It is a transporter for moving first stages around the Cape. Mainly recovered stages from Port Canaveral to their various other facilities.
-
Its amazing how many lbs of steel have been removed according to that article and yet upon cursory inspection the FSS and RSS look mostly unchanged.
-
Wait, is that a second T/E?
Assuming you mean the vehicle in the 4th image, no it is not. It is a transporter for moving first stages around the Cape. Mainly recovered stages from Port Canaveral to their various other facilities.
Ah, of course! Thanks
-
Came across this on Reddit... Pictures as of yesterday of 39a. http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2016/09/going-up-part-11.html?m=1
-
I seem to have missed what the big orange crane is for
-
I seem to have missed what the big orange crane is for
It was previously used for shuttle hardware removal and cleanup work on the FSS by SpaceX.
-
Feature article by Chris Gebhardt:
SpaceX looks to historic Pad 39A for Falcon 9 flight operations
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/09/spacex-historic-pad-39a-falcon-9/
Some additional notes.
The initial idea was a joint article with more on Amos-6 and then the use of 39A as noted. Then the drama dropped with Elon's tweets and so on. I thought Chris' article was just a great read as it was, added a bit more, but the focus is on 39A's upcoming role for SpaceX and the pad's amazing history.
I thought this feature would be a nicer way of approaching this, acknowledging they are in a failure investigation, but focusing on 39A's role past and future.
We'll be writing articles as the investigation moves on, but having had to read all the speculation (not least to help moderate it, I think we're all worn out.) We don't have anything "new" to add as such, so how about this article for a bit of a positive look to the future via a pad that has so much history.
-
I seem to have missed what the big orange crane is for
Work on the FSS. Lots of prep work going on in and around it.
-
I seem to have missed what the big orange crane is for
Work on the FSS. Lots of prep work going on in and around it.
gotcha. I was incorrectly assuming its current location meant something else
-
SpaceX Update, Pad 39a - 09/19/16 (YouTube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPj0acHRxxs)
Published on Sep 20, 2016
The state of LC-39a from the free bus tour. Most visitors on the bus had no idea how lucky they were to see these landed boosters. My day was made.
Cranes! :)
-
cuddlyrocket, where is the source post for that? It's edited out of your quote.
-
cuddlyrocket, where is the source post for that? It's edited out of your quote.
That quote is the description from the YouTube video.
-
SpaceX Update, Pad 39a - 09/19/16 (YouTube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPj0acHRxxs)
Published on Sep 20, 2016
The state of LC-39a from the free bus tour. Most visitors on the bus had no idea how lucky they were to see these landed boosters. My day was made.
Cranes! :)
CRS-8 (cleaned booster), CRS-9 and JCSAT-16 cores?
-
Edit-moved to more appropriate thread
-
Looks like we are gonna need a transition to ITS thread.
-
Im unclear on the use of F9/FH/ITS at 39. Do we think there will be an ITS specific mount or are they incorporating it into the existing one? will the FSS (in whatever form it eventually takes) be able to accomodate all those configurations?
-
Im unclear on the use of F9/FH/ITS at 39. Do we think there will be an ITS specific mount or are they incorporating it into the existing one? will the FSS (in whatever form it eventually takes) be able to accomodate all those configurations?
everything will have to change
-
Looks like we are gonna need a transition to ITS thread.
Not for years
-
Does anybody know what is the maximum sustained wind speed hangar on LC-39A can handle? VAB had some significant damage from weak CAT 3 hurricane 12 years ago, Matthew may be significantly stronger.
-
First, my thoughts are with the people living in the path of Hurricane Matthew. Keep yourselves safe; human lives are much more valuable than any amount of equipment!
However, thinking about this storm got me thinking: What lightning protection structures are in place at 39A? I managed to find out that the lightning masts at SLC-40 are about 120 meters tall, easily tall enough to shield a 70 meter Falcon, but couldn't find anything for 39A. (Who knows what they'll do for ITS!)
-
However, thinking about this storm got me thinking: What lightning protection structures are in place at 39A? I managed to find out that the lightning masts at SLC-40 are about 120 meters tall, easily tall enough to shield a 70 meter Falcon, but couldn't find anything for 39A. (Who knows what they'll do for ITS!)
I believe 39A is still using the Shuttle-era lightning mast on top of the FSS. That's 347 feet (105m) from ground level to the tip of the lightning mast.
The ITS rendering shows no lightning protection at all. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/06/17/modifications-transforming-pad-a-for-falcon-launches/
-
With today's storm, I'd be concerned about that tent (for lack of the proper name) over the launch mount on 39A. If the wind gets under it I don't see any amount of tie down keeping it from launching on its own. Did anyone see if they at least rolled up the sides so the wind can pass through rather than pushing on it?
-
With today's storm, I'd be concerned about that tent (for lack of the proper name) over the launch mount on 39A. If the wind gets under it I don't see any amount of tie down keeping it from launching on its own. Did anyone see if they at least rolled up the sides so the wind can pass through rather than pushing on it?
I didn't see a NOTAM for a launch today, so I think we're okay...
-
However, thinking about this storm got me thinking: What lightning protection structures are in place at 39A? I managed to find out that the lightning masts at SLC-40 are about 120 meters tall, easily tall enough to shield a 70 meter Falcon, but couldn't find anything for 39A. (Who knows what they'll do for ITS!)
I believe 39A is still using the Shuttle-era lightning mast on top of the FSS. That's 347 feet (105m) from ground level to the tip of the lightning mast.
The ITS rendering shows no lightning protection at all. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/06/17/modifications-transforming-pad-a-for-falcon-launches/
I wouldn't take anything about the ground infrastructure in that video at face value. It will end up looking quite different.
-
However, thinking about this storm got me thinking: What lightning protection structures are in place at 39A? I managed to find out that the lightning masts at SLC-40 are about 120 meters tall, easily tall enough to shield a 70 meter Falcon, but couldn't find anything for 39A. (Who knows what they'll do for ITS!)
I believe 39A is still using the Shuttle-era lightning mast on top of the FSS. That's 347 feet (105m) from ground level to the tip of the lightning mast.
The ITS rendering shows no lightning protection at all. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/06/17/modifications-transforming-pad-a-for-falcon-launches/
I wouldn't take anything about the ground infrastructure in that video at face value. It will end up looking quite different.
I don't know about that. If they are going to land that beast back at the 39-A, the lightening towers could be a problem.
-
With today's storm, I'd be concerned about that tent (for lack of the proper name) over the launch mount on 39A. If the wind gets under it I don't see any amount of tie down keeping it from launching on its own. Did anyone see if they at least rolled up the sides so the wind can pass through rather than pushing on it?
The tent has been removed this week (per some KSC tour pics on SpaceX Facebook Group).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154644614536318/
-
However, thinking about this storm got me thinking: What lightning protection structures are in place at 39A? I managed to find out that the lightning masts at SLC-40 are about 120 meters tall, easily tall enough to shield a 70 meter Falcon, but couldn't find anything for 39A. (Who knows what they'll do for ITS!)
I believe 39A is still using the Shuttle-era lightning mast on top of the FSS. That's 347 feet (105m) from ground level to the tip of the lightning mast.
The ITS rendering shows no lightning protection at all. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/06/17/modifications-transforming-pad-a-for-falcon-launches/
I wouldn't take anything about the ground infrastructure in that video at face value. It will end up looking quite different.
I don't know about that. If they are going to land that beast back at the 39-A, the lightening towers could be a problem.
If they can't nail the opening between the lightning-protection wires, they certainly have no business trying to connect with the launch mount.
-
However, thinking about this storm got me thinking: What lightning protection structures are in place at 39A? I managed to find out that the lightning masts at SLC-40 are about 120 meters tall, easily tall enough to shield a 70 meter Falcon, but couldn't find anything for 39A. (Who knows what they'll do for ITS!)
I believe 39A is still using the Shuttle-era lightning mast on top of the FSS. That's 347 feet (105m) from ground level to the tip of the lightning mast.
The ITS rendering shows no lightning protection at all. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/06/17/modifications-transforming-pad-a-for-falcon-launches/
I wouldn't take anything about the ground infrastructure in that video at face value. It will end up looking quite different.
I don't know about that. If they are going to land that beast back at the 39-A, the lightening towers could be a problem.
If they can't nail the opening between the lightning-protection wires, they certainly have no business trying to connect with the launch mount.
Please use the ITS threads for ITS as this thread is only for Falcon Heavy.
-
The tent has been removed this week (per some KSC tour pics on SpaceX Facebook Group).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154644614536318/
Probably to prepare for the hurricane.
Please use the ITS threads for ITS as this thread is only for Falcon Heavy.
Im pretty sure this is the pad 39a thread.
-
Yes, it is the Pad 39A thread... Pad 39A transition to Falcon Heavy...
-
Yes, it is the Pad 39A thread... Pad 39A transition to Falcon Heavy...
SpaceX posted renderings of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy at 39A last year that also show the FSS lightning mast.
-
Space Florida seeks FDOT approval to help SpaceX (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/) (Orlando Sentinel)
The agency will ask Florida Department of Transportation for $5 million to contribute to infrastructure improvements on Spaceport Launch Complex 39A, which SpaceX hopes will one day be the site of rocket launches that send humans to Mars.
According to meeting documents, "project match funding" from FDOT would be used for "infrastructure improvements by SpaceX."
-
By any chance, does anybody know the slope of that pad ramp?
-
By any chance, does anybody know the slope of that pad ramp?
It's a 5% slope
http://apollolaunchcontrol.com/v20test/http___www.apollolaunchcontrol.com_/Launch_Pads.html
http://www.space-shuttle.com/shuttlelc39.htm
-
Space Florida seeks FDOT approval to help SpaceX (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/) (Orlando Sentinel)
The agency will ask Florida Department of Transportation for $5 million to contribute to infrastructure improvements on Spaceport Launch Complex 39A, which SpaceX hopes will one day be the site of rocket launches that send humans to Mars.
According to meeting documents, "project match funding" from FDOT would be used for "infrastructure improvements by SpaceX."
The $5 million has been approved and will be used for commercial crew access arm installation.
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 10:21 AM - 26 Oct 2016
Space Florida's board has approved giving SpaceX $5M to help install Falcon/Dragon crew access arm at KSC's historic pad 39A.
-
Very interesting article. I'm a little puzzled by the figure, though. $5 million to install the crew access arm? Maybe not a piece of cake, but it sounds high. Unless they have to do a lot more steelwork on the FSS.
-
Very interesting article. I'm a little puzzled by the figure, though. $5 million to install the crew access arm? Maybe not a piece of cake, but it sounds high. Unless they have to do a lot more steelwork on the FSS.
"SpaceX, which must at least double the state's contribution, planned to invest $25 million in the project"
Apparently at least $30 million.
In addition to what has already been spent:
"Space Florida had already contributed $5 million to the first phase of renovations, which included construction of a large hangar at the pad's base and systems to roll Falcon rockets up the pad and lift them into upright.
Officials said SpaceX had spent more than $75 million and created 90 jobs to complete that work"
-
Apple Maps has now updated imagery.
I don't know the date when it was acquired.
Looking at other landmarks I concluded these were captured before march 2016. My guess is late 2015-early 2016.
-
I went looking for baseline figures, to no avail. A cursory search of Saturn hardware turned up tons of technical info about the old towers, but no broken-out costs. But they were dismantled by cranes in 1976 to make the Shuttle FSS. And lots of "proposed but not budgeted info" about the SLS mobile launcher. I still would guess the figures include the HIF, T/E, launch mount, or other work.
-
The canopy isn't over the top of the launch mount so it's from early 2016. Focus at the time was Vandy.
-
Also it can be noted from Terrasever imagery from the 10th of October, that the larger yellow crane used to lift stages off OCISLY, is now at LC39A. I would guess to be in place to lift the crew access arm into position.
https://www.terraserver.com/preview/1c63553623fce528f908938aa228df2e?
bbox=-80.60599744319916,28.606880375682646,-80.60213506221771,28.
609423506923687&latitude=28.608027
1471&longitude=-80.6043586135&image_area=106862.16322216834%20&
horizontal_distance=377.47133520830
46%20&vertical_distance=283.10007477308784&zoom_level=18
-
Wasn't there already a crane at LC-39A ? Are you sure they moved the crane from the port to the pad?
-
Wasn't there already a crane at LC-39A ? Are you sure they moved the crane from the port to the pad?
Nope, its not there in images from July.
-
Hmm. Pretty sure I saw a crane there in September.
-
Wasn't there already a crane at LC-39A ? Are you sure they moved the crane from the port to the pad?
Nope, its not there in images from July.
There's been a large red crane onsite at 39A for over 6 months... and it's larger than the yellow crane that was being used at the port. That's not to say they didn't move the port crane to 39A but a larger crane has been onsite at the pad for quite some time.
-
The cranes are different. Crane currently at 39A just off the pad is a monster that can go 300+ feet. The port crane is maybe half that size. It has been used for several operations, but the main purpose will be pretty obvious soon.
-
The yellow crane seems to be quiet experienced at lifting used cores around....
-
The cranes are different. Crane currently at 39A just off the pad is a monster that can go 300+ feet. The port crane is maybe half that size. It has been used for several operations, but the main purpose will be pretty obvious soon.
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
-
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
-
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
Thanks!
-
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
and why would they use the crane vs the strongback for that?
-
and why would they use the crane vs the strongback for that?
T/E requires both stages. If they only need the booster, they must use the crane.
-
and why would they use the crane vs the strongback for that?
T/E requires both stages. If they only need the booster, they must use the crane.
Exactly. Like when SpaceX hoisted a returned F9 first stage on SLC-40 and gave it a brief 10 second static firing. However, you don't need a 300+ feet crane for that. Not even at LC-39A.
-
The cranes are different. Crane currently at 39A just off the pad is a monster that can go 300+ feet. The port crane is maybe half that size. It has been used for several operations, but the main purpose will be pretty obvious soon.
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
I think he was actually hinting about attaching the crew access arm to the FSS. For just fit testing the mount they don't need anything as large as that monster.
-
The cranes are different. Crane currently at 39A just off the pad is a monster that can go 300+ feet. The port crane is maybe half that size. It has been used for several operations, but the main purpose will be pretty obvious soon.
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
I think he was actually hinting about attaching the crew access arm to the FSS. For just fit testing the mount they don't need anything as large as that monster.
Nobody else is thinking the obvious use is to lift new ITS boosters onto the pad? Obviously they'd land on the launch mount and all, but they still need a way of swapping cores and installing new ones.
-
The cranes are different. Crane currently at 39A just off the pad is a monster that can go 300+ feet. The port crane is maybe half that size. It has been used for several operations, but the main purpose will be pretty obvious soon.
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
I think he was actually hinting about attaching the crew access arm to the FSS. For just fit testing the mount they don't need anything as large as that monster.
Nobody else is thinking the obvious use is to lift new ITS boosters onto the pad? Obviously they'd land on the launch mount and all, but they still need a way of swapping cores and installing new ones.
ITS is several years away. Cranes are not cheap to rent and operate, especially ones of that size.
-
The cranes are different. Crane currently at 39A just off the pad is a monster that can go 300+ feet. The port crane is maybe half that size. It has been used for several operations, but the main purpose will be pretty obvious soon.
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
I think he was actually hinting about attaching the crew access arm to the FSS. For just fit testing the mount they don't need anything as large as that monster.
I would say the last guess is in the ballpark.
-
The cranes are different. Crane currently at 39A just off the pad is a monster that can go 300+ feet. The port crane is maybe half that size. It has been used for several operations, but the main purpose will be pretty obvious soon.
Can you possibly elaborate on the next operation that will be 'obvious soon."? thanks!
They are going to have to fit testing and what better to use than one of the cores in the 39A HIF?
I think he was actually hinting about attaching the crew access arm to the FSS. For just fit testing the mount they don't need anything as large as that monster.
Nobody else is thinking the obvious use is to lift new ITS boosters onto the pad? Obviously they'd land on the launch mount and all, but they still need a way of swapping cores and installing new ones.
ITS is several years away. Cranes are not cheap to rent and operate, especially ones of that size.
Yea, that made me laugh
-
Tweet from James Dean (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/798267710429806592)
SpaceX had planned to install Crew Access Arm at KSC's pad 39A this month; deferred to Spring to accommodate upcoming Falcon launches.
-
From SpaceX Facebook group.
39A's TLE now has stabilizer arms!
And more pics here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154790860391318/
-
LC39A today from Instagram user Brian Meldrum
TLE has loads of new bells and whistles.
And from Facebook group member Michael Kordys.
"At KSC yesterday progress on pad 39A is impressive they were test lifting the strongback. As we were going by my son saw Elon just leaving the pad made his day "
-
To focus in a little more on the previous photo and help clarify the terminology, the dominant structure is not a mobile Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL) in this case, although there is one that large a short distance away that doesn't belong to SpaceX. A NASA blogger referred to the large fixed structure on 39A as a "service structure", and I've also seen something like that called a launch tower. Part of the fixed structure used to rotate in place for loading the Space Shuttle, but SpaceX has removed that portion and has and is adding "robust new fixtures" of their own. https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2016/06/17/modifications-transforming-pad-a-for-falcon-launches/
That might be the Transporter Erector lying horizontally in the lower left of the previous photo, or that part could be going up opposite the TE to help support the rocket, but the distinction between the TE and the tower is more obvious in the attached photo from Reddit user aguyfromnewzealand. SpaceX has custom built a "much larger and stronger" TE than the one at LC-40, for use with both Falcon and Falcon Heavy. https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2016/02/05/spacex-tests-transporter-erector/
Since SpaceX is purportedly calling their transporter erector a TE and not a TEL (TE Launcher), in light of their usual finesse that brings me to assume that technically the tower will be considered their launcher and not the TE, but what I don't understand myself is how the TE can end up facing the tower at the end of the rail line. Is there a curve at the end of the line we haven't seen over the horizon in any photos?
-
Bonus fun fact in association with the photo Flying Beaver borrowed from the SpaceX Facebook group.
Unless you've had the same KSC tour bus guide I did, or unless they all tell you the same thing, you might assume the tall fence surrounds 39A and curves outward and downward to keep people out. Not so, or maybe a little of that too even though everyone in the vicinity has some kind of official clearance, but primarily the height and shape is to keep out alligators. On top of that surprise, another is that they still get in, and a wildlife service has to be called to retrieve them.
Alligators can jump as high and as far as their body lengths if not further, using their tails as propellers. They've been known to jump high river banks and grab people or pets when they're hungry, and can also jump onto wind boat rides (something you might not get told as a tourist). There are some videos and more info out there if you Google "how high can alligators jump".
-
Since SpaceX is purportedly calling their transporter erector a TE and not a TEL (TE Launcher), in light of their usual finesse that brings me to assume that technically the tower will be considered their launcher and not the TE, but what I don't understand myself is how the TE can end up facing the tower at the end of the rail line. Is there a curve at the end of the line we haven't seen over the horizon in any photos?
SpaceX calling their structure a TE vs a traditional TEL doesn't really mean anything (SpaceX uses names loosely). The TE at 39A is going to be used the exact same way as the ones at SLC-40 and SLC-4E. The Shuttle service structures beside the pad are broken down into two sections, the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) and the Rotating Service Structure (RSS). SpaceX is slowly dissembling the RSS because it serves no purpose and was specifically built for servicing the Shuttle's Payload Bay whilst vertical. They will keep the FSS and put a crew access arm on it for loading crew onto Dragon 2.
No hidden curves to get the TE to face the FSS, straight shot from the hangar to the pad, just like SLC-40.
-
Part of the fixed structure used to rotate in place for loading the Space Shuttle, but SpaceX has removed that portion and has and is adding "robust new fixtures" of their own.
See the post immediately above for clarification on "FSS" vs "RSS". The one thing I'd like to add, for anyone relatively new here, is that SpaceX is absolutely not done removing the RSS (the part that used to rotate around to the shuttle). Google for "LC-39A RSS" images or watch this STS-127 RSS rollback video (https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z4t8LrUSTMo) for an understanding of what the RSS is (was). Then look at the photos above and see that the bulk of it is still there :)
-
Part of the fixed structure used to rotate in place for loading the Space Shuttle, but SpaceX has removed that portion and has and is adding "robust new fixtures" of their own.
See the post immediately above for clarification on "FSS" vs "RSS". The one thing I'd like to add, for anyone relatively new here, is that SpaceX is absolutely not done removing the RSS (the part that used to rotate around to the shuttle). Google for "LC-39A RSS" images or watch this STS-127 RSS rollback video (https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z4t8LrUSTMo) for an understanding of what the RSS is (was). Then look at the photos above and see that the bulk of it is still there :)
Haven't even started yet actually. RSS is a very back burner issue.
-
Haven't even started yet actually. RSS is a very back burner issue.
weren't there worries at some point that the RSS had detoriated to the point where it could shed debris during launch, and that's why it had to go before launches started?
has that issue been mitigated by getting all the loose parts off? or was it never a problem to begin with?
-
I don't know why, but somehow I wish SpaceX hadn't built the HIF right athwart the crawlerway.
-
I don't know why, but somehow I wish SpaceX hadn't built the HIF right athwart the crawlerway.
There is no longer any need to drive anything that even remotely resembles a CT up to LC-39A so the HIF is not in the way. And being positioned athwart the crawlerway allows vehicles to be rolled out of the HIF in a straight line up the pad incline. Building the HIF on top of the old crawlerway was the logical thing to do.
-
Haven't even started yet actually. RSS is a very back burner issue.
weren't there worries at some point that the RSS had detoriated to the point where it could shed debris during launch, and that's why it had to go before launches started?
has that issue been mitigated by getting all the loose parts off? or was it never a problem to begin with?
No, that wasn't the worry. Cost of upkeep is the primary driver to (eventually) get rid of the RSS.
-
Haven't even started yet actually. RSS is a very back burner issue.
weren't there worries at some point that the RSS had detoriated to the point where it could shed debris during launch, and that's why it had to go before launches started?
has that issue been mitigated by getting all the loose parts off? or was it never a problem to begin with?
No, that wasn't the worry. Cost of upkeep is the primary driver to (eventually) get rid of the RSS.
And what happens to heavy, corroded steel structures without upkeep? They deteriorate to the point of falling down, or breaking apart from over-pressure nearby.
-
Haven't even started yet actually. RSS is a very back burner issue.
weren't there worries at some point that the RSS had detoriated to the point where it could shed debris during launch, and that's why it had to go before launches started?
has that issue been mitigated by getting all the loose parts off? or was it never a problem to begin with?
No, that wasn't the worry. Cost of upkeep is the primary driver to (eventually) get rid of the RSS.
And what happens to heavy, corroded steel structures without upkeep? They deteriorate to the point of falling down, or breaking apart from over-pressure nearby.
Uh, yeah. Hence the comment about upkeep cost being the main factor.
-
Uh, yeah. Hence the comment about upkeep cost being the main factor.
So without upkeep, it falls down, got it ;)
( if we keep this up, the thread degrades until some posts might detach under mod overpressure and shed to the party thread ;) )
-
I think we can all agree that returning to flight is far more important than the potential of RSS parts falling off during a launch. Yes the previous plan was to remove it but plans change pretty rapidly.
-
Indeed. Besides, if the RSS was strong enough to deal with the over-pressure event associated with an STS launch, it will have no trouble dealing with a FH launch. The latter is much more benign, courtesy of not having SRB's present.
ITS might be a different story but that will require removal of ALL STS/Apollo related launch tower hardware.
-
Indeed. Besides, if the RSS was strong enough to deal with the over-pressure event associated with an STS launch, it will have no trouble dealing with a FH launch. The latter is much more benign, courtesy of not having SRB's present.
ITS might be a different story but that will require removal of ALL STS/Apollo related launch tower hardware.
It was in good enough shape 5 years ago, but is it still now? I think that is the concern. It needs constant upkeep (if nothing else, keeping up the paintjob to prevent corrosion which leads to structural failure) for pretty much the whole structure, so removing the RSS should significantly reduce the maintenance costs.
-
Indeed. Besides, if the RSS was strong enough to deal with the over-pressure event associated with an STS launch, it will have no trouble dealing with a FH launch. The latter is much more benign, courtesy of not having SRB's present.
ITS might be a different story but that will require removal of ALL STS/Apollo related launch tower hardware.
It was in good enough shape 5 years ago, but is it still now? I think that is the concern. It needs constant upkeep (if nothing else, keeping up the paintjob to prevent corrosion which leads to structural failure) for pretty much the whole structure, so removing the RSS should significantly reduce the maintenance costs.
That is exactly the point: eventually the RSS will have to be torn down to prevent endlessly continuing maintenance costs.
-
Indeed. Besides, if the RSS was strong enough to deal with the over-pressure event associated with an STS launch, it will have no trouble dealing with a FH launch. The latter is much more benign, courtesy of not having SRB's present.
ITS might be a different story but that will require removal of ALL STS/Apollo related launch tower hardware.
It was in good enough shape 5 years ago, but is it still now? I think that is the concern. It needs constant upkeep (if nothing else, keeping up the paintjob to prevent corrosion which leads to structural failure) for pretty much the whole structure, so removing the RSS should significantly reduce the maintenance costs.
That is exactly the point: eventually the RSS will have to be torn down to prevent endlessly continuing maintenance costs.
It's thinkable that these could be minimized through some "conservation" effort. As in removal of all small or easily removable components, encasing of non removable components, and coating of steel structures with marine paints that allow long term low maintenance conservation - even in the direct vicinity of a launch pad. But the thing is, a launch pad can either be optimized to operate as an active pad, or as a museum, but it shouldn't be both. Since it's obviously an active pad and plans seem to exist to rework it completely for ITS anyway, there would be no long term benefit to this type of conservation effort.
It would make more sense to take the RSS down and keep it conserved elsewhere - away from where rockets launch - or just scrap it.
However, if the RSS is to be present near launches (as it now seems to be the case) then a minimal amount of conservation or repair has to be done, to make sure
- there are no loose parts.
- the structure is still sound enough to withstand the stresses of a launch
now the question was, how far behind this "minimum conservation state" is/was the RSS - considering it was scheduled to be gone by the time of the first launch, I would have assumed that at least until AMOS 6, the work on the RSS was more destructive and less conservative.
-
I'm pretty sure the plan is to just leave the thing alone until it gets torn down. It's not falling apart. Plenty of concern to spread around other areas. The launch pad is pretty sizable, the RSS isn't really near the rocket except on roll-up to the crown.
-
I'm pretty sure the plan is to just leave the thing alone until it gets torn down. It's not falling apart. Plenty of concern to spread around other areas. The launch pad is pretty sizable, the RSS isn't really near the rocket except on roll-up to the crown.
I'm pretty sure it was never the plan to remove the RSS before the first launch from 39A. It was always the plan to leave it (or most of it) in place, performing the minimum necessary maintenance on it, and remove it bit by bit during available downtime, until it was gone and the maintenance cost for it became $0. Until September, the plan was to launch the 1st FH from it this month.
People seem to think it will fall apart from an F9 launch a month later? Good grief!
There will be less downtime until 40 is repaired, which means it will take longer to remove the RSS and will cost SpaceX more to maintain it in the duration, but that's small potatoes and I'm sure they've included it in their planning.
-
I'm pretty sure it was never the plan to remove the RSS before the first launch from 39A.
Remember the SpaceX request to use explosives to demolish it? That was to get it done quickly but was not approved.
-
I'm pretty sure it was never the plan to remove the RSS before the first launch from 39A.
Remember the SpaceX request to use explosives to demolish it? That was to get it done quickly but was not approved.
I wouldn't say it was never the plan, the lease on 39A is over 2 years old now. Original plans are always ambitious and adjusted for reality later. But the RSS is such a small part of the bigger picture I'm surprised people are so worried about it.
-
I'm pretty sure it was never the plan to remove the RSS before the first launch from 39A.
Remember the SpaceX request to use explosives to demolish it? That was to get it done quickly but was not approved.
I wouldn't say it was never the plan, the lease on 39A is over 2 years old now. Original plans are always ambitious and adjusted for reality later. But the RSS is such a small part of the bigger picture I'm surprised people are so worried about it.
That's due to the RSS's visibility and the fact that some/many readers may not be very familiar with all the work being done in areas hidden from exterior view. We pretty much only get to see updates via pictures taken from the tour bus that passes by the pad.
-
"Standing Up for SpaceX"
http://spaceksc.blogspot.ca/2016/12/standing-up-for-spacex.html
-
Work being done on the Pad as of this weekend
https://www.instagram.com/p/BN4tQG3Awn0/
-
Space KSC mentioned in the replies that the Crew Access Arm was being built in an undisclosed location. Was that mentioned somewhere else? A 'Yes' answer means I issed the earlier post.
-
Space KSC mentioned in the replies that the Crew Access Arm was being built in an undisclosed location. Was that mentioned somewhere else? A 'Yes' answer means I issed the earlier post.
I don't know where it was constructed, but this was mentioned recently in a NASA presentation:
A few SpaceX notes from listening to the presentation by Kathy Lueders at the NAC HEO Committee meeting yesterday (you can find the recordings here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41630.0)).
The first round of structural tests on Crew Dragon are done, continuing with further testing.
They should do the space suit qualification next quarter.
They have their 5th parachute test scheduled for this coming Saturday.
The crew access arm is at LC-39A, they are waiting until Spring to install it so SpaceX can get the pad up and running for their other launches.
They have been doing unit testing on the ECLSS systems and are getting ready for integrated testing.
There was some discussion about the LOC risk numbers, some general discussion about the SpaceX mishap investigation (there is a team from NASA LSP that is taking an independent look at it). The presentation is a bit long (over an hour) but probably worth listening to if you're really into the commercial crew program.
-
No update thread for upcoming missions so here I think is good enough. Seeing it's the launch pad.
Falcon 9 sighted entering CCAFS.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Restrantek/status/808420124143288320
-
Thanks gongora!!
-
No update thread for upcoming missions so here I think is good enough. Seeing it's the launch pad.
Falcon 9 sighted entering CCAFS.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Restrantek/status/808420124143288320
Probably the Echostar 23 core, I cross posted your message there
-
I think this is news (from NASA's 2016 CCP progress review):
"SpaceX continued extensive modifications at Launch Complex 39A during 2016, which included pad structures being refurbished or rebuilt to serve Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets instead of the space shuttles that previously launched from it. Additionally, the Crew Access Arm has been built, and SpaceX expects to bolt it into place on the tower in 2017. The fixed service structure and its foundations were strengthened to handle higher-force hurricane winds and to provide a stronger base for the vertical integration crane planned for the complex in the future."
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/CCP2016/
-
Is Pad A fully ready for Falcon 9? ;)
-
Is Pad A fully ready for Falcon 9? ;)
Hope so... they'll be doing a series of WDRs, I suspect, as the first F9 launch date approaches.
Debugging the GSE could take a while.
-
Is Pad A fully ready for Falcon 9? ;)
When you see reports of the TE rolling into the hangar you'll know the pad is active and ready to fly.
-
Is Pad A fully ready for Falcon 9? ;)
Hope so... they'll be doing a series of WDRs, I suspect, as the first F9 launch date approaches.
Debugging the GSE could take a while.
That's what I would have thought. But it looks like 1 WDR/static fire and a few days later, launch?
-
I expect testing and certification of the GSE will taka a couple of weeks. Possibly they will use the tanks of a flown first stage for these tests. I don't think they will launch this stage after the tests.
-
Hi there!
I'm just hopping into this topic to ask a few questions
1. Would SpaceX have any, ANY use for the RSS? (I know they will remove it, just curious)
2. Can it (RSS) even move at this point?
3. Will they expand the FSS, or is it at a good enough height for a crew access arm?
4. What are they doing to them/with them (RSS & FSS) currently?
Thanks!
-
Hi there!
I'm just hopping into this topic to ask a few questions
1. Would SpaceX have any, ANY use for the RSS? (I know they will remove it, just curious)
2. Can it (RSS) even move at this point?
3. Will they expand the FSS, or is it at a good enough height for a crew access arm?
4. What are they doing to them/with them (RSS & FSS) currently?
Thanks!
1) Only as a boat anchor. Part of any deal NASA makes with a contractor is they keep all scrap.
2) It can't move. The bridge across the flame trench has been cut out completely.
3) Can't answer that but I'll say it will answer itself soon.
4) FSS just went through a lot of foundation upgrades to bring it up to current hurricane code. RSS is now being torn down.
-
4) FSS just went through a lot of foundation upgrades to bring it up to current hurricane code. RSS is not being torn down.
So that's big news, isn't it?
-
Slip of the key, or maybe a victim of auto correct. RSS is being cut out right now.
Photo from SpaceX FB group:
(https://scontent-mia1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15780937_10207945321217664_3245405149688393821_n.jpg?oh=135e4aa2fb2a952d121b58e061f21f86&oe=58EDC4BB)
-
are they just starting to dismantle or do they actually think they can get it down before the next launch? If the latter, isnt that cutting it a tad close?
-
are they just starting to dismantle or do they actually think they can get it down before the next launch? If the latter, isnt that cutting it a tad close?
No way it comes down in January. I'm not holding my breath for it coming down anytime this year. Shawn himself has called it a "very back burner issue."
-
I suppose there is nothing stopping them from stripping that thing down from the inside out slowly between launches, but removal entirely is just an operation then can't have right now with SLC-40 being out of order.
-
are they just starting to dismantle or do they actually think they can get it down before the next launch? If the latter, isnt that cutting it a tad close?
Pad B took awhile, I am guessing they are just clearing out the Payload Changeout Room to get rid of the big hanging equipment there.
-
I suppose there is nothing stopping them from stripping that thing down from the inside out slowly between launches, but removal entirely is just an operation then can't have right now with SLC-40 being out of order.
They may have been able to use explosive charges, but that's pretty unlikely now with all the pad changes they have made
-
I suppose there is nothing stopping them from stripping that thing down from the inside out slowly between launches, but removal entirely is just an operation then can't have right now with SLC-40 being out of order.
They may have been able to use explosive charges, but that's pretty unlikely now with all the pad changes they have made
That idea was vetoed by NASA a long time ago (or so we've heard, not sure there was ever an official statement).
-
Giant hole through the RSS now:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BO8X2Jbgyfe/
-
Another piece down. 3052 more to go...
-
Another piece down. 3052 more to go...
It's being gutted from the inside out.
-
RIP RSS
-
Is it the lighting, or have the payload bays white doors been removed?
-
Is it the lighting, or have the payload bays white doors been removed?
Or maybe the doors have been opened inward, and we just can't see them due to the lighting or angle?
-
Giant hole through the RSS now:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BO8X2Jbgyfe/
link broken according to Instagram
Sorry, this page isn't available.
The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed. Go back to Instagram.
-
Giant hole through the RSS now:
Damn, I am not yet awake.
Came here from the space debris thread where fortunately the two satellites missed.
And read, Gianth hole through the ISS now. :(
-
Is it the lighting, or have the payload bays white doors been removed?
Or maybe the doors have been opened inward, and we just can't see them due to the lighting or angle?
Given the panel above the doors is visible, not lighting or angle
-
Is it the lighting, or have the payload bays white doors been removed?
Or maybe the doors have been opened inward, and we just can't see them due to the lighting or angle?
Given the panel above the doors is visible, not lighting or angle
So we know, FOR A FACT, that the Space Shuttle-related payload bay doors, panels , etc. HAVE been removed from the Rotating Service Structure?
-
RIP Shuttle stuff
-
Is it the lighting, or have the payload bays white doors been removed?
Or maybe the doors have been opened inward, and we just can't see them due to the lighting or angle?
Given the panel above the doors is visible, not lighting or angle
So we know, FOR A FACT, that the Space Shuttle-related payload bay doors, panels , etc. HAVE been removed from the Rotating Service Structure?
LOL -- do YOU, now? I certainly don't, and it sounds like the rest of us are trying to figure out just what we're looking at ... ;D
-
The launchphotography.com website updated their viewing guide to include where to watch missions launching from 39A; however, the National Park Service is still unsure whether to allow spectators at Playalinda Beach. I would not recommend viewing Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches from 39A because of the dangers of an early launch anomaly. Especially if the vehicle is headed to the International Space Station.
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
-
The launchphotography.com website updated their viewing guide to include where to watch missions launching from 39A; however, the National Park Service is still unsure whether to allow spectators at Playalinda Beach. I would not recommend viewing Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches from 39A because of the dangers of an early launch anomaly. Especially if the vehicle is headed to the International Space Station.
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
I very much doubt that any FH launches will be headed for the ISS. Polar, GTO and Earth escape are much more likely for FH.
-
FH can launch a super-heavy payload to LEO
-
FH can launch a super-heavy payload to LEO
.. and what such "super-heavy LEO payloads" are there?
And no, it's only "heavy" category, not "super heavy" category.
-
It can launch a Bigelow 330 module to LEO.
-
Various government agencies have different definitions of lift capability, and some of them do define separate heavy and super-heavy categories.
Pretty sure Bigelow said that FH can't lift the 330 without a new fairing.
-
Various government agencies have different definitions of lift capability, and some of them do define separate heavy and super-heavy categories.
Not that it matters, but both Wikipedia and the Augustine Commission (i.e. Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Committee) definitions of super heavy-lift launch vehicles (SHLLV) put the Falcon Heavy (53mT to LEO) in that category.
Wikipedia says SHLLV is capable of lifting more than 50mT to LEO.
The Augustine Commission defines it as more than 40mT to LEO.
Pretty sure Bigelow said that FH can't lift the 330 without a new fairing.
So we agree that the Falcon Heavy can lift a BA330? SpaceX has said custom fairings are a possibility, so I don't see this as a disqualification.
-
Janicki built large tools for SLS fairings, so perhaps their new buddies at SpaceX could order some for FH?
http://hpc.epubxp.com/i/138988-jul-2013/41?
-
SpaceX has said custom fairings are a possibility, so I don't see this as a disqualification.
They have actually said the opposite.
-
The launchphotography.com website updated their viewing guide to include where to watch missions launching from 39A; however, the National Park Service is still unsure whether to allow spectators at Playalinda Beach. I would not recommend viewing Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches from 39A because of the dangers of an early launch anomaly. Especially if the vehicle is headed to the International Space Station.
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
I very much doubt that any FH launches will be headed for the ISS. Polar, GTO and Earth escape are much more likely for FH.
I never said that the Falcon Heavy had any ISS-related missions. I simply was talking about if any Falcon rocket from 39A was going on a northeast azimuth during the ascent.
-
The launchphotography.com website updated their viewing guide to include where to watch missions launching from 39A; however, the National Park Service is still unsure whether to allow spectators at Playalinda Beach. I would not recommend viewing Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches from 39A because of the dangers of an early launch anomaly. Especially if the vehicle is headed to the International Space Station.
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
I very much doubt that any FH launches will be headed for the ISS. Polar, GTO and Earth escape are much more likely for FH.
I never said that the Falcon Heavy had any ISS-related missions. I simply was talking about if any Falcon rocket from 39A was going on a northeast azimuth during the ascent.
Back-tracking are you? Please re-read you own post above. You explicitly mentioned an FH headed for ISS.
-
The launchphotography.com website updated their viewing guide to include where to watch missions launching from 39A; however, the National Park Service is still unsure whether to allow spectators at Playalinda Beach. I would not recommend viewing Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches from 39A because of the dangers of an early launch anomaly. Especially if the vehicle is headed to the International Space Station.
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
I very much doubt that any FH launches will be headed for the ISS. Polar, GTO and Earth escape are much more likely for FH.
I never said that the Falcon Heavy had any ISS-related missions. I simply was talking about if any Falcon rocket from 39A was going on a northeast azimuth during the ascent.
Back-tracking are you? Please re-read you own post above. You explicitly mentioned an FH headed for ISS.
He did not explicitly mention a FH to ISS. He mentioned F9 and FH flights in one sentence, and then ISS flights in another sentence.
-
The launchphotography.com website updated their viewing guide to include where to watch missions launching from 39A; however, the National Park Service is still unsure whether to allow spectators at Playalinda Beach. I would not recommend viewing Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches from 39A because of the dangers of an early launch anomaly. Especially if the vehicle is headed to the International Space Station.
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
I very much doubt that any FH launches will be headed for the ISS. Polar, GTO and Earth escape are much more likely for FH.
I never said that the Falcon Heavy had any ISS-related missions. I simply was talking about if any Falcon rocket from 39A was going on a northeast azimuth during the ascent.
Back-tracking are you? Please re-read you own post above. You explicitly mentioned an FH headed for ISS.
He did not explicitly mention a FH to ISS. He mentioned F9 and FH flights in one sentence, and then ISS flights in another sentence.
just sloppy sentence construction
-
Could some people (*cough* I hope you know who you are) dial back on the attitude and confrontational posting tone for a while? I realize this is the internet and we're all every one of us smarter than anyone else in the room but the attitude rankles. It's also a great way to pick fights and scare off newbies.
Thanks.
-
Photo of 39A from the past few hours.
Just look at all those cars parked down by the HIF and up at the launch mount and TLE. Damn SpaceX is throwing all they've got at this pad.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BPGEgwSAyS9/?tagged=spacex (https://www.instagram.com/p/BPGEgwSAyS9/?tagged=spacex)
-
Photo of 39A from the past few hours.
Just look at all those cars parked down by the HIF and up at the launch mount and TLE. Damn SpaceX is throwing all they've got at this pad.
??? Don't see the "large" numbers
I count less than 20 at the HIF.
-
Photo of 39A from the past few hours.
Just look at all those cars parked down by the HIF and up at the launch mount and TLE. Damn SpaceX is throwing all they've got at this pad.
??? Don't see the "large" numbers
I count less than 20 at the HIF.
There are a few more up the hill near the water tower, but yeah, not an all-hands look IMHO.
Matthew
-
Photo of 39A from the past few hours.
Just look at all those cars parked down by the HIF and up at the launch mount and TLE. Damn SpaceX is throwing all they've got at this pad.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BPGEgwSAyS9/?tagged=spacex (https://www.instagram.com/p/BPGEgwSAyS9/?tagged=spacex)
Man, but I just love those rainbirds. That's some serious deluge...
-
Photo of 39A from the past few hours.
Just look at all those cars parked down by the HIF and up at the launch mount and TLE. Damn SpaceX is throwing all they've got at this pad.
??? Don't see the "large" numbers
I count less than 20 at the HIF.
Here in Baton Rouge last Saturday, it only made it up to about 4°C/40°F thanks to a terrible cold snap that put us way below average. Meanwhile, last week in Augusta, Maine, they almost reached 4°C/40°F thanks to a heat wave that put them way above average.
Given the resolution, I was only able to count 19 vehicles at the HIF (as Jim notes, less than 20). But how does that compare to the nominal? I have no direct data from SpaceX, good old-fashioned eyeballs, or whatever, so I just pulled up various images from TerraServer to attempt some counts (all approximate due to limited resolution, etc.):
Saturday | 2016-10-08 | 3-ish? |
Holiday | 2016-07-04 | None? |
Wednesday | 2016-06-15 | 28-ish? |
Thursday | 2016-03-10 | 15-ish? |
So, what can I make of it all? Primarily, I conclude that I don't have nearly enough data. More generally, it would seem as if 20 or so vehicles in view on that side of the HIF may be pretty much nominal, but it would also seem to imply that the full complement of work is ongoing (as opposed to a slow weekend or holiday).
How divisible are tasks related to (re)constructing a pad? Are there places where you can, for example, throw more welders in to make things faster, or are more tasks along the "nine women can't make a baby in one month" line? (In Boca Chica, for example, the timelines for soil surcharging and wick drains aren't strongly related to personnel counts.)
-
He was counting vehicles at the pad as well as the HIF. I don't recall seeing any at the pad in pictures shown before.
-
What would be most interesting is: Has a Falcon 9 been raised by a TEL on the pad yet? Or will the Static fire for ECHOSTAR be the first vehicle? It would be nice to see a video or at least a photo before T-3days.
-
Has a Falcon 9 been raised by a TEL on the pad yet?
Not that we know of.
Or will the Static fire for ECHOSTAR be the first vehicle?
That wasn't the original plan, but it's looking more and more likely as the launch date approaches.
It would be nice to see a video or at least a photo before T-3days.
The new NET date is January 30, but expect that to get pushed back further if we don't hear word relatively soon.
-
Kind of fluffy but maybe suitable for sharing with the non fans in your circle. My read was, nothing we don't already know, but packaged well.
http://gizmodo.com/why-space-fanatics-are-freaking-out-about-spacexs-next-1790518408
-
From the article linked above:
“Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches,” SpaceX told SpaceNews.com last September
I believe this contradicts current thinking here. Didn't an insider recently say Vanderberg is not set up for FH launches? Or am I misremembering?
Matthew
-
From the article linked above:
“Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches,” SpaceX told SpaceNews.com last September
I believe this contradicts current thinking here. Didn't an insider recently say Vanderberg is not set up for FH launches? Or am I misremembering?
Matthew
The Vandenberg pad was built from the start to be ready for FH, even though the it is not capable of it at this moment. The launch mount is not ready for FH (neither is Pad 39A as of this moment ;) ), and there seemed to be some FH design changes that requires some modification to the transporter erector.
-
Kind of fluffy but maybe suitable for sharing with the non fans in your circle. My read was, nothing we don't already know, but packaged well.
http://gizmodo.com/why-space-fanatics-are-freaking-out-about-spacexs-next-1790518408
Fantastic quote from Chris at the end... "a perfect storm of joy for rocket fans." Well done, sir!
-
Fantastic quote from Chris at the end... "a perfect storm of joy for rocket fans." Well done, sir!
Someone should stage a photo of SpaceX fans decked out in SpaceX swag gathered on and around a couch at a Falcon Heavy launch-watching party with stacked pizza boxes on the coffee table, as they're spilling beer and popcorn on each other while exchanging high-fives as the first booster touches down. :D
(http://www.independentsportsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/sports-on-TV-1.jpeg)
Come to think of it, I think I'll see about planning a New Hampshire FH launch party. Maybe my friend who owns a bar will hook us up. :D
Excellent quote, Chris! Love it.
-
From the article linked above:
“Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches,” SpaceX told SpaceNews.com last September
I believe this contradicts current thinking here. Didn't an insider recently say Vanderberg is not set up for FH launches? Or am I misremembering?
Matthew
The Vandenberg pad was built from the start to be ready for FH, even though the it is not capable of it at this moment. The launch mount is not ready for FH (neither is Pad 39A as of this moment ;) ), and there seemed to be some FH design changes that requires some modification to the transporter erector.
When i read that i though it might catch a phew people out, the following sentence says they were talking about 39A and Vandenberg but if you read it quickly its not immediately obvious.
FH design changes requiring modification of transport erector? i don't remember reading anything about this before is it new information?
-
FH design changes requiring modification of transport erector? i don't remember reading anything about this before is it new information?
Very old information.
-
From the article linked above:
“Both pads are capable of supporting Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches,” SpaceX told SpaceNews.com last September
I believe this contradicts current thinking here. Didn't an insider recently say Vanderberg is not set up for FH launches? Or am I misremembering?
Matthew
The Vandenberg pad was built from the start to be ready for FH, even though the it is not capable of it at this moment. The launch mount is not ready for FH (neither is Pad 39A as of this moment ;) ), and there seemed to be some FH design changes that requires some modification to the transporter erector.
Yes, Vandenberg is designed with the Heavy in mind. You can clearly see the frame has room for 3 cores. But when you see 39A and get a side-by-side comparison you'll clearly see what is missing to make Vandy FH ready.
-
Somebody on reddit confirmed that there is a F9 vertical on 39A.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5qbx3r/falcon_9_is_either_vertical_or_going_vertical/dcy04uh
-
Somebody on reddit confirmed that there is a F9 vertical on 39A.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5qbx3r/falcon_9_is_either_vertical_or_going_vertical/dcy04uh
And from the LCC, pretty close.
Still wainting for pics though, from anyone ;D
-
Somebody on reddit confirmed that there is a F9 vertical on 39A.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5qbx3r/falcon_9_is_either_vertical_or_going_vertical/dcy04uh
"Confirmed" is a strong word, I wouldn't be surprised if they mistook the TEL for a rocket.
-
Somebody on reddit confirmed that there is a F9 vertical on 39A.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5qbx3r/falcon_9_is_either_vertical_or_going_vertical/dcy04uh
"Confirmed" is a strong word, I wouldn't be surprised if they mistook the TEL for a rocket.
I'm not holding my breath, but wouldn't it be about time to test the pad if they plan to launch in about a week?
-
"Confirmed" is a strong word, I wouldn't be surprised if they mistook the TEL for a rocket.
I can confirm that the TEL is there. Rocket is to slender to tell if it is there.
-
False alarm. (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5qbx3r/falcon_9_is_either_vertical_or_going_vertical/dcy3kjh/)
...just drove over and no Falcon9 in sight :( Sorry guys! The TE sticking up over the rotating service structure looks a lot like a rocket from the LCC.
-
Any plans at this time or even a rough schedule for the removal of the old shuttle RSS?
-
Any plans at this time or even a rough schedule for the removal of the old shuttle RSS?
Very low priority item right now. The major structure of the RSS will probably remain in place for many months to come.
-
False alarm. (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5qbx3r/falcon_9_is_either_vertical_or_going_vertical/dcy3kjh/)
...just drove over and no Falcon9 in sight :( Sorry guys! The TE sticking up over the rotating service structure looks a lot like a rocket from the LCC.
TEL testing is all that should be occurring in the vertical position right now. Cranes are in active use loading equipment as non essential items and hardware are removed from the Pad deck afterwards the cranes will move clear of the pad to their safe zones.
-
Does anyone know if the launch mount (with clamps) for F9 is the same that will be used for FHeavy, just with additional clams or if they have to build a second one? If the second is true, is it already been built?
TL,DR: Is the launch mount modular to accommodate both vehicles or two different mounts are needed?
-
The mount has one 3x wide 'hole' (not sure of the proper name), as seen on TerraServer. I honestly think that there may need to be some minor changes on the strongback to change between a F9 and FH setup for when needed, but it is mostly the same for both rockets.
-
The mount has one 3x wide 'hole' (not sure of the proper name), as seen on TerraServer.
It can't have a hole three cores wide and still support the F9 clamps. The image on Terraserver is the frame underneath the pad deck that takes all the force of launch, it's not the top of the pad deck.
I honestly think that there may need to be some minor changes on the strongback to change between a F9 and FH setup for when needed, but it is mostly the same for both rockets.
What would need to be changed on the strongback?
-
(http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/006/130927photos/04_318.JPG)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=35480.0;attach=1055906;image)
This is Vandenberg but from pictures you can see it's the same design as 39A. It makes pretty clear what is removable and how you get from a F9 to a FH pad with the same frame. Source from these is Helodriver from a thread here.
-
(http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/006/130927photos/04_318.JPG)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=35480.0;attach=1055906;image)
This is Vandenberg but from pictures you can see it's the same design as 39A. It makes pretty clear what is removable and how you get from a F9 to a FH pad with the same frame. Source from these is Helodriver from a thread here.
So if the F9 East/West clamps are mounted on those removable blocks, will the FH clamps be mounted right on the pad deck? Meaning they'll be present for all F9 launches?
-
(https://scontent-mia1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/11894628_10156477249810131_6518403050884359898_o.jpg?oh=bd2bb74bab979689313569665c3dd38f&oe=5908EFE4)
(https://scontent-mia1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/11950156_10156477249620131_4740423486736083826_o.jpg?oh=20a9c7003014885b2c3725ac8080427e&oe=590F83C4)
Source: SpaceX Facebook
-
(https://scontent-mia1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/11894628_10156477249810131_6518403050884359898_o.jpg?oh=bd2bb74bab979689313569665c3dd38f&oe=5908EFE4)
(https://scontent-mia1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/11950156_10156477249620131_4740423486736083826_o.jpg?oh=20a9c7003014885b2c3725ac8080427e&oe=590F83C4)
Source: SpaceX Facebook
That F9 render doesn't have the necessary clamps installed, but I see what you're getting at. Thanks for all the hints!
-
Not worth the effort to render 2 more clamps to be 100% accurate I'm sure. But it gives you the idea of how the system will work.
-
The @SpaceX erector is vertical at @NASAKennedy Pad 39A.
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824)
Edit: I was ninja'd by mainmind on the Echostar 23 updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41932.msg1636327#msg1636327)
-
Fantastic quote from Chris at the end... "a perfect storm of joy for rocket fans." Well done, sir!
Someone should stage a photo of SpaceX fans decked out in SpaceX swag gathered on and around a couch at a Falcon Heavy launch-watching party with stacked pizza boxes on the coffee table, as they're spilling beer and popcorn on each other while exchanging high-fives as the first booster touches down. :D
(http://www.independentsportsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/sports-on-TV-1.jpeg)
Come to think of it, I think I'll see about planning a New Hampshire FH launch party. Maybe my friend who owns a bar will hook us up. :D
Excellent quote, Chris! Love it.
Count me in!
-
This is Vandenberg but from pictures you can see it's the same design as 39A. It makes pretty clear what is removable and how you get from a F9 to a FH pad with the same frame. Source from these is Helodriver from a thread here.
Shawn, you should attach images instead of embedding them in your post. Otherwise, thanks for the clarification.
-
Space KSC Blog on twitter (https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/825718791913033732):
Report that @SpaceX Falcon 9 is on the pad at 39A. NOT VERIFIED.
More (https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/825737888981716993):
Saw a long range smartphone image of 39A. Appears @SpaceX F9 first stage is on the pad. Will verify when I can.
False alarm, again (https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/825747169047089152):
New report from someone who drove past @SpaceX 39A that the Falcon 9 is not on the pad. That was 10 minutes ago. Will advise when I go by.
-
Come ON! Wasn't the core supposed to be up yesterday, with static fire tomorrow? If so, that's not good for the schedule.
-
Come ON! Wasn't the core supposed to be up yesterday, with static fire tomorrow? If so, that's not good for the schedule.
I think it's pretty clear that EchoStar 23 launching on Feb 3 is just about out of the question now. Feb 14 looks to be the new first launch date from 39A.
Yes - and per the above (which is an update as it's very relevant) - there's a growing word (as in people seeing decision notes, so this is getting rather real) that Dragon has pulled rank to go first. Nobody puts baby in the corner!
-
And now it's confirmed CRS-10 is first.
-
Come ON! Wasn't the core supposed to be up yesterday, with static fire tomorrow? If so, that's not good for the schedule.
Technically we're not waiting for the pad to be ready anymore; we're waiting for the dragon late launch payloads to grow up to the right age.
-
Come ON! Wasn't the core supposed to be up yesterday, with static fire tomorrow? If so, that's not good for the schedule.
Technically we're not waiting for the pad to be ready anymore; we're waiting for the dragon late launch payloads to grow up to the right age.
Until there is a tanking test and hot fire test (if separate) to validate pad systems/GSE, the pad is not considered ready.
-
The @SpaceX erector is vertical at @NASAKennedy Pad 39A.
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824)
Edit: I was ninja'd by mainmind on the Echostar 23 updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41932.msg1636327#msg1636327)
Can anyone tell me if the TEL can extend vertically to accommodate the taller Interstage + S2 on an FH? From the Above image, it looks like the TEL may be able to do this. :o
-
The @SpaceX erector is vertical at @NASAKennedy Pad 39A.
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824)
Edit: I was ninja'd by mainmind on the Echostar 23 updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41932.msg1636327#msg1636327)
Can anyone tell me if the TEL can extend vertically to accommodate the taller Interstage + S2 on an FH? From the Above image, it looks like the TEL may be able to do this. :o
Why do you think FH will have a larger interstage and second stage?
-
The @SpaceX erector is vertical at @NASAKennedy Pad 39A.
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824)
Edit: I was ninja'd by mainmind on the Echostar 23 updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41932.msg1636327#msg1636327)
Can anyone tell me if the TEL can extend vertically to accommodate the taller Interstage + S2 on an FH? From the Above image, it looks like the TEL may be able to do this. :o
No, there is no reason for it to.
-
The @SpaceX erector is vertical at @NASAKennedy Pad 39A.
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824)
Edit: I was ninja'd by mainmind on the Echostar 23 updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41932.msg1636327#msg1636327)
Can anyone tell me if the TEL can extend vertically to accommodate the taller Interstage + S2 on an FH? From the Above image, it looks like the TEL may be able to do this. :o
No, there is no reason for it to.
Would you be able to tell us why it looks like the S2 clamp and the interstage support cradle can be mounted at multiple places on the TE?
-
The @SpaceX erector is vertical at @NASAKennedy Pad 39A.
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824)
Edit: I was ninja'd by mainmind on the Echostar 23 updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41932.msg1636327#msg1636327)
Can anyone tell me if the TEL can extend vertically to accommodate the taller Interstage + S2 on an FH? From the Above image, it looks like the TEL may be able to do this. :o
No, there is no reason for it to.
Would you be able to tell us why it looks like the S2 clamp and the interstage support cradle can be mounted at multiple places on the TE?
You can't even see the opposite side where the cradles are actually mounted so I'm not sure what gives that impression. The box on top is A/C lines and other payload support stuff.
-
The @SpaceX erector is vertical at @NASAKennedy Pad 39A.
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/825403908235341824)
Edit: I was ninja'd by mainmind on the Echostar 23 updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41932.msg1636327#msg1636327)
Can anyone tell me if the TEL can extend vertically to accommodate the taller Interstage + S2 on an FH? From the Above image, it looks like the TEL may be able to do this. :o
No, there is no reason for it to.
Would you be able to tell us why it looks like the S2 clamp and the interstage support cradle can be mounted at multiple places on the TE?
You can't even see the opposite side where the cradles are actually mounted so I'm not sure what gives that impression. The box on top is A/C lines and other payload support stuff.
The assumption was based on other pictures I'd seen that unfortunately aren't publicly available.
-
At a glance the mounting system can give that impression I guess, but it's just design change. I can tell you after installing that mess I never ever want to move it. Ever.
-
Does that reaction frame iris open to accommodate side boosters for the FH?
-
Nifty. The Strongback and the launch mount/table/frame are horizontal together for the first time today.
From Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/BQHUvzjFLz8/
-
Does that reaction frame iris open to accommodate side boosters for the FH?
Kinda, at least from what I've gathered via ShawnGSE's posts. The two launch clamps that are currently sitting where the side boosters will go are on removable plugs. There will be six launch clamps around the edge of the pad deck that will be used solely for Falcon Heavy, but will remain in place for Falcon 9 launches. The finished product will look something like this.
Edit: Added a more accurate version thanks to Jim's comments.
-
everytime i see a picture missing the FH clamps i add 6 months to my maiden launch count down
-
It looks like that SpaceX will use 2 separate reaction frames, one for F9 and other for FH?
-
It looks like that SpaceX will use 2 separate reaction frames, one for F9 and other for FH?
It looks to me like there are removable covers. Removing the covers is IMO not more complex than switching the whole reaction frame. We will find out.
-
It looks like that SpaceX will use 2 separate reaction frames, one for F9 and other for FH?
ShawnGSE says they're using one frame.
It makes pretty clear what is removable and how you get from a F9 to a FH pad with the same frame.
-
Kinda, at least from what I've gathered via ShawnGSE's posts. The two launch clamps that are currently sitting where the side boosters will go are on removable plugs. There will be six launch clamps around the edge of the pad deck that will be used solely for Falcon Heavy, but will remain in place for Falcon 9 launches. The finished product will look something like this.
Assuming one TSM per core is for LOX and the other is RP-1. The diagram only works if the green ones are not mirror images of each other . One set of the green ones can be a mirror of yellow but then the other core has to have them flipped 180.
So starting with the lower left TSM as #1 and going counterclockwise to #6. #1, #2, and #4 would be the same commodity and #3, #5 and #6 would be the other.
-
It looks like that SpaceX will use 2 separate reaction frames, one for F9 and other for FH?
No, just like SLC-4, they can add and remove holddowns.
-
It looks like that SpaceX will use 2 separate reaction frames, one for F9 and other for FH?
No, just like SLC-4, they can add and remove holddowns.
Definitely a single frame for everything. The diagram is accurate.
I'll say installing hold downs is nothing trivial. It has taken 2 years to build what you see. This is the most complicated GSE setup SpaceX has ever made. And sadly as dorkmo points out it's missing some parts to make it FH ready. I promise it's high on the priority list. The hardware is there but at this point the pad has to start making money.
-
I'd bet it'll take less than a day to swap out F9 infrastructure for FH's hardware
-
I'd bet it'll take less than a day to swap out F9 infrastructure for FH's hardware
Eventually, in the future, once the procedure is streamlined and both vehicles have flown a lot, you might be right.
For the very first time, considering recent posts, I don't think it'd be "one day" - not even in Elon time. ;)
-
TEL is back to vertical at the pad via. Stephen C. Smith on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/828290701620342784 (https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/828290701620342784)
-
It looks like that SpaceX will use 2 separate reaction frames, one for F9 and other for FH?
No, just like SLC-4, they can add and remove holddowns.
Definitely a single frame for everything. The diagram is accurate.
I'll say installing hold downs is nothing trivial. It has taken 2 years to build what you see. This is the most complicated GSE setup SpaceX has ever made. And sadly as dorkmo points out it's missing some parts to make it FH ready. I promise it's high on the priority list. The hardware is there but at this point the pad has to start making money.
Hopefully, that doesn't mean 2 years to build another one.
-
I'd bet it'll take less than a day to swap out F9 infrastructure for FH's hardware
nope.
-
I'll say installing hold downs is nothing trivial. It has taken 2 years to build what you see. This is the most complicated GSE setup SpaceX has ever made. And sadly as dorkmo points out it's missing some parts to make it FH ready. I promise it's high on the priority list. The hardware is there but at this point the pad has to start making money.
Shawn can you give any insight as to why SpaceX decided to go with a mobile reaction plate rather than fixed?
-
Tweet from Elon Musk (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/828314791819218944) on the status of 39A:
@elonmusk @trylks on a happier note, how is 39-A coming along? Looking good for static fire?
@camdtor @trylks Almost ready
-
Stephen C. Smith's cool photo imposed with F9 for simulation.
TEL is back to vertical at the pad via. Stephen C. Smith on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/828290701620342784 (https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/828290701620342784)
-
Aw man now people will be reposting that picutre saying "THE FALCON IS VERTICAL!!!!"
-
Subsequent tweet:
I spy with my other @SpaceX eye ...
https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/828303951292424192 (https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/828303951292424192)
-
Same as above but BIGGER https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C366CkfVMAAof0W.jpg:orig <- note the orig, this gives you the original image
-
Same as above but BIGGER https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C366CkfVMAAof0W.jpg:orig <- note the orig, this gives you the original image
I know, which is why it's the original that's attached to my post.
-
Stephen C. Smith's cool photo imposed with F9 for simulation.
It's only when seeing shots from this angle that you realise how long the crew access arm is going to be to reach out from the tower to where the crew cabin will be.
-
I know, which is why it's the original that's attached to my post.
I didn't click on the pic just the link :-[
-
This is not at all important to FH, but I was just wondering, what will happen with the Hydrogen tanks, fuel lines, and the gas-burner torch-like thing (don't know the technical name) at 39A? Just sitting there?
-
This is not at all important to FH, but I was just wondering, what will happen with the Hydrogen tanks, fuel lines, and the gas-burner torch-like thing (don't know the technical name) at 39A? Just sitting there?
It'll sit there and look pretty as far as I know. I haven't heard any plans to remove anything from that side of the pad.
-
This is not at all important to FH, but I was just wondering, what will happen with the Hydrogen tanks, fuel lines, and the gas-burner torch-like thing (don't know the technical name) at 39A? Just sitting there?
They will be used for SLS
-
SLS will be using 39B Jim, not 39A, at least not in the near future while SpaceX has the pad.
-
SLS will be using 39B Jim, not 39A, at least not in the near future while SpaceX has the pad.
SLS will be storing LH2 on 39A. NASA did not turnover those assets to Spacex
-
Wait, they will? How will the LH2 go to 39B? Did they install cross-pad pipes?
-
This is not at all important to FH, but I was just wondering, what will happen with the Hydrogen tanks, fuel lines, and the gas-burner torch-like thing (don't know the technical name) at 39A? Just sitting there?
The technical name you are looking for is flare stack.
-
This is not at all important to FH, but I was just wondering, what will happen with the Hydrogen tanks, fuel lines, and the gas-burner torch-like thing (don't know the technical name) at 39A? Just sitting there?
The technical name you are looking for is flare stack.
Yes! Thank you!
-
Wait, they will? How will the LH2 go to 39B? Did they install cross-pad pipes?
No, and the RP-1 tanks are right next to the LH ball along with a lot of GSE. I'll admit I have no idea of the details, but I would be surprised to see the LH ball and the supporting equipment reactivated.
-
TEL is now off the Pad, hopefully a sign that Pad ops for CRS-10 are commencing
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQQjGK3DyLP/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQQgFTil4iF/
-
Wait, they will? How will the LH2 go to 39B? Did they install cross-pad pipes?
It will just be for storage. Tankers will move it.
-
Wait, they will? How will the LH2 go to 39B? Did they install cross-pad pipes?
It will just be for storage. Tankers will move it.
Wasn't there a study to use the LH2 sphere at LC-37B (CCAFS) for storage with tankers to move in the event that SLS required a 24-hour scrub turnaround. Did anything come of the suggestion for a 1.4 million gallon storage tank to be built at LC-39B in time for the second SLS launch?
-
I may be well over my head here... but why not just move the LH2 sphere from 39A to B as a second sphere there? Seems like that would be much more efficient than tanking LH2 between pads. Nasa has some skills at moving big/heavy/bulky items from place to place :)
-
I may be well over my head here... but why not just move the LH2 sphere from 39A to B as a second sphere there? Seems like that would be much more efficient than tanking LH2 between pads. Nasa has some skills at moving big/heavy/bulky items from place to place :)
My guess would be they looked at the trades, would it be worth the cost to move versus the cost of the present plan of trucking from A to B (literally).
-
Considering they already truck it to the sphere anyway... Consider the cost to move the sphere and ALL its associated plumbing, then integrate it into the pad infrastructure, and requalify it. Deploying a few cryotankers every once in a while doesn't seem so bad.
-
Wait, they will? How will the LH2 go to 39B? Did they install cross-pad pipes?
It will just be for storage. Tankers will move it.
If they end up doing this a lot, they might consider adding a vacuum-insulated pipe between the pads. It's only about 2 km, and there is lots of technology for this, developed for the space industry but since adopted by the LNG industry. See here (http://files.chartindustries.com/20881221_LNG_VIP_Solutions_Catalog_Final_lr.pdf) and here (http://www.phpk.com/pdf/2008Brochure.pdf) for some of the many manufacturers. The examples shown are much bigger than anything needed here - they are many km long, and much larger in diameter. Since they used as part of the LNG infrastructure, and many suppliers compete, such lines should not be crazy expensive.
-
Sounds like people are highly optimistic about the SLS flight rate...
-
Sounds like people are highly optimistic about the SLS flight rate...
But it is drifting far off topic.
-
SpaceX will need something similar for the Liquid Methane. Methane has a lot warmer temp than Hydrogen, but the Tank and plumbing should be similar, just not the extremely cold temps.
-
SpaceX will need something similar for the Liquid Methane. Methane has a lot warmer temp than Hydrogen, but the Tank and plumbing should be similar, just not the extremely cold temps.
Which brings up my question, can the same LH2 tank be used or converted at minimal cost for methane?
-
SpaceX will need something similar for the Liquid Methane. Methane has a lot warmer temp than Hydrogen, but the Tank and plumbing should be similar, just not the extremely cold temps.
Which brings up my question, can the same LH2 tank be used or converted at minimal cost for methane?
From what I know,NASA wants to keep the LH2 tank at 39A, and keep it a hydrogen tank. I think someone previously mentioned that they will store hydrogen at 39A for SLS in case of a scrub, in which case they will need more hydrogen for the second attempt.
SpaceX will need a LOT of methane and LOX storage for ITS, not just for the booster, but also for the spaceship AND tanker. From the video, it seems as if they will have 2 or more ITS launches per day during transfer windows for spaceship and tanker launches. Again, that will need a LOT of methane and LOX.
-
SpaceX will need something similar for the Liquid Methane. Methane has a lot warmer temp than Hydrogen, but the Tank and plumbing should be similar, just not the extremely cold temps.
Which brings up my question, can the same LH2 tank be used or converted at minimal cost for methane?
From what I know,NASA wants to keep the LH2 tank at 39A, and keep it a hydrogen tank. I think someone previously mentioned that they will store hydrogen at 39A for SLS in case of a scrub, in which case they will need more hydrogen for the second attempt.
SpaceX will need a LOT of methane and LOX storage for ITS, not just for the booster, but also for the spaceship AND tanker. From the video, it seems as if they will have 2 or more ITS launches per day during transfer windows for spaceship and tanker launches. Again, that will need a LOT of methane and LOX.
Beyond storage (which only allows you to "even out" the peak demand rates), when you launch multiple BFRs per day, you're looking at a steady-state supply rate that's nuts.
42 engines, burning for say 3 minutes, twice per day, is like a Merlin 1D running continuously all the time.
So that's the pipe coming in, storage or not storage...
Oh, and then of course there's the fuel they are sending up without burning, but that's small potatoes...
-
Latest rumor that I've heard (from former coworkers that are still out at pad B) is that there are plans to build a new 1-1.5 million(ish) storage tank at pad B to be tied in with the existing tank there. I know they used to still come over to do maintenance on A's tank and such while construction was going on but I'm not sure if they even still do lately. There's not really much to maintain since the vacuum was released on the tank after Shuttle ended. The system is marked as inert. The cross country liquid lines aren't there anymore, just the tank, vaporizers, flare stack, and some vent lines. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually come pull some of the valves for spares and "abandon in place" I honestly haven't heard at my level if there are any plans by us for the tank, but I don't see why not if NASA turns it over to us. The inner tank is high grade stainless with about 6ft of perlite around it so I imagine it could be used for liquid methane. The (empty) MMH farm is still on the pad as well, but for right now, I'm not sure what use we could have for it.
-
Latest rumor that I've heard (from former coworkers that are still out at pad B) is that there are plans to build a new 1-1.5 million(ish) storage tank at pad B to be tied in with the existing tank there. I know they used to still come over to do maintenance on A's tank and such while construction was going on but I'm not sure if they even still do lately. There's not really much to maintain since the vacuum was released on the tank after Shuttle ended. The system is marked as inert. The cross country liquid lines aren't there anymore, just the tank, vaporizers, flare stack, and some vent lines. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually come pull some of the valves for spares and "abandon in place" I honestly haven't heard at my level if there are any plans by us for the tank, but I don't see why not if NASA turns it over to us. The inner tank is high grade stainless with about 6ft of perlite around it so I imagine it could be used for liquid methane. The (empty) MMH farm is still on the pad as well, but for right now, I'm not sure what use we could have for it.
Wow, great details. Thanks for that information! I was actually wondering what the tanks at 39A and B were actually doing currently (Yes, I think about fuel tanks in my spare time. Don't judge me!). I'd assume the tanks at 39B are empty and 'open' also?
-
SpaceX will need a LOT of methane and LOX storage for ITS, not just for the booster, but also for the spaceship AND tanker. From the video, it seems as if they will have 2 or more ITS launches per day during transfer windows for spaceship and tanker launches. Again, that will need a LOT of methane and LOX.
Beyond storage (which only allows you to "even out" the peak demand rates), when you launch multiple BFRs per day, you're looking at a steady-state supply rate that's nuts.
42 engines, burning for say 3 minutes, twice per day, is like a Merlin 1D running continuously all the time.
So that's the pipe coming in, storage or not storage...
Oh, and then of course there's the fuel they are sending up without burning, but that's small potatoes...
This seems like a lot, and in human terms it is, but compared to commercial LNG and LOX infrastructure, it's still peanuts.
A BFR might contain something like 2M kg of methane. Call this 4,000 cubic meters, more or less. A LNG terminal, such as this one in Freeport (http://www.freeportlng.com/regas_technology.asp), has tanks of 320,000 cubic meters. That's 80 launches worth before you need to refill. And they offload LNG tankers, which can hold 260,000 cubic meters, at 12,000-14,000 cubic meters per hour (http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/161548). That's enough to support a launch every 20 minutes.
Likewise liquid oxygen. The BFR might have 5M kg of LOX. However, a large commercial LOX plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_oxygen_plant) produces about 30,000 kg of LOX per day, enough for a flight every 4 hours. (one Nm^3 = 1.4282 kg)
So the BFR will have lots of challenges, but getting enough fuel for any remotely rational flight rate will easy with off the shelf commercial technology.
-
SpaceX will need a LOT of methane and LOX storage for ITS, not just for the booster, but also for the spaceship AND tanker. From the video, it seems as if they will have 2 or more ITS launches per day during transfer windows for spaceship and tanker launches. Again, that will need a LOT of methane and LOX.
Beyond storage (which only allows you to "even out" the peak demand rates), when you launch multiple BFRs per day, you're looking at a steady-state supply rate that's nuts.
42 engines, burning for say 3 minutes, twice per day, is like a Merlin 1D running continuously all the time.
So that's the pipe coming in, storage or not storage...
Oh, and then of course there's the fuel they are sending up without burning, but that's small potatoes...
This seems like a lot, and in human terms it is, but compared to commercial LNG and LOX infrastructure, it's still peanuts.
A BFR might contain something like 2M kg of methane. Call this 4,000 cubic meters, more or less. A LNG terminal, such as this one in Freeport (http://www.freeportlng.com/regas_technology.asp), has tanks of 320,000 cubic meters. That's 80 launches worth before you need to refill. And they offload LNG tankers, which can hold 260,000 cubic meters, at 12,000-14,000 cubic meters per hour (http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/161548). That's enough to support a launch every 20 minutes.
Likewise liquid oxygen. The BFR might have 5M kg of LOX. However, a large commercial LOX plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_oxygen_plant) produces about 30,000 kg of LOX per day, enough for a flight every 4 hours. (one Nm^3 = 1.4282 kg)
So the BFR will have lots of challenges, but getting enough fuel for any remotely rational flight rate will easy with off the shelf commercial technology.
That's about what I was driving at.
To support 2 BFRs per day you need a sizable fraction of the full-time output of a LOX plant, and a fraction (1/20) of LNG Terminal class piping! Routed from some remote source to the pad.
They'll probably build their O2 plant close to the site.
But based on your numbers, the pad's average LNG demand will be about 350 m3/hr. For comparison, the Trans-Alaska pipeline, 48" diameter, carries today 660000 barrels per day, which according to the internetz is equal to about 4000 m3/hr.
So 350 m3/hr is a major pipeline. I'm sure that many other factors influence pipe capacity (allowed pressure and pressure gradient, viscosity, etc) but still - I'd be surprised if such a pipeline currently exists. (does anyone know?)
Clearly possible, but clearly very impressive.
You'll need on-site storage of course to enable fueling quickly, but that's the smallest of the challenges. If you can build the BFR, you can build the tanks that fuel it...
---
BTW - those LNG tankers that you mention - one of them will support 65 BFR launches. If you need 1+5 launches to send a BFS to Mars, then an entire LNG tanker will support 11 BFSs. (If the numbers above are right)
So soonish, just park the tanker at Port Canaveral (Nestled safely between the cruise ships)
-
A question about the new TE. Assuming that worst case the TE does not retract. Would this doom the launch or can F9 clear the tower with any chance of success?
Though I guess they don't even consider this. The TE will work just as reliably as the hold down clamps do.
-
A question about the new TE. Assuming that worst case the TE does not retract. Would this doom the launch or can F9 clear the tower with any chance of success?
This image shows the upper umbilical lines have some length to them http://68.media.tumblr.com/2ef6be0911da59db90fcd5369044bd50/tumblr_ol6ztq3RMq1ttka3go3_1280.jpg
Which, once again, suggests that the TEL will likely retract a bit prior to T-0. Perhaps not to the same angle the past launches did, but I'd assume at least to give some clearance for liftoff, just in case.
-
I think I finally understand how the new clamp /support system works on the new TEL works. The function of the arms and support pads mounted to the vertical rods which are then in turn mounted to the TEL was eluding me.
People had suggested that the arms /pads could move up / down them for position adjustment depending on payload. But there is clearly no mechanism for that upon close examination. Then it came to me...
The new TEL is designed for a T-0 throwback. But there's some length to the umbilicals suggesting the TEL will angle away somewhat from the rocket ahead of T-0, which makes some sense.
The arms / support pads are on the rods allowing the TEL to lean away from the rocket while the arms / support pads remain in contact until T-0 throwback. I think the angles work out to allow this motion.
-
The apparent pivot points for the upper clamp on S2 seem to have mirror pivot points with nothing attached directly below them. Perhaps some kind of mounting for some sort of brace or w/e for the FH boosters?
-
Makes sense to start rapid retract at ignition, not release. Those new umbilical connections remind me of the MagSafe connection on my MacBook Pro.
It makes me also wonder if there is any active retraction of any umbilical lines in addition to just throwing back the TE. Probably unnecessary and overly complicated considering they can use shorter umbilicals and they would be well away from getting destroyed as the rocket engines elevate beyond the TE.
-
Makes sense to start rapid retract at ignition,
No, it doesn't. There still could be a shutdown
-
Makes sense to start rapid retract at ignition,
No, it doesn't. There still could be a shutdown
It would be better to have the fast retraction start at hold down release. As Jim said, in case of engine shutdown. For example SES9s helium bubble.
-
I would think the throw-back starts before hold-down release. It may be only a couple hundred milliseconds, but the hold-downs shouldn't release until the TE is confirmed in motion.
-
Other way around. If the TE moves before the vehicle has actually launched, then it takes the various connections with it. If the launch aborts in the last bit of time, those connection are what allows the second stage to be de-fuelled and put into a safe condition. As long as the TE moves to a position similar to what is done at present, the worst that can happen is some fried equipment, hoses and such, like we see every launch.
In other words: the TE shouldn't start its rapid fall-back until the vehicle has been released from the launch pad.
-
As long as the TE moves to a position similar to what is done at present, the worst that can happen is some fried equipment, hoses and such, like we see every launch.
From how I understand it the new TE would stay vertical until rapid retract at launch, and would not go in a retracted position like previous SpaceX TEs.
Hold down release and TE retract could be made at the same time.
-
Does anybody think F9 is more vulnerable to lightning at 39A since the pad is not encircled with lightning towers like the others (just the mast on the FSS)? I assume not since such towers were not erected for Shuttle.
-
-
I heard a report long ago that space x will soon build a lighting protecting system like 3 towers similar to pad 40 is this still happening
-
I heard a report long ago that space x will soon build a lighting protecting system like 3 towers similar to pad 40 is this still happening
The lightning tower on the FSS is pretty good, I can't see them building new lightning towers until ITS
-
On SpaceFlightNow's view of the static fire, they had a really nice view of the slidewire escape system on the side of the FSS. It got me thinking, In a scenario where the crew would evacuate the pad, unbuckling and open the hatch to run across the crew access arm to the baskets seems a bit risky, seeing in most cases you have basically no warning of a failure.
The slidewire was built for the shuttle, a vehicle where in which there was no way to leave the pad except for launching, or hopping out of the hatch and getting to the pad perimeter bunker. Dragon 2 on the other hand has a fully comprehensive LAS which is active on the pad. So simply activating the Super Draco's if there was a danger to the crew a-top Falcon seems much safer than spending 1-2 minutes leaving the pad via the slidewires.
Basically what i'm trying to say is that SpaceX might not even bother moving the slide wires up to Dragon level, and trust crew evac to the LAS once fuelling starts.
Boeing though is installing a new slidewire at LC-41, so maybe its part of NASA's CCP specs?
-
LC-38B already has the lightning towers installed, maybe they are waiting until the RSS is removed so there is less in the way
-
LC-38B already has the lightning towers installed, maybe they are waiting until the RSS is removed so there is less in the way
(i'm spending a lot of time on this tread. Its defiantly on of my favs ;D)
39B is "clean pad" (no fixed structures after the FSS and RSS were removed), that makes lightning towers necessary. 39A should stay the same as it was in Shuttle days.
-
LC-38B already has the lightning towers installed, maybe they are waiting until the RSS is removed so there is less in the way
No need. The 39B lightning towers were assembled in sections while it was still configured for shuttle ops.
-
39B is "clean pad" (no fixed structures after the FSS and RSS were removed), that makes lightning towers necessary. 39A should stay the same as it was in Shuttle days.
No, lightning towers were used on 37, 40 and 41 and they had MST's It was found that the single "tent pole" towers are not enough.
-
....(i'm spending a lot of time on this tread. Its defiantly on of my favs ;D)....
Same! For some reason I'm obsessed with reading about LC-39, and I'm mad I don't have more info on [the pitifully small] 39C.
-
I heard a report long ago that space x will soon build a lighting protecting system like 3 towers similar to pad 40 is this still happening
The lightning tower on the FSS is pretty good, I can't see them building new lightning towers until ITS
James Dean in older tweet: (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/671692211495575553) SpaceX also will remove pad 39A's lightning mast and install new Y-shaped lightning protection system.
But plans could be changed, of course.
-
39B is "clean pad" (no fixed structures after the FSS and RSS were removed), that makes lightning towers necessary. 39A should stay the same as it was in Shuttle days.
No, lightning towers were used on 37, 40 and 41 and they had MST's It was found that the single "tent pole" towers are not enough.
Which did not prevent the STS program from using single pole lightning towers on top of the FSS until the very end.
-
39B is "clean pad" (no fixed structures after the FSS and RSS were removed), that makes lightning towers necessary. 39A should stay the same as it was in Shuttle days.
No, lightning towers were used on 37, 40 and 41 and they had MST's It was found that the single "tent pole" towers are not enough.
Which did not prevent the STS program from using single pole lightning towers on top of the ISS until the very end.
And take the highest measured resistance in any lightning protection system at the Cape (110 kΩ) in August 2006.
-
On SpaceFlightNow's view of the static fire, they had a really nice view of the slidewire escape system on the side of the FSS. It got me thinking, In a scenario where the crew would evacuate the pad, unbuckling and open the hatch to run across the crew access arm to the baskets seems a bit risky, seeing in most cases you have basically no warning of a failure.
The slidewire was built for the shuttle, a vehicle where in which there was no way to leave the pad except for launching, or hopping out of the hatch and getting to the pad perimeter bunker. Dragon 2 on the other hand has a fully comprehensive LAS which is active on the pad. So simply activating the Super Draco's if there was a danger to the crew a-top Falcon seems much safer than spending 1-2 minutes leaving the pad via the slidewires.
Basically what i'm trying to say is that SpaceX might not even bother moving the slide wires up to Dragon level, and trust crew evac to the LAS once fuelling starts.
Boeing though is installing a new slidewire at LC-41, so maybe its part of NASA's CCP specs?
There are good reasons to have it (and it's not like it's that hard or expensive). I'll just point to previous discussion by shamelessly quoting myself:
It obvious (to me) that you need a pad evacuation system as well, just consider if something goes wrong with Dragon instead of the Falcon 9. The first example that come to mind is, as Jim stated, fluid leakage. A fitting/valve/veld fails and starts spraying hypergolics inside the service section. I'd want to get out of there in a hurry and preferably not by taking the stairs... A second obvious example is of course a capsule fire :(
-
On SpaceFlightNow's view of the static fire, they had a really nice view of the slidewire escape system on the side of the FSS. It got me thinking, In a scenario where the crew would evacuate the pad, unbuckling and open the hatch to run across the crew access arm to the baskets seems a bit risky, seeing in most cases you have basically no warning of a failure.
The slidewire was built for the shuttle, a vehicle where in which there was no way to leave the pad except for launching, or hopping out of the hatch and getting to the pad perimeter bunker. Dragon 2 on the other hand has a fully comprehensive LAS which is active on the pad. So simply activating the Super Draco's if there was a danger to the crew a-top Falcon seems much safer than spending 1-2 minutes leaving the pad via the slidewires.
Basically what i'm trying to say is that SpaceX might not even bother moving the slide wires up to Dragon level, and trust crew evac to the LAS once fuelling starts.
Boeing though is installing a new slidewire at LC-41, so maybe its part of NASA's CCP specs?
It isn't just the astronauts out there on launch day though. I'd imagine the ground crews would like a quick way out if the need arose, I'll have to ask.
The baskets will be back.
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf
-
For those interested this is a photo I took in 1972 showing the basket near the end of its travel, you can see the bunker the astronauts can escape to or if time they can climb into a modified M113 armoured personnel carrier and drive away from the danger area.
The Astronauts had great fun driving the M113 APC around the area to practise their escape drills.
No idea if any of these escape methods are still in use.
Sorry about part of the photo being blacked out, last film slot on the roll did not quite make a full shot.
-
they can climb into a modified Sherman tank with the turret taken off and drive away from the danger area.
The Astronauts had great fun driving the tank around the area to practise their escape drills.
Not to nitpick, but for accuracy's sake that's an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
-
You can always rely on there being experts on this site , my excuse, it was 45 years ago !!
I do seem to remember being told this by the guide, mind you they are used to building and testing rockets not tanks !
-
Both Gemini and Apollo had quick escape system
-
It is not just launch day. Anytime there is a fueled spacecraft at the pad
-
No idea if any of these escape methods are still in use.
The tank was used in the Space Shuttle days. It is on display in front of the VAB last I saw of it.
-
You can always rely on there being experts on this site , my excuse, it was 45 years ago !!
I do seem to remember being told this by the guide, mind you they are used to building and testing rockets not tanks !
The M113 had a big advantage over tanks. Flip the board on front forward and it could swim. Not much armor though.
-
You can always rely on there being experts on this site , my excuse, it was 45 years ago !!
I do seem to remember being told this by the guide, mind you they are used to building and testing rockets not tanks !
The M113 had a big advantage over tanks. Flip the board on front forward and it could swim. Not much armor though.
Yup, mobility over armor here...
It's not like anyone is shooting armor piercing projectiles at it... It's a soft explosion, a fair distance away.
You just want to leave the area asacp, but even the lightest ruggedized vehicle would do the trick.
I would say the #1 consideration would be ingress - assuming some of the people coming down in the basket are already hurt somehow. They might be using the APC's back-ramp for that, backed up near a blast wall or something...
-
Does anybody think F9 is more vulnerable to lightning at 39A since the pad is not encircled with lightning towers like the others (just the mast on the FSS)? I assume not since such towers were not erected for Shuttle.
The current lightning towers at 39B were rushed to completion for Ares 1X text and were basically built to support the Ares program. As you can see below - the Ares 1X was much taller than the shuttle stack and would have rivaled the height of the lone 39B lightning mask. At any event, the Ares plan all along was to eventually return 39B to a clean pad, making a buildout of the lightning towers a necessity for both Ares 1X test and the follow on program. NASA basically shut the lights off of 39A after STS 135's launch and handed it over to the highest bidder. They didn't even retrieve the MLP. So its up to SpaceX to decide what sort of lightning towers they need. Guess they are happy with what they have for now.
-
I didn't know the ISS was prone to lightning strikes!
Good catch. Corrected.
-
Does anybody think F9 is more vulnerable to lightning at 39A since the pad is not encircled with lightning towers like the others (just the mast on the FSS)? I assume not since such towers were not erected for Shuttle.
The current lightning towers at 39B were rushed to completion for Ares 1X text and were basically built to support the Ares program. As you can see below - the Ares 1X was much taller than the shuttle stack and would have rivaled the height of the lone 39B lightning mask. At any event, the Ares plan all along was to eventually return 39B to a clean pad, making a buildout of the lightning towers a necessity for both Ares 1X test and the follow on program. NASA basically shut the lights off of 39A after STS 135's launch and handed it over to the highest bidder. They didn't even retrieve the MLP. So its up to SpaceX to decide what sort of lightning towers they need. Guess they are happy with what they have for now.
NASA retrieved the MLP several times to test the crawlers however the VAB and the ML Park Sites were at the time constructions sites with high bays being areas for Crawler upgrades and HB platform staging areas et cetera.
also a note: please attach images and do not embed them as people hate embedded images here.
-
I heard a rumor there might be some work on the pad today, any pics? Any tour buses around? Are we ever going to see a rocket launch on 39A? Why is SpaceX taking so ....never mind. :)
-
Photo from Feb 8th:
SpaceX Water Deluge Test at Pad 39A
Water sprays onto Launch Complex 39A during a test by SpaceX of the sound suppression system at the launch pad. The water deluge diminishes vibration at the pad during a liftoff to protect the pad structures and rocket itself from excessive shaking. Photo credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/33023773581 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/33023773581)
-
Is that just water? It looks brown. Is it just dirty or is there fire retardant or other stuff in it?
-
Is that just water? It looks brown. Is it just dirty or is there fire retardant or other stuff in it?
Rust
-
I wonder if they'll start prepping for crew arm installation or even begin installation during the FH upgrade to 39A, or will they install it like how they did with the Atlas one, little by little between launches?
-
A question:
We hear that after LC-40 comes back on line, SpaceX will take LC-39A off line for at least 60 days to modify it for the 3 core Heavy. This includes adding two Tail Service Masts and rearranging and adding hold-downs to the launch table. (LT)
What prevents SpaceX from building another launch table built for 3 cores with new TSM's & hold-downs? In principle this could be done off-site and off-line to the existing design. Then once 40 is back up they would swap the new 3 core LT for the existing 1 core LT. Then upgrade the old 1 core LT for Boca Chica, TX which will need one before it can be activated.
Why would this not be more efficient and/or faster?
-
A question:
We hear that after LC-40 comes back on line, SpaceX will take LC-39A off line for at least 60 days to modify it for the 3 core Heavy. This includes adding two Tail Service Masts and rearranging and adding hold-downs to the launch table. (LT)
What prevents SpaceX from building another launch table built for 3 cores with new TSM's & hold-downs? In principle this could be done off-site and off-line to the existing design. Then once 40 is back up they would swap the new 3 core LT for the existing 1 core LT. Then upgrade the old 1 core LT for Boca Chica, TX which will need one before it can be activated.
Why would this not be more efficient and/or faster?
Presumably the people who would be building the new table for 39A are the same people who are already repairing 40 at double-time. Perhaps on of the folks working the pad can confirm.
-
A question:
We hear that after LC-40 comes back on line, SpaceX will take LC-39A off line for at least 60 days to modify it for the 3 core Heavy. This includes adding two Tail Service Masts and rearranging and adding hold-downs to the launch table. (LT)
What prevents SpaceX from building another launch table built for 3 cores with new TSM's & hold-downs? In principle this could be done off-site and off-line to the existing design. Then once 40 is back up they would swap the new 3 core LT for the existing 1 core LT. Then upgrade the old 1 core LT for Boca Chica, TX which will need one before it can be activated.
Why would this not be more efficient and/or faster?
There are 2 reasons that combine to make it less efficient the way you described:
-Nothing is gained
-There is the additional cost of building an extra launch mount.
The nothing is gained part isn't immediately obvious, but the reason is that they have the relevant pad crew working full time on 40. They won't be available to build something on 39A until 40 is done, so the only remaining advantage is that you would be able to operate 39A and 40 in parallel for most of those 60 days. This would probably only marginally improve flight rate (if at all), and no payloads before Crew Dragon DM-1 in November (and FH, but that is irrelevant until the changes are complete) require 39A.
You could propose staffing up, but that has its own costs, and generally wouldn't be worth it when you only need the extra staff for a few months. We have gotten some good information here from some of the workers themselves that this is specialized work, so you can't just hire general contractors. I wouldn't be surprised if trying to staff up would slow down the schedule due to experienced people trying to train the temp hires.
-
Why would this not be more efficient and/or faster?
Probably because the current reaction frame took a massive amount of work to make, and they're not made to be replaced frequently (if at all). Plus in the long run, one frame with two "little" plugs makes way more sense than two entire reaction frames.
It'd be interesting to hear a more qualified member like ShawnGSE chime in on the specifics though.
-
I wonder if they'll start prepping for crew arm installation or even begin installation during the FH upgrade to 39A, or will they install it like how they did with the Atlas one, little by little between launches?
I imagine that they'll definitely use that time to start on the Crew Access Arm as long as they have the people to do so.
-
Actually, I'd expect because it is such a huge job that it would not save any time.
The thing that comes to mind is doing mods on Vandenberg launch plate in between Iridium launches and then doing an east/west swap. But it's such huge gear, I can' imagine a way to move after doing the changes. Guess that would be a problem for a 39a/BC swap as well.
-
A question:
We hear that after LC-40 comes back on line, SpaceX will take LC-39A off line for at least 60 days to modify it for the 3 core Heavy. This includes adding two Tail Service Masts and rearranging and adding hold-downs to the launch table. (LT)
What prevents SpaceX from building another launch table built for 3 cores with new TSM's & hold-downs?
Presumably the people who would be building the new table for 39A are the same people who are already repairing 40 at double-time. Perhaps on of the folks working the pad can confirm.
I think this is the largest factor. Additionally, and as others have pointed out, it would be more work than its worth since the elements for the 3 core variant are already fabricated and are awaiting integration with the existing 39A hardware.
-
Pad facilities/GSE are hyperspecialized to each location. Usually you build them in location to extreme tolerances.
Very tedious and careful work that isn't "portable".
That makes the most sense to me.
My post explained why it wouldn't be an extra launch plate, but your statement says why it would be a waste to adapt a new one to LC-39A and re-adapt the current one to Boca Chica.
-
I think this is the largest factor. Additionally, and as others have pointed out, it would be more work than its worth since the elements for the 3 core variant are already fabricated and are awaiting integration with the existing 39A hardware.
presumably? (might have missed it)
-
The launch table is not easily detached from the strong back once attached. Building an entirely new TEL is a yearlong effort. And likely the construction is not the gating factor: it's the checkout and integration which eats time.
So it wouldn't be faster nor efficient, esp since the folks who would be working on it are the same ones currently bringing up 40.
-
... Building an entirely new TEL is a yearlong effort. ...
If true then Pad 40 couldn't be ready anywhere close to August, and SpaceX maintains that it will.
-
... Building an entirely new TEL is a yearlong effort. ...
If true then Pad 40 couldn't be ready anywhere close to August, and SpaceX maintains that it will.
Unless they started last September...
-
... Building an entirely new TEL is a yearlong effort. ...
If true then Pad 40 couldn't be ready anywhere close to August, and SpaceX maintains that it will.
Unless they started last September...
So, you now believe that they have two teams, since they were working on 39A at that time?
-
so what youre saying is that TELs are not made of LEGO elements?
-
... Building an entirely new TEL is a yearlong effort. ...
If true then Pad 40 couldn't be ready anywhere close to August, and SpaceX maintains that it will.
Unless they started last September...
So, you now believe that they have two teams, since they were working on 39A at that time?
I've always suspected that the decision to build a new TEL would have been made very soon after the incident at LC40 - it would have been evident early on that the original TEL could not be recovered and unless a decision was made to abandon the pad entirely, then there was no reason not to start work on what would be the longest-lead item for the rebuilding.
As for the two teams - I'd assume that the fabrication of the TEL frame would be undertaken by an outside contractor and then it would be fitted out in situ by the pad team. I think there's a quote in the LC40 thread from someone who's been working at LC39 saying pretty much that.
-
IRT the 40 vs 39A efforts: remember, it isn't a case of "everybody finish 39A and THEN everybody works on 40!". People have probably been moving over to the 40 project for some time and some design and fabrication was probably going for both pads, as well. There's probably a multitude of contracts and contractors flying around on this. Since we can't be "flies on the wall" at planning meetings, we simply don't have enough information.
-
Reddit user MicroMatrixx (https://reddit.com/u/MicroMatrixx) found the NASA video of SpaceX's Pad 39A water deluge test. Here's the link (https://images.nasa.gov/#/details-KSC-20170208-MH-GEB01_0002-SpaceX_Pad_39A_Water_Deluge_Test-3145877.html) to the file in their new online database, and the video file is attached.
-
New Google Earth images from this March:
-
In the upper left of the second picture above, we see a interesting arrangement of wide and narrow water pipes. Does anybody here have any idea why it is set up that way? One wide pipe splits to several narrow pipes, then they rejoin to form a single pipe again before going to the pad, presumably to feed the water birds? Something to make the water flow better, or to reduce hydraulic shock?
-
In the upper left of the second picture above, we see a interesting arrangement of wide and narrow water pipes. Does anybody here have any idea why it is set up that way? One wide pipe splits to several narrow pipes, then they rejoin to form a single pipe again before going to the pad, presumably to feed the water birds? Something to make the water flow better, or to reduce hydraulic shock?
It looks like valving - it's easier and quicker to control flow through smaller diameter pipes that one or two honkers...
-
In the upper left of the second picture above, we see a interesting arrangement of wide and narrow water pipes. Does anybody here have any idea why it is set up that way? One wide pipe splits to several narrow pipes, then they rejoin to form a single pipe again before going to the pad, presumably to feed the water birds? Something to make the water flow better, or to reduce hydraulic shock?
That is shuttle legacy infrastructure. There weren't valves large enough that could react the way they needed.
Those were there before Musk was 10 year old.
-
In the upper left of the second picture above,
So why the interest now? Just because LC-39 has the smell of musk on it now?
-
In the upper left of the second picture above,
So why the interest now? Just because LC-39 has the smell of musk on it now?
Some of us weren't around before, and by the time we would've been looking, nobody was making a big deal out of something as "mundane" as a pad's plumbing. It had been built long ago, and it worked, so there wasn't much interest in publishing "Today's News: Nothing Happened" articles about it. Even had I not been a year or two short of kindergarten when STS-1 flew, I don't know where I would have been able to find things like aerial photos of LC-39A outside of documentaries, which tend to concentrate on big-picture stories.
When I was in high school, my parents ended up with most of a set of "Modern Encyclopedia" from 1967. I loved reading about the planned Apollo missions from before they happened, and I carried that volume with me for years. Still, an encyclopedia article being mere pages, it covered nothing of plumbing or other minutiae, and my only other source was my local library with its necessarily limited selection. It was hard to stoke one's fascination with all things space with what meager resources I could personally find.
So, being fascinated by all things even tangentially rocket-related decades later doesn't mean I'm in a cult of SpaceX. It just means that I happen to live in a great moment in history where access and interest have come together such that a question about pad plumbing older than I am can even happen. Even better, it can be answered. (Valve constraints were the first hypothesis my engineering background suggested; so, thank you for being around and having that knowledge.)
-
Thanks for asking that, ClayJar. I was wondering what that was about as well, and I'm old enough to remember when it was all being built! The pads have an incredible history running through ALL of their history and the snarkiness above was uncalled for.
-
In the upper left of the second picture above,
So why the interest now? Just because LC-39 has the smell of musk on it now?
(mod hat)
The reason for the interest is that space is cool. And that we all love that there is an upswing in what is being planned and achieved. There is no need to bag on anyone for being interested. Be excellent to each other, please
(fan hat)
That said I too was fascinated by the question and really grateful you answered it Jim, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us, none of us have the same set of experiences you do and we appreciate your sharing.
-
...and to add to the discussion of the valve response times--the reason for the system as seen was because the deluge system was staged/staggered. First to flood was the flame trench/exhaust holes in the MLP. Only after liftoff did other above-MLP-surface rain birds activate (to protect the MLP surface). Then there were others that activated to flood the aft end of the orbiter/MLP should an anomaly occur where main engines started, then shut down (as happened at least once that I remember).
-
In the upper left of the second picture above,
So why the interest now? Just because LC-39 has the smell of musk on it now?
Simple reason: I had never noticed it before. I was quite aware that it very likely predated anything Musk. I was just checking if anybody around here knew the reason for the strange design. And your reason sounds as good as any.
FWIW, in the summer of 1980, while I was working as a computer programming intern, I was handed ten boxes of computer punch-cards and told to get the program contained therein to work. Those cards were from NASA, and contained the FORTRAN code for a hydraulics simulation package developed to help design the hydraulics systems within the Space Shuttle. We had a copy to see if we could adapt the elements included to our own work on the hydraulics systems of tractors. As NASA software, it was essentially free for us to use. I got it working, but only with the elements provided for the Space Shuttle. I ran out of time to adapt it to the needs of tractor design, and frankly, I wasn't really qualified to do that.
That was the reason for my curiosity about strange hydraulics. No "fanboi" element involved.
-
I shot this video on April 18, not sure if this is the right place for it
https://youtu.be/ULI6zwz_5yQ
-
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last information was that all the work that is left at 39A for the first FH launch will be done after SLC-40 is active again.
In his last article, Chris Bergin mentioned that "there will be a small gap ahead of the following launch, in part due to the Eastern Range undergoing a maintenance period" until the CRS-12 launch in mid August.
So, will at least part of the missing work be done during this maintenance period? Any rumors?
-
Removing RSS stuff is needful but not necessarily FH specific (needs to happen for FH but..). I hope SpaceX uses this lull to good effect.
-
I wasn't aware of this intended "lull" until now. With a 6 week gap from beginning July to mid August, and with August also likely to be facing many potential delays considering all the transitional work that needs to take place in preperation for FH, and the potential for false starts or growing pains at LC40 before the rebuilt pad hits its stride, it may well be until September before a 2 week cadence gets going again.
Meaning a target of 20+ launches for the year suddenly seems far less likely than it did a few days ago, fresh after 9 launches in 6 months.
-
I wasn't aware of this intended "lull" until now. With a 6 week gap from beginning July to mid August, and with August also likely to be facing many potential delays considering all the transitional work that needs to take place in preperation for FH, and the potential for false starts or growing pains at LC40 before the rebuilt pad hits its stride, it may well be until September before a 2 week cadence gets going again.
Meaning a target of 20+ launches for the year suddenly seems far less likely than it did a few days ago, fresh after 9 launches in 6 months.
Don't forget west coast launches. 20 plus for this year is still probable providing there is not a major mishap.
-
Will any FH/Crew Dragon work be done during the range outage, or just continued RSS demolition?
-
Will any FH/Crew Dragon work be done during the range outage, or just continued RSS demolition?
some of us were speculating they might try to work on the FH hold downs, but i dont think anything has been announced.
-
I wasn't aware of this intended "lull" until now. With a 6 week gap from beginning July to mid August, and with August also likely to be facing many potential delays considering all the transitional work that needs to take place in preperation for FH, and the potential for false starts or growing pains at LC40 before the rebuilt pad hits its stride, it may well be until September before a 2 week cadence gets going again.
Meaning a target of 20+ launches for the year suddenly seems far less likely than it did a few days ago, fresh after 9 launches in 6 months.
It's a three week maintenance lull at the range. With SpaceX's obvious determination to launch just before the start of the window, and plenty of time to align a launch for just after the end of the window, a hiccup of one week in their two week cadence seems the most likely result.
But we'll see.
-
Will any FH/Crew Dragon work be done during the range outage, or just continued RSS demolition?
From what I'm hearing continued RSS demolition work as well as CAA install prep work.
-
So why the interest now? Just because LC-39 has the smell of musk on it now?
You mean the musk of musk?
-
Not sure where to post this ...
No joke: @SpaceX experimenting with lighting pad 39A red, white and blue. Colors shifting as (I assume) they test. Working on a photo.
https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/882072041188413440 (https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/882072041188413440)
Also saw the red, white and blue lighting after the static fire last week.
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/882074148293496832 (https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/882074148293496832)
As promised, a photo of @SpaceX lighting up pad 39A red, white and blue. Not much blue here, but it's been shifting for a white.
https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/882086800751304704 (https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/882086800751304704)
-
If they are using colored filters, the "shifting to white" may be the filter burning through or cracking under the heat load. Might take some experimentation to get (presumably dichroic) filters that can stand up to the immense lights at LC39A.
-
Will any FH/Crew Dragon work be done during the range outage, or just continued RSS demolition?
From what I'm hearing continued RSS demolition work as well as CAA install prep work.
Some initial images to show the status of the RSS from yesterday, not much left of the PCR:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWbGzUQBvHa/
And
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWbKiK5hAPm/
Respectively
-
For comparison from two weeks ago. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43211.msg1696950#msg1696950) They're definitely making good use of the time, will be interesting to see as it progresses.
-
Some initial images to show the status of the RSS from yesterday, not much left of the PCR:
And the PCR is what?
-
Payload Changeout Room. It's the bulky area in the middle of the RSS that was used for loading cargo into the shuttle.
-
It looks like the PCR doors are gone
-
I'm not seeing the difference that you guys seem to see. Show me a before and after from the same angle, and then we can judge progress better.
-
I'm not seeing the difference that you guys seem to see. Show me a before and after from the same angle, and then we can judge progress better.
it looks like they are in the fully opened position to me. SpaceX is lifting and lowering the buket lifts and other equipment via the PCR Shuttle Payload Canister crane/hoist from what I've seen in pictures.
-
Will any FH/Crew Dragon work be done during the range outage, or just continued RSS demolition?
From what I'm hearing continued RSS demolition work as well as CAA install prep work.
In case anyone else is puzzled trying to figure out what CAA stands for: Crew Access Arm which SpaceX is going to be installing on the Fixed Service Structure to support Commercial Crew launches.
-
View of RSS demolition as of today:
Edit: Notice that the upper left truss work is gone
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvJJAxl5kb/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvWPXugJGi/
-
View of RSS demolition as of today:
Edit: Notice that the upper left truss work is gone
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvJJAxl5kb/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvWPXugJGi/
Anymore very-recent closeups of the RSS available?
-
View of RSS demolition as of today:
Edit: Notice that the upper left truss work is gone
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvJJAxl5kb/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvWPXugJGi/
Anymore very-recent closeups of the RSS available?
L2 Level: SpaceX Launch Pads and Facilities Master Thread - UPDATES
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42426.msg1702450#msg1702450
From a KSC worker so closer.
-
View of RSS demolition as of today:
Edit: Notice that the upper left truss work is gone
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvJJAxl5kb/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvWPXugJGi/
Anymore very-recent closeups of the RSS available?
L2 Level: SpaceX Launch Pads and Facilities Master Thread - UPDATES
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42426.msg1702450#msg1702450
From a KSC worker so closer.
Yeah but that was earlier. The pictures above show more dismantling.
-
View of RSS demolition as of today:
Edit: Notice that the upper left truss work is gone
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvJJAxl5kb/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWvWPXugJGi/
Anymore very-recent closeups of the RSS available?
L2 Level: SpaceX Launch Pads and Facilities Master Thread - UPDATES
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42426.msg1702450#msg1702450
From a KSC worker so closer.
Yeah but that was earlier. The pictures above show more dismantling.
Could we see just one closeup photo (a very-recent one) of the RSS demolition here in the public part?
-
Any chance someone here has the time to make a 'time lapse' video or slide show of the removal of the RSS? Doesn't have to be from the same angle, but for us novices here, would be cool to see it becoming less and less, via one video or slideshow. 👍
Thanks!
Splinter
-
From this (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ogxz2/pad_39a_as_of_yesterday/?st=j5d6fzam&sh=d15210d2)reddit thread. Pictures as of 7/19/2017 by reddit user Mysteryman141. Images downloaded from this (https://imgur.com/a/POEoFl)imgur album.
-
Any chance someone here has the time to make a 'time lapse' video or slide show of the removal of the RSS? Doesn't have to be from the same angle, but for us novices here, would be cool to see it becoming less and less, via one video or slideshow. 👍
Thanks!
Splinter
Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AstbjxYNwqM).
This is one for 39B.
-
@SpaceX #39A progresses while range is down for maintenance. Strongback is showing off today. As seen from the @ExploreSpaceKSC tour.
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/888409067110232065
Edit: added 2nd photo from subsequent tweet
-
@SpaceX #39A progresses while range is down for maintenance. Strongback is showing off today. As seen from the @ExploreSpaceKSC tour.
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/888409067110232065
Interesting that the top segment of the TEL has been removed.
-
Stephen Clark @StephenClark1 8m8 minutes ago
NASA’s Greg Williams: Installation of SpaceX’s crew access arm and white room at pad 39A now planned for “late fall."
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/889500990076055552
-
Are they keeping the rotating part of the structure? Meaning they'll get crew access by closing the structure around the F9?
-
Are they keeping the rotating part of the structure? Meaning they'll get crew access by closing the structure around the F9?
No. They are adding a new crew access arm at the top of the fixed tower. The current rotating part of the structure is being removed.
-
@SpaceX #39A progresses while range is down for maintenance. Strongback is showing off today. As seen from the @ExploreSpaceKSC tour.
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/888409067110232065
Interesting that the top segment of the TEL has been removed.
And we were assured by some here that SpaceX definitely does not want to ever again disassemble the top of their TEL. ;)
-
@SpaceX #39A progresses while range is down for maintenance. Strongback is showing off today. As seen from the @ExploreSpaceKSC tour.
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/888409067110232065
Interesting that the top segment of the TEL has been removed.
And we were assured by some here that SpaceX definitely does not want to ever again disassemble the top of their TEL. ;)
No one on here has ever made statements talking about removal of the payload box. Shawn GSE mentioned the upper stage clamp and interstage support cradle, and Jim was talking about removing the entire upper half of the strongback.
-
@SpaceX #39A progresses while range is down for maintenance. Strongback is showing off today. As seen from the @ExploreSpaceKSC tour.
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/888409067110232065
Interesting that the top segment of the TEL has been removed.
And we were assured by some here that SpaceX definitely does not want to ever again disassemble the top of their TEL. ;)
No. We are assured that SpaceX definitely doesn’t want to move the upper support cradle. ;)
The upper section is where payload ventilation equipment is located. Likely being prepped for the somewhat odd requirements of the OTV mission next month.
-
Any pictures of the dismantling of the RSS from the past several days?
-
No. We are assured that SpaceX definitely doesn’t want to move the upper support cradle. ;)
No, if memory serves, we are assured that a member of the pad crew hopes, no doubt for good reasons, that he will never ever ever ever have to touch that again.
-
update as of 17 hours ago:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BXBx-7zly3f/
-
Many thanks!
-
How much of the pad will be taken down?
Will some of the existing structure be retained and used to build crew access on to it?
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
-
How much of the pad will be taken down?
Will some of the existing structure be retained and used to build crew access on to it?
The whole Rotating Service Structure (RSS) is coming down the tower is staying. The crew access arm will be added to the top of the tower.
-
Thanks. Now I get it. Makes sense.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
-
What about the "knuckle" or "hinge", is that coming down too? It appears removed on the CG renders, but that's not a guarantee of anything.
-
Some new pics of 39A, credits to /u/gsahlin (https://www.reddit.com/user/gsahlin) from reddit.
Here (https://imgur.com/gallery/kpU8u) is the complete album with all the pics, a selection is re-uploaded with his permission here.
-
big crane at work today:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BXQrpA-hcQA/
-
From the recent Commercial Crew update at the NASA NAC HEO meeting: the crew access arm that will be installed later this year.
-
From the recent Commercial Crew update at the NASA NAC HEO meeting: the crew access arm that will be installed later this year.
Anyone know what is meant by "F9 - Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum Engine (MVAC) in development testing"?
(As in, I could guess, and other can guess, but does anyone know?)
edit: And why is this in the "LC-39 ...Falcon Heavy debut" thread. This is about commercial crew and the LC-39A work to that end. This slide is not about Falcon Heavy.
-
From the recent Commercial Crew update at the NASA NAC HEO meeting: the crew access arm that will be installed later this year.
Anyone know what is meant by "F9 - Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum Engine (MVAC) in development testing"?
(As in, I could guess, and other can guess, but does anyone know?)
edit: And why is this in the "LC-39 ...Falcon Heavy debut" thread. This is about commercial crew and the LC-39A work to that end. This slide is not about Falcon Heavy.
The Merlin stuff is Block 5 testing (they mentioned multiple engines being tested at McGregor).
I didn't really see any point in creating a separate thread for the commercial crew updates at the pad. (If such a thread already exists, let me know.) Feel free to copy the post into any appropriate commercial crew thread.
-
From the recent Commercial Crew update at the NASA NAC HEO meeting: the crew access arm that will be installed later this year.
Anyone know what is meant by "F9 - Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum Engine (MVAC) in development testing"?
(As in, I could guess, and other can guess, but does anyone know?)
edit: And why is this in the "LC-39 ...Falcon Heavy debut" thread. This is about commercial crew and the LC-39A work to that end. This slide is not about Falcon Heavy.
The Merlin stuff is Block 5 testing (they mentioned multiple engines being tested at McGregor).
I didn't really see any point in creating a separate thread for the commercial crew updates at the pad. (If such a thread already exists, let me know.) Feel free to copy the post into any appropriate commercial crew thread.
Was there some human-rating requirement of engines needing considerable extra margin?
so they need to test that the engines are capable of considrable higher thrust than what they will actually be using on the crewed mission?
-
From the recent Commercial Crew update at the NASA NAC HEO meeting: the crew access arm that will be installed later this year.
Anyone know what is meant by "F9 - Merlin 1D and Merlin Vacuum Engine (MVAC) in development testing"?
(As in, I could guess, and other can guess, but does anyone know?)
edit: And why is this in the "LC-39 ...Falcon Heavy debut" thread. This is about commercial crew and the LC-39A work to that end. This slide is not about Falcon Heavy.
The Merlin stuff is Block 5 testing (they mentioned multiple engines being tested at McGregor).
I didn't really see any point in creating a separate thread for the commercial crew updates at the pad. (If such a thread already exists, let me know.) Feel free to copy the post into any appropriate commercial crew thread.
Was there some human-rating requirement of engines needing considerable extra margin?
so they need to test that the engines are capable of considrable higher thrust than what they will actually be using on the crewed mission?
My understanding is that there were some cracks forming in the turbines of the M1D that SpaceX deemed safe but NASA did not like so there were design changes to eliminate the cracking. I am not a metallurgist nor an aerospace engineer so I don't know how either assessment was made. I don't think NASA had any requirement for the higher thrust though that may have been a side-effect. I suspect the higher thrust was driven by SpaceX's internal requirements for block 5.
-
Here's the crew access arm picture on its own (pasted from the PDF at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf)).
-
Space KSC mentioned in the replies that the Crew Access Arm was being built in an undisclosed location. Was that mentioned somewhere else? A 'Yes' answer means I issed the earlier post.
I don't know where it was constructed, but this was mentioned recently in a NASA presentation:
A few SpaceX notes from listening to the presentation by Kathy Lueders at the NAC HEO Committee meeting yesterday (you can find the recordings here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41630.0)).
The first round of structural tests on Crew Dragon are done, continuing with further testing.
They should do the space suit qualification next quarter.
They have their 5th parachute test scheduled for this coming Saturday.
The crew access arm is at LC-39A, they are waiting until Spring to install it so SpaceX can get the pad up and running for their other launches.
They have been doing unit testing on the ECLSS systems and are getting ready for integrated testing.
There was some discussion about the LOC risk numbers, some general discussion about the SpaceX mishap investigation (there is a team from NASA LSP that is taking an independent look at it). The presentation is a bit long (over an hour) but probably worth listening to if you're really into the commercial crew program.
Not sure if it was built here, but bet the CAA is being stored at this building just south of the pad as it was constructed by SpaceX after receiving the pad:
from maps.google.com
-
Here's the crew access arm picture on its own (pasted from the PDF at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf)).
Why are there ventilation grilles on an access arm that's open to the weather? Can it be sealed somehow?
-
Do we have any specs on the length off the CAA? The distance from FSS to F9 looks considerable?
-
Here's the crew access arm picture on its own (pasted from the PDF at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf)).
Why are there ventilation grilles on an access arm that's open to the weather? Can it be sealed somehow?
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
-
Shot from today's KSC tour by a friend of a friend.
-
Here's the crew access arm picture on its own (pasted from the PDF at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf)).
Why are there ventilation grilles on an access arm that's open to the weather? Can it be sealed somehow?
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
In the photo of the astronauts walking down the access arm, there are objects shaped like sections of cylinders over each window.
To me they looks like housings for counterweights to horizontally hinged, external blast shutters that either close the openings or, more likely, cover the windows.
-
Here's the crew access arm picture on its own (pasted from the PDF at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf)).
Why are there ventilation grilles on an access arm that's open to the weather? Can it be sealed somehow?
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
If this is a cleanroom configuration (and assuming all the "windows" are glassed as suggested by mme), then the lower ventilation grills will be for the laminar air flow exit:
See google images:
https://www.google.fr/search?q=cleanroom+laminar+flow&newwindow=1&tbm=isc
h&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbh7HB87rVAhXLZlAKHYTQC_
8QsAQIPA&biw=1215&bih=897
It would also mean that it's an open (non-looped ) system, probably for simplicity's sake.
-
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
This is Florida. Florida is full of critters that you don't want to bring along to the ISS.
For this reason I can't imagine that an open access arm would be acceptable.
-
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
This is Florida. Florida is full of critters that you don't want to bring along to the ISS.
For this reason I can't imagine that an open access arm would be acceptable.
The Starliner access arm is open with a white room at the end...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/crew-access-arm-installed-for-starliner-missions
-
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
This is Florida. Florida is full of critters that you don't want to bring along to the ISS.
For this reason I can't imagine that an open access arm would be acceptable.
They have been all open in the past. A white room is at the end of the end of the arm and it is climate controlled.
http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-051115a-lg.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/LC-39A_walkway.jpg
Big to do over nothing.
-
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
Glass at a launch pad?
-
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
This is Florida. Florida is full of critters that you don't want to bring along to the ISS.
For this reason I can't imagine that an open access arm would be acceptable.
They have been all open in the past. A white room is at the end of the end of the arm and it is climate controlled.
http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-051115a-lg.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/LC-39A_walkway.jpg
Big to do over nothing.
Yes but why are there ventilation grilles on the ceiling of an open access arm? That seems highly incongruous.
-
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
Glass at a launch pad?
Well when you put it like that...
Curious about the reflection in the photo, but yeah. Sort of embarrassed I suggested that.
-
It looks like there is glass in the closest opening on the right side of the image. Maybe it will be glassed in for climate control? Reduce the temperature and the humidity of air entering the capsule from the hatch and make the astronauts and technicians more comfortable? Pure speculation on my part.
Glass at a launch pad?
Well when you put it like that...
Curious about the reflection in the photo, but yeah. Sort of embarrassed I suggested that.
Maybe lexan?
-
Or ALON, aluminum oxynitride, which will stop a .50 BMG out of a Barrett.
-
They have been all open in the past. A white room is at the end of the end of the arm and it is climate controlled.
http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-051115a-lg.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/LC-39A_walkway.jpg
Big to do over nothing.
The NASA PDF also refers to "crew access arm and white room", so it's a pretty safe bet that this is going to follow the same general pattern.
-
Big chunk of the top of the RSS is gone
https://www.instagram.com/p/BXTvbu1BSAs/
-
Fare well top of rss update per 10 minute ago
-
Fare well top of rss update per 10 minute ago
I re-uploaded it rotated... Hope you don't mind. :)
-
Yes but why are there ventilation grilles on the ceiling of an open access arm? That seems highly incongruous.
Could be it's open for guaranteed ventilation and has vents to control temperatures some by dumping tons of cool air in. You can't cool the whole outdoors, But throw enough cold air at one spot will get partway there.
-
I'm surprised that I find myself not sentimental about the loss of Shuttle history, but excited for the future FH future.
Also, I expect that as they get lower and closer to the deck that demolition should pick up it's pace.
-
A little perspective since it's been a few pages.
-
Time lapse video attached to following tweet showing recent RSS removals:
Demolition of shuttle-era structure at pad 39A in Florida has accelerated during lull in SpaceX launch schedule. spaceflightnow.com/2017/08/05/shu…
https://twitter.com/spaceflightnow/status/893895635082121216
-
My thinking is that the CAA will not be installed until after the 1st Heavy launch (barring an extended Heavy delay). Thoughts?
-
My thinking is that the CAA will not be installed until after the 1st Heavy launch (barring an extended Heavy delay). Thoughts?
I agree, no reason to risk more one of a kind hardware for no good reason. There will be plenty of downtime on that pad post FH demo mission to install it.
-
Do we know what these pieces are for?
(Credit to /u/TheFavoritist: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6rbmkh/rspacex_discusses_august_2017_35/dlfjxxl/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6rbmkh/rspacex_discusses_august_2017_35/dlfjxxl/))
-
Do we know what these pieces are for?
(Credit to /u/TheFavoritist: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6rbmkh/rspacex_discusses_august_2017_35/dlfjxxl/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6rbmkh/rspacex_discusses_august_2017_35/dlfjxxl/))
They look like some sort of support cradle pieces. Perhaps for the side boosters?
-
Since they are getting ready to configure the reaction plate for the heavy, they probably are part of that effort. I'd guess that they support the center core (and adjacent core) on the interior two sides near each booster -- only two 'hold-downs' on that center core, and three on each side core, but full mass when props loaded. I believe the 'hold-downs' also support the static mass of the vehicle before ignition -- then they serve their namesake function.
-
Since they are getting ready to configure the reaction plate for the heavy, they probably are part of that effort. I'd guess that they support the center core (and adjacent core) on the interior two sides near each booster -- only two 'hold-downs' on that center core, and three on each side core, but full mass when props loaded. I believe the 'hold-downs' also support the static mass of the vehicle before ignition -- then they serve their namesake function.
Where on the boosters are these supports going to attach? All twelve octaweb hold-down points are occupied by actual hold-down clamps or connections to other boosters.
-
Do we know what these pieces are for?
Could they be part of the Crew Arm mechanism?
Paul
-
Maybe something to ride the rails up from the HIF? Spacing looks like rail width if you add wheels.
-
Since they are getting ready to configure the reaction plate for the heavy, they probably are part of that effort. I'd guess that they support the center core (and adjacent core) on the interior two sides near each booster -- only two 'hold-downs' on that center core, and three on each side core, but full mass when props loaded. I believe the 'hold-downs' also support the static mass of the vehicle before ignition -- then they serve their namesake function.
Where on the boosters are these supports going to attach? All twelve octaweb hold-down points are occupied by actual hold-down clamps or connections to other boosters.
I would put them under the coupling to each of the side boosters.
-
Since they are getting ready to configure the reaction plate for the heavy, they probably are part of that effort. I'd guess that they support the center core (and adjacent core) on the interior two sides near each booster -- only two 'hold-downs' on that center core, and three on each side core, but full mass when props loaded. I believe the 'hold-downs' also support the static mass of the vehicle before ignition -- then they serve their namesake function.
Where on the boosters are these supports going to attach? All twelve octaweb hold-down points are occupied by actual hold-down clamps or connections to other boosters.
I would put them under the coupling to each booster.
The coupling to each booster is the hold-down point. There’s nowhere else to attach anything to the FH octaweb.
-
Since they are getting ready to configure the reaction plate for the heavy, they probably are part of that effort. I'd guess that they support the center core (and adjacent core) on the interior two sides near each booster -- only two 'hold-downs' on that center core, and three on each side core, but full mass when props loaded. I believe the 'hold-downs' also support the static mass of the vehicle before ignition -- then they serve their namesake function.
Where on the boosters are these supports going to attach? All twelve octaweb hold-down points are occupied by actual hold-down clamps or connections to other boosters.
I would put them under the coupling to each booster.
The coupling to each booster is the hold-down point. There’s nowhere else to attach anything to the FH octaweb.
They've built some coupling and separation device to connect the octa-webs at/near the hold-down points -- the hold-down points are open holes in the octawebs, not 'couplings' or separation devices. Whatever device they've installed to couple the side booster to the core could have a support point below the actual coupling... each of the heavy devices shown above could engage one of those support points. Mechanically doable, but just a speculation that they're doing it this way. (We've known for a long time that the eight hold-downs would asymmetrically support the set of three boosters, so there has been a need for additional load bearing mechanisms.)
-
Since they are getting ready to configure the reaction plate for the heavy, they probably are part of that effort. I'd guess that they support the center core (and adjacent core) on the interior two sides near each booster -- only two 'hold-downs' on that center core, and three on each side core, but full mass when props loaded. I believe the 'hold-downs' also support the static mass of the vehicle before ignition -- then they serve their namesake function.
Where on the boosters are these supports going to attach? All twelve octaweb hold-down points are occupied by actual hold-down clamps or connections to other boosters.
I would put them under the coupling to each booster.
The coupling to each booster is the hold-down point. There’s nowhere else to attach anything to the FH octaweb.
They've built some coupling and separation device to connect the octa-webs at/near the hold-down points -- the hold-down points are open holes in the octawebs, not 'couplings' or separation devices. Whatever device they've installed to couple the side booster to the core could have a support point below the actual coupling... each of the heavy devices shown above could engage one of those support points. Mechanically doable, but just a speculation that they're doing it this way. (We've known for a long time that the eight hold-downs would asymmetrically support the set of three boosters, so there has been a need for additional load bearing mechanisms.)
The 39A new hardware mystery has been solved, and AncientU was spot on with their guess.
They are compression bridges to help hold the weight of the outer cores. They replace the F9 hold down baskets.
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10155724899216318/)
-
Since they are getting ready to configure the reaction plate for the heavy, they probably are part of that effort. I'd guess that they support the center core (and adjacent core) on the interior two sides near each booster -- only two 'hold-downs' on that center core, and three on each side core, but full mass when props loaded. I believe the 'hold-downs' also support the static mass of the vehicle before ignition -- then they serve their namesake function.
Where on the boosters are these supports going to attach? All twelve octaweb hold-down points are occupied by actual hold-down clamps or connections to other boosters.
I would put them under the coupling to each booster.
The coupling to each booster is the hold-down point. There’s nowhere else to attach anything to the FH octaweb.
They've built some coupling and separation device to connect the octa-webs at/near the hold-down points -- the hold-down points are open holes in the octawebs, not 'couplings' or separation devices. Whatever device they've installed to couple the side booster to the core could have a support point below the actual coupling... each of the heavy devices shown above could engage one of those support points. Mechanically doable, but just a speculation that they're doing it this way. (We've known for a long time that the eight hold-downs would asymmetrically support the set of three boosters, so there has been a need for additional load bearing mechanisms.)
The 39A new hardware mystery has been solved, and AncientU was spot on with their guess.
They are compression bridges to help hold the weight of the outer cores. They replace the F9 hold down baskets.
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10155724899216318/)
That's sounds like weight support rather than hold downs. What are the hold down baskets? Are those the removable hold downs mounted in place of the hole where the side boosters would be?
-
That's sounds like weight support rather than hold downs. What are the hold down baskets? Are those the removable hold downs mounted in place of the hole where the side boosters would be?
That is what Ancient U said... and yes, the baskets are the support structure under the side F9 hold downs on a FH-width TEL:
Edit: I'm thinking they attach to the circled points.
-
That's sounds like weight support rather than hold downs. What are the hold down baskets? Are those the removable hold downs mounted in place of the hole where the side boosters would be?
That is what Ancient U said... and yes, the baskets are the support structure under the side F9 hold downs on a FH-width TEL:
Edit: I'm thinking they attach to the circled points.
Yeah, was just clarifying my own understanding not questioning his theory. So we're thinking these won't "connect" to the rocket with a release mechanism, but rather provide static weight support sort of like a little pedestal support?
Is the prevailing theory by those that might know that the items pictured are "right side up"?
-
Do we know what these pieces are for?
(Credit to /u/TheFavoritist: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6rbmkh/rspacex_discusses_august_2017_35/dlfjxxl/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6rbmkh/rspacex_discusses_august_2017_35/dlfjxxl/))
They are not new. They have been sitting at that location since January 2017 waiting to be installed.
-
The reaction frame that houses the hold downs is designed to be modular. As it is the side boosters would sit right on top of the east/west F9 hold downs, that won't work so great. If you look at the renderings of 39A put out by SpaceX you can clearly see what is missing from the FH pic.
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10155724899216318/?comment_id=10155725371951318&reply_comment_id=10155725404781318¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1502471162331493)
-
I shot this back during the lead up to BulgariaSat-1 and just had someone tell me that these grey things are compression bridges to help hold the weight of the Falcon Heavy boosters. Does anyone know where these would be installed? Possibly on the TEL?
-
That's sounds like weight support rather than hold downs. What are the hold down baskets? Are those the removable hold downs mounted in place of the hole where the side boosters would be?
That is what Ancient U said... and yes, the baskets are the support structure under the side F9 hold downs on a FH-width TEL:
Edit: I'm thinking they attach to the circled points.
Yeah, was just clarifying my own understanding not questioning his theory. So we're thinking these won't "connect" to the rocket with a release mechanism, but rather provide static weight support sort of like a little pedestal support?
Is the prevailing theory by those that might know that the items pictured are "right side up"?
I think they are right side up. They aren't hold downs per se, but they if I understand right they will just help support the weight of FH on the pad. FH just sits on top of them.
-
That's sounds like weight support rather than hold downs. What are the hold down baskets? Are those the removable hold downs mounted in place of the hole where the side boosters would be?
That is what Ancient U said... and yes, the baskets are the support structure under the side F9 hold downs on a FH-width TEL:
Edit: I'm thinking they attach to the circled points.
Yeah, was just clarifying my own understanding not questioning his theory. So we're thinking these won't "connect" to the rocket with a release mechanism, but rather provide static weight support sort of like a little pedestal support?
Is the prevailing theory by those that might know that the items pictured are "right side up"?
I think they are right side up. They aren't hold downs per se, but they if I understand right they will just help support the weight of FH on the pad. FH just sits on top of them.
Support posts for between the center core and side cores.
-
That's sounds like weight support rather than hold downs. What are the hold down baskets? Are those the removable hold downs mounted in place of the hole where the side boosters would be?
That is what Ancient U said... and yes, the baskets are the support structure under the side F9 hold downs on a FH-width TEL:
Edit: I'm thinking they attach to the circled points.
Yeah, was just clarifying my own understanding not questioning his theory. So we're thinking these won't "connect" to the rocket with a release mechanism, but rather provide static weight support sort of like a little pedestal support?
Is the prevailing theory by those that might know that the items pictured are "right side up"?
I think they are right side up. They aren't hold downs per se, but they if I understand right they will just help support the weight of FH on the pad. FH just sits on top of them.
Support posts for between the center core and side cores??
Exactly - like this: (apologies for the crude sketch)
-
That's sounds like weight support rather than hold downs. What are the hold down baskets? Are those the removable hold downs mounted in place of the hole where the side boosters would be?
That is what Ancient U said... and yes, the baskets are the support structure under the side F9 hold downs on a FH-width TEL:
Edit: I'm thinking they attach to the circled points.
Yeah, was just clarifying my own understanding not questioning his theory. So we're thinking these won't "connect" to the rocket with a release mechanism, but rather provide static weight support sort of like a little pedestal support?
Is the prevailing theory by those that might know that the items pictured are "right side up"?
I think they are right side up. They aren't hold downs per se, but they if I understand right they will just help support the weight of FH on the pad. FH just sits on top of them.
Support posts for between the center core and side cores??
Exactly - like this: (apologies for the crude sketch)
Ok. That's what I had pictured in my mind, too. Good to know I'm at least not alone in that thought. Some of my thoughts can be kinda lonely. :)
-
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
-
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
Pictures and diagrams are always welcome :)
-
Looks to me like they are upside-down.
My understanding is that the frame connecting the engines to the bottom tank of the F9 attaches to the launch pad at four points around it's periphery. If you hold up the rocket with something supporting a strut between the cores, that strut is going to get a lot heavier to take the entire rocket weight in shear. Really inefficient.
The mechanism pictured looks like it has four points at its base. I suspect those attach to the periphery of the stage frame. That puts all the shear load into something left behind on the launch pad. The mechanism probably has pivots so to avoid sending torques through the rocket.
This brings to mind something that I've wondered about for a while. When the tanks get filled with cold propellants, they shrink a lot. Has anyone seen the detail of how the tanks are mechanically connected to the frame that transmits engine loads, which does not shrink thermally on the same schedule? Without some kind of radial decoupling there is the potential for some very large shear loads in there.
-
Thank you for everyone answering this question about the compression bridges for me! I've been wondering what these were for since I shot that back in June.
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
So are you saying they will be installed somewhere in the red ovals after the two masts (Edit: correct term would be hold down clamps) are removed for FH? Also attached is the clean image if other diagrams need to be made.
-
Thank you for everyone answering this question about the compression bridges for me! I've been wondering what these were for since I shot that back in June.
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
So are you saying they will be installed somewhere in the red ovals after the two masts are removed for FH? Also attached is the clean image if other diagrams need to be made.
I see it being mounted like this: (so the anchors of the two devices would be attached on the underside of the reaction frame)
Converting this thing between FH and F9 is not going to be fun. :o
-
Thank you for everyone answering this question about the compression bridges for me! I've been wondering what these were for since I shot that back in June.
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
So are you saying they will be installed somewhere in the red ovals after the two masts are removed for FH? Also attached is the clean image if other diagrams need to be made.
yes the FH pedestals use the same attachment points as what holds the F9 plugs to the reaction frame I will post the pic above with corrections. Attachment points are circled in blue. The attach points are currently painted white so they blend in to the plugs plugs well.
Same above applies to both the BC (future) and VAFB TEL's
-
Thank you for everyone answering this question about the compression bridges for me! I've been wondering what these were for since I shot that back in June.
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
So are you saying they will be installed somewhere in the red ovals after the two masts are removed for FH? Also attached is the clean image if other diagrams need to be made.
AFAIK, the hold down on the plugs will remain attached to their respective plug and new ones will be installed for FH.
-
Thank you for everyone answering this question about the compression bridges for me! I've been wondering what these were for since I shot that back in June.
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
So are you saying they will be installed somewhere in the red ovals after the two masts are removed for FH? Also attached is the clean image if other diagrams need to be made.
AFAIK, the TSM's on the plugs will remain attached to their respective plug and new ones will be installed for FH.
There are no TSMs on the plugs, only hold-down clamps.
-
Thank you for everyone answering this question about the compression bridges for me! I've been wondering what these were for since I shot that back in June.
They attach to the attach points used by the side core Reaction Frame plugs for F9. Can upload picture if needed to identify location.
So are you saying they will be installed somewhere in the red ovals after the two masts are removed for FH? Also attached is the clean image if other diagrams need to be made.
AFAIK, the TSM's on the plugs will remain attached to their respective plug and new ones will be installed for FH.
There are no TSMs on the plugs, only hold-down clamps.
I meant hold downs. Brady used term mast and I didn't catch it.
-
With all the focus on the demolition of the Rotating Service Structure, what is happening to the Fixed Service Structure?
In the launch video from today @ 8:45 it looks clean, freshly painted, at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLxWsYx8dbo
-
With all the focus on the demolition of the Rotating Service Structure, what is happening to the Fixed Service Structure?
In the launch video from today @ 8:45 it looks clean, freshly painted, at least.
It stays to serve as the Crew Access Tower with the Crew Access Arm and in the future DoD Vertical Integration (if the plan doesn't change). There are numerous discussions on this.
-
With all the focus on the demolition of the Rotating Service Structure, what is happening to the Fixed Service Structure?
In the launch video from today @ 8:45 it looks clean, freshly painted, at least.
They've done some small upgrades to it, for example increasing the height of the lightning protection tower. (for crew safety) So some point touch-ups were probably done during that time. That core tower will continue to be upgraded, it may even be extended with a vertical integration cleanrooms. (I assume similar to the Angara pad in Russia)
edit/gongora: trimmed quote
-
With all the focus on the demolition of the Rotating Service Structure, what is happening to the Fixed Service Structure?
From the publicity pictures I've seen, they're going to clad the exterior to make the FSS look less 1950s neo-brutalist. There will probably be lots of mods for the Dragon-2 Crew Access Arm and White Room but the internal core will probably remain the same.
-
I wouldn't put much stock in those publicity images, as they were also showing the same thing for the RSS while it was still standing. It'll probably continue to look the same, but with a crew access arm to boot.
-
I wouldn't put much stock in those publicity images, as they were also showing the same thing for the RSS while it was still standing. It'll probably continue to look the same, but with a crew access arm to boot.
I don’t know. The cladding installed on the TEL seems to be pretty effective in reducing operational wear and allowing a good launch cadence. I wouldn’t be surprised if they installed something similar on the pad-facing side at least.
-
With all the focus on the demolition of the Rotating Service Structure, what is happening to the Fixed Service Structure?
In the launch video from today @ 8:45 it looks clean, freshly painted, at least.
SpaceX amped up the contrast on its pad cameras, creating that "false color" effect. If you look at launch photos you will see that the tower is still gray with splotches of slightly darker gray in a few spots where newer paint has been applied.
- Ed Kyle
-
I don’t know. The cladding installed on the TEL seems to be pretty effective in reducing operational wear and allowing a good launch cadence. I wouldn’t be surprised if they installed something similar on the pad-facing side at least.
The tower has been just fine without cladding so far, no? Seems likely it is far enough away to not be an issue. Maybe with Heavy that will change.
-
I don’t know. The cladding installed on the TEL seems to be pretty effective in reducing operational wear and allowing a good launch cadence. I wouldn’t be surprised if they installed something similar on the pad-facing side at least.
The tower has been just fine without cladding so far, no? Seems likely it is far enough away to not be an issue. Maybe with Heavy that will change.
It's been fine because up until now there's been plenty of time between launches for repair and refurbishing. With the expected faster launch cadence it might be good to give it more protection.
-
It's been fine because up until now there's been plenty of time between launches for repair and refurbishing. With the expected faster launch cadence it might be good to give it more protection.
Once LC40 comes back into use, the cadence at LC39a should slow down a bit, as it will be predominantly used for Falcon Heavy and crewed Dragon?
-
It's been fine because up until now there's been plenty of time between launches for repair and refurbishing. With the expected faster launch cadence it might be good to give it more protection.
Once LC40 comes back into use, the cadence at LC39a should slow down a bit, as it will be predominantly used for Falcon Heavy and crewed Dragon?
I believe the plan also includes cargo dragon as well from 39A.
While I am sure that is SpaceX's general plan, if they at some point didn't have any dragon or heavy missions in the way, and wanted to launch 3-4 commercial GTO missions in a month to catch up on their manifest, I am sure they would still use 39A as well to allow that.
-
It's been fine because up until now there's been plenty of time between launches for repair and refurbishing. With the expected faster launch cadence it might be good to give it more protection.
I disagree. We've heard directly that the pad has come through with almost no need for refurbishment, and that's including the TEL that has exposed fluid lines. We've had launches that were scheduled for under 12 days and one that was originally scheduled for 9 or 10 days from previous. "Plenty of time" is relative but it seems to me getting below 9 days probably has other gating factors than hypothetical damage to the tower.
-
While I am sure that is SpaceX's general plan, if they at some point didn't have any dragon or heavy missions in the way, and wanted to launch 3-4 commercial GTO missions in a month to catch up on their manifest, I am sure they would still use 39A as well to allow that.
I remember Shotwell said that SES-11 was to be the inaugural 39A launch (pre-Amos 6) and that while they were waiting for heavy and D2 that there would be an occasional commercial launch.
-
It's been fine because up until now there's been plenty of time between launches for repair and refurbishing. With the expected faster launch cadence it might be good to give it more protection.
I disagree. We've heard directly that the pad has come through with almost no need for refurbishment, and that's including the TEL that has exposed fluid lines. We've had launches that were scheduled for under 12 days and one that was originally scheduled for 9 or 10 days from previous. "Plenty of time" is relative but it seems to me getting below 9 days probably has other gating factors than hypothetical damage to the tower.
Getting under nine days only requires deleting the static fire.
-
Except for the Hydrogen, it's all nuclear generated.
-
Except for the Hydrogen, it's all nuclear generated.
??🤔
-
In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded.
Nomadd is referring to the big bang.
-
Except for the Hydrogen, it's all nuclear generated.
Not quite: the output of the big bang was ~75% H-1, ~25% He-4
[plus ~0.1% H-2, ~0.1% He-3 and traces of Lithium & Beryllium ]
Being picky, even the H-1 is the result of nucleosynthesis
But that wouldn't have been funny :-)
--- Tony
-
Except for the Hydrogen, it's all nuclear generated.
Not quite: the output of the big bang was ~75% H-1, ~25% He-4
[plus ~0.1% H-2, ~0.1% He-3 and traces of Lithium & Beryllium ]
Being picky, even the H-1 is the result of nucleosynthesis
But that wouldn't have been funny :-)
--- Tony
There's not a lot of helium or beryllium in rocket fuel.
-
Any recent (past few days) shots of the RSS? Thanks.
-
SpaceX has confirmed that the combined Echostar-105/SES-11 mission will be launched in October 2017 from LC-39A. See: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
What this means is that LC-39A stays in service longer than originally anticipated, before being converted for FH duty.
-
Any recent (past few days) shots of the RSS? Thanks.
Yes in L2 currently. 99 percent gutted with major steel beams/tube starting to come down now. Hurricane may delay a bit any more work.
-
Any recent (past few days) shots of the RSS? Thanks.
Yes in L2 currently. 99 percent gutted with major steel beams/tube starting to come down now. Hurricane may delay a bit any more work.
Thanks for the information. I wish we could see just one picture, haha!
-
Any recent (past few days) shots of the RSS? Thanks.
Yes in L2 currently. 99 percent gutted with major steel beams/tube starting to come down now. Hurricane may delay a bit any more work.
Thanks for the information. I wish we could see just one picture, haha!
You can. Simply join L2. It is not expensive.
-
Any recent (past few days) shots of the RSS? Thanks.
Yes in L2 currently. 99 percent gutted with major steel beams/tube starting to come down now. Hurricane may delay a bit any more work.
Thanks for the information. I wish we could see just one picture, haha!
You can. Simply join L2. It is not expensive.
"expensive" is relative.
-
Any recent (past few days) shots of the RSS? Thanks.
Yes in L2 currently. 99 percent gutted with major steel beams/tube starting to come down now. Hurricane may delay a bit any more work.
Or Hurricane Irma could complete the dismantling for them. (Hope not.)
-
Had noticed that SpaceX took the latest downtime to install some new fairing cradles on the top of the Strongback.
Edit: Perhaps for X-37B-specific lifting/stresses due to a different payload adapter?
-
Had noticed that SpaceX took the latest downtime to install some new fairing cradles on the top of the Strongback.
Edit: Perhaps for X-37B-specific lifting/stresses due to a different payload adapter?
Perhaps it is a requirement by USAF rather than vertical integration? Just a WAG
-
Had noticed that SpaceX took the latest downtime to install some new fairing cradles on the top of the Strongback.
Edit: Perhaps for X-37B-specific lifting/stresses due to a different payload adapter?
Perhaps it is a requirement by USAF rather than vertical integration? Just a WAG
Speaking of vertical integration, will there still be a crane on top of the FSS? If not, how will they use vertical integration?
-
Speaking of vertical integration, will there still be a crane on top of the FSS? If not, how will they use vertical integration?
There's 13 pages of discussion of that right here:
SpaceX Vertical Integration/DOD Market
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40721.0
That thread has been idle for a year now, though. You might give it a bump and see what's changed.
-
That poor RSS!
Does the remainder of the RSS look ready for a hurricane?
NASA may regret not letting SpaceX take it down with explosives.
At least then they could plan the timing of the fall when other things aren't going on.
-
Had noticed that SpaceX took the latest downtime to install some new fairing cradles on the top of the Strongback.
Edit: Perhaps for X-37B-specific lifting/stresses due to a different payload adapter?
Perhaps it is a requirement by USAF rather than vertical integration? Just a WAG
Speaking of vertical integration, will there still be a crane on top of the FSS? If not, how will they use vertical integration?
it is not disclosed yet
-
Does the remainder of the RSS look ready for a hurricane?
NASA may regret not letting SpaceX take it down with explosives.
At least then they could plan the timing of the fall when other things aren't going on.
With most of the cleanroom walls and the upper part of the structure removed, the remaining truss structure is presumably not supporting anywhere near the weight it was supporting before removal started. Moreover there are many fewer flat panels to catch the wind..
I might worry about pieces falling off but I strongly doubt the whole thing's coming down.
-
Edit: Perhaps for X-37B-specific lifting/stresses due to a different payload adapter?
nah
-
Edit: Perhaps for X-37B-specific lifting/stresses due to a different payload adapter?
nah
Whats your best guess then?
-
Probably just a better way to support the fairing/paf in general, especially when going up hill. By using a strap, they can set it to whatever tension they want. If they had a super heavy payload it would take some pressure off the stack.
-
Not sure if this is the right location, but a preliminary analysis of damage at Kennedy Space Center had a few frames of LC-39A. Low res and I had to crop in a bit, but the HIF at least looks fine. Three relatively different angles available, feel free to take a look and see if you can spot anything I missed.
https://images.nasa.gov/#/details-KSC-20170912-MH-GEB01_0002-Hurricane_Irma_Damage_Assessment-3169789.html
-
Edit: Perhaps for X-37B-specific lifting/stresses due to a different payload adapter?
nah
Whats your best guess then?
I'm pretty sure he's not guessing.
-
Back in action!
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZTw3VrHaF2/
-
Wow, the RSS is basically just a structural skeleton at this point.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZcsz93lmw7/
-
Thinks have indeed been changed...
-
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09/spacex-realign-manifest-double-launch-salvo/
The amount of work yet to be completed on the new TEL means it is increasingly likely the Koreasat 5A will be launched from KSC’s 39A.
...
With SpaceX’s near-term manifest its main priority, keeping 39A active for the interim will be an obvious decision over any rush to debut Falcon Heavy.
:( for Heavy
Slipping into 2018?
-
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09/spacex-realign-manifest-double-launch-salvo/
The amount of work yet to be completed on the new TEL means it is increasingly likely the Koreasat 5A will be launched from KSCs 39A.
...
With SpaceXs near-term manifest its main priority, keeping 39A active for the interim will be an obvious decision over any rush to debut Falcon Heavy.
:( for Heavy
Slipping into 2018?
Officially: No.
Unofficially (per various SpaceX sources): Yes.
-
TEL out and about at 39A on 9/27. Will serve as a nice "before" picture for judging whether or not modifications are made in between launches in October.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZhRhU8AgMA/?taken-by=markboers1991
-
does anyone know, are the mods set to be made for FH permanent? I look at how the bottom of the reaction frame looks and wonder if they have to swap out the "buckets" in between FH/F9 launches (as I was assuming they are there to help direct thrust/sound) or if they will leave them out from then on.
-
does anyone know, are the mods set to be made for FH permanent? I look at how the bottom of the reaction frame looks and wonder if they have to swap out the "buckets" in between FH/F9 launches (as I was assuming they are there to help direct thrust/sound) or if they will leave them out from then on.
Those “buckets” have two of the four F9 hold-down clamps attached to the top of them. Since they plan on launching F9 from 39A alongside FH, those hold-down clamps will need to be reinstalled for F9 launches.
-
does anyone know, are the mods set to be made for FH permanent? I look at how the bottom of the reaction frame looks and wonder if they have to swap out the "buckets" in between FH/F9 launches (as I was assuming they are there to help direct thrust/sound) or if they will leave them out from then on.
I don't think they are permanent, in as much as anything is every really "permanent", but I don't believe they intend to swap parts out to launch a F9. There is a set of posts that go under the hold down points where the side boosters connect to the central one.
-
looks like the RSS is nearing its final phase of demolition:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZmN7QuniE3/
-
I think the very last bit of demo might be a bit tricky.. You get to a point where you can't just take one more piece off or the rest of the structure collapses. I'm expecting at some point for the very last bit of work they may have to deploy a second crane or some sort of jig to hold the last few pieces...
-
Having watched the time-lapse of the RSS coming down at 39B, they have more to go than it first appears. There is still a tremendous amount of material there to remove, especially near the hinge structure that connects it to the FSS. They’ve made great strides, though. Maybe they’ll be able to get it down during the FH upgrade window.
-
Having watched the time-lapse of the RSS coming down at 39B, they have more to go than it first appears. There is still a tremendous amount of material there to remove, especially near the hinge structure that connects it to the FSS. They’ve made great strides, though. Maybe they’ll be able to get it down during the FH upgrade window.
I DESPERATELY hope that SpaceX will offer a timelapse of the demolition and construction of whatever follows. I can imagine a wonderfully picturesque and symbolic video beginning with Saturn and ending with BFR :)
-
Notice the boom crane anyone? Looks like reaction frame heavy work...?
-
Notice the boom crane anyone? Looks like reaction frame heavy work...?
it is there between every launch since the Pad was activated.
-
I think it would be great for SpaceX to give some RSS material to NASA to cut apart and turn into gift shop items. I know it's pretty much certain that it won't happen, but I'd happily buy one.
-
A post somewhere here stated all the RSS debris belongs to NASA still so it would be NASA's call.
-
I think it would be great for SpaceX to give some RSS material to NASA to cut apart and turn into gift shop items. I know it's pretty much certain that it won't happen, but I'd happily buy one.
NASA gets all the RSS material.
-
TEL out and about at 39A on 9/27. Will serve as a nice "before" picture for judging whether or not modifications are made in between launches in October.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZhRhU8AgMA/?taken-by=markboers1991
Well these are new.
(also note the fairing cradles but they showed up pre-OTV-5, image on left CRS-12).
My bet, FH side booster nose cone supports for lifting to vertical.
-
TEL out and about at 39A on 9/27. Will serve as a nice "before" picture for judging whether or not modifications are made in between launches in October.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZhRhU8AgMA/?taken-by=markboers1991
Well these are new.
(also note the fairing cradles but they showed up pre-OTV-5, image on left CRS-12).
My bet, FH side booster nose cone supports for lifting to vertical.
They might be for holding fuel umbilicals, but it could be support also.
-
TEL out and about at 39A on 9/27. Will serve as a nice "before" picture for judging whether or not modifications are made in between launches in October.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZhRhU8AgMA/?taken-by=markboers1991
Well these are new.
(also note the fairing cradles but they showed up pre-OTV-5, image on left CRS-12).
My bet, FH side booster nose cone supports for lifting to vertical.
They might be for holding fuel umbilicals, but it could be support also.
FH does not have fuel umbilicals for the boosters, fueling is through the TSMs.
-
Tentatively concluded that the TEL went back into the HIF 9/30/17. AFAIK, both pictures were taken on that day.
Other two pics included for fun :)
-
1/3rd of the FH Side Booster hold-downs have been installed since OTV-5!!!!!
Heavy here we come (eventually) 8).
Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214297538734618&set=pcb.10155884656256318&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214297538734618&set=pcb.10155884656256318&type=3&theater)
-
So can all 8 of the FH hold-downs be left in place for F9 launches and they just pop those two inserts for the F9 in and out from the bottom?
-
Brightened and annotated.
-
Haha you guys are fast! I was going to post my pics here too but someone already did! I am traveling and didn't get a chance to clean up the pics much. But yeh, when @ KSC the other day I was kind of shocked to see the FH TSMs starting to be put in place!
Glad you like the pics I put on the FB page.
- Joe Kelly
-
So can all 8 of the FH hold-downs be left in place for F9 launches and they just pop those two inserts for the F9 in and out from the bottom?
The only changes between F9 and FH will be to replace the two F9 inserts with the FH compression bridges.
-
Some more pics from the tour I was on Friday the 29th
-
Some more pics from the tour I was on Friday the 29th
Amazing work, thanks for sharing! You can so the new "wings" added recently as well, Flying Beaver speculated earlier that they might be structural supports for FH side boosters or side booster umbilicals.
-
So can all 8 of the FH hold-downs be left in place for F9 launches and they just pop those two inserts for the F9 in and out from the bottom?
There has been no clarification as of yet whether the hold downs from the inserts will be removed and bolted to the deck mounts for Heavy or if a second set of hold downs will permanently live on the deck and the inserts will simply be removed.
My sources say its the former but apparently both solutions have been studied.
-
So can all 8 of the FH hold-downs be left in place for F9 launches and they just pop those two inserts for the F9 in and out from the bottom?
I was told yes and yes. AFAIK, the protective launch covers on the hold-downs and TSM's for the FH boosters will be locked out in the closed post-liftoff position during F9 launches.
The people I know could not say more except that you will know more as newer pictures are released by the public from tours in the near future.
-
1/3rd of the FH Side Booster hold-downs have been installed since OTV-5!!!!!
Heavy here we come (eventually) 8).
Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214297538734618&set=pcb.10155884656256318&type=3&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214297538734618&set=pcb.10155884656256318&type=3&theater)
actually half (4/8) because 2 are used for both F9 and FH.
-
Some more pics from the tour I was on Friday the 29th
Amazing work, thanks for sharing! You can so the new "wings" added recently as well, Flying Beaver speculated earlier that they might be structural supports for FH side boosters or side booster umbilicals.
The bottom of the S1 Center core cradle stanchion lines up perfectly with the new Stanchions for S0 Side core cradles. The locking cradle arms at top of the TEL is for the S2 and the lower cradles are for S1.
-
Some more pics from the tour I was on Friday the 29th
Amazing work, thanks for sharing! You can so the new "wings" added recently as well, Flying Beaver speculated earlier that they might be structural supports for FH side boosters or side booster umbilicals.
The bottom of the S1 Center core cradle stanchion lines up perfectly with the new Stanchions for S0 Side core cradles. The locking cradle arms at top of the TEL is for the S2 and the lower cradles are for S1.
Mostly agreed. To me, it looks like the S1 cradle is actually in contact with the interstage a couple meters above S1's gridfins. The additional side core stanchions appear to be a couple meters lower, which makes sense given that side cores have nosecones in the place of an interstage. So their cradles will likely make contact directly below the nosecone attachment points or conform to the curve of the nosecones.
Edit: 100% confident, now. If you note the gap on the rear of the TEL just below the interstage cradle, it's also just above the newly-added stanchions.
-
Some more pics from the tour I was on Friday the 29th
Amazing work, thanks for sharing! You can so the new "wings" added recently as well, Flying Beaver speculated earlier that they might be structural supports for FH side boosters or side booster umbilicals.
The bottom of the S1 Center core cradle stanchion lines up perfectly with the new Stanchions for S0 Side core cradles. The locking cradle arms at top of the TEL is for the S2 and the lower cradles are for S1.
Mostly agreed. To me, it looks like the S1 cradle is actually in contact with the interstage a couple meters above S1's gridfins. The additional side core stanchions appear to be a couple meters lower, which makes sense given that side cores have nosecones in the place of an interstage. So their cradles will likely make contact directly below the nosecone attachment points or conform to the curve of the nosecones.
Edit: 100% confident, now. If you note the gap on the rear of the TEL just below the interstage cradle, it's also just above the newly-added stanchions.
The cradle position is adjustable. Given that FH dry mass is greater I would expect the center cradle to be lowered to the same cradle position as the side boosters to facilitate symmetric stage support during rollout. The center TEL cradles looked to have motor install points earlier during construction.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171002/be32d7c04f9d708740d41bf84ba39885.jpg)
From this image, and similar ones I’ve seen recently, it seems to me the “port” and “starboard” (left and right) hold downs are on a movable armored deck that allow them to shift outboard for FH launches. In the attached image you can see the receiving rails to lock them into their respective FH positions, as well as the multi segmented covers for the associated control/power/etc lines that allow for extension/retraction. It’s actually pretty amazing and some incredible engineering.
Great photos - thanks!
-
No, they are not able to be repositioned. They are removed and others are installed
-
Being that work seems to be happening on the TEL between launches, any word on if there will still need to be a month+ of down time to prepare the pad for Falcon Heavy? Granted, there will still be a long launch campaign for the first heavy, but I wouldn't consider that down time if the pad and equipment itself are already prepared for the vehicle. Everything else would seem to be fit, fueling, and operation checks utilizing the vehicle.
Regarding the new hold-downs that recently appeared, there seems to be some discussion if the two hold-downs on the removable plugs will be moved to the outside when configured for a heavy launch or if two additional ones will reside at the outside points all the time. For speed of conversion between vehicles, I'd argue for the later. Disconnecting the lines and dropping the plugs out with hold-downs still attached seems a lot quicker operation than having to unbolt the hold-downs (with plumbing), reinstall them at the outboard positions, and then drop the plugs. Seems like having to move the hold-downs could add several days to the conversion process between vehicles, which would not be desirable considering the launch cadence SpaceX is trying to maintain.
-
First is not the best view, but a behind-the-scenes view nonetheless :) Second is muuuuch rarer, taken at or near the top of LC-39A's fixed service structure.
-
First is not the best view, but a behind-the-scenes view nonetheless :) Second is muuuuch rarer, taken at or near the top of LC-39A's fixed service structure.
When was the pictuture taken? F9 is still on the pad?
-
First is not the best view, but a behind-the-scenes view nonetheless :) Second is muuuuch rarer, taken at or near the top of LC-39A's fixed service structure.
When was the pictuture taken? F9 is still on the pad?
Sunrise shot (I think?) was posted an hour ago. Looks like a vertical TEL to me, so I would guess it was taken earlier this week. Also possible that SpaceX is pad testing after the post-static fire issue that led to the delay. Unclear!
The top-of-FSS view was posted 10/4, I believe.
-
Just found these absolutely gorgeous photos of the RSS and FSS, dated almost exactly a year ago (10/6/16). Instagram is not disappointing me in the slightest...
-
First is not the best view, but a behind-the-scenes view nonetheless :) Second is muuuuch rarer, taken at or near the top of LC-39A's fixed service structure.
When was the pictuture taken? F9 is still on the pad?
When I look very closely at the photo of the pad, I'm pretty sure there is a Falcon 9 with the TEL still! :)
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171002/be32d7c04f9d708740d41bf84ba39885.jpg)
From this image, and similar ones I’ve seen recently, it seems to me the “port” and “starboard” (left and right) hold downs are on a movable armored deck that allow them to shift outboard for FH launches. In the attached image you can see the receiving rails to lock them into their respective FH positions, as well as the multi segmented covers for the associated control/power/etc lines that allow for extension/retraction. It’s actually pretty amazing and some incredible engineering.
Great photos - thanks!
Zooming in on the photo of the pad from below from SES launch suggests another hold down for heavy has been added. Far right hold down closest to FSS.
Heh... looks like they were indecisive about the framing.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171011/1a6cd999ba42a227b06e93f1cbd0eaf5.jpg)
Edit: turns out that with closer in views that what I thought was a new hold-down was a shadow.
-
I'm not sure I see an additional clamp, aside from the two we already spotted.
-
I'm not sure I see an additional clamp, aside from the two we already spotted.
Correct. No new hold down installed. Just a shadow.
-
I'm not sure I see an additional clamp, aside from the two we already spotted.
Correct. No new hold down installed. Just a shadow.
Oh wow, I can really see the where the confusion came from. Does look a bit like a clamp. As I understand it, the only additional clamps that might be added before FH integration tests are the two opposite of those recently installed. According to Jim, the clamps/insets on the sides are modular and will likely just be removed and replaced with FH-specific clamps.
-
2 of 6 new clamps installed.
Much of rss removed.
If Hispasat from SLC-40 but CRS-13 from LC39A, then only a few days from Oct 11, then a couple of weeks from each of Oct 30 and Nov 29. Hmm, could that be sufficient to allow Heavy demo before end of year? Seems a bit tight but maybe if both CRS-13 and Hispasat are from SLC-40?
Any thoughts or is it too difficult to speculate on what proportion of '60 days work' has been done?
-
I was wondering how they would attach the booster umbilicals and this image appears to show how that will be accomplished. I've put red boxes around what I assume to be the connection point for the umbilicals on that side of the reaction frame.
I am posting from my work computer so I hope the image shows in the message and not as an attachment.
-
I was wondering how they would attach the booster umbilicals and this image appears to show how that will be accomplished. I've put red boxes around what I assume to be the connection point for the umbilicals on that side of the reaction frame.
I am posting from my work computer so I hope the image shows in the message and not as an attachment.
yes the Tail Service Mast Umbilicals will be permanently installed at those points.
-
Image from the Koreasat launch thread:
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43901.0;attach=1456715;image)
It doesn't look like anything more has been taken off of the RSS lately. Have they reached a point where they can't remove anything else without compromising the stability of the remaining structure? At some point, I'd expect them to put some bracing under it so that they can start taking down the remaining sections in the bridge between the wheel carriage and FSS hinge.
-
Part of me thinks that they might just wait until Zuma is launched. That would give the pad team a solid month to focus on RSS demolition uninterrupted.
It may not be a priority, though. I sincerely doubt that it *needs* to be removed for FH to launch, given that it was designed to survive Shuttle.
-
More from the KoreaSat-5 Update:
From the SpaceX photos on the KoreaSat thread. Was it public that the outside east and west holddowns were installed? I remember seeing that the outside north side ones were installed, but can't find that picture now.
The previous image that supposedly showed the outside west hold-down installed in fact showed a shadow: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41015.msg1735121#msg1735121 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41015.msg1735121#msg1735121)
The new Koreasat image however clearly shows that the east and west outside hold-downs are now installed.
My crop:
-
Image from the Koreasat launch thread:
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43901.0;attach=1456715;image)
It doesn't look like anything more has been taken off of the RSS lately. Have they reached a point where they can't remove anything else without compromising the stability of the remaining structure?
Nope. A closer look at some of the other pics and you can see a couple of lifts (orange and brown) that were lifted (probably by crane) onto the RSS. Looks like they will be left there for the Koreasat launch.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
I'm going to say it once more - it's my theory that the East and West F9 holddowns rotate and translate to become the Falcon Heavy south holddowns, and the two plugs (the white structures you see under the reaction frame) that they currently are mounted to get removed.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
I'm going to say it once more - it's my theory that the East and West F9 holddowns rotate and translate to become the Falcon Heavy south holddowns, and the two plugs (the white structures you see under the reaction frame) that they currently are mounted to get removed.
That would make sense - I mean, they have to move/remove those plugs to accommodate the side boosters anyway, right?
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
I'm going to say it once more - it's my theory that the East and West F9 holddowns rotate and translate to become the Falcon Heavy south holddowns, and the two plugs (the white structures you see under the reaction frame) that they currently are mounted to get removed.
They don’t, they get pulled out and replaced by compression bridges. All FH hold-downs will be permanently in place on the reaction frame.
ShawnGSE, Jim, russianhalo, and others have all confirmed this.
-
I believe there was a picture of the compression bridges a few months ago, but does anyone have a drawing of how they interface (or rest in proximity to) the rocket? Trying to get a good mental image of how this all fits together.
It definitely makes more sense for the current holddowns to be permanently mounted to the plugs. More work to dismount and remount them on alternate positions than just dropping them out with the plugs. The former would slow down switching between F9 and FH.
Hopefully only one more launch and we'll finally get to see the whole stack put together and vertical.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
Another view from the missing segment of the live webcast.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
Another view from the missing segment of the live webcast.
The view from the missing segment of the live webcast shows the 2 south side TSM's installed. The remaining 2 North side HD's and TSM's will likely be installed before the ZUMA launch completing installations on the top side of the reaction frame. In simplistic terms all that is left to do is installing the remaining electrical, data, and plumbing on the underside of the reaction frame and finish kitting out the TEL mast itself.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
Another view from the missing segment of the live webcast.
The view from the missing segment of the live webcast shows the 2 south side TSM's installed. The remaining 2 North side HD's and TSM's will likely be installed before the ZUMA launch completing installations on the top side of the reaction frame. In simplistic terms all that is left to do is installing the remaining electrical, data, and plumbing on the underside of the reaction frame and finish kitting out the TEL mast itself.
North (top) ones are there. South (bottom) are not.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
Another view from the missing segment of the live webcast.
The view from the missing segment of the live webcast shows the 2 south side TSM's installed. The remaining 2 North side HD's and TSM's will likely be installed before the ZUMA launch completing installations on the top side of the reaction frame. In simplistic terms all that is left to do is installing the remaining electrical, data, and plumbing on the underside of the reaction frame and finish kitting out the TEL mast itself.
North (top) ones are there. South (bottom) are not.
I had my cardinal directions backwards.
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
Another view from the missing segment of the live webcast.
Ok, I know I’m a broken record here - and certainly time will tell - but that West clamp will articulate down into a South clamp for FH. Look at how overstacked the armor is over the wiring / plumbing for that clamp. It’s to allow that wiring / plumbing to lengthen and change direction when it’s extended down into its FH South position.
I know many of the experts here say it’s not so, and certainly they are quite qualified, but I’m going to say my own engineering eyes see it differently...
-
I believe there was a picture of the compression bridges a few months ago, but does anyone have a drawing of how they interface (or rest in proximity to) the rocket? Trying to get a good mental image of how this all fits together.
It definitely makes more sense for the current holddowns to be permanently mounted to the plugs. More work to dismount and remount them on alternate positions than just dropping them out with the plugs. The former would slow down switching between F9 and FH.
Hopefully only one more launch and we'll finally get to see the whole stack put together and vertical.
Here you are from a ways upthread. I think this is the prevailing theory.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171101/dbbf72a067b691927fab3f587d455fb5.jpg)
Exactly - like this: (apologies for the crude sketch)
-
Here's the launch table at rollout for KoreaSat. Doesn't look like the south side holddowns are there.
Another view from the missing segment of the live webcast.
Ok, I know I’m a broken record here - and certainly time will tell - but that West clamp will articulate down into a South clamp for FH. Look at how overstacked the armor is over the wiring / plumbing for that clamp. It’s to allow that wiring / plumbing to lengthen and change direction when it’s extended down into its FH South position.
I know many of the experts here say it’s not so, and certainly they are quite qualified, but I’m going to say my own engineering eyes see it differently...
For that to be true wouldn't the wiring and plumbing cross where the booster is supposed to be? The armor is simply just to protect said wiring/plumbing from the flame with a single stick launch. Most likely the hold downs that will need to be removed will stay attached to the plates for the left and right sides that can be removed, for easy removal/re-adding.
-
I believe there was a picture of the compression bridges a few months ago, but does anyone have a drawing of how they interface (or rest in proximity to) the rocket? Trying to get a good mental image of how this all fits together.
It definitely makes more sense for the current holddowns to be permanently mounted to the plugs. More work to dismount and remount them on alternate positions than just dropping them out with the plugs. The former would slow down switching between F9 and FH.
Hopefully only one more launch and we'll finally get to see the whole stack put together and vertical.
Here you are from a ways upthread. I think this is the prevailing theory.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171101/dbbf72a067b691927fab3f587d455fb5.jpg)
Exactly - like this: (apologies for the crude sketch)
Thanks, that is the one. Of course, now I'm going to be scanning through every photo I can find trying to spot the bolt points for those bridges on the mount. Also, any thoughts on if these are going to get the same grey (presumably fire resistant) paint job as the rest of the mount? They are sure to get well toasted when the rocket lifts off.
-
Thanks, that is the one. Of course, now I'm going to be scanning through every photo I can find trying to spot the bolt points for those bridges on the mount.
I'm thinking they go where I've highlighted here.
-
Thanks, that is the one. Of course, now I'm going to be scanning through every photo I can find trying to spot the bolt points for those bridges on the mount.
I'm thinking they go where I've highlighted here.
hmmm...so another question. I know Im going to mess up this terminology badly, but the buckets hang down in the middle (presumably to direct exhaust, etc down) currently. When they remove the buckets will there be similar structures added to the frame on the outer edges to perform the same function? Or has it been determined that those structures do not provide as much use as they had thought (ie, over-engineered)?
-
Thanks, that is the one. Of course, now I'm going to be scanning through every photo I can find trying to spot the bolt points for those bridges on the mount.
I'm thinking they go where I've highlighted here.
hmmm...so another question. I know Im going to mess up this terminology badly, but the buckets hang down in the middle (presumably to direct exhaust, etc down) currently. When they remove the buckets will there be similar structures added to the frame on the outer edges to perform the same function? Or has it been determined that those structures do not provide as much use as they had thought (ie, over-engineered)?
It may be that this kind of exhaust ducting is not necessary for FH at all. But for F9 there could be some odd re-circulation effects without them. Just speculating.
-
Thanks, that is the one. Of course, now I'm going to be scanning through every photo I can find trying to spot the bolt points for those bridges on the mount.
I'm thinking they go where I've highlighted here.
hmmm...so another question. I know Im going to mess up this terminology badly, but the buckets hang down in the middle (presumably to direct exhaust, etc down) currently. When they remove the buckets will there be similar structures added to the frame on the outer edges to perform the same function? Or has it been determined that those structures do not provide as much use as they had thought (ie, over-engineered)?
It may be that this kind of exhaust ducting is not necessary for FH at all. But for F9 there could be some odd re-circulation effects without them. Just speculating.
I don't remember if we have seen a good overhead image of the pad without the TEL but it may be that the hole in the structure it mates to matches the inner rectangular part of the reaction frame. This would go well with the extent of the light gray paint (presumably different from the dark grey) and the relatively unprotected look of some of the plumbing on the bottom of the reaction frame. Then they might not be needed as Lars-J suggested.
-
I believe there was a picture of the compression bridges a few months ago, but does anyone have a drawing of how they interface (or rest in proximity to) the rocket? Trying to get a good mental image of how this all fits together.
It definitely makes more sense for the current holddowns to be permanently mounted to the plugs. More work to dismount and remount them on alternate positions than just dropping them out with the plugs. The former would slow down switching between F9 and FH.
Hopefully only one more launch and we'll finally get to see the whole stack put together and vertical.
Here you are from a ways upthread. I think this is the prevailing theory.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171101/dbbf72a067b691927fab3f587d455fb5.jpg)
Exactly - like this: (apologies for the crude sketch)
I am endlessly amused that this 5 min photoshop scribble of mine (and another) ended up as an image in the latest NasaSpaceFlight article on FH. ;D
Maybe I can have a 2nd career as a cartoonish technical artist. ;)
-
Is it still known if the CRS mission will launch from 39A? (Of course, post FH-1 craziness)
-
Is it still known if the CRS mission will launch from 39A? (Of course, post FH-1 craziness)
CRS-13 is currently scheduled to use Pad 40, CRS-14 is planned to go back to 39A as the first flight using 39A after the FH demo.
-
Is it still known if the CRS mission will launch from 39A? (Of course, post FH-1 craziness)
CRS-13 is currently scheduled to use Pad 40, CRS-14 is planned to go back to 39A as the first flight using 39A after the FH demo.
I knew about 13, but not 14. Thanks!
-
So for F9 on 39A, are they going to have only two holddown clamps then? Or will they install something on the compression bridges?
-
So for F9 on 39A, are they going to have only two holddown clamps then? Or will they install something on the compression bridges?
For FH, the "plugs" that block exhaust recirculation from below on single-stick F9 launches, and which contain the side hold-downs for an F9, are removed. To convert back to single-stick F9's, the plugs, and their attached hold-downs, are put back in. At least, that's how I understand it will work...
-
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
-
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
Right. But FH flights won't be that common, and even if they are, hopefully the work to transform the transporter/erector will be streamlined as more experience is gained.
-
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
Right. But FH flights won't be that common, and even if they are, hopefully the work to transform the transporter/erector will be streamlined as more experience is gained.
Or they'll build 2.
-
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
Right. But FH flights won't be that common, and even if they are, hopefully the work to transform the transporter/erector will be streamlined as more experience is gained.
Or they'll build 2.
How would replacing the entire reaction frame be easier than switching out the two plugs?
-
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
Right. But FH flights won't be that common, and even if they are, hopefully the work to transform the transporter/erector will be streamlined as more experience is gained.
Or they'll build 2.
It is very unlikely they will build two different bases to the transporter/erector... This thing has a *LOT* of plumbing. (see picture)
And two complete transporter/erectors won't happen, it is way too big.
-
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
Right. But FH flights won't be that common, and even if they are, hopefully the work to transform the transporter/erector will be streamlined as more experience is gained.
Or they'll build 2.
How would replacing the entire reaction frame be easier than switching out the two plugs?
Believe @Lar is mistaken. They will build more than 2 transporter/erector not 2 reaction tables per pad. SpaceX needs the redundancy in workable transporter/erector per pad. After all don't think anyone have the idea of launching something like the Falcon Heavy every few weeks or so before. Maybe even in a few days in a surge scenario. It is better to have a few spare transporter/erector laying around in case something happen to the primary or for maintenance. Or retirements due to wear and tear on the transporter/erector after 100+ launches in a few years.
SpaceX can not afford to have a pad out of commission for a long period of time from the lack of a working transporter/erector.
....
It is very unlikely they will build two different bases to the transporter/erector... This thing has a *LOT* of plumbing. (see picture)
And two complete transporter/erectors won't happen, it is way too big.
Disagree. Think it is better to have a few spares than scrambling to build a new one after an incident.
-
....
It is very unlikely they will build two different bases to the transporter/erector... This thing has a *LOT* of plumbing. (see picture)
And two complete transporter/erectors won't happen, it is way too big.
Disagree. Think it is better to have a few spares than scrambling to build a new one after an incident.
Where will this spare be placed? And do you really think that disassembling the T/E, moving the old pieces away, bringing new pieces in, assembling the new T/E - that this will be easier than just replacing some plugs and hold-downs?
As far as having a few spares - sure, I'd love to have some extra cars and houses, but that doesn't mean it is practical or affordable.
-
Or they'll build 2.
Apart from the reasons others have given, that would be a major investment into a system that they hope to phase out and replace within the next few years.
-
Or they'll build 2.
Apart from the reasons others have given, that would be a major investment into a system that they hope to phase out and replace within the next few years.
Do we actually know what the investment is? My suggestion is that they build two of everything, the reaction frame and the transporter erector (so no disassembly or remates required), the whole kit, both convertable between FH and F9 but leave one set up for FH and one for F9. Where to keep the spare? In a new building. Sized big enough for the kit (frame, erector, whatever it might be) that will go in 39A for BFR/BFS to be stored as well. Redundancy and faster cycle times from not switching back and forth are the big payoffs.
SpaceX has not been shy about investing in things that were eventually going to be obsolete. And while I beleive BFR/BFS will be flying soon(ish) I don't see F9 going completely away for at least a decade.
I don't think this is certain, I'd put the probability at less than 50% but I do think it's possible.
-
Do we actually know what the investment is?
I think we don't. We do know that the planned investment for Boca Chica, including pad with pad infrastructure, TEL, hangar, control center and satellite processing facilities plus secondary buildings like workshops is ~$100 million.
I guess a TEL will be less than half that.
-
I wouldn't say 'Build 2' as in having two T/E
But after a few switches from F9 to FH and back they will come up with a new design that simplifies the switching process, so instead of 'Build 2' lets say 'Build a 2nd' new one with a new improved design.
In reality it wouldn't mean building a new one, but after a few switches I would not be surprised if they take a break to do some rework.
-
That's assuming they haven't already built it to make it easy to switch between F9 and FH. How much easier could it get?
-
Falcon Heavy "claws".
"talons"
While I grant you that they have the appearance of claws/talons, if we consider function when naming, those are obviously "jesses".
-
Cross posting my reply to a post that shows outfitting progress ahead of the ZUMA launch (I bolded the text describing the recent additions in the posts images):
This may be normal but I find it interesting:
SpaceX Falcon 9 Strongback still sits on top of LC-39A following Monday's successful launch.
https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272 (https://twitter.com/NASA_Nerd/status/926871276341174272)
They finally installed the final 2 rain birds on the north side of the pad. Only 2 Hold Downs (HD) and 2 Tail Service Masts (TSM) and final TEL outfitting for FH visibly remain to be installed.
-
something funny with that set of quotes, can you triple check? seems to be triplicated.
-
Looks like more of the RSS has gone recently. Attached shot by Trevor Mahlmann taken today (original posting here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1750654#msg1750654)).
-
Do we know if the final 2 hold-down clamps have been installed? I have yet to see a photo from the Zuma campaign that confirms/denies the installation.
-
That's assuming they haven't already built it to make it easy to switch between F9 and FH. How much easier could it get?
Obviously SpaceX knows that and certainly built the new TEL with that in mind, I was only responding to 'or they'll build 2' and the recognition that despite their building the TEL with this in mind, it's still quite possible that after a few times they will realize that there is yet a better way to do this.
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
Right. But FH flights won't be that common, and even if they are, hopefully the work to transform the transporter/erector will be streamlined as more experience is gained.
Or they'll build 2.
-
Do we know if the final 2 hold-down clamps have been installed? I have yet to see a photo from the Zuma campaign that confirms/denies the installation.
They have not been
-
That's assuming they haven't already built it to make it easy to switch between F9 and FH. How much easier could it get?
Obviously SpaceX knows that and certainly built the new TEL with that in mind, I was only responding to 'or they'll build 2' and the recognition that despite their building the TEL with this in mind, it's still quite possible that after a few times they will realize that there is yet a better way to do this.
Ah, OK, so that removal is not permanent.
Sounds like a lot of work between flights .
Right. But FH flights won't be that common, and even if they are, hopefully the work to transform the transporter/erector will be streamlined as more experience is gained.
Or they'll build 2.
2 is not viable without massive earth fill. There is no way to move an erector off the current pad and away from the hangar.
-
Define "massive"
They just need to be able to pass each other somewhere... a wide spot in the pathway. Could be while both are unloaded if switching which one is active, and the unactive one stays on the wide spot, unloaded.
-
Define "massive"
They just need to be able to pass each other somewhere... a wide spot in the pathway. Could be while both are unloaded if switching which one is active, and the unactive one stays on the wide spot, unloaded.
I thought you might be able to put a set of points on the flat just before the hanger, but it looks like there isn't room. You could build something that lifted TEL to the side but it sounds like a solution looking for a problem
-
2 is not viable without massive earth fill. There is no way to move an erector off the current pad and away from the hangar.
"Just" replace the small front door with a copy of the large backdoor and drive it through.
-
Well that seems more reasonable!
Edit: Alternatively could add Falcon heavy capability to CL-40 and turn over 39A to BFR (I know it's not trivial, new hanger needed 90 out from the current one etc)
Probably enough on this though as it's speculative rather than updates.
-
Define "massive"
They just need to be able to pass each other somewhere... a wide spot in the pathway. Could be while both are unloaded if switching which one is active, and the unactive one stays on the wide spot, unloaded.
The big complication is that the TEL's at both LC39 and LC40 are on rails vs. the rubber tired TEL used at Vandenberg. There would have to be dual turnouts installed to a parallel siding, and the only logical place this could happen is on a level site. The only place it could go is behind the HIF, and most of the required area would have to be filled since it would be off the crawlerway to the south, and out into the water.
-
During the KoreaSat-5 launch campaign, Michael Seeley of We Report Space took 37 closeups of the F9 and assorted hardware at 39A that he merged into a massive 100+ Megapixel image. You can see lots and lots of details of the RSS demolition, though it is now ~2 weeks out of date. Attaching the monster full-res version (size: 43MB), but a quick look at a lower resolution can be found at https://i.imgur.com/92aoXuj.jpg.
Image Specs: Each image was shot at ISO800, f9.0 and 1/200 secs at 200mm. Initial processing is done in Lightroom, the merge was done in Photoshop, and final edits were done in Lightroom, with some "detail extractor" applied in Color Efex.
Also attaching a similar, though smaller, merged image he made during coverage of CRS-10 [on 2017-02-18] for comparison of work completed (though it's not from the exact same set-up spot).
Lots of great pics at the photographer's Flikr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mseeley1/
-
During the KoreaSat-5 launch campaign, Michael Seeley of We Report Space took 37 closeups of the F9 and assorted hardware at 39A that he merged into a massive 100+ Megapixel image.
Michael Seeley's superb image was converted to video closeup and panning upward slowly...
https://youtu.be/LfbeDZIar2E
-
2 is not viable without massive earth fill. There is no way to move an erector off the current pad and away from the hangar.
"Just" replace the small front door with a copy of the large backdoor and drive it through.
Glad you put quote marks round "just."
The trouble with this idea is that you have to clear the floor of the hangar of everything to allow the TEL to drive through. All equipment, cores and stages for upcoming flights would have to be moved out since the base of the TEL essentially takes up the whole width of the hangar. Also, this arrangement would make it impossible to swap the TEL's around without taking one off the rails. I think it would make hangar ops time consuming and inflexible. The only way to make multiple TEL's work efficiently would be to have a siding where one could be diverted while the other is in use. And this would need considerable earthwork as already discussed.
-
Michael Seeley's superb image was converted to video closeup and panning upward slowly... at 4k and 60fps. (need very fast video card and a large monitor for max result).
I hope Michael can repeat this epic shooting when the FH is at the pad soon.
https://youtu.be/W4ZhsxkE7nM
-
Are the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?
-
Are the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?
You'd have to think their chances wouldn't be better with the delay. They need pad access to finish up preparations for Falcon Heavy, and they can't do that with Zuma still to launch.
-
Are the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?
I don't know if they're dashed, but the delays with Zuma certainly don't help. Last I had read, there are still about 3 week of pad mods needed at 39A to get it ready for FH. Even if Zuma had launched on-schedule, FH was a tight fit this year. On a strictly practical level, every day Zuma is delayed makes it less likely we'll see a FH static fire/launch this year.
It's also true that some kind of failure on Zuma (or another upcoming launch), whether of fairing deployment or another aspect of the mission, would probably delay FH indefinitely while a cause was investigated and a fix implemented.
-
Are the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?
I don't know if they're dashed, but the delays with Zuma certainly don't help. Last I had read, there are still about 3 week of pad mods needed at 39A to get it ready for FH. Even if Zuma had launched on-schedule, FH was a tight fit this year. On a strictly practical level, every day Zuma is delayed makes it less likely we'll see a FH static fire/launch this year.
It's also true that some kind of failure on Zuma (or another upcoming launch), whether of fairing deployment or another aspect of the mission, would probably delay FH indefinitely while a cause was investigated and a fix implemented.
If you read ChrisG's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-december-launch-falcon-heavy/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-december-launch-falcon-heavy/) dated Nov 1 - with Zuma launching on Nov 15 a static fire targeted for Dec 15 [if everything goes well] that led to a NET Dec 29 FH launch if everything went smoothly.
Since Zuma can launch no earlier than Nov 20th now, that means at least a 5 day slip which says the best case date is Jan 3.
I have no special knowledge, I'm just adding the known 5+ day slip of zuma to the schedule in Chris's article.
Carl
-
"Just" replace the small front door with a copy of the large backdoor and drive it through.
Glad you put quote marks round "just."
The trouble with this idea is ...
I was definitely being sarcastic :).
-
And it looks like they are indeed continuing with the FH mods after all! > https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1752458#msg1752458 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44175.msg1752458#msg1752458)
-
Are the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?
I don't know if they're dashed, but the delays with Zuma certainly don't help. Last I had read, there are still about 3 week of pad mods needed at 39A to get it ready for FH. Even if Zuma had launched on-schedule, FH was a tight fit this year. On a strictly practical level, every day Zuma is delayed makes it less likely we'll see a FH static fire/launch this year.
It's also true that some kind of failure on Zuma (or another upcoming launch), whether of fairing deployment or another aspect of the mission, would probably delay FH indefinitely while a cause was investigated and a fix implemented.
If you read ChrisG's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-december-launch-falcon-heavy/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-december-launch-falcon-heavy/) dated Nov 1 - with Zuma launching on Nov 15 a static fire targeted for Dec 15 [if everything goes well] that led to a NET Dec 29 FH launch if everything went smoothly.
Since Zuma can launch no earlier than Nov 20th now, that means at least a 5 day slip which says the best case date is Jan 3.
I have no special knowledge, I'm just adding the known 5+ day slip of zuma to the schedule in Chris's article.
Carl
The post seems confusing: I believe the 45th Space Command oversees all launches from CCAFS, Kennedy Space Center and Wallops Island, not just CCAFS. In fact the Eastern range extends all the way east to the Indian Ocean. The Western Range covers the Pacific and Indian oceans.
-
Not wallops
-
Don't want to take this as fact from a low resolution picture, but I think SpaceX might have added the remaining 2 south booster hold downs. Mainly gathering that as it is very symmetrical, and not staggered as it would look if they were not in place, though it is certainly hard to tell.
Picture from Instagram posted 11hrs ago at time of writing.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bb6YeQfH5oO/
-
Hard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?
-
Hard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?
There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.
-
Hard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?
There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.
Thank-you!
-
Hard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?
There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.
Thank-you!
The systems to operate it were stripped before pad handover to SpaceX.
-
Don't want to take this as fact from a low resolution picture, but I think SpaceX might have added the remaining 2 south booster hold downs. Mainly gathering that as it is very symmetrical, and not staggered as it would look if they were not in place, though it is certainly hard to tell.
Picture from Instagram posted 11hrs ago at time of writing.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bb6YeQfH5oO/
The south hold-down locations are hidden by the strongback in that picture.
-
Hard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?
There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.
Rotated-understood. But are the actual wheels still located on the rails that are present? Wasn't there some sort of special precautions that were undertaken during the last HURCON initiation on 2017 which specified some sort of additional chains or hardware to prevent the RSS from moving?
-
Hard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?
There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.
Rotated-understood. But are the actual wheels still located on the rails that are present? Wasn't there some sort of special precautions that were undertaken during the last HURCON initiation on 2017 which specified some sort of additional chains or hardware to prevent the RSS from moving?
"this will include ensuring the remaining portion of the RSS (Rotating Service Structure) at Pad-A is secured to hurricane anchors."
from
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/09/ksc-cape-major-hurricane-irma/
-
looks like SpaceX is lifting something big on the TEL deck (removing the Falcon 9 single stick plugs?)
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bb-idaEhaMq/
-
Perhaps they're test-removing the F9 plugs, or removing them and making them easier to install and remove (Such as using bolts rather than welding them on, I'm not sure what they did to attach them to begin with), for Crew Dragon and the eventual move of CRS missions to 39A.
-
Perhaps they're test-removing the F9 plugs, or removing them and making them easier to install and remove (Such as using bolts rather than welding them on, I'm not sure what they did to attach them to begin with), for Crew Dragon and the eventual move of CRS missions to 39A.
the plugs use only large locking pins.
-
Perhaps they're test-removing the F9 plugs, or removing them and making them easier to install and remove (Such as using bolts rather than welding them on, I'm not sure what they did to attach them to begin with), for Crew Dragon and the eventual move of CRS missions to 39A.
the plugs use only large locking pins.
So they can already be easily removed?
-
Perhaps they're test-removing the F9 plugs, or removing them and making them easier to install and remove (Such as using bolts rather than welding them on, I'm not sure what they did to attach them to begin with), for Crew Dragon and the eventual move of CRS missions to 39A.
the plugs use only large locking pins.
So they can already be easily removed?
Yes. All latching mechanisms on the reaction frame use pins. latching mechanism was tested years ago by SpaceX. There is L2 info on what is going on at the pad but cant discuss what hasn't been made public yet.
-
If true then I guess space does the same thing, limit the number of cryocycles by never letting the tanks warm up.
-
If true then I guess space does the same thing, limit the number of cryocycles by never letting the tanks warm up.
Doesn't work for a rocket tankage that's supposed to fly 100 times.
I believe that the cryo cycle limitation is related to hydrogen tanks, not much more benign Lox, liquid Methane, and LN2. (LN2 Dewars are used and reused for many years without limit that I've ever encountered.) Hydrogen is a super-cryogen (about 20K) and is also a serious metal embrittlement agent, so that may be a combination that creates the limit.
-
Ah, the LH2 thing makes more sense, I was a bit :o by that statement.
-
I didn't read the story, shame on me!
-
For those without convenient twitter access (and for future reference), this is his anecdote as posted on twitter (https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/936853989919834112) in nine parts:
Strange but true story: the giant round propellant tanks at the Apollo/Space Shuttle launch pads were certified to be emptied & refilled only 6 times. Nobody could remember why the number of refills was limited, but they were dutifully kept full of liquid oxygen for 40 years. 1/n
2/n. Nobody knew where the requirement originally came from, way back in the 1960’s. Was it a structural limit, the steel would get too weak if warmed then re-chilled to liquid oxygen temp more than 6 times? Nobody still living knew.
3/n The requirement itself was documented since the 1960s, but the reason behind the requirement was as lost as ancient texts in the Library of Alexandria. So we dutifully obeyed for DECADES keeping those tanks full without ever knowing why.
4/n. I was in a physics lab trying to figure out why such a requirement would exist. We worked on lots of problems like that. We considered ourselves the Myth Busters of NASA KSC.
5/n. We never totally figured it out, but the leading theory was this. The tanks have inner and outer concentric spheres. Between them is a powder material, perlite, for insulation. Draining/refilling the inner tank makes it expand/contract, which compacts the perlite.
6/n. If the perlite compacts then the inner tank is refilled, chills down and contracts so the perlite can settle. This lowers the height of the perlite, like cereal settling in a box so the box looks not completely filled.
7/n. If the perlite lowers down enough, the inner sphere can become uncovered - no perlite sitting on its top surface - so it is not as insulated. We calculated how many drain/refill cycles it would take for that to happen. Answer: 6.
8/n. But that is easily fixable. You just open the hatch on the top of the outer sphere and pour in some more perlite. Nobody knew that fixing the problem was so easy, because no living person actually knew why it was a problem. So we blindly topped off the tank for 40 years!
9/9. (I.e., topped it off with liquid oxygen as it kept boiling away, all those decades.) So we had a good laugh after we realized there was probably no good reason to keep the tanks filled all that time. Too bad we waited 40 years before asking the right question. [facepalm emoji]
-
I have a related question about Pad 39A.
There is a funny story (https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/936853989919834112) about LOX tanks at the 39 launch pads - they were kept full of liquid oxygen for 40 years due to number of refills which was limited (only 6 times).
First of all is it true? If it is then how did SpaceX deal with it? Or SpaceX doesn't use these tanks?
I saw some tweets from someone (will search and add reference when I find it). From memory the issue was with some power that supported / insulated the spheres internally, and if the lox was drained, the change in temperature caused the powder to shift and settle, potentially causing the top of the internal tank to be exposed, lestening the insulation / support. It was calculated that 6 drains of the tank would cause this.
Apparently no one realised that you could just open up a service hatch and top up with new insulation powder when needed!
Paul
[Edit: Here is the link to the tweet story: https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/936853989919834112]
-
I have a related question about Pad 39A.
There is a funny story (https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/936853989919834112) about LOX tanks at the 39 launch pads - they were kept full of liquid oxygen for 40 years due to number of refills which was limited (only 6 times).
First of all is it true? If it is then how did SpaceX deal with it? Or SpaceX doesn't use these tanks?
I saw some tweets from someone (will search and add reference when I find it). From memory the issue was with some power that supported / insulated the spheres internally, and if the lox was drained, the change in temperature caused the powder to shift and settle, potentially causing the top of the internal tank to be exposed, lestening the insulation / support. It was calculated that 6 drains of the tank would cause this.
Apparently no one realised that you could just open up a service hatch and top up with new insulation powder when needed!
Paul
I am familiar with the SLC-41 BLOx sphere. The internal tank is suspended from the outer tank. When it is initially chilled down the tank contracts and the perlite insulation settles to the void at the bottom.
The heat lose of the tank was very low. Something like a fraction of a degree per design day. So even if it got to the point of not having liquid LOx there would be days before a considerable warming and expansion of the tank. If you keep it cold it's fine.
The story I heard at the time about the LC39 tanks was that after Saturn V the tanks were allowed to warm. The tanks expanded and compressed the perlite insulation. It was removed and refilled for the Shuttle program.
That was second hand information.
-
From the Zuma discussion thread:
So not sure which mission this is, but someone took a picture of a Falcon core on transporter at the LC-39A HIF yesterday. Looks like the stage 2 is still integrated?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BcuyZ9Ags4e/
That instagram post has multiple pics linked including one of the TEL on the pad at 39A. Also, you can see that they've removed more of the RSS.
-
They're working quick. This is a picture from the 12th. Comparing, it looks like they took a whole section down just this week.
-
They're working quick. This is a picture from the 12th. Comparing, it looks like they took a whole section down just this week.
Zooming in (attached) on the picture deruch posted we can see even more has gone since then.
-
Looks like RSS mass is nearly all off the tractor/support structure. Perhaps they will disconnect and lay it down soon?
-
Looks like RSS mass is nearly all off the tractor/support structure. Perhaps they will disconnect and lay it down soon?
The closer to the ground they get the faster they should progress.
Especially now that more launches have moved to LC40, they can keep working. It seems misleading though as there is still a large amount of the RSS from the vertical hinge to the FSS.
It's fascinating to see it coming down, looking forward to when 39A is in the final SpaceX configuration.
-
wonder if they'll put a crane at the top of the FSS once they lay the support structure down? It sure feels like they are very close to being able to lay it down... just one layer left.
-
wonder if they'll put a crane at the top of the FSS once they lay the support structure down? It sure feels like they are very close to being able to lay it down... just one layer left.
Too bad they don't have a webcam up pointed at it. It may stay in place until the other side of the RSS is stripped and has it's weight reduced. They can lower pieces down by supporting them from the structure itself. I've worked with steel workers doing demolition and it's amazing watching their creativity and innovation.
I think their pace is going to quicken.
We'll know soon.
-
wonder if they'll put a crane at the top of the FSS once they lay the support structure down?
....
I thought SX is putting some sort crew access arm on top of the FSS.
-
wonder if they'll put a crane at the top of the FSS once they lay the support structure down?
....
I thought SX is putting some sort crew access arm on top of the FSS.
Yes, and speculation is that eventually a hammerhead crane. I expected they would need a construction crane for that, (FSS is also supposed to get taller...) this could be the time they emplace it. They presumably would not put the CAA on until they have removed the hinge and supporting elements from the FSS but I suppose they could?
-
Early 1960s; when 39A looked like Boca Chica.
Seen on Reddit today (don't remember which sub).
-
wonder if they'll put a crane at the top of the FSS once they lay the support structure down?
....
I thought SX is putting some sort crew access arm on top of the FSS.
Yes, and speculation is that eventually a hammerhead crane. I expected they would need a construction crane for that, (FSS is also supposed to get taller...) this could be the time they emplace it. They presumably would not put the CAA on until they have removed the hinge and supporting elements from the FSS but I suppose they could?
Some of the Apollo/STS era dish antennas are in the process of being removed this year to make room on the FSS at the correct height for the CAA.
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/943420026593337344
@elonmusk
Falcon Heavy at the Cape
-
...and now we get to see where the titanium grid fins will be used.
...and why they are bigger.
-
Please remember that this is the pad thread.
Elon's tweet is already included multiple times in the FH demo flight updates (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44376.0) and discussion (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42705.0) threads, including discussion of the grid fins ... we don't need to cover it here too!
-
The RSS is almost entirely gone now. The "legs" are removed. Additionally the TEL is still at the pad.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc8CZiRjFQO
-
Demo of RSS is moving quickly now.
Clearing the way for FH and Dragon Crew
-
Demo of RSS is moving quickly now.
Clearing the way for FH and Dragon Crew
Out with the old, in with the new.
-
NASA posted a video that suggests SpaceX has a crew access arm at 1:06 in the video I'm linking. Any other info out there on this arm? Is there a white room to go along with it? How does it extend and where is it attaching to the tower? Thanks.
https://youtu.be/UVnrb_Z2Wnk
-
NASA posted a video that suggests SpaceX has a crew access arm at 1:06 in the video I'm linking. Any other info out there on this arm? Is there a white room to go along with it? How does it extend and where is it attaching to the tower? Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVnrb_Z2Wnk
The 39A CAA is 100 percent built and tested. CAA installation on FSS was bumped to 2018 to allow FH and RSS work to proceed first due to changed priorities and CCP first launch being moved to the right.
-
NASA posted a video that suggests SpaceX has a crew access arm at 1:06 in the video I'm linking. Any other info out there on this arm? Is there a white room to go along with it? How does it extend and where is it attaching to the tower? Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVnrb_Z2Wnk
The 39A CAA is 100 percent built and tested. CAA installation on FSS was bumped to 2018 to allow FH and RSS work to proceed first due to changed priorities and CCP first launch being moved to the right.
What else is needed/wanted to be done to 39A for crew besides the CAA installation?
-
I thought some sections had to be added to the top, that is, that the CAA can't just go in...
-
The RSS is almost entirely gone now. The "legs" are removed. Additionally the TEL is still at the pad.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc8CZiRjFQO
Here's two videos with views from just before that point.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc7fyjWFPjB/ Has a short clip of the pad just at the end. Plus views into the hangar (I'll post in appropriate FH thread as well).
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc8QP4QHx30/ About 20 seconds into the video, you can see the RSS/FSS just before the final removal of the rotating legs.
*Attaching screencaptures of the two videos and .mp4s.*
-
I thought some sections had to be added to the top, that is, that the CAA can't just go in...
I was under the impression the increase in FSS height was for vertical integration for NSS payloads rather than CAA.
-
I thought some sections had to be added to the top, that is, that the CAA can't just go in...
I was under the impression the increase in FSS height was for vertical integration for NSS payloads rather than CAA.
Correct. The CAA is installed on the FSS "as is". No adding of sections needed.
-
Great. Will it be easier to make the FSS taller before, or after, the CAA is added, thought?
-
Great. Will it be easier to make the FSS taller before, or after, the CAA is added, thought?
Easier before, but not by much IMO. The CAA is hung off the side of the FSS without interfering with the very top of the FSS. But mostly it depends very much on HOW sections would be added. Stacking them on top of the existing FSS versus cutting the current FSS in half and adding new sections in between. The latter would require removal (and later relocation) of the CAA.
-
Great. Will it be easier to make the FSS taller before, or after, the CAA is added, thought?
Easier before, but not by much IMO. The CAA is hung off the side of the FSS without interfering with the very top of the FSS. But mostly it depends very much on HOW sections would be added. Stacking them on top of the existing FSS versus cutting the current FSS in half and adding new sections in between. The latter would require removal (and later relocation) of the CAA.
That would be an astoundingly inefficient approach, requiring the heavy structure above the center to be dismantled and then reassembled. All wiring runs above the cut would be sheared and have to be re-pulled in their entirety.
Expect them to build a modular upper section, build attaching interfaces on the existing structure top, and then install the new levels quickly in a in a small number of lifts.
-
Great. Will it be easier to make the FSS taller before, or after, the CAA is added, thought?
Easier before, but not by much IMO. The CAA is hung off the side of the FSS without interfering with the very top of the FSS. But mostly it depends very much on HOW sections would be added. Stacking them on top of the existing FSS versus cutting the current FSS in half and adding new sections in between. The latter would require removal (and later relocation) of the CAA.
That would be an astoundingly inefficient approach, requiring the heavy structure above the center to be dismantled and then reassembled. All wiring runs above the cut would be sheared and have to be re-pulled in their entirety.
Expect them to build a modular upper section, build attaching interfaces on the existing structure top, and then install the new levels quickly in a in a small number of lifts.
Pardon the dumb question, but what is the point of extending the FSS?
-
Great. Will it be easier to make the FSS taller before, or after, the CAA is added, thought?
Easier before, but not by much IMO. The CAA is hung off the side of the FSS without interfering with the very top of the FSS. But mostly it depends very much on HOW sections would be added. Stacking them on top of the existing FSS versus cutting the current FSS in half and adding new sections in between. The latter would require removal (and later relocation) of the CAA.
That would be an astoundingly inefficient approach, requiring the heavy structure above the center to be dismantled and then reassembled. All wiring runs above the cut would be sheared and have to be re-pulled in their entirety.
Expect them to build a modular upper section, build attaching interfaces on the existing structure top, and then install the new levels quickly in a in a small number of lifts.
Pardon the dumb question, but what is the point of extending the FSS?
It's thought that they're adding a crane on the top of it to vertically integrate military payloads.
-
Great. Will it be easier to make the FSS taller before, or after, the CAA is added, thought?
Easier before, but not by much IMO. The CAA is hung off the side of the FSS without interfering with the very top of the FSS. But mostly it depends very much on HOW sections would be added. Stacking them on top of the existing FSS versus cutting the current FSS in half and adding new sections in between. The latter would require removal (and later relocation) of the CAA.
That would be an astoundingly inefficient approach, requiring the heavy structure above the center to be dismantled and then reassembled. All wiring runs above the cut would be sheared and have to be re-pulled in their entirety.
Expect them to build a modular upper section, build attaching interfaces on the existing structure top, and then install the new levels quickly in a in a small number of lifts.
Your argument is certainly the most obvious, but we do not know all the details. It could be that the top section is not strong enough to support the additional weight and the lower sections are stronger. If this is the case adding stronger sections immediately above the existing transition from stronger to lighter duty sections might be required. Another approach could be adding additional bracing on sections to increase strength without having to remove/raise sections.
-
That would be an astoundingly inefficient approach, requiring the heavy structure above the center to be dismantled and then reassembled. All wiring runs above the cut would be sheared and have to be re-pulled in their entirety.
But it may be necessary, depending on the design strength of the lower parts of the tower, and on the ease of simply strengthening those levels.
-
That would be an astoundingly inefficient approach, requiring the heavy structure above the center to be dismantled and then reassembled. All wiring runs above the cut would be sheared and have to be re-pulled in their entirety.
But it may be necessary, depending on the design strength of the lower parts of the tower, and on the ease of simply strengthening those levels.
If you watched the RSS disassembly, you'd see how heavily-constructed are such structures... factor of several overbuilt IIRC. That said, if the fixed structure cannot take additional upper loads, I'd expect the entire structure to be demolished and rebuilt... much easier than salvaging a pile of old steel.
Since zero mention has been made of major reconstruction, I'd assume that they'll just add needed layers on top. Strengthening the structural elements of such an old structure isn't viable.
-
My understanding is that the FSS was constructed from the Saturn 5 LUTs. They rolled the MLPs to the pads, cut chunks off the LUT and hoisted them over to become the FSS. I would not be surprised if the FSS was therefore quite overbuilt for its purpose, even with the extra Shuttle-era weight of the RSS and orbiter weather protection, etc.
Edit: Link and attached photo. The photo shows a very naked-looking nascent RSS also!
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/pad_39a.html
-
wow...i thought they would have to remove all of the RSS structure near the hinge down to base level before removing the legs. TIL
-
My understanding is that the FSS was constructed from the Saturn 5 LUTs. They rolled the MLPs to the pads, cut chunks off the LUT and hoisted them over to become the FSS. I would not be surprised if the FSS was therefore quite overbuilt for its purpose, even with the extra Shuttle-era weight of the RSS and orbiter weather protection, etc.
Edit: Link and attached photo. The photo shows a very naked-looking nascent RSS also!
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/pad_39a.html
ML-2 was used at 39A to support the RSS during its assembly. ML used for Skylab crew launches was used to suppport the RSS at 39b and afterward sat mothballed at the same ML Park Site that the current SLS ML is at until almost 1990 (I forget the exact year the ML was rebuilt into MLP-3) when it was dismantled to increase the rate of KSC shuttle launches. My grandfather has slides somewhere at his house showing the contractor using the ML's hammerhead crane to lift components onto to the top of the RSS during the final stages of construction. The other ML's LUT were dismantled inside the VAB and trucked to either the launch site or a storage area at the industrial park.
-
Some mobile phone shots from the NASA tour bus this morning, courtesy of "Gridffin" on the Rocket Emporium Discord. Shows the TEL erect (getting the base maybe before heading into the HIF?) and that the RSS demolition continues apace. The "hanging off" part of the RSS structure as well as its legs appear to be completely demolished. They're moving very fast. Quality of the pics is definitely meh (handheld mobile phone, moving bus, window), but also definitely informative, so I thought I'd share them here.
Edit: not sure why the second pic is rotated? It's not that way on my workstation. I will try and fix it.
-
The TEL looks different, like there are horizontal black stripes on the front and back.
-
Great. Will it be easier to make the FSS taller before, or after, the CAA is added, thought?
Easier before, but not by much IMO. The CAA is hung off the side of the FSS without interfering with the very top of the FSS. But mostly it depends very much on HOW sections would be added. Stacking them on top of the existing FSS versus cutting the current FSS in half and adding new sections in between. The latter would require removal (and later relocation) of the CAA.
That would be an astoundingly inefficient approach, requiring the heavy structure above the center to be dismantled and then reassembled. All wiring runs above the cut would be sheared and have to be re-pulled in their entirety.
Expect them to build a modular upper section, build attaching interfaces on the existing structure top, and then install the new levels quickly in a in a small number of lifts.
Pardon the dumb question, but what is the point of extending the FSS?
Additional height and an added crane are required to do vertical intervention at the pad in order to bid for and fly some NSS payloads.
-
Additional height and an added crane are required to do vertical intervention at the pad in order to bid for and fly some NSS payloads.
Okay, but what payloads? I believe that in order to save the cost of going with ULA, the government will test and certify their payloads for horizontal integration. Vertical integration is stupid. Just saying. As violent as a launch is with the lateral forces and vibration, I find it comical to believe that horizontal integration is going to be a problem.
-
Additional height and an added crane are required to do vertical intervention at the pad in order to bid for and fly some NSS payloads.
Okay, but what payloads? I believe that in order to save the cost of going with ULA, the government will test and certify their payloads for horizontal integration. Vertical integration is stupid. Just saying. As violent as a launch is with the lateral forces and vibration, I find it comical to believe that horizontal integration is going to be a problem.
Speaking for the industry, there have been many directives/requirements from DOD over the past few years that new payloads in development should support horizontal integration. You really need a special case and approvals to require vertical, and in the upcoming future many less will require vertical integration. Even now there are maybe a few/couple that may need it.
-
Given Elon has admitted that there is risk of the FH not clearing the pad, does anyone expect them to do more than the absolute minimum of tower work necessary? I wouldn't install crew access until after the STP-2 launch just to be sure.
-
Another shot today:
Mandatory tour bus shot of #39A today. It appears the pad crew has been quite busy since the last @SpaceX launch. The answer to the big question is, no, I did not see @elonmusk red @Tesla on site.
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/943915874116866048
-
Additional height and an added crane are required to do vertical intervention at the pad in order to bid for and fly some NSS payloads.
Okay, but what payloads? I believe that in order to save the cost of going with ULA, the government will test and certify their payloads for horizontal integration. Vertical integration is stupid. Just saying. As violent as a launch is with the lateral forces and vibration, I find it comical to believe that horizontal integration is going to be a problem.
I think there's more to it than that.
And I think I can hear Jim taping on his QWERTY WRONG keyboard...
-
Additional height and an added crane are required to do vertical intervention at the pad in order to bid for and fly some NSS payloads.
Okay, but what payloads? I believe that in order to save the cost of going with ULA, the government will test and certify their payloads for horizontal integration. Vertical integration is stupid. Just saying. As violent as a launch is with the lateral forces and vibration, I find it comical to believe that horizontal integration is going to be a problem.
I think there's more to it than that.
And I think I can hear Jim taping on his QWERTY WRONG keyboard...
I’d bet a nickel that those few payloads that require vertical integration have launch prices that make the work to ground support systems well worth it.
-
I’d bet a nickel that those few payloads that require vertical integration have launch prices that make the work to ground support systems well worth it.
So the applicability to this thread is that with the requirement for vertical integration being minimal, is it really worth it for SpaceX to pursue modifications that enable it? What's the point? Just let ULA launch those payloads at double to triple the cost.
-
Additional height and an added crane are required to do vertical intervention at the pad in order to bid for and fly some NSS payloads.
Okay, but what payloads? I believe that in order to save the cost of going with ULA, the government will test and certify their payloads for horizontal integration. Vertical integration is stupid. Just saying. As violent as a launch is with the lateral forces and vibration, I find it comical to believe that horizontal integration is going to be a problem.
I’m not advocating for it. Just staying that VI is the reason for the FSS getting a lift kit added. I have no idea what potential payloads they might be able to get. It could be as simple as by supporting more varieties of scenarios they are better positioned to compete for all payloads regardless of whether they require VI. I’ve got exactly zero insight into the industry. I’m completely on the outside watching as a super big fan. I’m just repeating what’s been stated before by others including Elon and Gwynn.
-
Whether or not you think the U.S. government should abolish vertical integration requirements or change their requirements for having two vehicle families available for their payloads is really not relevant for this thread. There are more appropriate threads for that:
SpaceX Vertical Integration/DOD Market (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40721.0)
Vertical vs. horizontal integration Q&A (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37350.0)
Horizontal vs. vertical integration (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27147.0)
-
I’d bet a nickel that those few payloads that require vertical integration have launch prices that make the work to ground support systems well worth it.
So the applicability to this thread is that with the requirement for vertical integration being minimal, is it really worth it for SpaceX to pursue modifications that enable it? What's the point? Just let ULA launch those payloads at double to triple the cost.
We know SpaceX
The BFS is to be mounted on the BFR with a crane.
Maybe SpaceX will get DoD to pay for the development of the crane for a launch or two and then migrate it, or at least its design.
Musk seems to be always thinking about the long game.
Edit: but you are correct. This has little to do with getting LC-39A ready for Falcon Heavy, the topic of this thread.
-
not sure why the second pic is rotated? It's not that way on my workstation. I will try and fix it.
Here's that pic rotated properly. Jpeg orientation is weird. Web browsers are weirder.
If anyone wants to know more (what's going on, how to fix this programmatically, etc), you can PM me.
-
Another shot from the front by instagram user "slim8881974".
instagram.com/p/Bc-YQPNl-1H/
Edit: Removed the Instagram hyperlink becasue some Tapatalk users were reporting some questionable things being linked instead of the actual post of 39a.
-
My understanding is that the FSS was constructed from the Saturn 5 LUTs. They rolled the MLPs to the pads, cut chunks off the LUT and hoisted them over to become the FSS.
Incorrect. The LUT that became the FSS was disassembled elsewhere, and sections were transported to the pad and assembled, from the bottom up.
If they'd disassembled the LUT in situ, and took the top section off and placed it on the pad, and then continued in that fashion, section by section, they would have built themselves an upside-down FSS. There's some pretty heavy iron in the perimeter columns, main platform framing, and diagonal bracing, down in the lower sections of the FSS, and it's noticeably heavier iron down low, because that iron has to support all of the structure above it. Up toward the top of the tower, that requirement gradually becomes less and less, and the iron therefore gets lighter and lighter as you go up in elevation toward the top of the tower.
Wilhoit (they were the steel erector for both Pad A and Pad B), transported the FSS sections to the jobsite on the pad from elsewhere, where they had been placed, following disassembly of the LUT (over in the MLP park area north of the VAB, if memory serves).
-
ML used for Skylab crew launches was used to suppport the RSS at 39b and afterward ...
No.
The RSS on B Pad was built in the "de-mate" position, after Wilhoit learned the hard way on A Pad, that building the RSS in the "mate" position, spanning the flame trench, supported by a LUT, wasn't such a good idea. There was no LUT on B Pad when the RSS was being erected.
They built falsework on the pad deck, southwest of the FSS, and erected the RSS on top of that falsework away from the flame trench, which was removed once the RSS was complete enough, and strong enough, to support itself via the primary steel framing on Column Line 7 and the two main horizontal trusses, at El. 135' and 208'.
There is a thread, started by myself, with photographs and stories, detailing the construction of Pad 39-B, here on Nasaspaceflight.com, and you can click this link to see it: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25455.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25455.0)
There are photographs in there which clearly show the growing RSS sitting on top of the falsework that supported it as it was being assembled.
And, for those who may be a bit more interested in this work, I am in the process of placing the same images on 16streets.com, with expanded stories and explanations of what the pictures are showing and what some of that means, and that can all be seen here: http://www.16streets.com/MacLaren/Misc/Launch%20Complex%2039-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle/39-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle%20-%20Contents.html (http://www.16streets.com/MacLaren/Misc/Launch%20Complex%2039-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle/39-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle%20-%20Contents.html)
The work of expanding upon the original snippets of text associated with the original placement of those photographs on Nasaspaceflight.com is proceeding slowly, and I have no idea when it will all be complete, so please accept my apologies for it abruptly cutting off in the middle of things, right now.
-
I am idly curious about the hinge. How is that attached to the FSS -- is it freestanding at all so they could they just detach it at the top and bottom and crane-lift the whole thing away from the FSS, or must they ultimately smash/torch each point level by level? (Or, I suppose, they could detach the RSS frame from the hinge and just leave the hinge attached to the FSS.)
-
I am idly curious about the hinge. How is that attached to the FSS -- is it freestanding at all so they could they just detach it at the top and bottom and crane-lift the whole thing away from the FSS, or must they ultimately smash/torch each point level by level? (Or, I suppose, they could detach the RSS frame from the hinge and just leave the hinge attached to the FSS.)
I can only hope I'm not drifting into off-topic territory, but if I am, please Mods, sort me out and keep things organized.
The Hinge Column for the RSS is an astoundingly robust thing, and is much heavier than people imagine, just looking at it.
I was out at the pad working for Sheffield Steel (who fabricated all of this iron, off-site, for delivery to the pad) when the lower portion of the hinge column arrived (I want to say forty feet in length, but it might have been 60) and the truck driver (who worked for an outfit that specialized in hauling serious tonnage of steel around all over the place on a regular basis) told me it handled a little funny while driving because, "It's the heaviest thing I've ever carried." If memory serves, it's a 60 inch structural pipe with a wall thickness down on that lower portion of 4 inches(!) and it's insanely strong.
The hinge column attaches to the FSS with a series of welded struts made from structural pipe (also quite heavy iron) which are welded to the FSS on both perimeter columns (on the RSS side of things, both near and far sides of the FSS from the flame trench) in multiple locations going up in elevation, and also with additional structural pipe diagonal bracing running at an angle from one level of the horizontal struts to another, going from FSS to RSS. When this system was designed, someone must have really taken the old dictum of "When in doubt, make it stout" to heart in a big way. It's some seriously strong, rigid, stout stuff. None of it is going anywhere on its own.
It will need to be cut loose from the FSS at every level that the struts attach to it.
Over on the RSS side, it has two cycloptic brass thrust bearings, one at the RSS bottom main truss at the 135' level, and another one up at the RSS top main truss at level 208' and both of those trusses, as well as the main diagonal bracing of the RSS are welded to those bearings.
A small aside, by way of perhaps giving a bit of scale to things, if I may.
Those bearings are just like "normal" thrust bearings in every way, except for the fact that they're gigantic, and carry a gigantic load while moving, and, like all other "normal" bearings, they have set-screws to hold them in place once whatever it is that's moving, has moved to its intended location where the work gets done.
And I wound up, having to schlep one of those set-screws up to the pad deck in my ratty old yellow VW bug, from our field trailer.
And it was one of the craziest things I've ever seen in my life.
The set screw was identical in every way to a "normal" set screw.
Except that it was machined from a single block of aluminum, complete with acme threads and a nice point on the bearing-end of things, a hole drilled through it on the opposite end with a rod through the hole that could be hand-turned by whoever it was that had to go up on the tower and turn it, and it was about ten inches or maybe a foot in diameter and about four feet long, and must have weighed over a hundred pounds!
Set-screw.
So, needless to say, nobody's going to be picking that Hinge Column up with a crane and going anywhere with it. It will have to be cut into manageable pieces and dealt with that way.
Your question regarding just cutting it loose from the RSS and leaving it in place attached to the FSS is very interesting, and I'll be watching to see if perhaps they might decide to do just that.
If they leave it in place, welded to the FSS, it will certainly add a great deal of rigidity to the FSS, that much can be said with confidence.
Hopefully, this helped, even if only just a little.
-
I can only hope I'm not drifting into off-topic territory, but if I am, please Mods, sort me out and keep things organized.
I think these posts are very relevant to the thread topic.
-
I can only hope I'm not drifting into off-topic territory, but if I am, please Mods, sort me out and keep things organized.
I think these posts are very relevant to the thread topic.
Yes, and I'd just like to say how delightful it is to hear from someone who was there "at the beginning". Thank you, 39B!
-
So, needless to say, nobody's going to be picking that Hinge Column up with a crane and going anywhere with it. It will have to be cut into manageable pieces and dealt with that way.
Your question regarding just cutting it loose from the RSS and leaving it in place attached to the FSS is very interesting, and I'll be watching to see if perhaps they might decide to do just that.
If they leave it in place, welded to the FSS, it will certainly add a great deal of rigidity to the FSS, that much can be said with confidence.
Hopefully, this helped, even if only just a little.
Leaving the Hinge Column in place is in fact exactly what SpaceX has been planning for some time. However, last I heard about it still being the plan is almost a year ago.
In fact, some of the FH artist views that were released in 2015 very clearly show the (enclosed) FSS with the hinge column (and only the hinge column) in place.
-
I can only hope I'm not drifting into off-topic territory, but if I am, please Mods, sort me out and keep things organized.
I think these posts are very relevant to the thread topic.
Yes, and I'd just like to say how delightful it is to hear from someone who was there "at the beginning". Thank you, 39B!
Same. One of the neatest things about NSF is the wide variety of folk that come here and share what they know... so amazing.
-
The rendering shows one unbroken column, but if I'm understanding 39B correctly, there's a thrust bearing at the top and one in the middle-ish (135' from the ground), interrupting it?
The inner diameter of those would match the pivot column, presumably, and be welded to it. How large was the outside diameter?
Would those be left in place?
-
The rendering shows one unbroken column, but if I'm understanding 39B correctly, there's a thrust bearing at the top and one in the middle-ish (135' from the ground), interrupting it?
The inner diameter of those would match the pivot column, presumably, and be welded to it. How large was the outside diameter?
Would those be left in place?
I don't know. Conversation with my sources at SpaceX never went into that particular detail.
-
Interesting, the crew access arm does not seem to be included in that rendering. Are there any renderings with the enclosed hinge column that also include the crew access arm?
-
Interesting, the crew access arm does not seem to be included in that rendering. Are there any renderings with the enclosed hinge column that also include the crew access arm?
Will this do?
-
On rather smaller features than the hinge, I was browsing imgur today, and found posted by 'DamnTMan' 4 hours ago:
"Welds performed while working for 'Ol Musky" (https://imgur.com/gallery/sLa1f).
Showing one of the many outside contractors making the dream reality. (he has moved on, and is presumably available for other work)
-
That huge hinge can accept an enormous offset load. If one needed to have a large "white room" surrounding the payload fairing, for extensive/intrusive VI, that could be one way to incorporate such. (Not the plan AIUI.)
-
Interesting, the crew access arm does not seem to be included in that rendering. Are there any renderings with the enclosed hinge column that also include the crew access arm?
Will this do?
Aha! Yes indeed, on comparison I see now where the stowed crew access arm was on the earlier render. Sneaky little details...
Thanks Doc
-
The rendering shows one unbroken column, but if I'm understanding 39B correctly, there's a thrust bearing at the top and one in the middle-ish (135' from the ground), interrupting it?
The inner diameter of those would match the pivot column, presumably, and be welded to it. How large was the outside diameter?
Would those be left in place?
Click this link: http://www.16streets.com/MacLaren/Misc/Launch%20Complex%2039-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle/Photos/Red%20FSS%20Arrowed%20Hinge%20Column%20Bearings.jpg (http://www.16streets.com/MacLaren/Misc/Launch%20Complex%2039-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle/Photos/Red%20FSS%20Arrowed%20Hinge%20Column%20Bearings.jpg) for a picture (not such wonderful quality, but it's all I've got) with both of the bearings located for you.
The fixed (non-moving) inner and lower portions of each thrust bearing were very firmly attached to the exterior surface of the Hinge Column, which then transferred the loads carried by the bearings down to the ground through the column itself.
The moving outer and "upper-lower" portions of each thrust bearing were firmly attached to the RSS, and rotated along with it.
The "cans" the bearings were enclosed within can be seen (sort of) in the picture I linked to.
The entire bearing assembly (fixed and rotating portions along with their support weldments) could be removed from the Hinge Column, leaving it "bare" without the bearing in place any more. It's all one piece of very heavy iron, full-penetration welded from one end to the other, very firmly attached to the pad, and does not move or rotate in any way. The bearings are external to that vertical run of structural pipe, and do not form any kind of integral part of things in that regards.
I would expect them to want to remove the bearings (presuming they leave the Hinge Column in place), if for no other reason, because there's a fair bit of brass in there, and it would fetch a few dollars for scrap value. Also, removing the bearings would leave "one less thing" to rot away in the phenomenally corrosive air out there, the steel portions of which would eventually fall apart under their own weight, and, knowing both Murphy and his Law Firm all too well, choose a particularly dangerous and expensive time to do so.
-
Leaving the Hinge Column in place is in fact exactly what SpaceX has been planning for some time. However, last I heard about it still being the plan is almost a year ago.
In fact, some of the FH artist views that were released in 2015 very clearly show the (enclosed) FSS with the hinge column (and only the hinge column) in place.
Kindest thanks for that.
-
The rendering shows one unbroken column, but if I'm understanding 39B correctly, there's a thrust bearing at the top and one in the middle-ish (135' from the ground), interrupting it?
The inner diameter of those would match the pivot column, presumably, and be welded to it. How large was the outside diameter?
Would those be left in place?
Click this link: http://www.16streets.com/MacLaren/Misc/Launch%20Complex%2039-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle/Photos/Red%20FSS%20Arrowed%20Hinge%20Column%20Bearings.jpg (http://www.16streets.com/MacLaren/Misc/Launch%20Complex%2039-B%20Construction%20Photos%20-%20Space%20Shuttle/Photos/Red%20FSS%20Arrowed%20Hinge%20Column%20Bearings.jpg) for a picture (not such wonderful quality, but it's all I've got) with both of the bearings located for you.
The fixed (non-moving) inner and lower portions of each thrust bearing were very firmly attached to the exterior surface of the Hinge Column, which then transferred the loads carried by the bearings down to the ground through the column itself.
The moving outer and "upper-lower" portions of each thrust bearing were firmly attached to the RSS, and rotated along with it.
The "cans" the bearings were enclosed within can be seen (sort of) in the picture I linked to.
The entire bearing assembly (fixed and rotating portions along with their support weldments) could be removed from the Hinge Column, leaving it "bare" without the bearing in place any more. It's all one piece of very heavy iron, full-penetration welded from one end to the other, very firmly attached to the pad, and does not move or rotate in any way. The bearings are external to that vertical run of structural pipe, and do not form any kind of integral part of things in that regards.
I would expect them to want to remove the bearings (presuming they leave the Hinge Column in place), if for no other reason, because there's a fair bit of brass in there, and it would fetch a few dollars for scrap value. Also, removing the bearings would leave "one less thing" to rot away in the phenomenally corrosive air out there, the steel portions of which would eventually fall apart under their own weight, and, knowing both Murphy and his Law Firm all too well, choose a particularly dangerous and expensive time to do so.
This is all awesome info. SO glad you turned up and shared it. (the https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25455.50 39B construction photos thread is amazing) One minor note though.... whatever is removed from the RSS or FSS has to be given to NASA, if I understand the agreements correctly. SpaceX can't just sell off brass bearings for scrap, I don't think.
-
Different view taken Dec 23:
https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/944768791770263552 (https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/944768791770263552)
-
Different view taken Dec 23:
I've been wondering about the several microwave dishes still installed on the remaining section of the RSS.
Does anyone know if these dishes are still active? And is that why the remaining section has not been taken down?
-
Who is paying for the rework on the tower? Is it part of SpaceX's requirement? Is it being funded by Commercial Crew? Is the tower going to support multiple users?
-
AIUI SpaceX is funding any and all pad changes from their operating funds. They have an exclusive lease so no one but them will be using it. They do have to turn over all the recovered materials from the RSS and give it to NASA. SpaceX isn’t funded by cost plus contracting. They get X dollars to accomplish Y tasks. They get to spend those funds however they want to accomplish the task they were paid for. Expenses incurred to accomplish those tasks are on them.
-
AIUI SpaceX is funding any and all pad changes from their operating funds. They have an exclusive lease so no one but them will be using it. They do have to turn over all the recovered materials from the RSS and give it to NASA. SpaceX isn’t funded by cost plus contracting. They get X dollars to accomplish Y tasks. They get to spend those funds however they want to accomplish the task they were paid for. Expenses incurred to accomplish those tasks are on them.
But some milestones might free contract funds linked to the tower. The program is long and they need cash flow.
-
Different view taken Dec 23:
I've been wondering about the several microwave dishes still installed on the remaining section of the RSS.
Does anyone know if these dishes are still active? And is that why the remaining section has not been taken down?
The ones on the RSS are no longer active. There are stanchions on the FSS but those must also come down to make way for bottom portion of the CAA when it is in the stowed position.
-
AIUI SpaceX is funding any and all pad changes from their operating funds. They have an exclusive lease so no one but them will be using it. They do have to turn over all the recovered materials from the RSS and give it to NASA. SpaceX isn’t funded by cost plus contracting. They get X dollars to accomplish Y tasks. They get to spend those funds however they want to accomplish the task they were paid for. Expenses incurred to accomplish those tasks are on them.
But some milestones might free contract funds linked to the tower. The program is long and they need cash flow.
We know for certain that funds flow based on milestones. Whether any of those milestones are tied to the RSS coming down I don’t know. To the extent it enables placing the Crew Access Arm, it might, but I doubt the RSS coming down is a milestone in and of itself. Increasing the height of the FSS I doubt is any sort of milestone as that is part of enabling VI and has nothing to do with any current contracts.
-
AIUI SpaceX is funding any and all pad changes from their operating funds. They have an exclusive lease so no one but them will be using it. They do have to turn over all the recovered materials from the RSS and give it to NASA. SpaceX isn’t funded by cost plus contracting. They get X dollars to accomplish Y tasks. They get to spend those funds however they want to accomplish the task they were paid for. Expenses incurred to accomplish those tasks are on them.
But some milestones might free contract funds linked to the tower. The program is long and they need cash flow.
We know for certain that funds flow based on milestones. Whether any of those milestones are tied to the RSS coming down I don’t know. To the extent it enables placing the Crew Access Arm, it might, but I doubt the RSS coming down is a milestone in and of itself. Increasing the height of the FSS I doubt is any sort of milestone as that is part of enabling VI and has nothing to do with any current contracts.
From SpaceX sources: none of the RSS demolition work is tied to CCP milestones.
Plus: Jim can tell you that keeping a piece of unneeded structure in that salty-air climate will require big bucks for upkeep.
In other words: SpaceX is getting rid of the RSS on its own dime, and it is for practical, as well as financial, reasons.
-
AIUI SpaceX is funding any and all pad changes from their operating funds. They have an exclusive lease so no one but them will be using it. They do have to turn over all the recovered materials from the RSS and give it to NASA. SpaceX isn’t funded by cost plus contracting. They get X dollars to accomplish Y tasks. They get to spend those funds however they want to accomplish the task they were paid for. Expenses incurred to accomplish those tasks are on them.
But some milestones might free contract funds linked to the tower. The program is long and they need cash flow.
We know for certain that funds flow based on milestones. Whether any of those milestones are tied to the RSS coming down I don’t know. To the extent it enables placing the Crew Access Arm, it might, but I doubt the RSS coming down is a milestone in and of itself. Increasing the height of the FSS I doubt is any sort of milestone as that is part of enabling VI and has nothing to do with any current contracts.
From SpaceX sources: none of the RSS demolition work is tied to CCP milestones.
Plus: Jim can tell you that keeping a piece of unneeded structure in that salty-air climate will require big bucks for upkeep.
In other words: SpaceX is getting rid of the RSS on its own dime, and it is for practical, as well as financial, reasons.
Thanks for the insight. I figured as much.
-
Another, clearer shot, from Ken Kramer:
Shuttle era #RSS is being rapidly dismantled in recent weeks prior to 1st test flight of @SpaceX #FalconHeavy-set for sometime early 2018. Large chunks of @NASAKennedy Rotating Service Structure being detached-see my Dec 23 pics from @ExploreSpaceKSC tour bus #SpaceUpClose
https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/945506105198895104 (https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/945506105198895104)
-
Another, clearer shot, from Ken Kramer:
Shuttle era #RSS is being rapidly dismantled in recent weeks prior to 1st test flight of @SpaceX #FalconHeavy-set for sometime early 2018. Large chunks of @NASAKennedy Rotating Service Structure being detached-see my Dec 23 pics from @ExploreSpaceKSC tour bus #SpaceUpClose
https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/945506105198895104 (https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/945506105198895104)
A question for anyone with appropriate mechanical expertise and intuition:
Can Heavy be safely launched with the remainder of the RSS hanging there or does removing much of the projecting structure become schedule critical?
-
A question for anyone with appropriate mechanical expertise and intuition:
Can Heavy be safely launched with the remainder of the RSS hanging there or does removing much of the projecting structure become schedule critical?
This image (https://i.imgur.com/eH5nocVm.jpg) from spaceflightinsider. (http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/16465775_1624831841158317_1010634246022234112_n-e1486758911778.jpg) shows it well.
The transporter-erectors long side (when erect) points at the thick hinge pin for the RSS.
The RSS structure connected to that hinge pin is all pointed mostly away from the rocket.
In addition, it is very, very heavy structural steel and has had much of its area removed, so making it not an issue.
-
I’d say it survived a few shuttle launches, so it’s just business as usual for what’s left...
-
A question for anyone with appropriate mechanical expertise and intuition:
Can Heavy be safely launched with the remainder of the RSS hanging there or does removing much of the projecting structure become schedule critical?
Sounds like it won't be going anywhere unintended.
Those bearings are just like "normal" thrust bearings in every way, except for the fact that they're gigantic, and carry a gigantic load while moving, and, like all other "normal" bearings, they have set-screws to hold them in place once whatever it is that's moving, has moved to its intended location where the work gets done.
And I wound up, having to schlep one of those set-screws up to the pad deck in my ratty old yellow VW bug, from our field trailer.
And it was one of the craziest things I've ever seen in my life.
The set screw was identical in every way to a "normal" set screw.
Except that it was machined from a single block of aluminum, complete with acme threads and a nice point on the bearing-end of things, a hole drilled through it on the opposite end with a rod through the hole that could be hand-turned by whoever it was that had to go up on the tower and turn it, and it was about ten inches or maybe a foot in diameter and about four feet long, and must have weighed over a hundred pounds!
Set-screw.
-
What is the length of the CAA compared to that of Saturn V and Shuttle?
It seems like it will be quite the reach.
-
What is the length of the CAA compared to that of Saturn V and Shuttle?
It seems like it will be quite the reach.
Given that it's the same FSS as shuttle, and same flame trench, if one presumes the vehicles are centered or nearly so, then the CAA should really only differ in length by the difference in dragon radius to shuttle body width from the center line. That'd be a small difference compared to the overall length of the CAA.
Wasn't the Saturn V tower on the MLP? So it's CAA was probably a good bit shorter, possibly by half?
-
A quick look at some photos suggests that the Saturn V CAA is shortest as the LUT is on the MLP. Next is the Shuttles CAA and then the F9s.
The diameter of the shuttle orbiter crew section was around 20ft while the diameter of F9 is about 12 ft, so the arm only needs to be a little longer.
-
What is the length of the CAA compared to that of Saturn V and Shuttle?
It seems like it will be quite the reach.
Given that it's the same FSS as shuttle, and same flame trench, if one presumes the vehicles are centered or nearly so, then the CAA should really only differ in length by the difference in dragon radius to shuttle body width from the center line. That'd be a small difference compared to the overall length of the CAA.
Wasn't the Saturn V tower on the MLP? So it's CAA was probably a good bit shorter, possibly by half?
The side-by-side here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42705.msg1765140#msg1765140
Seems like the CAA for F9 needs to be about as long as the ET Vent Beanie.
Or is it an optical illusion?
-
The side-by-side here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42705.msg1765140#msg1765140
Seems like the CAA for F9 needs to be about as long as the ET Vent Beanie.
Or is it an optical illusion?
No, not an illusion, I think it is pretty accurate estimation. The CAA will be at a similar height and be of similar length as the ET vent arm.
-
Ive been wondering how the CAA will clear the top of the TEL...just seems like it will be a tight fit based on the pics ive seen but maybe D2 will change that
-
I think Dragon 2 is slightly stretched compared to cargo Dragon so there should be space for the CAA to clear the TEL
-
Ive been wondering how the CAA will clear the top of the TEL...just seems like it will be a tight fit based on the pics ive seen but maybe D2 will change that
What do you mean with 'clear'? The CAA will be attached to the side of the tower, not built on top of it.
-
Ive been wondering how the CAA will clear the top of the TEL...just seems like it will be a tight fit based on the pics ive seen but maybe D2 will change that
What do you mean with 'clear'? The CAA will be attached to the side of the tower, not built on top of it.
I think his point was that the CAA is attached on the same side of the tower as the TEL, so the motion of the arm will have to account for that obstacle.
-
Ive been wondering how the CAA will clear the top of the TEL...just seems like it will be a tight fit based on the pics ive seen but maybe D2 will change that
What do you mean with 'clear'? The CAA will be attached to the side of the tower, not built on top of it.
I think his point was that the CAA is attached on the same side of the tower as the TEL, so the motion of the arm will have to account for that obstacle.
Oh. Is that certain? I had always assumed that the CAA would swing in from the other direction.
-
The CAA is hinged directly above where the RSS is hinged.
Edit: there was a pic on the internet somewhere, be right back...
back, check out the SpaceX Flicker (https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/26405463180)
-
CRS-14 launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
-
Launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
Why wouldn't they?
-
Launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
Why wouldn't they?
I believe because of the not insignificant amount of work required to reconfigure the frame back to a single stick (and then back again for the next FH launch).
-
Launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
Why wouldn't they?
I believe because of the not insignificant amount of work required to reconfigure the frame back to a single stick (and then back again for the next FH launch).
actually conversion back and forth is relatively quick and straight forward. FH post launch evaluation and pad inspection and the unknowns post FH-01 is the main reason of uncertainty for 39A schedule.
-
Launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
Why wouldn't they?
SpaceX needs to finish the modifications to 39A once Falcon Heavy lifts off on its first flight( finish taking down the RSS, install CAA, extend the FSS, add hammerhead crane). I don't remember reading anywhere if the extension of the FSS and hammerhead crane is still in the works or where in the priority list it is for SpaceX. I imagine the priority for SpaceX with 39A is finish taking down the RSS and then getting it ready Dragon v2/crew demo mission. The extension of the FSS and the crane depends on if SpaceX still sees money to be made for Air Force missions that require vertical integration. I just don't know if SpaceX would want to do that post-CAA installation. But it does look like the CAA will be installed on the RSS's hinge point according to the renders. So it would be out of the way for those modifications.
39A's utilization will now drastically decrease with 40 back up. So unless needed to help with the manifest, 39A will only be used for FH, crew missions, and missions that require vertical integration if that is still in the plans.
-
Launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
Why wouldn't they?
SpaceX needs to finish the modifications to 39A once Falcon Heavy lifts off on its first flight( finish taking down the RSS, install CAA, extend the FSS, add hammerhead crane). I don't remember reading anywhere if the extension of the FSS and hammerhead crane is still in the works or where in the priority list it is for SpaceX. I imagine the priority for SpaceX with 39A is finish taking down the RSS and then getting it ready Dragon v2/crew demo mission. The extension of the FSS and the crane depends on if SpaceX still sees money to be made for Air Force missions that require vertical integration. I just don't know if SpaceX would want to do that post-CAA installation. But it does look like the CAA will be installed on the RSS's hinge point according to the renders. So it would be out of the way for those modifications.
39A's utilization will now drastically decrease with 40 back up. So unless needed to help with the manifest, 39A will only be used for FH, crew missions, and missions that require vertical integration if that is still in the plans.
I haven't seen anything new about extending the FSS or adding a crane in a while, maybe they decided not to, or just use a heavy-duty construction crane.
-
Launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
Why wouldn't they?
SpaceX needs to finish the modifications to 39A once Falcon Heavy lifts off on its first flight( finish taking down the RSS, install CAA, extend the FSS, add hammerhead crane). I don't remember reading anywhere if the extension of the FSS and hammerhead crane is still in the works or where in the priority list it is for SpaceX. I imagine the priority for SpaceX with 39A is finish taking down the RSS and then getting it ready Dragon v2/crew demo mission. The extension of the FSS and the crane depends on if SpaceX still sees money to be made for Air Force missions that require vertical integration. I just don't know if SpaceX would want to do that post-CAA installation. But it does look like the CAA will be installed on the RSS's hinge point according to the renders. So it would be out of the way for those modifications.
39A's utilization will now drastically decrease with 40 back up. So unless needed to help with the manifest, 39A will only be used for FH, crew missions, and missions that require vertical integration if that is still in the plans.
I haven't seen anything new about extending the FSS or adding a crane in a while, maybe they decided not to, or just use a heavy-duty construction crane.
Me neither. But I think the hype/attention has been on FH and COTS that no one has bothered to ask about their original plans for the mods for 39A in relation to the extension and adding a hammerhead crane.
-
I haven't seen anything new about extending the FSS or adding a crane in a while, maybe they decided not to, or just use a heavy-duty construction crane.
Or, something like this.
I know where they can find one.
-
What is the status or modifications of LC-39A looking right Now any pics. Available too show. Same ohh same ohh.
-
Grazing the #FalconHeavy hashtag on Twitter.
First picture credit: Elliott Skeer @SkeerRacing - 8 Jan 2018
2nd picture credit: Dave Borinski - 28 Dec 2017
-
Grazing the #FalconHeavy hashtag on Twitter.
It’s getting ready for a static fire
-
Grazing the #FalconHeavy hashtag on Twitter.
What was the date on those tweets? I think those photos must be from days ago, certainly the vertical one, because over in the main FH Demo updates thread, it was shown being lifted up to vertical (halfway there) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44376.msg1769053#msg1769053) tonight under darkness.
Also, see my signature below on how to properly post photos from Twitter here :)
-
CRS-14 launching from SLC-40. Will be interesting to see if any F9 launch from 39A in the first half of 2018.
I guess it'll depend on how long it takes to install the Crew Access Arm for the Dragon 2 demo missions? still, I can't see it taking that many months if they've shut the pad down after FH for a while.... If FH launches right at the end of January/beginning of February, that still leaves the rest of Feb, March, April- should be plenty of time to do any modification, and Demo 1 is in what, July now? So I'd think that they'd do some launches in the remaining months between FH, Crew Arm instillation and DM 1...? Especially if they actually want to reach the goal of 30 launches or so for the year...
-
Grazing the #FalconHeavy hashtag on Twitter.
The top image is from January 8, the bottom image is from December 28 (though the Falcon Heavy is once again vertical at 39A as we speak)
-
What was the date on those tweets? ... Also, see my signature below on how to properly post photos from Twitter here :)
I put attribution and dates in there. Didn't realize the need for attribution.
-
Interesting, SpaceX brought out their medium-sized 39A crane on Feb 10 or 11. Was gone today.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BfEINHihSnM/?taken-at=218732609
Huh? those are clearly taken a few months ago.. The RSS still has its legs in those pictures.
-
derp... Been a long week/Monday
-
Any recent photos of work at 39A?
I’m curious about the status of any remaining parts of the RSS.
-
Been a whole lot of crane activity around the RSS and TEL base lately. Photos are chronological and dates posted are in the filenames.
Last two are bonus pics of the two different booster transport methods side by side :D
-
Grass! That's new. I guess the grass is on the pad ramp is always greener on the other side of Falcon Heavy. ;D
-
Big chunk of the RSS came down sometime in the last 48ish hours. Not much of it left at this point :)
-
Big chunk of the RSS came down sometime in the last 48ish hours. Not much of it left at this point :)
That RSS must be totally gone by NOW. (?)
-
Big chunk of the RSS came down sometime in the last 48ish hours. Not much of it left at this point :)
That RSS must be totally gone by NOW. (?)
I don't think it will ever be totally gone, just smaller with the crew access arm mounted on it.
-
Big chunk of the RSS came down sometime in the last 48ish hours. Not much of it left at this point :)
That RSS must be totally gone by NOW. (?)
I don't think it will ever be totally gone, just smaller with the crew access arm mounted on it.
The RSS was way too short for that.
-
That RSS must be totally gone by NOW. (?)
I don't think it will ever be totally gone, just smaller with the crew access arm mounted on it.
Note you're confusing the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) with the (nearly removed) Rotating Service Structure (RSS).
FSS will have CAA. RSS will be completely removed.
Alphabet soup, anyone?
-
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155098924116582&set=pcb.10156465872936318&type=3&theater&ifg=1
images of 39a from today, RSS nearly gone.
( from facebook user Niels De Jong.)
-
Good pictures Rocketlover.
Yea, it's almost all gone!
That was SpaceX's plan from the start, as I understood.
I thought they were also planning to add a few new levels to the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) and a crane on top for crew dragon access arm and for being able to vertically integrate payloads for USAF/DoD missions that require it.
Is that still the plan? That was from awhile ago. It looks like the FSS is tall enough they could almost put a crew access arm on that top level and have it reach Dragon ok?
-
Looking forward to when this thread title
Re: Pad 39A - Transition to SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut
is changed to
Re: Pad 39A - Transition to Big Falcon Rocket debut
-
Yeah, the RSS will go, not sure if they still plan to add on the the FSS, also, these are not my pictures, just to make sure you know, I found them on the Facebook group.
Good pictures Rocketlover.
Yea, it's almost all gone!
That was SpaceX's plan from the start, as I understood.
I thought they were also planning to add a few new levels to the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) and a crane on top for crew dragon access arm and for being able to vertically integrate payloads for USAF/DoD missions that require it.
Is that still the plan? That was from awhile ago. It looks like the FSS is tall enough they could almost put a crew access arm on that top level and have it reach Dragon ok?
-
The recent NASA Advisory Council HEO meeting had an update on Commercial Crew which specifically called out adding levels to the FSS.
Addition of fixed service service [sic] structure levels– contractor on-site to resume work
-
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155098924116582&set=pcb.10156465872936318&type=3&theater&ifg=1
images of 39a from today, RSS nearly gone.
( from facebook user Niels De Jong.)
So in these pictures the large crane is obviously working on the RSS. Any recent, yesterday or today photos of the pad? RSS must be gone by now.
-
On way back on the bus from the Pad 39A, there is 2 story high of steel structural covered with canvas, surrounded by steelworkers and welding tools to the west of Launch Pad 39 Observation Gantry. Since the host bus said no camera shooting is allowed from inside the bus, no photos was taken of this structure.
This structure seems to have the same dimensions as FSS's so maybe this is the one that will be dismantle in sections and transport to the top of FSS?
-
247 ft + ~40 ft (20 ft level height x 2 levels previously mentioned) = 287 ft.
High enough for a VI crane + Category 3 fairing?
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/89cvc6/oc_while_i_was_next_to_39a_yesterday_for_the/
Another image of 39a in the past day, more RSS was taken down and nearly nothing remains
-
On way back on the bus from the Pad 39A, there is 2 story high of steel structural covered with canvas, surrounded by steelworkers and welding tools to the west of Launch Pad 39 Observation Gantry. Since the host bus said no camera shooting is allowed from inside the bus, no photos was taken of this structure.
This structure seems to have the same dimensions as FSS's so maybe this is the one that will be dismantle in sections and transport to the top of FSS?
Is the other crawler still parked there? Might be that.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/89cvc6/oc_while_i_was_next_to_39a_yesterday_for_the/
Another image of 39a in the past day, more RSS was taken down and nearly nothing remains
Wow! That is very much gone. It is going to be interesting to see how/if they remove the hinge portion. Surely they will, but that alone will be an incredibly heavy piece to remove unless done in segments.
-
Wow! That is very much gone. It is going to be interesting to see how/if they remove the hinge portion. Surely they will, but that alone will be an incredibly heavy piece to remove unless done in segments.
It has been speculated that the hinge is structural and will remain by someone who was familiar with the original construction on this site, IIRC. Sorry I don't have a reference for that.
-
In the simulations released by spacex of the finished 39a the hinge is left in place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM
-
On way back on the bus from the Pad 39A, there is 2 story high of steel structural covered with canvas, surrounded by steelworkers and welding tools to the west of Launch Pad 39 Observation Gantry. Since the host bus said no camera shooting is allowed from inside the bus, no photos was taken of this structure.
This structure seems to have the same dimensions as FSS's so maybe this is the one that will be dismantle in sections and transport to the top of FSS?
Is the other crawler still parked there? Might be that.
Yes that's where the crawler is usually parked there but this time, the canvas covered structure is perfect box shape like, more like approx 30' high by 40' x 40', too small to be mistaken for much wider crawler.
Correction: Was informed that it's just a big weight/mass simulator taken from VAB and covered by scaffolding for refurbishing.
-
By the way, whatever happened to the old hammer head crane on top of the tower (carried over from Saturn to Shuttle)?
-
Stupid question:
what does RSS mean? What was it's purpose on the shuttle/saturn times?
-
Stupid question:
what does RSS mean? What was it's purpose on the shuttle/saturn times?
Rotating Service Structure--allowed for "clean room" payload operations at the pad for loading the payload in to shuttles. Also provided protection to the shuttle orbiter while at the pad.
EDIT: no question is stupid, though sometimes I challenge that...
;)
-
Speaking of that FH Animation..Curious if they still intend to cover the FSS in that metal grating type covering?
-
By the way, whatever happened to the old hammer head crane on top of the tower (carried over from Saturn to Shuttle)?
It was removed in 1994 and my guess is it was scrapped in 2004 along with the rest of the Apollo era launch tower parts that had been put into storage.
-
In the simulations released by spacex of the finished 39a the hinge is left in place.
Woah, good catch!
-
Stupid question: what does RSS mean? What was it's purpose on the shuttle/saturn times?
Rotating Service Structure--allowed for "clean room" payload operations at the pad for loading the payload in to shuttles. Also provided protection to the shuttle orbiter while at the pad.
If you have a very basic question like this but don't want to clog a particular topic thread, check out the Q+A section of this forum (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=36.0). Posts there are usually answered very quickly, just like everywhere else here.
Then there's the acronym listing (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34802.0), but it's so exhaustive it might actually not help (there are 7-8 RSS entries, for example).
Finally, google works remarkably well :) https://www.google.com/search?q=shuttle+rss
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/89cvc6/oc_while_i_was_next_to_39a_yesterday_for_the/
Another image of 39a in the past day, more RSS was taken down and nearly nothing remains
Update on the photo:
That frame is gone now. Only the hinge is left.
https://twitter.com/wordsmithfl/status/981696774007132160
-
The recent NASA Advisory Council HEO meeting had an update on Commercial Crew which specifically called out adding levels to the FSS.
Addition of fixed service service [sic] structure levels– contractor on-site to resume work
Wrong interpretation.
The FSS will not be increased in height, by adding levels, anytime soon. What is being done is modding several of the existing levels, by creating "in-between levels", to support the installation of the CAA and installation of new crew escape system and it's associated platform (see image below).
The older crew escape platform, from STS days, will eventually be removed.
The fun thing is that the new "In between" level was revealed publically almost two years ago, yet almost nobody noticed it at the time.
It was when SpaceX released two pieces of artwork detailing the launch of Red Dragon. One of them is a close-up of Falcon Heavy, carrying a Red Dragon, lifting off from LC-39A. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/26405463180/)
The cladding that covers the FSS is, in that artwork, slightly transparent and reveals the structure of the FSS underneath the cladding. And low-and-behold, the new "In between" level can be seen. I've added an annotated blow-up below.
-
The recent NASA Advisory Council HEO meeting had an update on Commercial Crew which specifically called out adding levels to the FSS.
Addition of fixed service service [sic] structure levels– contractor on-site to resume work
Wrong interpretation.
The FSS will not be increased in height, by adding levels, anytime soon. What is being done is modding several of the existing levels, by creating "in-between levels", to support the installation of the CAA and installation of new crew escape system and it's associated platform (see image below).
The older crew escape platform, from STS days, will eventually be removed.
This is a really great post. Only one thing: in a recent commercial Crew update it was stated that SpaceX will use the old STS escape system, by moving the baskets to a new level.
-
The recent NASA Advisory Council HEO meeting had an update on Commercial Crew which specifically called out adding levels to the FSS.
Addition of fixed service service [sic] structure levels– contractor on-site to resume work
Wrong interpretation.
The FSS will not be increased in height, by adding levels, anytime soon. What is being done is modding several of the existing levels, by creating "in-between levels", to support the installation of the CAA and installation of new crew escape system and it's associated platform (see image below).
The older crew escape platform, from STS days, will eventually be removed.
This is a really great post. Only one thing: in a recent commercial Crew update it was stated that SpaceX will use the old STS escape system, by moving the baskets to a new level.
That is correct. But that concerns the actual crew-carrying baskets. The platform, from which the baskets are released, is an all-new build. The cables will be replaced as well.
-
Any photos of the pad from yesterday or today? ;)
-
Any photos of the pad from yesterday or today? ;)
I'll do a little megapost of recent 39A photos from KSC tourists. Dates are imperfect as people tend to post days after they actually took the photos in some cases. Bottom three photos are from Oct 2017 and late March 2018.
-
Any photos of the pad from yesterday or today? ;)
I'll do a little megapost of recent 39A photos from KSC tourists. Dates are imperfect as people tend to post days after they actually took the photos in some cases. Bottom three photos are from Oct 2017 and late March 2018.
Thank-you very much!
-
Any photos from the last couple days? ;)
-
Pad 39A. Look Ma, No RSS!
https://twitter.com/bubbinski/status/986399670850203648
-
That crane might be there to assist in the dismantling of the old slide-wire basket platform.
-
A couple much better views. As always, photos are labeled w/ date of posting and the username.
-
Are they demolishing the RSS hinge also?
-
Are they demolishing the RSS hinge also?
I asked this earlier in this thread and from what I was told, the Hinge is actually a key part of the FSS structure, and will not be removed. Composite images of future SpaceX launches from 39A also back this up, as seen in the Falcon Heavy preview animation. The hinge section is still on the FSS.
-
Are they demolishing the RSS hinge also?
I asked this earlier in this thread and from what I was told, the Hinge is actually a key part of the FSS structure, and will not be removed. Composite images of future SpaceX launches from 39A also back this up, as seen in the Falcon Heavy preview animation. The hinge section is still on the FSS.
Not structural engineer but that looks like good staging point for their Vertical Payload Integration.
-
Not structural engineer but that looks like good staging point for their Vertical Payload Integration.
Not nearly tall enough.
-
Not structural engineer but that looks like good staging point for their Vertical Payload Integration.
Not nearly tall enough.
You can cantilever things up from lower structural supports. So, the hinge itself doesn't have to extend above the current FSS just to support a VPI structure.
However, if it ain't going away, and can be used for structural support of servicing arms, you may see some form of cargo loading servicing arm eventually attached to it for loading and unloading cargo to/from the BFS on the pad. Considering the turn-around time for the BFS that has been projected, you'll need to load cargo after you crane it up onto its booster. So, you'll need to either crane cargo up to the BFS cargo doors, or have some type of cargo servicing arm on the launch pad. The hinge could be used to support something like that.
-
You can cantilever things up from lower structural supports. So, the hinge itself doesn't have to extend above the current FSS just to support a VPI structure.
However, if it ain't going away, and can be used for structural support of servicing arms, you may see some form of cargo loading servicing arm eventually attached to it for loading and unloading cargo to/from the BFS on the pad. Considering the turn-around time for the BFS that has been projected, you'll need to load cargo after you crane it up onto its booster. So, you'll need to either crane cargo up to the BFS cargo doors, or have some type of cargo servicing arm on the launch pad. The hinge could be used to support something like that.
Well, I don't think it's efficient to utilize the existing infrastructure for any of this. I believe that SpaceX is contractually obligated to leave the hinge and FSS alone in their current (roughly) configuration. They don't own the tower, they are renting the exclusive use of the pad where the tower happens to be. I think that SpaceX will figure out the best way to do things and I don't believe that from an engineering point of view, the hinge will play any part in it. It's a decorative structural support, at best. That's my opinion, and if the hinge actually gets used for something, I would be very surprised. Maybe Dick Shelby will force SpaceX to use it with a rider to a budget bill, or something.
-
You can cantilever things up from lower structural supports. So, the hinge itself doesn't have to extend above the current FSS just to support a VPI structure.
However, if it ain't going away, and can be used for structural support of servicing arms, you may see some form of cargo loading servicing arm eventually attached to it for loading and unloading cargo to/from the BFS on the pad. Considering the turn-around time for the BFS that has been projected, you'll need to load cargo after you crane it up onto its booster. So, you'll need to either crane cargo up to the BFS cargo doors, or have some type of cargo servicing arm on the launch pad. The hinge could be used to support something like that.
Well, I don't think it's efficient to utilize the existing infrastructure for any of this. I believe that SpaceX is contractually obligated to leave the hinge and FSS alone in their current (roughly) configuration. They don't own the tower, they are renting the exclusive use of the pad where the tower happens to be. I think that SpaceX will figure out the best way to do things and I don't believe that from an engineering point of view, the hinge will play any part in it. It's a decorative structural support, at best. That's my opinion, and if the hinge actually gets used for something, I would be very surprised. Maybe Dick Shelby will force SpaceX to use it with a rider to a budget bill, or something.
What is your source that they cannot do whatever they want to the tower? I expect that they can actually do whatever they want to the tower (just see what NASA themselves did to 39B), and I see no reason to suspect otherwise unless you have a source.
-
What is your source that they cannot do whatever they want to the tower? I expect that they can actually do whatever they want to the tower (just see what NASA themselves did to 39B), and I see no reason to suspect otherwise unless you have a source.
Uh, the contract. Look it up yourself and prove me wrong. I can internet contract-lawyer just as well as you. You may want to re-read my ACTUAL post instead of attacking me for what you think I might have meant to say.
-
Simmer down, guys. No need to get hostile.
-
Good view of the back of the Pad from April 16th
Edit: with the crane located where it is, might be working on FSS mods now:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bho9DMmgZS9/
-
What's to the right, between the lightning towers? I'm guessing it's another pad in the distance?
-
What's to the right, between the lightning towers? I'm guessing it's another pad in the distance?
That's SLC-41, with its own FSS and Crew Access Arm for loading crew and cargo into the Boeing Starliner and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser.
-
I was by the pad on Friday morning and the crew access arm was laying a couple hundred feet north of the flame trench, and there was a second crane pulling up next to it about 9am. Any other questions I may have been able to see? No photos were allowed unfortunately.
-
I was by the pad on Friday morning and the crew access arm was laying a couple hundred feet north of the flame trench, and there was a second crane pulling up next to it about 9am. Any other questions I may have been able to see? No photos were allowed unfortunately.
This is the first I've heard of the CAA being staged nearby. Should be going up soon, then?!
-
What is your source that they cannot do whatever they want to the tower? I expect that they can actually do whatever they want to the tower (just see what NASA themselves did to 39B), and I see no reason to suspect otherwise unless you have a source.
Uh, the contract. Look it up yourself
Could you please point us to lease agreement? I can't find it.
-
What is your source that they cannot do whatever they want to the tower? I expect that they can actually do whatever they want to the tower (just see what NASA themselves did to 39B), and I see no reason to suspect otherwise unless you have a source.
Uh, the contract. Look it up yourself
Could you please point us to lease agreement? I can't find it.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31945.msg1060863#msg1060863 has all the documentation I could find. I don't see the agreement anywhere; woiuld probably require an FOIA.
-
Jasmin Moghbeli ✔ @AstroJaws
@Astro_Jenni and I excited to see the modifications @SpaceX is making to historic Launch Complex 39A, originally built for the Apollo Program! Soon @NASA astronauts will be launching from here as part of our Commercial Crew Program. #NewAstronauts #KennedySpaceCenter #NASA
7:16 PM - Apr 30, 2018
https://twitter.com/AstroJaws/status/991094025506697217?s=19
-
Jasmin Moghbeli ✔ @AstroJaws
@Astro_Jenni and I excited to see the modifications @SpaceX is making to historic Launch Complex 39A, originally built for the Apollo Program! Soon @NASA astronauts will be launching from here as part of our Commercial Crew Program. #NewAstronauts #KennedySpaceCenter #NASA
7:16 PM - Apr 30, 2018
https://twitter.com/AstroJaws/status/991094025506697217?s=19
A higher-res version from her Instagram :) There were a whole bunch from newest astronaut class, including SpaceX's own engineer-turned-astronaut.
-
Since the Falcon Heavy debut is now in the rear mirror, isn't it time for a new thread title? The modifications are now for crewed flights.
-
Since the Falcon Heavy debut is now in the rear mirror, isn't it time for a new thread title? The modifications are now for crewed flights.
Perhaps a pad specific thread title like, "Pad 39A - SpaceX modifications and utilization" would work? I was attracted to the title because I took a tour and saw them working on dismantling the RSS. Now that this is done, there are more modifications that aren't just crewed-flight specific. There is the enclosing of the structure as well as the crane for vertical integration of National Defense payloads. Would like to follow the progress of those in a single thread.
-
"including SpaceX's own engineer-turned-astronaut."
I'll bite, who's that? Probably belongs on some other thread, answer there, I'll find it, LOL.
-
"including SpaceX's own engineer-turned-astronaut."
I'll bite, who's that? Probably belongs on some other thread, answer there, I'll find it, LOL.
Robb Kulin:https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/robb-kulin/biography (https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/robb-kulin/biography)
-
"including SpaceX's own engineer-turned-astronaut."
I'll bite, who's that? Probably belongs on some other thread, answer there, I'll find it, LOL.
Robb Kulin:https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/robb-kulin/biography (https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/robb-kulin/biography)
Yep! He's the source of the alaskan_astro photos.
https://www.instagram.com/alaskan_astro/
-
How about just "Pad 39A Discussion and Updates"?
-
Has anyone heard any rumbles about the ease (or otherwise) of SpaceX's transitioning the pad/launch mount from the Falcon Heavy configuration back to the F9 config.? IIRC, in order to support the FH they had to "cut out" the side plugs that have 2 hold downs needed for F9 launches (the ones that go where the side cores are on FH). Of course they were always intended to be removed/replaced. But given the length of time it's taken them to get back to launching from LC-39A I was wondering whether anyone had heard whether they had encountered any unexpected difficulties. Or just that the first swap back was always planned to allow lots of time. Of course, just general manifesting and/or the fact that they are also transitioning to support Block 5 for the first time might also have played a role.
-
Has anyone heard any rumbles about the ease (or otherwise) of SpaceX's transitioning the pad/launch mount from the Falcon Heavy configuration back to the F9 config.? IIRC, in order to support the FH they had to "cut out" the side plugs that have 2 hold downs needed for F9 launches (the ones that go where the side cores are on FH). Of course they were always intended to be removed/replaced. But given the length of time it's taken them to get back to launching from LC-39A I was wondering whether anyone had heard whether they had encountered any unexpected difficulties. Or just that the first swap back was always planned to allow lots of time. Of course, just general manifesting and/or the fact that they are also transitioning to support Block 5 for the first time might also have played a role.
We might very well find out today what they did as they are rolling that launch erector out to the pad for the hot fire planned for tomorrow. If you see anything, I would love to hear. I see no real issues with this, structurally, though. They could very well just leave the panels out in the future, or have removable cover plates bolted on.
-
Has anyone heard any rumbles about the ease (or otherwise) of SpaceX's transitioning the pad/launch mount from the Falcon Heavy configuration back to the F9 config.? IIRC, in order to support the FH they had to "cut out" the side plugs that have 2 hold downs needed for F9 launches (the ones that go where the side cores are on FH). Of course they were always intended to be removed/replaced. But given the length of time it's taken them to get back to launching from LC-39A I was wondering whether anyone had heard whether they had encountered any unexpected difficulties. Or just that the first swap back was always planned to allow lots of time. Of course, just general manifesting and/or the fact that they are also transitioning to support Block 5 for the first time might also have played a role.
The swap back was completed relatively quickly after the FH launch. That is not the main reason for the long delay. They have been doing a lot of pad work and FSS work to make substantial progress on finishing the pad.
-
Now the RSS is down, we're going to start a new thread. Will require a new title too as it's technically now pretty much transitioned.
New thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45667.0