Quote from: IanThePineapple on 09/27/2017 03:19 amQuote from: Zingpc on 09/27/2017 03:11 amThey should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.Then all the Iridium missions, FORMOSAT, and other missions would have been pushed back by about a year. Also take into account that it takes time and money to dismantle and rebuild the TEL.Also the SLC-4E TEL is sized for Falcon Heavy, I don't think it would fit in the HIF on on the pad at LC-40.
Quote from: Zingpc on 09/27/2017 03:11 amThey should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.Then all the Iridium missions, FORMOSAT, and other missions would have been pushed back by about a year. Also take into account that it takes time and money to dismantle and rebuild the TEL.
They should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.
Quote from: envy887 on 09/27/2017 01:22 pmQuote from: IanThePineapple on 09/27/2017 03:19 amQuote from: Zingpc on 09/27/2017 03:11 amThey should have dismantled the TEL on the west coast and carted it east.Then all the Iridium missions, FORMOSAT, and other missions would have been pushed back by about a year. Also take into account that it takes time and money to dismantle and rebuild the TEL.Also the SLC-4E TEL is sized for Falcon Heavy, I don't think it would fit in the HIF on on the pad at LC-40.Plus it doesn’t utilize the new throwback method, which would presumably limit turn-around time. Turnaround at LC-40 will be important whereas it is less so at Vandenberg because there is far fewer launches per year off the west coast.
That's exactly why our machining must be done in place. The fixtures are welded out entirely before we get them so we can avoid heat induced distortion.
If only it were that easy. This is the kind of machining that has to be done in place with boring bars and X-Y mills shot into location with laser trackers (which is what I do). You need to be able to climb like a kid on a tree house with your machining equipment on your back, hit size marks .0018 wide, and do it all in the heat of summer while swatting away mosquitoes no noseeums.
If SpaceX had clean-built all of its launch pads to the same design, then they could use interchangeable TELs.
I have been trying to find out when SLC-40 will return to operational status. I have found no news articles here about it since the one on April 12. Almost no other site has even mentioned it. The one site I have found a reference to it is on Spaceflight101 that lists Koreasat-5A as launching from it in 2 weeks. Can anyone confirm or refute this? https://spaceflight101.com/calendar/
This was a tweet someone thought proved that CRS 13 would be going from 39A. I think this is incorrect. The request clearly identifies the launch vehicle as experimental. At this point, I do not think the Falcon 9 is still experimental. Also, why would they be installing 4 new transmitters to support the same launches that have been going on for almost a year now? It is more likely that the transmitters are there to support the test launches of the Falcon Heavy. The request defines a time period of 5 months that I believe cover the 2 test launches of the Falcon Heavy.https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/913806233626431489
Interesting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online. SpaceX must have known that it needed replaced as soon as the fires were out. I'd think they would have been working on it in the hangar as soon as they decided on any design changes and either before or at the same time as work started on the rest of the pad.
SLC-40 is not expected to be ready to support a launch until at least the end of November.
Interesting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online.
Quote from: StuffOfInterest on 10/08/2017 12:56 amInteresting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online. SpaceX must have known that it needed replaced as soon as the fires were out. I'd think they would have been working on it in the hangar as soon as they decided on any design changes and either before or at the same time as work started on the rest of the pad.I think it's harder than most people believe to build a TEL. It may look like a big, dumb mass of steel truss with a few pipes running through it, but it's more complicated than that. There are some very tight tolerances that have to be held on a big structure that will bend under its own weight and then further when loaded with a vehicle and pumped full of cryo propellant. There was a post from one of the guys working on the LC-39 TEL where he mentioned having to haul his machining equipment up the truss while it was strapped to his back to do high-precision machining in situ. Holding gauge tolerances on something 200' tall is not a simple as cut-weld-paint.
Quote from: Mike_1179 on 10/12/2017 01:23 pmQuote from: StuffOfInterest on 10/08/2017 12:56 amInteresting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online. SpaceX must have known that it needed replaced as soon as the fires were out. I'd think they would have been working on it in the hangar as soon as they decided on any design changes and either before or at the same time as work started on the rest of the pad.I think it's harder than most people believe to build a TEL. It may look like a big, dumb mass of steel truss with a few pipes running through it, but it's more complicated than that. There are some very tight tolerances that have to be held on a big structure that will bend under its own weight and then further when loaded with a vehicle and pumped full of cryo propellant. There was a post from one of the guys working on the LC-39 TEL where he mentioned having to haul his machining equipment up the truss while it was strapped to his back to do high-precision machining in situ. Holding gauge tolerances on something 200' tall is not a simple as cut-weld-paint.Also, it's packed full of piping, duct work, electrical and controls and designed and built to survive a F9 launch a few feet away.Rockets are hard, like really hard.