Author Topic: Idea to Store/Refurb up to 46 F9-S1 cores in 62.5K square ft.  (Read 12184 times)

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
I stated the idea over in the thread on Spx's new Falcon Transport System
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40857.msg1566377#msg1566377

But I felt compelled to mock up such an idea full size using SketchUpPro 2016...  :-\
Make sure the idea seemed at least doable...  ;)

Stats as drawn full scale...
62,500 square foot building footprint...
390 ft long
160 ft wide
215 ft high to roof surface
End door max size up to 80ft wide and 192ft high...(which could be reduced with steel framing)
Side structures are reinforced concrete ... side walls are drawn as 4ft thick for scale/load bearing... :o
Add 20 ft and gain room for 2 more cores standing up in storage...
Add 180ft and add 5 more cores being worked on on the floor...
The rocket stages are drawn as 12ft diameter and 158ft long tubes... Longer then actual size.

The Gantry cranes would be about 155'ft gauge wide... I allowed 16ft height for the Gantry Bridge...

The areas under each stage bay is 14ft high... 19ft wide and around 20ft deep...
Use to store stuff used on the floor... tools... fixtures... spare parts... etc...
And obviously the foundation under this beast would be much more massive then shown..

Yeah, it's just another crazy idea from John Alan...  ::)
But, I thought I would throw it out there for everyone's amusement...  :)
« Last Edit: 08/08/2016 12:57 am by John Alan »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Probably cheaper to just build a big pole barn.
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 John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Probably cheaper to just build a big pole barn.

Sure... if you have the acreage... and permits to build/lease all that sq ft... and staff to hustle stages around...

In my followup same thread...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40857.msg1566420#msg1566420
I stated more reasons why compacted under one roof instead of spread all over in multiple buildings was helpful.

And... as I agreed with Jim...
Having 46 stages new and used sitting around... your process is totally out of control...
But having more space for storage already there... does seem smart if the 'pooh hits the fan'...
 ;)
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 10:25 pm by John Alan »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Have you ever been to KSC? Or Texas? It's ridiculously huge. There's plenty of space.
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 RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2459
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10226
Shotwell has expressed an aversion to high bay factory space because it is relatively expensive.

Online southshore26

1. You don't need storage for that many cores... if you do you're not doing it right.
2. The cost to build that to hurricane standards would be insane.
3. See #1... there's no need for a facility like this.

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Have you ever been to KSC? Or Texas? It's ridiculously huge. There's plenty of space.

Yes... I am aware of your point your making...

But, I also run a repair dept in a production facility that builds, tests, and ships large powershift transmissions for a Dow 30 company...
Logistically... compacting it all under one roof saves time and increases efficiency... which saves money long term.
Putting it all under one crane bay means it's all weather and minimizes lifting equipment capitol costs...

It's just an idea... nothing more...  ;)
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 09:29 pm by John Alan »

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Shotwell 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...  ;)
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 10:26 pm by John Alan »

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Having 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?

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Having 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...
The number of cores in inventory could easily balloon over time to need this space...
So you either start scrapping/recycling cores or start expending cores when it gets out of hand...
5 years out... they may be at 40+ launches a years from the 2 pads at the cape alone...
Many (6 or more) FH launches a year could drive up the needed core count on hand...
If so... then this building sitting out there west of LZ-1 would seem like a good idea... in my opinion...
 ;)
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 11:17 pm by John Alan »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Insisting on new every time is dumb. In the long-run not only is it more expensive, it's perhaps actually less reliable. If SpaceX is able to recover this many cores for reuse...
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 09:58 pm 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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
It isn't going to be sited near LZ-1

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Honestly I'm assuming some customers will pay extra and insist on new every time...

Why would you assume that?  Certainly no reason if refurb flight record is acceptable?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Acreage and permits are not a problem at the Cape

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Shotwell 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...  ;)

No, vertical storage for F9 would be more expensive in any time span

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
It isn't going to be sited near LZ-1

Heck 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...

As far as Hurricane proof... there 1000's of tons of reinforced concrete in both sides of this building...
As long as the roof and end walls are made for it... No reason 200+ mph could not be handled...
If a big storm is coming... put all the cores up where they are protected on 3 sides with over a foot of concrete at minimum...
Even if the doors blow in... some stages will ride it out to fly again... I think...



Again... this is a money no object thought idea thrown out for amusement of the viewers...
It's a concept/idea drawing... not blueprints for a final design...
Nothing more...

 ;)    ;D
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 10:21 pm by John Alan »

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 153
Sort of this concept?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
It isn't going to be sited near LZ-1

Heck 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.

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
It isn't going to be sited near LZ-1

Heck 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.

Ok... did not know that till now... thanks...  ;)

I could show you my follow up green field idea that has this concept flanked by two shorter HIF building against it's sides N and S and two T/E railways angling out to 2 launch pads to the NE and SE...
Out straight east is a set of landing pads...

Naw... I'm just messing with ya...  ;D

Maybe a proper BFR launch complex could use that idea... scaled up massively...  :o
That would be over a billion dollars to build... but it would be Cool...
Rival the new Chinese launch complex...  8)
« Last Edit: 08/08/2016 12:34 am by John Alan »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Honestly I'm assuming some customers will pay extra and insist on new every time...

Then what SpaceX is doing with recovering stages is a waste of time and money.  Every part of it.

However, if they can prove that recovered stages are just as reliable, if not more than, new stages, then I think that in the not-so-distant future most of the launches will be on recovered stages.

Quote
The number of cores in inventory could easily balloon over time to need this space...

That number certainly could if SpaceX is not able to convince their market that reusable stages are reliable enough to use.

But I think such a facility would be overkill, and sized for a need that doesn't last very long.  But if you had to store stages, then your concept is worth a look.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
If you had to store stages in Manhattan, where the price of land would justify such a crazy scheme. :)
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 John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
Taken to an extreme... same building footprint...

Three deep along both walls... You could have 108 standing...  :o
Two truck load/unload bays down the middle... A S1 warehouse...  ???
Or 1/2 a building for 54 max and one truck bay... or whatever size you need...

Or go two deep... 72 max standing... 5 being worked and one trucking bay...  :)
I like that one actually myself.. for some weird reason...  ;D

In both cases you may have to rearrange a bit to get one from the back out if buried.
It would allow deeper wing walls which would add stiffness to the concrete sides...

 ;)
« Last Edit: 08/08/2016 02:15 am by John Alan »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
@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.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Liked: 728
  • Likes Given: 676
I keep reading the header to this as 'IKEA to Store/Refurb...'

It *almost* makes sense!

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
The trick is going to be minimise the number of used cores which need storage space by refining the processing flow to fly them again as soon as possible.

Having to spend big bucks to deal with a large number of cores that have nothing to do isn't financially sensible - either work with a smaller number of cores or park them up outside and sheet over the bottom end.

SpaceX look as if they're keen ongaining value from assets without spending a huge amount of money to do so (the re-purposed Orbiter Transporter for one example) so I doubt they're going to be building a very expensive storage facility when the sensible approach is to ensure they don't need it. 

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
    • Home of the ThreadRipper Cadillac
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 2735
@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.

A shorter version of this design idea with storage spaces along the walls... is a good idea for a building...
A tall enough building to turn a S2 vertical and get it over an interstage like fixture in a storage bay,,,
Or a fixture to secure a fairing 1/2 onto... then stand that whole assy up vertically in a storage bay
I had not thought of that... but that is a good one...  8)
BUT ...only if either or both become reusable in the future ... ???
As long as they are expendable... Just in time delivery from the source makes more sense...  ;)
« Last Edit: 08/08/2016 01:10 pm by John Alan »

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
Do what I do in my garage when I run out of floor space, just hang stuff from the ceiling. Might make moving stages around a bit of a PITA, but nothing insurmountable.

Offline mgfitter

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 0
Surely it would be a lot cheaper to just do something like this in a much shorter (cheaper and more hurricane-tolerant) building...



The area at the 'front', where the stages would be prepared prior to being slotted in and out of their storage racks would easily double as a general inspection area.

-MG.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
John, I love that you've gone all in and actually tried to spec out your imagining.  Way more fun to spit ball ideas with some actual substance.  So, thanks. 

But, I'm definitely in the "if SpaceX needs that much storage, they're doing it wrong"-camp.  IMHO, if they end up with "too many" cores, they'll start stripping the useful parts and slagging the remainder of them.  Or, at the worst, potentially just skip recovery on a few. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Then there's the "economy" storage plan. I hear Arizona (and McGregor, Texas) still have some vacant land.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 08:37 pm by Kabloona »


Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Then there's the "economy" storage plan. I hear Arizona (and McGregor, Texas) still have some vacant land.
Only if you are scrapping & cannibalizing the stuff you park there. ::)

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
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

Ah, the Long Mynd. Scariest car descent I've ever done.

The USA is pretty fortunate with so much space.

Offline DecoLV

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Boston, MA, USA
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 72
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! :)
« Last Edit: 08/15/2016 06:10 pm by DecoLV »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
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! :)

There is the small matter of being able to withstand the occasional hurricanes & storms if you have a really large building expanded from the current HIF.

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 920
  • Likes Given: 231
If a storage facility ends up being needed, probably combined with a refurbishment area, perhaps movable horizontal racks are a better solution for high-density storage.  You could have racks three to five high on rails at the end of the refurb facility packed so that only one access isle is open at a time.  If the racks have slide out rails for the cradles then overhead cranes can handle moving the stages in and out.  Just dial up the rack you need, slide out the rails, and pick the stage off with the overhead crane.  The concept has worked for libraries and file storage facilities for decades.  Why not for rockets?

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 74
At the present point in time, it is considerably more economical in rural settings to expand factories which use heavy machinery by extending the single-floor concrete slab outwards, rather than building expensive steel racking to carry large amounts of weight ten or twenty feet off the ground.  The roof in such a building only has to hold up its own weight and some small dynamic loading from the weather.

Vertical assembly buildings require very tall towers with some weight perched at the very top, and this gets extremely expensive per usable space.  One of the early decisions made with the F9 was to tilt it up attached to a strongback vehicle, with the understanding that this was an order of magnitude less expensive, while loss of the design advantages granted by vertical assembly were an acceptable compromise.

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.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2016 12:07 am by Burninate »

Offline DecoLV

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Boston, MA, USA
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 72
Usable ground is quite scarce at LC-39A and the cape generally. I don't really imagine they could expand the HIF. But maybe on the opposite side? Or around the Pad C NASA  supposedly wants to develop? They would have to truck more then...unless co-op rail maybe? Any NASA RR still around, or are they all bike trails now?

Offline 411rocket

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Retired RCEME w/ tours in Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia
  • Vancouver Island
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 120

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.

I think NASA was previously looking for renters, for part of the VAB.

How many Cores, could they possibly vertically store, in 1 VAB high bay?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Usable ground is quite scarce at LC-39A and the cape generally.

quite wrong. 

Offline DecoLV

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Boston, MA, USA
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 72


Really? I was under the impression much of the land was wetlands or had pipes under it, restricting it for building. But I'll take your word for it, Jim.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2016 10:03 pm by DecoLV »

Tags:
 

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