My thought since... could they take the T/E frame from 39A and fit that to the SLC-40 pad? It would save a good deal of time as opposed to building a completely new T/E for SLC-40 right away?
Hypothetical: How soon could 39A be ready for launching in case the root cause turned out to be something on the T/E? If it turns out Falcon 9 isn't to blame then obviously operations at Vandy could resume as scheduled, but how soon could 39A take over east coast ops?
LC-39A was supposed to have been ready for launches within the next couple months (Jim probably knows more exactly). Depending on whether or not TEL or GSE equipment will have to be modified or redesigned, it could be ready fairly soon. If the problem was with the rocket, it may be a moot point.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 09/01/2016 07:55 pmLC-39A was supposed to have been ready for launches within the next couple months (Jim probably knows more exactly). Depending on whether or not TEL or GSE equipment will have to be modified or redesigned, it could be ready fairly soon. If the problem was with the rocket, it may be a moot point.39A was designed to be able to launch both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy from the beginning. Remember they initially planned on doing test firings of the returned stages on 39A at one point but decided to do that at McGregor instead. Given that, other than need to complete wet dress rehearsals whenever the pad is ready, there is nothing to modify or change. The only mods needed might be if something that caused today to happen is part of the GSE or the vehicle umbilical design. If so that would need the change.
By designed for I didn't mean the original design of 39A, I meant the design of the modifications SpaceX is making.
Good idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.
New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.
So my basic question will be: (There is no way to answer without understanding full damage report and what the root cause/fix will be) Can they finish and fully activate LC39A before they could rebuild and re-actvate LC40?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/01/2016 09:49 pmGood idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.The 0A pad got away almost unscathed! The lightning rods melted because they were mush smaller for the smaller pad with much less lightning. The rocket impacted near but not on the launch platform and most of their fueling system was intact.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/01/2016 09:49 pmGood idea for a thread. I'm thinking some photos, such as overheads, would be helpful. Certainly won't be as bad as Pad OA after Antares fell back into it.New or repaired TE. Lightning Towers look OK. Ground elements will be of most interest as there we some big secondaries on the floor.Emphasis mine. That's exactly why I think the damage at LC-40 is probably worse than what was seen at pad OA. Most of OA's ground elements were protected from the Antares blast behind a lot of concrete. No such thing on LC-40. Apart from the flame trench elements and a wall protecting the LOX storage, the pad is mostly flat and 'open'. Given the close proximity of the HIF, I can only imagine that it will be holed pretty good with substantial damage to indoors systems and hardware due to ballistics and heat. Same goes for other nearby 'soft' structures.The only reason why the TEL is still standing is because it is 80 percent open structure and hardened for the launch environment.