Author Topic: Horizontal vs. vertical integration  (Read 52167 times)

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« on: 10/23/2011 06:28 pm »
Sorry if this has been asked before, but...

What are the relative (dis)advantages of horizontal and vertical payload integration?

Why does Soyuz in Guiana have its payloads integrated vertical, while Soyuz at Baikonur have its payloads integrated horizontally?

Why is (IIRC) the DoD requiring vertical integration for all of its payloads?

Thanks for any info you can provide. :-)
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #1 on: 10/23/2011 06:33 pm »
Payloads aren't cantilevered while fueled with vertical.  Vertical provides 360 access at the pad
« Last Edit: 10/23/2011 06:34 pm by Jim »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #2 on: 10/23/2011 07:25 pm »
Sorry if this has been asked before, but...

What are the relative (dis)advantages of horizontal and vertical payload integration?

Why does Soyuz in Guiana have its payloads integrated vertical, while Soyuz at Baikonur have its payloads integrated horizontally?

Why is (IIRC) the DoD requiring vertical integration for all of its payloads?

Thanks for any info you can provide. :-)

I suspect that one advantage of vertical payload integration is that launch vehicle processing can be more isolated from the payload, and therefore simplified.  With horizontal integration, the rocket has to be integrated without payload, then rolled to the pad for propellant testing, then rolled back to the hanger for payload integration, then rolled *back* to the pad to be reconnected yet again to the propellant and electrical umbilicals, etc..   With vertical integration, the rocket never leaves the pad, or launch platform, between dress rehearsal, payload stacking, and launch.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #3 on: 10/23/2011 07:39 pm »
Vertical provides 360 access at the pad

SpaceX obtain 360 degree access to their launcher in the horizontal integration facility by simply providing a motorised rotator mechanism on the stand...

Are there any advantages to horizontal integration? I guess that the buildings are cheaper and you don't have all the safety faff that comes with working at height...
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #4 on: 10/23/2011 08:01 pm »
... With horizontal integration, the rocket has to be integrated without payload, then rolled to the pad for propellant testing, then rolled back to the hanger for payload integration, then rolled *back* to the pad to be reconnected yet again to the propellant and electrical umbilicals, etc...

Is that typical in practice?  Looking at, e.g., Sooyuz, the first time the LV sees the pad appears to be after everything is integrated: (1a) integrate payload + upper stage; (1b) integrate 1st + 2nd + 3rd stage; (2) integrate 1a + 1b; (3) rollout complete stack to pad.

edit: correction, 3rd stage vs. upper stage.
« Last Edit: 10/23/2011 08:34 pm by joek »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #5 on: 10/23/2011 08:20 pm »
Vertical provides 360 access at the pad

SpaceX obtain 360 degree access to their launcher in the horizontal integration facility by simply providing a motorised rotator mechanism on the stand...


I was talking spacecraft access. 
But anyways, can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the launcher

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #6 on: 10/23/2011 08:25 pm »
I was talking spacecraft access. 
So was I...

Quote
But anyways, can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the launcher

Why not? Do you mean that you can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the strongback? Because I guess that's true.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #7 on: 10/23/2011 08:45 pm »
Are there any advantages to horizontal integration? I guess that the buildings are cheaper and you don't have all the safety faff that comes with working at height...

Also potentially less time spent occupying the pad, but that (and benefit) depends on other factors (e.g., launch rate, integration caobility/throughput, etc.).   As you suggiest, at present I'd guess the primary benefit is cheaper facilities.

The rationale given by Arianespace:
Quote
The vertical integration of Soyuz payloads is the primary difference in the Spaceport's launch vehicle processing as compared to the long-operating Soyuz facilities at Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan and Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Russia.   This vertical procedure enables payloads to be installed as traditionally performed with Western launch systems – and is a change from the horizontal integration utilized at the Baikonur and Plesetsk Cosmodromes.
So presumably there are enough payloads which require vertical integration to justify the additional facilities cost.  Or maybe since existing Arianespace processes/payloads are based on vertical ("as traditionally performed"), it was more effective to continue/extend that with Soyuz.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #8 on: 10/23/2011 08:53 pm »
Are there any advantages to horizontal integration? I guess that the buildings are cheaper and you don't have all the safety faff that comes with working at height...
If your LV is integrated horizontally, then substantial infrastructure is required for vertical payload integration, as we see with Soyuz at CSG.

If your LV already has significant elements that are integrated vertically, then the additional infrastructure required for vertical payload integration is much less significant. Large solids pretty much rule out horizontal LV integration.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #9 on: 10/23/2011 10:45 pm »
If your LV is integrated horizontally, then substantial infrastructure is required for vertical payload integration, as we see with Soyuz at CSG.

If your LV already has significant elements that are integrated vertically, then the additional infrastructure required for vertical payload integration is much less significant. Large solids pretty much rule out horizontal LV integration.

Was trying to think of a way to express that, or at least categorize the variations, and what came to mind is the following matrix.  No claim as to its utility; corrections appreciated.  Thanks.

Columns represent LV assembly/integration method.  Rows represent payload-to-LV integration method.  Intersection represents whether a given combination is used.  V = vertical; H = horizontal.

PL+LV \ LV      H (off-pad)      V off-pad      V on-pad     
H (off-pad)Y(1)NN
V off-pad?Y(3)N
V on-padY(2)?N(4)


Notes:
1 - Most (all?) Russian, Falcon 9, Taurus II, …
2 - D-IV, Souyz CSG
3 - Atlas V, VAB (Saturn, Shuttle)
4 - At one time, none today?
« Last Edit: 10/23/2011 11:01 pm by joek »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #10 on: 10/23/2011 11:34 pm »
I was talking spacecraft access. 
So was I...

Quote
But anyways, can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the launcher

Why not? Do you mean that you can't rotate the vehicle when attached to the strongback? Because I guess that's true.

Not just the strongback but the holddown system.  And that is the time spacecraft want to do final closeouts.  This is also while they are powered up and that has to be through the umbilical.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #11 on: 10/24/2011 12:58 am »
... With horizontal integration, the rocket has to be integrated without payload, then rolled to the pad for propellant testing, then rolled back to the hanger for payload integration, then rolled *back* to the pad to be reconnected yet again to the propellant and electrical umbilicals, etc...

Is that typical in practice?  Looking at, e.g., Sooyuz, the first time the LV sees the pad appears to be after everything is integrated: (1a) integrate payload + upper stage; (1b) integrate 1st + 2nd + 3rd stage; (2) integrate 1a + 1b; (3) rollout complete stack to pad.

edit: correction, 3rd stage vs. upper stage.

Wet dress rehearsals are, or have been, typical in western practice (i.e. at Kourou, Cape Canaveral, and Tanegashima).  Soyuz went through such a test at Kourou prior to spacecraft mating. 

At Baikonur, the Soyuz launchers undergo an integrated test on the pad two days prior to launch.  I'm not sure if that includes propellant loading.  I doubt very much that the hardware doesn't see its first cryo loading until launch day.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #12 on: 10/24/2011 02:20 am »
At Baikonur, the Soyuz launchers undergo an integrated test on the pad two days prior to launch.  I'm not sure if that includes propellant loading.  I doubt very much that the hardware doesn't see its first cryo loading until launch day.

The Soyuz launch campaign flowchart shows 3 days total pad time (after LV assembly and payload integration for entire stack) before launch, and with no other pad time.  There could be a separate LV tankinkg/checkout on the pad, altho there's no indication of such in their flowcharts.

If you have a reasonable level of confidence in the LV (which presumably they do?), would there be a good reason for assembling the LV ih the HIF, hauling it out to the pad, tanking/de-tanking/checkout, haluing it back to the HIF, integrating with payload, then hauling it all back out to the pad?

Anyone with first-hand experience care to comment?  Thanks.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #13 on: 10/24/2011 03:43 am »
Suppose you have an all-liquid launch vehicle suitable for horizontal integration and intended to carry both unmanned and manned payloads. Being as the launch complex would need to provide a means for passengers to board the payload atop of the vertical stack on the launch pad, does it make any sense to integrate the payload horizontally, or does it make much more sense to incorporate vertical payload integration capability into the same pad facility used for passenger ingress? Further suppose that your company is well-known for maximizing commonality...

You see what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX moves to vertical payload integration at some point. The combination of horizontal off-pad LV integration and vertical on-pad payload integration seems to be ideal from an operational standpoint, and the higher capital investment is a lot easier to justify if you want to support manned launches from the same pad.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2011 03:44 am by butters »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #14 on: 10/24/2011 04:02 am »
Suppose you have an all-liquid launch vehicle suitable for horizontal integration and intended to carry both unmanned and manned payloads. Being as the launch complex would need to provide a means for passengers to board the payload atop of the vertical stack on the launch pad, does it make any sense to integrate the payload horizontally, or does it make much more sense to incorporate vertical payload integration capability into the same pad facility used for passenger ingress? Further suppose that your company is well-known for maximizing commonality...

You see what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX moves to vertical payload integration at some point. The combination of horizontal off-pad LV integration and vertical on-pad payload integration seems to be ideal from an operational standpoint, and the higher capital investment is a lot easier to justify if you want to support manned launches from the same pad.
Given the added costs of vertical integration it really doesn't seem worth it just to have commonality with a crew launch tower. Plus SpaceX keeps going on about how they want to decrease the time from hanger to pad so I don't see them moving towards the route you suggested.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #15 on: 10/24/2011 05:35 am »
Wet dress rehearsals are, or have been, typical in western practice (i.e. at Kourou, Cape Canaveral, and Tanegashima).  Soyuz went through such a test at Kourou prior to spacecraft mating. 
Actually.. no it didn't. VS01 did not perform a wet dress rehearsel. The very first time fuels and oxidizers were loaded into any Soyuz launcher (minus the Fregat upper stage) at CSG was 20 october, the day of the botched first launch attempt of VS01

Earlier this year, in april, a different Soyuz launcher was rolled out to the launchpad for functional and fit checks. They did not load fuels and oxidizer into that one. Arianespace did perform a virtual countdown and lift-off. But, without tanking, that's considered to be a dry dress rehearsal. See this Arianespace update and this one for more information

Quote
At Baikonur, the Soyuz launchers undergo an integrated test on the pad two days prior to launch.  I'm not sure if that includes propellant loading.  I doubt very much that the hardware doesn't see its first cryo loading until launch day.

 - Ed Kyle
As I mentioned above: the first three stages of the Soyuz launcher generally do not see their first loads of fuel and oxidizers until the day of the first launch attempt.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2011 05:40 am by woods170 »

Offline Phillip Clark

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 557
  • Likes Given: 1078
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #16 on: 10/24/2011 06:45 am »
One advantage of integrating the launch vehicle and rolling it out to the pad horizontally is that it minimises the time on the pad, allowing for a rapid re-use of launch pads.

This is how the high launch rate of >80 launches a year was maintained in the Soviet era.
I've always been crazy but it's kept me from going insane - WJ.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #17 on: 10/24/2011 08:57 am »
A notable example of that being the launch of Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 a day apart in 1962.
Douglas Clark

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #18 on: 10/24/2011 09:20 am »
One advantage of integrating the launch vehicle and rolling it out to the pad horizontally is that it minimises the time on the pad, allowing for a rapid re-use of launch pads.

Why does this minimise time on the pad?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Horizontal vs. vertical integration
« Reply #19 on: 10/24/2011 09:23 am »
Are spacecraft typically designed to be able to be integrated both horizontally and vertically, or just one of the two?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Tags:
 

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