Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6  (Read 492286 times)

Offline bocachicagal

  • Member
  • Posts: 80
  • boca chica
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #880 on: 01/12/2018 04:26 PM »
A few pics of the fence damage.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3217
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 5318
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #881 on: 01/12/2018 04:42 PM »
A few pics of the fence damage.
  I'm fairly sure the cause was divine aggravation over my blocked view.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2018 04:51 PM by Nomadd »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3217
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 5318
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #882 on: 01/12/2018 04:47 PM »
I looked up the specs for a Tesla Powerpack, and got the following.

It seems strange to me that the power (50 kW) is lower than the energy (210 kWh).  For EV batteries, it's usually the other way around.
If power wasn't lower than capacity, you'd be able to drain the batteries in less than an hour. Not good for vehicles or off grid installations unless the batteries are only for brownouts and minor draw at night like lights. EV batteries might have greater power ratings because they need to charge a lot faster than a wall system.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • Liked: 864
  • Likes Given: 1148
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #883 on: 01/12/2018 05:03 PM »
They updated the Cameron County Real Estate database today.  Looks like SpaceX picked up 4 more lots.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • Liked: 864
  • Likes Given: 1148
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #884 on: 01/12/2018 05:29 PM »
If power wasn't lower than capacity, you'd be able to drain the batteries in less than an hour. Not good for vehicles or off grid installations unless the batteries are only for brownouts and minor draw at night like lights.
Right, but if the battery is only 360 kWh, that would correspond to only 85kW, which seems a little low for an air conditioned commercial building like Stargate.

EV batteries might have greater power ratings because they need to charge a lot faster than a wall system.
For EVs, the pack power rating in kW is more about discharge, i.e. powering the electric motors.  For example, a Tesla P100D has 588 hp, which works out to 438 kW.  That's for a 100 kWh pack.  So kW / kWh is 4.38:1, almost the exact opposite ratio of a Tesla Powerpack.

Offline ShawnGSE

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Cape Canaveral, FL
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #885 on: 01/12/2018 05:57 PM »
I wouldn't hold my breath.  Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon require the GSE fab group.  So that would mean things might get moving after you see a crew arm on 39A.  But let me tell you, fabbing GSE stuff is going to take a lot more than 6 months.  Getting a pad functional in any way by 2018 sounds like the claim of a BFR on Mars by 2022, just way too ambitious.  39A took almost 2 years to be what you see now, and there was already a flame trench and infrastructure in place when they started. 
What GSE remains for FH other than flaw correction surfaced by the WDR or SF, or damage from the first launch, if any (damage after each launch is on a general downward trend)? Maybe I should move this post and your answer to the FH general discussion thread, but I'm pretty curious.

For the GSE fab crew specifically it's mostly commercial crew related now.  That's the last piece of the puzzle for 39A.  A good indication for when you'll see SpaceX employees really move in is when structures for them to work in are made.  Something like the circus tent from Vandy. 


Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4901
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2017
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #886 on: 01/12/2018 06:22 PM »
Battery production has been one of the bottlenecks for model 3 production, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the powerpacks delayed for a few months until model 3 is properly ramped.

Who knows, really.

More specifically, it was battery pack ASSEMBLY that was the bottleneck. Panasonic was building the cells, (as used in newer PowerPacks and selling like hotcakes) on schedule. They had an assembly system for the packs for use in Model3 that just wasn't working.

Since they build the motors, the cells, and much of the skateboard in GF1, not having the battery packs on schedule was a major bottleneck.
>

They now have a second source, Samsung. Its cells were used to populate the Australian project.
DM

Offline SPITexas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #887 on: 01/12/2018 07:46 PM »
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-mars-rocket-test-texas-late-2018/

They mentioned the awesome guy Nomadd in the article good for him

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #888 on: 01/12/2018 07:55 PM »
A few pics of the fence damage.

For anybody who has ever lived close to a sea coast that fence would look ridiculous, I'd hazard to say. You can't just hope to block the wind like that. They must have contracted the job out to a descendant of King Canute...

Offline SPITexas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #889 on: 01/12/2018 09:26 PM »
I wouldn't hold my breath.  Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon require the GSE fab group.  So that would mean things might get moving after you see a crew arm on 39A.  But let me tell you, fabbing GSE stuff is going to take a lot more than 6 months.  Getting a pad functional in any way by 2018 sounds like the claim of a BFR on Mars by 2022, just way too ambitious.  39A took almost 2 years to be what you see now, and there was already a flame trench and infrastructure in place when they started. 
What GSE remains for FH other than flaw correction surfaced by the WDR or SF, or damage from the first launch, if any (damage after each launch is on a general downward trend)? Maybe I should move this post and your answer to the FH general discussion thread, but I'm pretty curious.

For the GSE fab crew specifically it's mostly commercial crew related now.  That's the last piece of the puzzle for 39A.  A good indication for when you'll see SpaceX employees really move in is when structures for them to work in are made.  Something like the circus tent from Vandy.

Nomadd said Today
“There will be a couple of small office buildings put up at the control center soon.”    A little Proof they’ll be here, I’m not saying your wrong put it’s something right?
« Last Edit: 01/12/2018 09:49 PM by SPITexas »

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • Liked: 864
  • Likes Given: 1148
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #890 on: 01/12/2018 11:49 PM »
Nomadd said Today
“There will be a couple of small office buildings put up at the control center soon.”    A little Proof they’ll be here, I’m not saying your wrong but it’s something right?

I've always believed SpaceX will have a Boca Chica launch site.  Never any doubt on that.

The main question is whether whether they'll use Boca Chica for F9/FH, or just go straight to BFR.  And in the latter case, will the actual pad be onshore or offshore.

In any of these scenarios, SpaceX will need control center buildings at Boca Chica, so Nomadd's new info is no surprise.

What is surprising is Gwynne's announcement yesterday:
Quote from: Houston Chronicle, January 11, 2018
SpaceX has a rocket engine testing facility in McGregor and is building a launch site in Boca Chica, said Gwynne Shotwell, president and chief operating officer of SpaceX. The latter project, she said, will be ready late this year or early next year for early vehicle testing. SpaceX will then continue working toward making it a launch site.

If they're still planning to launch Falcon 9 from Boca Chica, why would that require "early vehicle testing"?  Falcon 9 is flight proven. And if she meant early pad testing with a vehicle, then why does she imply it will take some time after that for them to "continue working toward making it a launch site"?

In other words, Gwynne's announcement yesterday could be interpreted as Boca Chica going straight to BFR.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2018 11:57 PM by Dave G »

Offline AC in NC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 286
  • Likes Given: 336
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #891 on: 01/13/2018 03:48 AM »
If they're still planning to launch Falcon 9 from Boca Chica, why would that require "early vehicle testing"?  Falcon 9 is flight proven. And if she meant early pad testing with a vehicle, then why does she imply it will take some time after that for them to "continue working toward making it a launch site"?

In other words, Gwynne's announcement yesterday could be interpreted as Boca Chica going straight to BFR.

I'm trying hard to think of an alternative interpretation.  Coming up empty.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • California
  • Liked: 3526
  • Likes Given: 2178
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #892 on: 01/13/2018 04:06 AM »
If they're still planning to launch Falcon 9 from Boca Chica, why would that require "early vehicle testing"?  Falcon 9 is flight proven. And if she meant early pad testing with a vehicle, then why does she imply it will take some time after that for them to "continue working toward making it a launch site"?

In other words, Gwynne's announcement yesterday could be interpreted as Boca Chica going straight to BFR.

I'm trying hard to think of an alternative interpretation.  Coming up empty.

What FH is doing at 39A now. Fit checks of vehicle with pad. (as in "testing with vehicle") Not saying it is the most likely explanation, but it is a possible one.

Offline AC in NC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 286
  • Likes Given: 336
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #893 on: 01/13/2018 04:15 AM »
Understood.  Just discounted that as a plausible fit for her comments.  Seems to me you do fit checks at places you don't have to subsequently work [much] to make a launch site.  39A as an FH one only should take weeks.
« Last Edit: 01/13/2018 04:16 AM by AC in NC »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4131
  • California
  • Liked: 3526
  • Likes Given: 2178
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #894 on: 01/13/2018 04:20 AM »
Understood.  Just discounted that as a plausible fit for her comments.  Seems to me you do fit checks at places you don't have to subsequently work [much] to make a launch site.  39A as an FH one only should take weeks.

No, there are fit checks for every new pad and new pad/vehicle combinations.

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #895 on: 01/13/2018 04:33 AM »
A few pics of the fence damage.
  I'm fairly sure the cause was divine aggravation over my blocked view.

Ah! So Nomadd huffed and puffed and Blooooooooooooooooo the fence down !!!

Offline ShawnGSE

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Cape Canaveral, FL
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #896 on: 01/13/2018 04:35 AM »
I wouldn't hold my breath.  Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon require the GSE fab group.  So that would mean things might get moving after you see a crew arm on 39A.  But let me tell you, fabbing GSE stuff is going to take a lot more than 6 months.  Getting a pad functional in any way by 2018 sounds like the claim of a BFR on Mars by 2022, just way too ambitious.  39A took almost 2 years to be what you see now, and there was already a flame trench and infrastructure in place when they started. 
What GSE remains for FH other than flaw correction surfaced by the WDR or SF, or damage from the first launch, if any (damage after each launch is on a general downward trend)? Maybe I should move this post and your answer to the FH general discussion thread, but I'm pretty curious.

For the GSE fab crew specifically it's mostly commercial crew related now.  That's the last piece of the puzzle for 39A.  A good indication for when you'll see SpaceX employees really move in is when structures for them to work in are made.  Something like the circus tent from Vandy.

Nomadd said Today
“There will be a couple of small office buildings put up at the control center soon.”    A little Proof they’ll be here, I’m not saying your wrong put it’s something right?

GSE is big.  If you look at the scale of the tent pictured you'll notice it's big enough for heavy equipment to drive in.  30 ton forklifts, even a portable crane.  The full thrust reaction frame for Vandy was built in that tent, which is the same design as the one at 39A with room to spare.  Big tents built on shipping containers are what you'll want to see. 

Offline AC in NC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 286
  • Likes Given: 336
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #897 on: 01/13/2018 05:00 AM »
Understood.  Just discounted that as a plausible fit for her comments.  Seems to me you do fit checks at places you don't have to subsequently work [much] to make a launch site.  39A as an FH one only should take weeks.

No, there are fit checks for every new pad and new pad/vehicle combinations.

Of course there are.  I don't find fit checks a plausible fit to the nuance of her comments.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28354
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8199
  • Likes Given: 5430
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #898 on: 01/13/2018 05:38 AM »
Understood.  Just discounted that as a plausible fit for her comments.  Seems to me you do fit checks at places you don't have to subsequently work [much] to make a launch site.  39A as an FH one only should take weeks.

No, there are fit checks for every new pad and new pad/vehicle combinations.

Of course there are.  I don't find fit checks a plausible fit to the nuance of her comments.
It's still possible.

I am basically certain, though, that this is either a BFS or BFR test. That launch cradle thing is super weird, has never been (successfully) done before, and they'll probably blow stuff up while trying to get it to work. So my guess is either BFS suborbital hops (potentially fairly long hops, according to Shotwell) or testing the BFR landing cradle. If it were up to me, I'd start with the landing cradle ASAP to get that figured out.

EDIT: And I expect the first tests to be low-fueled, just like Grasshopper. And probably only one or two or three engines to start with.
« Last Edit: 01/13/2018 05:39 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • Liked: 864
  • Likes Given: 1148
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #899 on: 01/13/2018 09:01 AM »
If they're still planning to launch Falcon 9 from Boca Chica, why would that require "early vehicle testing"?  Falcon 9 is flight proven. And if she meant early pad testing with a vehicle, then why does she imply it will take some time after that for them to "continue working toward making it a launch site"?

In other words, Gwynne's announcement yesterday could be interpreted as Boca Chica going straight to BFR.

I'm trying hard to think of an alternative interpretation.  Coming up empty.

What FH is doing at 39A now. Fit checks of vehicle with pad. (as in "testing with vehicle") ...
Right, but as I said before,
if she meant early pad testing with a vehicle, then why does she imply it will take some time after that for them to "continue working toward making it a launch site"?

Not saying it is the most likely explanation, but it is a possible one.
Another possible explanation is that the person who wrote the Houston Chronicle article paraphrased what Gwynne said, and since they're not technical, that paraphrasing may have distorted Gwynne's actual meaning.

In any case, I'm not prepared to say this is a smoking gun.  They may still launch F9/FH from Boca Chica, which would help free up 39a for BFR.

It'll be really interesting to see this all play out.

Tags: