Mr Musk has compared his desired model of SpaceX/Falcon operations to that of an airline/airliner – well, airliners are flown to the maintenance/operating hub of their purchasing airline, not trucked – shall we someday see Falcons, regardless of where they are built, avoiding the entire truck/barge infrastructure and “simply” rocketing to the appropriate launch center? And might we see rockets during their life cycle being relocated as needed by similar means and methods. Thoughts…?
Quote from: winkhomewinkhome on 06/08/2014 01:44 pmMr Musk has compared his desired model of SpaceX/Falcon operations to that of an airline/airliner – well, airliners are flown to the maintenance/operating hub of their purchasing airline, not trucked – shall we someday see Falcons, regardless of where they are built, avoiding the entire truck/barge infrastructure and “simply” rocketing to the appropriate launch center? And might we see rockets during their life cycle being relocated as needed by similar means and methods. Thoughts…?You can't launch from an inhabited area in case this happens:
You can't launch from an inhabited area in case this happens:
No. You're not. It's just not practical - too much wear and tear, too much risk, too much fuel expenditure per range.
1. Now going to the larger stuff, Falcon X, XX, BFR, or whatever... The way to transport those seems obvious to me. Probably out in left field to most, but I think quite workable, and with proven methodology which has been used daily for 80 years or so (though on a smaller scale). 2. Pressurize the tanks for stiffness (done during conventional transportation??), Add temporary detachable landing gear, wings, tail, cockpit to temporarily make it into a large glider. There are hard mounting points at the front and rear of a stage but it may require work to put wings and landing gear in the middle. 3. Modify a suitable airplane (probably something airliner size) to tow it (tow hook, hook mounting structure, release mechanism, suitable clearance of rope to control surfaces, rearward vision, etc.). Using ~1000 feet of tow line (spectra, kevlar, etc.) aerotow the stages to near the point of use, release them, and land them like a glider (Space Shuttle runway). Then remove the wings and wheels etc. and either road ship them back or use a cargo plane (which could be the tow plane). I see no reason why this can't be done successfully 1000 out of 1000 times. I'm a glider pilot and would volunteer to fly these in a second.4. This transport strategy also seems to fit into Muskthink methodology of not necessarily doing it the way(s) it has been done but rather doing the calculations and coming up with a different better method, what he calls first principles thinking.
No. You're not. It's just not practical - too much wear and tear, too much risk, too much fuel expenditure per range.The Falcon 9's dimensions are tailored specifically, according to Elon in the Dragon V2 Q&A, to be the largest diameter he thought would fit on a normal road, multiplied by the longest length he thought would hold together structurally.I think air freight on a customized freight plane is a pretty reasonable possibility for the Falcon core (if it's necessary), or for any cores they might produce somewhere intermediate in size between a 10m-15m BFR, and a 3.7m Falcon. A vehicle in this size range (3x as large as the Falcon core rather than 9x) was on their Powerpoint scribblings a few years ago as the Falcon X, though we've received no other indication that they're working on anything larger than the Falcon Heavy & smaller than the BFR.The default for larger cores, and probably the only option for the BFR, will be a barge through the inland US waterways on the Gulf & Atlantic coasts, perhaps supplemented with a ship if they ever find an oceanic island launchsite.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2014 03:01 amI like rolling a BFR onto a RoRo transport ship from west coast factory port to offshore launch facilitates near Hawaii.There isn't an area that could handle a BFR in Hawaii. Anyways, why? It will just increase costs over other sites.
I like rolling a BFR onto a RoRo transport ship from west coast factory port to offshore launch facilitates near Hawaii.
Quote from: Jim on 06/09/2014 03:04 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2014 03:01 amI like rolling a BFR onto a RoRo transport ship from west coast factory port to offshore launch facilitates near Hawaii.There isn't an area that could handle a BFR in Hawaii. Anyways, why? It will just increase costs over other sites.I think he means find some uninhabited island near hawaii. The facility is 100% energy self-sufficient manufacturing rocket propellant from sea water and atmospheric CO2 using renewable wave, solar and wind power. You know, run-of-the-mill every-day off-the-wall musk-think.As far as the topic goes, I think stratolaunch has a good idea how to transport heavy oversized loads by air. Obviously, the BFR would be more massive, but unfueled.
Quote from: Jim on 06/09/2014 03:04 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2014 03:01 amI like rolling a BFR onto a RoRo transport ship from west coast factory port to offshore launch facilitates near Hawaii.There isn't an area that could handle a BFR in Hawaii. Anyways, why? It will just increase costs over other sites.I think he means find some uninhabited island near hawaii. The facility is 100% energy self-sufficient manufacturing rocket propellant from sea water and atmospheric CO2 using renewable wave, solar and wind power. You know, run-of-the-mill every-day off-the-wall musk-think.
Offshore means literally offshore. Modified oil production platform sited several hundred meters from shore from one of the Hawaii Islands.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2014 05:44 amOffshore means literally offshore. Modified oil production platform sited several hundred meters from shore from one of the Hawaii Islands.Or off Brownsville.
There is more human resources & infrastructure at Los Angeles & San Francisco.
Cape Canaveral is not going to be such an attractive launch facility anyway in a few decades, what with worsening weather and rising tides.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 06/09/2014 03:30 amQuote from: Jim on 06/09/2014 03:04 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2014 03:01 amI like rolling a BFR onto a RoRo transport ship from west coast factory port to offshore launch facilitates near Hawaii.There isn't an area that could handle a BFR in Hawaii. Anyways, why? It will just increase costs over other sites.I think he means find some uninhabited island near hawaii. The facility is 100% energy self-sufficient manufacturing rocket propellant from sea water and atmospheric CO2 using renewable wave, solar and wind power. You know, run-of-the-mill every-day off-the-wall musk-think.As far as the topic goes, I think stratolaunch has a good idea how to transport heavy oversized loads by air. Obviously, the BFR would be more massive, but unfueled.Is Gilligan's Island still occupied?
The factory can be built anywhere in the US.
Whoever builds it, my money would be on the Gulf or East coasts.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/10/2014 03:34 am Whoever builds it, my money would be on the Gulf or East coasts.There are many rivers with access to both, so the US interior is not out.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/09/2014 11:17 am There is more human resources & infrastructure at Los Angeles & San Francisco.Cheaper not to be in California. What infrastructure? The factory can be built anywhere in the US. See the other vehicles past and present.
The families of workers in the BFR factory needs infrastructure like schools, shops and spousal employment opportunities. Which somewhere in South Texas don't address fully.
Clarification on infrastructure. Not only the usual utilities hookups (water, electricity, etc.), logistics links and local suppliers network. The families of workers in the BFR factory needs infrastructure like schools, shops and spousal employment opportunities. Which somewhere in South Texas don't address fully.
Funny that nobody has mentioned barging MacGregor > Boca Chica. Seems most logical to build more "factory" in MacGregor than building new. And is it prohibitively expensive to use the Panama Canal?
Another possibility that seems fairly perfect for cargo like this?An airshipAeroscraft's smaller model should be good for two full F9 cores, plus fairings and 13 tons of additional payload total, for a full fuel load. Their bigger model would be able to handle one full BFR core.If the helium price situation works out, or they buck up and risk hydrogen, that is.
Just put "airship" into search and see how often this has come up before.
Please remember that even waterways have height (and draft) limits. The vessel that moves ULA cores is sort of at the limit. Thus most waterways might be good for 6m or even 7m, but when you're talking about 10m+, that's taller than a 3 story building. You have to have every single bridge have a clearance high enough to go through. And you have to add the vessel's superstructure and such.
Quote from: baldusi on 06/11/2014 07:57 pmPlease remember that even waterways have height (and draft) limits. The vessel that moves ULA cores is sort of at the limit. Thus most waterways might be good for 6m or even 7m, but when you're talking about 10m+, that's taller than a 3 story building. You have to have every single bridge have a clearance high enough to go through. And you have to add the vessel's superstructure and such.Which wasn't a problem for the Shuttle ET at 8.4m or for Saturn at 10m.
See, everyone keeps missing the most OBVIOUS method! Attach wheels to the Thrust STructure and Interstage connection, mount a "cab" and just DRIVE the stage to where it needs to go! Randy
Quote from: RanulfC on 06/12/2014 04:23 pmSee, everyone keeps missing the most OBVIOUS method! Attach wheels to the Thrust STructure and Interstage connection, mount a "cab" and just DRIVE the stage to where it needs to go! RandyBTDT and the fifth wheel connection serves as a lift fixture.
Quote from: Jim on 06/12/2014 04:28 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 06/12/2014 04:23 pmSee, everyone keeps missing the most OBVIOUS method! Attach wheels to the Thrust STructure and Interstage connection, mount a "cab" and just DRIVE the stage to where it needs to go! RandyBTDT and the fifth wheel connection serves as a lift fixture.Even better! Now just partially fill the RP-tank and plumb it into the tractor... Reverse GUMBALL!Randy
Since we don't need to worry about another hundred-years hurricane after Katrina
My first thought when I saw this thread was simply just...wow, that has got to be the dumbest idea ever imagined. Just no.Its simply too dangerous, they don't want to blow up SpaceX headquarters or the Tesla factory. SpaceX also certainly doesn't want to blow up any homes in California.
Quote from: Jim on 06/10/2014 02:55 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 06/10/2014 03:34 am Whoever builds it, my money would be on the Gulf or East coasts.There are many rivers with access to both, so the US interior is not out.Best illustration I could find on short notice:
What's the downside? No, I'm really asking!
Not sure why the most obvious has not been stated. Is there really any need to re-invent the wheel? If it were good enough for the Saturn S1C and S1B, why not move the entire manufacturing plant into the available space in Michoud and use the ICW as the means to move the stages to Brownsville or Kennedy? ... So how about it, Elon?
Four pages in, I want to thank those that have participated in this post – I do not post often – I spend more time reading, following developments, the news, the gossip, etc. That said, it amazes me, the total lack of imagination expressed. How often is it said, that our greatest limiting factor is indeed or imagination – and it has been expressed in spades here…Infrastructure costs money; barges, trucks, carrier aircraft. Musk has been about not only changing the paradigm, changing the way we view, do, act, but the way we imagine. How many counted him and SpaceX out from day one; expected “Falcon” to be just another way to spell “failure”. I for one believe that the future will be a rollout from the factory, wherever that might be, and off the rocket goes. Aircraft, trucks, ships, rail cars all make deadhead moves at one point in time or another – yes, try to avoid or minimize them, but if rocket transportation is to be normalized just like any other form, it is inevitable. It’s SpaceX – imagine more…honestly - try it!
...I for one believe that the future will be a rollout from the factory, wherever that might be, and off the rocket goes...
It’s SpaceX – imagine more…honestly - try it!
I listened to that bit on the video. I really don't think he was serious about anything other than shipping by sea.
Quote from: winkhomewinkhome on 06/14/2014 03:57 pmFour pages in, I want to thank those that have participated in this post – I do not post often – I spend more time reading, following developments, the news, the gossip, etc. That said, it amazes me, the total lack of imagination expressed. How often is it said, that our greatest limiting factor is indeed or imagination – and it has been expressed in spades here…Infrastructure costs money; barges, trucks, carrier aircraft. Musk has been about not only changing the paradigm, changing the way we view, do, act, but the way we imagine. How many counted him and SpaceX out from day one; expected “Falcon” to be just another way to spell “failure”. I for one believe that the future will be a rollout from the factory, wherever that might be, and off the rocket goes. Aircraft, trucks, ships, rail cars all make deadhead moves at one point in time or another – yes, try to avoid or minimize them, but if rocket transportation is to be normalized just like any other form, it is inevitable. It’s SpaceX – imagine more…honestly - try it!Barges are cheap compared to self ferrying
There's plenty of imagination on this forum. But this is pretty prosaic stuff, essentially logistics. Build it at the launch site or bring it in by barge. These are perfectly adequate solutions.
Elon has spoken about reusing a rocket 1000 times before refurbishment, and their reuse strategy involves a fly back to a launch site. If they indeed achieve this, then the initial shipment of the rocket from the factory to the launch pad would be a minor cost, as the other 999 fights it would self-ferry back to the launchpad after putting it's cargo in orbit.
I believe Wink-Wink's OP is a long-term outlook, not worrying about today's infrastructure challenges or technology. There is an appeal of self-ferry in simplicity & time-savings.
I hope after musks battery plant is built he will start in on his supersonic electric vtol jet company. They could build him a super super guppy to transport it.
If the aerodynamic drag isn't prohibitive, an empty core delivered to the launchsite via Stratolaunch carrier might be competitive for anywhere with a long enough runway.
Quote from: Burninate on 06/20/2014 07:06 pmIf the aerodynamic drag isn't prohibitive, an empty core delivered to the launchsite via Stratolaunch carrier might be competitive for anywhere with a long enough runway.No, that is exactly why Falcon bowed out of the Stratolaunch, it would require too many mods to accommodate flying on the aircraft
I'm just discussing an alternative to barging an empty shell of one stage, which by design weighs ~5% as much as the full craft, prior to launchpad assembly. Using the Stratolaunch as an unwieldy-cargo aircraft.How are the two related?
Quote from: Burninate on 06/20/2014 07:17 pmI'm just discussing an alternative to barging an empty shell of one stage, which by design weighs ~5% as much as the full craft, prior to launchpad assembly. Using the Stratolaunch as an unwieldy-cargo aircraft.How are the two related?Doesn't matter if it is only 5% as much, hanging from the aircraft and flight will still subject the vehicle to environments it is not designed for. That is how they are related.
Quote from: Jim on 06/20/2014 07:30 pmQuote from: Burninate on 06/20/2014 07:17 pmI'm just discussing an alternative to barging an empty shell of one stage, which by design weighs ~5% as much as the full craft, prior to launchpad assembly. Using the Stratolaunch as an unwieldy-cargo aircraft.How are the two related?Doesn't matter if it is only 5% as much, hanging from the aircraft and flight will still subject the vehicle to environments it is not designed for. That is how they are related.Could the stage be shipped inside a hybrid airship ( once they are available )? Or would that still be a problem? If so why?
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 06/20/2014 08:01 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/20/2014 07:30 pmQuote from: Burninate on 06/20/2014 07:17 pmI'm just discussing an alternative to barging an empty shell of one stage, which by design weighs ~5% as much as the full craft, prior to launchpad assembly. Using the Stratolaunch as an unwieldy-cargo aircraft.How are the two related?Doesn't matter if it is only 5% as much, hanging from the aircraft and flight will still subject the vehicle to environments it is not designed for. That is how they are related.Could the stage be shipped inside a hybrid airship ( once they are available )? Or would that still be a problem? If so why?A hybrid airship large enough to carry a BFR stage internally would be dramatically more expensive than a barge to operate/lease.
Self ferry might happen someday, under some undreamtof circumstance, but not for a very long time. hundreds of years, I would guess. Just way too crazy a thing to do in a populated area.And airships come up here over and over, they are always rejected as a bad idea.If that's all this thread wants to focus on it's done. Barging just seems so obviously the correct logistical link for decades and decades to come. Even if volume expands a lot. They'll just build more barges as initial stage deliveries increase.
And airships come up here over and over, they are always rejected as a bad idea.
If that's all this thread wants to focus on it's done. Barging just seems so obviously the correct logistical link for decades and decades to come. Even if volume expands a lot. They'll just build more barges as initial stage deliveries increase.
may turn out to be practical for empty stages, unless Jim can describe an actual problem that might occur...
1. Proof? I don't think so. AFAIK SpaceX bowed out because they didn't want to spend resources on developing a smaller rocket, i.e. Falcon 5 dedicated to this platform.2. Just trucking the stage requires attachment points and stresses significantly different than launch stresses, and I would think these would be more similar to stresses imposed by Stratolaunch. 3. I wouldn't be surprised if Stratolaunch proves to be the most economical solution, with cargo blimp and barge being the other alternatives.
Quote from: Roy_H on 06/22/2014 06:58 pm1. Proof? I don't think so. AFAIK SpaceX bowed out because they didn't want to spend resources on developing a smaller rocket, i.e. Falcon 5 dedicated to this platform.2. Just trucking the stage requires attachment points and stresses significantly different than launch stresses, and I would think these would be more similar to stresses imposed by Stratolaunch. 3. I wouldn't be surprised if Stratolaunch proves to be the most economical solution, with cargo blimp and barge being the other alternatives.1. Wrong. Whether you think so or not, it wasn't because it had only 5 engines, it was due to being radically different structurally because of horizontal loads. 2. Trucking load are different from suspended loads. 3. Quite the opposite would be true. The Stratolaunch aircraft would have limited utility. A barge could be employed by other users. The Delta Mariner spends more time servicing other users than ULA.
2. When attached to a truck, the booster is suspended at each end. With Stratolaunch it would be suspended near the middle. But again empty. I did say similar, not identical.
3. Stratolaunch is being built primarily for another purpose, not just a proposal for SpaceX transportation. No capital cost to SpaceX.
But it still would have a need to be trucked regardless of any other transportation method and hence any other method is going have mods from the baseline and not just different.
Ocean is not smooth travel ( waves ).
If SpaceX could just get there mass ratio 4 or so percent higher the rocket itself could function as a blimp
QuoteIf SpaceX could just get there mass ratio 4 or so percent higher the rocket itself could function as a blimp So they just strap a few weather balloons to it and tow it like it was a glider?
Quote from: Lar on 06/21/2014 03:03 amSelf ferry might happen someday, under some undreamtof circumstance, but not for a very long time. hundreds of years, I would guess. Just way too crazy a thing to do in a populated area.And airships come up here over and over, they are always rejected as a bad idea.If that's all this thread wants to focus on it's done. Barging just seems so obviously the correct logistical link for decades and decades to come. Even if volume expands a lot. They'll just build more barges as initial stage deliveries increase.Lar are you an expert in hybrid airships?Investors believe it is worth the investment. More than one company are developing hybrid airships and for large cargo volumes and mass.So why would you say it's a bad idea.Ocean is not smooth travel ( waves ).No barging is not obviously the correct logistical. That would be opinion. So tell us why you think hybrid airships would be a bad idea. We already know they are still in development. Exterior transport of a stage of an aircraft I would understand, but not when it is transported inside the craft, such as a hybrid airship.You might want to check out how the hybrid airships plan on shipping their planned cargo, loading and unloading.
We could lift a whole stack of F9's in our upcoming cargo airship!I'm not going to promote it here, but if anyone is interested, I can provide details.Paul A Adams
Quote from: Paul Adams on 08/12/2014 05:12 pmWe could lift a whole stack of F9's in our upcoming cargo airship!I'm not going to promote it here, but if anyone is interested, I can provide details.Paul A AdamsNot meaning to denegrate your airship design or anything, but how well can it handle extreme weather?
...No aircraft can handle truly 'extreme' weather...
Trucks and barges are cheap and practical. I don't know why people insist on trying to re-invent the ball bearing.
Quote from: llanitedave on 06/23/2014 10:48 pmTrucks and barges are cheap and practical. I don't know why people insist on trying to re-invent the ball bearing.Trucks don't scale and barges have limited access. A BFR either needs to be partially constructed at launch site or the launch site and manufacturing must both be located near navigable water. Airships could remove these limitations.
Trucks don't scale and barges have limited access. A BFR either needs to be partially constructed at launch site or the launch site and manufacturing must both be located near navigable water. Airships could remove these limitations.
Quote from: Adaptation on 08/13/2014 05:38 amQuote from: llanitedave on 06/23/2014 10:48 pmTrucks and barges are cheap and practical. I don't know why people insist on trying to re-invent the ball bearing.Trucks don't scale and barges have limited access. A BFR either needs to be partially constructed at launch site or the launch site and manufacturing must both be located near navigable water. Airships could remove these limitations. Maybe as a general concept. But with the likely timeframe of a BFR first stage flying this decade relying on airships would be suicidal.
Quote from: Adaptation on 08/13/2014 05:38 amTrucks don't scale and barges have limited access. A BFR either needs to be partially constructed at launch site or the launch site and manufacturing must both be located near navigable water. Airships could remove these limitations. There are more limitations with airships
Quote from: Paul Adams on 08/14/2014 01:33 amQuote from: Jim on 08/13/2014 01:01 pmQuote from: Adaptation on 08/13/2014 05:38 amTrucks don't scale and barges have limited access. A BFR either needs to be partially constructed at launch site or the launch site and manufacturing must both be located near navigable water. Airships could remove these limitations. There are more limitations with airshipsWhat limitations would those be Jim?how about:weatherdevelopment of said airship
Quote from: Jim on 08/13/2014 01:01 pmQuote from: Adaptation on 08/13/2014 05:38 amTrucks don't scale and barges have limited access. A BFR either needs to be partially constructed at launch site or the launch site and manufacturing must both be located near navigable water. Airships could remove these limitations. There are more limitations with airshipsWhat limitations would those be Jim?
Weather is an issue, you cannot load this airship in bad weather like you could a truck. The truck can just pull into the building, how would you suggest loading an airship inside the factory.
Weather is always an issue for lighter than air craft. A truck can handle a 60+ mph cross wind loaded, which is similar to an 80-90mph wind at airship altitude. No airship is flying safely and in the right direction in winds like that.
Weather is not an issue, see my earlier post.There are several programs well into development now for cargo airships.
...airship would require special loading and unloading facilities that are not going to be available just anywhere...
My guess; Falcon will continue to be trucked. If they tried to fly it, where would they fly it from? They'd need to truck it to a launch site, and if it's already on the truck, why not keep going? I think it's improbable in the extreme that they'd ever consider launching from their Hawthorn plant - they don't have much room, and it'd be a great way to blow up the factory if they had a RUD. Plus, I suspect that the city and FAA might just have a quibble or two regarding launching F9 from the Hawthorne plant. As for the BFR, I think we can safely say that that won't be built at Hawthorne due to their being no way to ship it by road. I'm wondering why their Boca Chica facility wouldn't make an idea BFR factory? It's right on the intracoastal waterway (so easy access to Kennedy) and it'd surely be convenient if they'd also be launching it from Boca Chica.
Quote from: CJ on 06/10/2014 09:41 amMy guess; Falcon will continue to be trucked. If they tried to fly it, where would they fly it from? They'd need to truck it to a launch site, and if it's already on the truck, why not keep going? I think it's improbable in the extreme that they'd ever consider launching from their Hawthorn plant - they don't have much room, and it'd be a great way to blow up the factory if they had a RUD. Plus, I suspect that the city and FAA might just have a quibble or two regarding launching F9 from the Hawthorne plant. As for the BFR, I think we can safely say that that won't be built at Hawthorne due to their being no way to ship it by road. I'm wondering why their Boca Chica facility wouldn't make an idea BFR factory? It's right on the intracoastal waterway (so easy access to Kennedy) and it'd surely be convenient if they'd also be launching it from Boca Chica.I think this is going to happen, move the manufacturing process nearest to the launching area, so I find Boca Chica will be the next home for it.Having Boca Chica the manufacturing place too, would be logical to think that all reusable boosters would need to be landed there for checking up, repair, maintenance work, no matter where they were launched from. It makes more sense, being the gravity center of SpaceX launching pads (KSC, Boca Chica, VAFB). I see barges or huge blimps from Boca Chica to the other two launching pads.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/14/2014 02:05 amWeather is always an issue for lighter than air craft. A truck can handle a 60+ mph cross wind loaded, which is similar to an 80-90mph wind at airship altitude. No airship is flying safely and in the right direction in winds like that.Jay Lee, what experience, info do you base this on, and again how much bad weather are you planning on?I would like to see a truck carrying a rocket drive safely in a '60+ mph' cross wind, I really would.
Agreed that trucks don't scale. There are limitations on the size of things they can ship, no doubt.
Quote from: Paul Adams on 08/14/2014 02:23 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 08/14/2014 02:05 amWeather is always an issue for lighter than air craft. A truck can handle a 60+ mph cross wind loaded, which is similar to an 80-90mph wind at airship altitude. No airship is flying safely and in the right direction in winds like that.Jay Lee, what experience, info do you base this on, and again how much bad weather are you planning on?I would like to see a truck carrying a rocket drive safely in a '60+ mph' cross wind, I really would.I'm in the wind energy industry. We carry large loads to windy places all the time. I talk to truck drivers that are driving across the Midwest. I've heard from drivers that were driving across I-80 in 60mph southerly winds. I've driven I-70 myself in 55mph quartering winds. I've driven to work in 100+mph winds (steady) with 125+mph gusts.I've had plenty of crane days canceled by winds.
Would still like to see a truck carrying a large, lightweight, rocket drive in a 60 mph + cross wind.
I think this is going to happen, move the manufacturing process nearest to the launching area, so I find Boca Chica will be the next home for it.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/14/2014 02:05 amWeather is always an issue for lighter than air craft. A truck can handle a 60+ mph cross wind loaded, which is similar to an 80-90mph wind at airship altitude. No airship is flying safely and in the right direction in winds like that.I am wondering: would a Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane can safely pull a blimp loaded with, say 3 F9R, above the weather level?
Quote from: llanitedave on 08/14/2014 03:17 am...airship would require special loading and unloading facilities that are not going to be available just anywhere...I don't agree. I think they could pick up just about anything anywhere if you could get riggers to rig it. And they could drop off cargo on any flat surface.
.... If airships were already being regularly and commonly used for long-distance heavy cargo your task would be much easier....
As it is, I don't think anything will change for the Falcon 9, and for the BFR you're going to have to lay out a convincing case to someone who's probably not on this forum. Sentimentally, I wouldn't mind at all seeing it happen.
Quote from: Razvan on 08/14/2014 04:28 amI think this is going to happen, move the manufacturing process nearest to the launching area, so I find Boca Chica will be the next home for it.What says Boca Chica is the BFR launch site?
Boca Chica is being built in order to make launches easier (their words).
Quote from: Dudely on 08/14/2014 03:29 pmBoca Chica is being built in order to make launches easier (their words). For commercial launches, not all launches. The cape still has other advantages.
Quote from: llanitedave on 08/14/2014 02:15 pm.... If airships were already being regularly and commonly used for long-distance heavy cargo your task would be much easier....You hit the nail on the head. After the demise of Cargolifter it remains to be demonstrated that large airships can complete economically with other means of cargo transportation.QuoteAs it is, I don't think anything will change for the Falcon 9, and for the BFR you're going to have to lay out a convincing case to someone who's probably not on this forum. Sentimentally, I wouldn't mind at all seeing it happen.Agree about F9. Also, if re-usability works out, there would be fewer cores to transport. The cargo airship or hybrid air vehicle would need other things to transport to be economically viable.I think giant airships are pretty cool too, but ugly reality has been known to destroy many a promising idea. Hope I'm wrong about this.
I'm not too certain that NASA is going to allow SpaceX to land their rockets at Cape Kennedy for several years.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 08/14/2014 06:47 pm I'm not too certain that NASA is going to allow SpaceX to land their rockets at Cape Kennedy for several years.Going to be hard to do that at anytime since Cape Kennedy hasn't existed for more than 30 years and NASA was not in charge of it.
The cape can launch to far more inclinations and orbits, whereas Boca Chica launches will have to thread the gap between Florida and Cuba. Useful for GTO (and perhaps BEO) launches, but not for much else.
Quote from: Razvan on 08/14/2014 01:56 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 08/14/2014 02:05 amWeather is always an issue for lighter than air craft. A truck can handle a 60+ mph cross wind loaded, which is similar to an 80-90mph wind at airship altitude. No airship is flying safely and in the right direction in winds like that.I am wondering: would a Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane can safely pull a blimp loaded with, say 3 F9R, above the weather level?Simple answer = nope.In fact I'd be surprised if you could make a case for a helicopter as an effective means of transport. Things to remember for heli external load ops:1. Max lift capacity =/= max range. In fact, when lifting max loads, helicopters often operate with the minimum fuel required to perform the lift and return to staging. This either means way more fuel stops, which with a BFR stage would involve logistical support at each site, transit over land/people/etc.2. Load Oscillation: External loads already reduce your Vne drastically for various reasons, and each individual load will have its "happy place" which is often less than then the placarded external load Vne (I've seen loads not want to go above 30kts without swinging violently). To fix this requires adding drogues to keep it to fly straight, adding to the lift/aerodynamic challenges.3. Re: "Towing" as described above...2 parts:a) Being above the weather. Helicopters suck more at lifting the higher you go due to air density. The engines temp out and the blades aren't as efficient. No go.b) There are 2 common ways of pulling something horizontally with a helicopter. With a conventional configuration you can't really pull horizontally because the lines would foul with the tail rotor. Even with a tandem like the Chinook, things would get awfully close to the main rotors. There are a lot of dynamic forces working in weird directions through the hook working to upset the helicopter if pull off-vertical through it. Usually to pull sideways we would use a "headache ball", which is a weight that you attach the horizontal pull line to and makes the forces act more vertically through your hook. Problem is, it's heavy. The second way is through a "side-pull" rig, where the pulling acts through the C of G and the helicopter flies sideways to keep the tail rotor clear. Flying sideways is reaaaally slow.I rarely get the chance to contribute real expertise to this forum, but this is one area I can actually provide some insight to! My 2 cents is that for long distance transport of something this size, using a helicopter wouldn't work well with existing types, etc.Then again, it's Elon...maybe he'll prove me wrong!
How about the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor or something similar?
Eh, who knows, Elon might go and buy an old Typoon Class sub from the Russians, modify it to carry cargo and ship his rockets that way!Yeah, unlikely, but it would be safer than barging them across the Gulf and around Florida.
Yeah, unlikely, but it would be safer than barging them across the Gulf and around Florida.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 08/15/2014 06:58 pmYeah, unlikely, but it would be safer than barging them across the Gulf and around Florida.Barges use the Intercoastal Waterway. They don't have to out to sea.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercoastal_WaterwayIt starts at Brownsville, Texas. That's perfect for SpaceX's new facility.So what are the future modes of deliveries from SpaceX factories to spaceports? Barges and trucks.
Just as well they are not planning any stages that are infinite in width.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 08/16/2014 10:09 pmJust as well they are not planning any stages that are infinite in width. Right. But my point is that a 15m stage is about 1/2 way to using up the clearances... a 30m stage, mounted on a barge that is shallow enough to not ground a lot, might well be too tall for a 100 foot clearance bridge, or too wide for a 150 foot wide channel. (a shallow draft barge may well need to be wider than the stage by a fair bit to get enough buoyancy)