Probably cheaper to just build a big pole barn.
Have you ever been to KSC? Or Texas? It's ridiculously huge. There's plenty of space.
Shotwell has expressed an aversion to high bay factory space because it is relatively expensive.
Having 46 stages new and used sitting around... you process is totally out of control...
Quote from: John Alan on 08/07/2016 08:59 pmHaving 46 stages new and used sitting around... you process is totally out of control...Assuming 20 launchs a year for the next 24 month will yield 40 cores, more with FH. Are you assuming that substantial reuse will set in much earlier than that? Are you suggesting they should not fly their manifest until the customers agree to reuse?
Honestly I'm assuming some customers will pay extra and insist on new every time...
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 08/07/2016 09:08 pmShotwell has expressed an aversion to high bay factory space because it is relatively expensive.I know that...But over a 20+ year span... total costs may be cheaper with the savings from reduced handing labor and equipment.Shotwell rightly so is thinking 5 years out... I'm thinking longer term... invest to save later... It's all just an idea... nothing more...
It isn't going to be sited near LZ-1
Quote from: Jim on 08/07/2016 09:57 pmIt isn't going to be sited near LZ-1Heck Jim, we both know this will never get built at all...But the thought was within crawler crane driving distance of where most cores will come from...Use the cranes in the building to make one lift and put it wherever needed in one operation...
Quote from: John Alan on 08/07/2016 10:15 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/07/2016 09:57 pmIt isn't going to be sited near LZ-1Heck Jim, we both know this will never get built at all...But the thought was within crawler crane driving distance of where most cores will come from...Use the cranes in the building to make one lift and put it wherever needed in one operation...That area is not sited for buildings and operations like this. The transporter is required.
The number of cores in inventory could easily balloon over time to need this space...
@John Alan, have you given any thoughts to the upper stage storage required to support your proposal 's large pool of Falcon cores? Think a stockpile of upper stages and payload fairings is needed near the vehicle integration facility.
Then there's the "economy" storage plan. I hear Arizona (and McGregor, Texas) still have some vacant land.
Americans have too much space.This is what other people have to deal with:https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=midland+gliding+club+hangar+photo&oq=midland+gliding+club+hangar+photo&aqs=chrome..69i57.17313j0j4&client=ms-android-motorola&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=XkZlA9orcx2TcM%3A
Interesting idea, although I agree vertical is not necessary. Maybe a better idea is to stack the cores horizontally in decks, perhaps 3 x 3 (9 cores seems plenty.) Actually, I wonder if such a building could be built next to or even on top of the existing HIF. That way, you could also build an offloading platform connecting to the HIF. All it would require is a small coin-op unit on the side. Gwynne just inserts a quarter, pulls a handle, and a core rolls down right into position in the HIF!
You should expect to see SpaceX embrace vertical assembly buildings only with a radical redesign or new launch vehicle, if that. Ideas like the ones in this thread work fine geometrically, but ground area is not scarce, and they don't work economically.
Usable ground is quite scarce at LC-39A and the cape generally.