https://twitter.com/harry__stranger/status/1593945092472983557QuoteSpaceX has recently submitted drainage plans related to Starship infrastructure at Launch Complex 39A.This particular page gives a good overview of the layout at each site within the pad boundaries.
SpaceX has recently submitted drainage plans related to Starship infrastructure at Launch Complex 39A.This particular page gives a good overview of the layout at each site within the pad boundaries.
lYesterday's perfectly clear weather over the Space Coast also allowed for some wonderful high resolution satellite imagery to be captured!Let's start with Launch Complex 39A where SpaceX continue to make progress on Starship infrastructure: https://api.soar.earth/short/s1191r07a2Thread below
SpaceX has begun assembling the truss sections for assembling Chopsticks onto the Pad 39A Starship Launch Tower. Expecting to see the carriage and chopsticks transported to the Launch Complex in the near future!📸: @SpaceflightNow
SpaceX is currently rolling the carriage system for the Starship Launch Tower arms at Kennedy Space Center. You can watch live in @NASASpaceflight's Space Coast Live livestream: nsf.live/spacecoast
Not really Starbase, but the carriage section of Chopsticks is currently rolling out to Launch Complex 39A!📷:@NASASpaceflight
The 39A Starship Tower Chopsticks carriage has now arrived at the launch site for installation!nsf.live/spacecoast
SpaceX has rotated and lifted the Starship tower chopstick carriage upright as work continues ahead of installation!Timelapse via our 24/7 stream: ➡ nsf.live/spacecoast
Some entertainment for Falcon Heavy on 39A, as progress is made on the Starship launch site GSE.nsf.live/spacecoast
Shorter chopsticks:The chopsticks cannot "reach out" as far. Is the OLM closer to the tower, or does this imply the returning SH or SS must land more accurately (I.e., cannot be caught further away from the tower)?
It is likely that the only benefit from longer arms is that a catch can occur slightly further from the tower (if the arms can even handle that structurally.I do not think there is any benefit in having a "landing zone" that is ~20m deep as I think it will only be a couple of meters wide. As far as we know the booster will approach from more or less straight above.A Starship catch on the other hand might benefit from an asymmetric landing zone if you want to absolutely minimize landing propellant. The cost for a fully stabilized approach would however only be a few extra tonnes.
Quote from: eriblo on 01/13/2023 10:48 amIt is likely that the only benefit from longer arms is that a catch can occur slightly further from the tower (if the arms can even handle that structurally.I do not think there is any benefit in having a "landing zone" that is ~20m deep as I think it will only be a couple of meters wide. As far as we know the booster will approach from more or less straight above.A Starship catch on the other hand might benefit from an asymmetric landing zone if you want to absolutely minimize landing propellant. The cost for a fully stabilized approach would however only be a few extra tonnes.I was under the impression that NASA did not want SpaceX to use 39A for any catching/landing. Catching/Landing had to be performed at another site or modify LZ1/LZ2 with a another tower.
SpaceX workers at LC-39A are lifting the first chopstick arm for attachment to the carriage.nsf.live/spacecoast
timelapse: