SpaceX Vandenberg SFB facilities

[woods170]

<snip>
SpaceX is probably also hoping it can get approval to launch Keyhole satellites via the Polar Corridor from Florida and not need to build the extra infrastructure at Vandenberg; or alternately let those launches end up in ULAs share of the program to the same effect.

That brings up the question of how many launch slots can the LC-39A complex support? Since it is the only current crew Dragon launch pad, the only Falcon Heavy pad with future vertical payload integration and maybe the only Cargo Dragon 2 pad. Along with being been the Super Heavy with Starship launch pad.

The spooks will be more happy if they are not depending on just one Falcon Heavy launch site in a congested Eastern range.

edit: typo

There are no current plans to convert SLC-4E to support FH. The Plan (much as they change all the time) is to fly the NSSL Phase 2 launches from the East Coast only.

LC-39A sees less launches than you might imagine. Several of the NSSL Phase 2 launches do not require VIF, nor FH, and will fly from SLC-40.
As Gongora pointed out the next-gen cargo Dragon's can fly from both LC-39A and SLC-40, as they don't require the CAA. Late loading will be done similar to first-gen cargo Dragon. Most next-gen cargo Dragons will likely fly from SLC-40.

FH predicted flight rate from LC-39A is three per year, at most, with two per year being the more realistic number.
Predicted flight rate of Crew Dragon from LC-39A is two per year.

Current projected total flight rate for LC-39A is a dozen launches per year, at most, with  8 to 10 being more realistic. Projected flight rate for SLC-40 is much higher.
Basically SLC-40 is the workhorse launchpad with LC-39A being reserved for more time-consuming launches such as Crew Dragon and NSSL VIF launches.


Also, spooks don't care about SpaceX having just one FH-capable pad. They do care about redundant launch systems however, which explains why there is FH and Vulcan Heavy. Their top-priority is getting their precious payloads in orbit. On top of which launcher is much further from their mind, just as long as those launchers are certified to do the job.

[ShawnGSE]

Although SLC-4E has the same style launch frame as SLC-39A the pad itself would be significant upgrades to support a FH.  There are multiple bottlenecks including TE lifting system and flame duct.  Not to say it can't happen, but it would be a long process. 

[SoCal_Eyeball]

Polar launches from Cape won’t affect future of Vandenberg

https://spacenews.com/polar-launches-from-cape-wont-affect-future-of-vandenberg/

SPACENEWS
Jeff Foust

> SpaceX, despite rumors to the contrary, is not abandoning Vandenberg either
> In addition, the company’s website lists more than a dozen job openings there, primarily as launch engineers and technicians.

[SoCal_Eyeball]

Further confirmation of continued SpaceX pad development at Vandenberg:

https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/

"SpaceX is however charging the government for the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company’s West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions."

That sentence perhaps suggests the 'vertical integration facility' is for Vandy, however the previously announced upgrade is for pad 39A in Florida.

West coast vertical integration can't be ruled out: 

"Shotwell noted that the Aug. 7 contract does not completely cover all infrastructure expenses and other costs will be included in future Phase 2 bids."




 

[wannamoonbase]

Further confirmation of continued SpaceX pad development at Vandenberg:

https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/

"SpaceX is however charging the government for the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company’s West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions."

That sentence perhaps suggests the 'vertical integration facility' is for Vandy, however the previously announced upgrade is for pad 39A in Florida.

West coast vertical integration can't be ruled out: 

"Shotwell noted that the Aug. 7 contract does not completely cover all infrastructure expenses and other costs will be included in future Phase 2 bids."

NRO would pay for a west coast VIF even if they never use it.  It's cheap compared to their payloads.

It's too bad they don't have more needs for flights out of the west coast (Starlink) that would give them more capacity.

[russianhalo117]

Further confirmation of continued SpaceX pad development at Vandenberg:

https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/

"SpaceX is however charging the government for the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company’s West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions."

That sentence perhaps suggests the 'vertical integration facility' is for Vandy, however the previously announced upgrade is for pad 39A in Florida.

West coast vertical integration can't be ruled out: 

"Shotwell noted that the Aug. 7 contract does not completely cover all infrastructure expenses and other costs will be included in future Phase 2 bids."

both FH capable pads

[Herb Schaltegger]

both FH capable pads

Is VAFB "FH capable" though, truly? I know the very first "wide body" TEL SpaceX built was at Falcon Heavy but it never got outfitted with additional hold downs and tail service points, and the TEL at LC39A is noticeably different than the one at VAFB. Also, does VAFB have the subcooled LOX volume capacity for Falcon Heavy?

[whitelancer64]

both FH capable pads

Is VAFB "FH capable" though, truly? I know the very first "wide body" TEL SpaceX built was at Falcon Heavy but it never got outfitted with additional hold downs and tail service points, and the TEL at LC39A is noticeably different than the one at VAFB. Also, does VAFB have the subcooled LOX volume capacity for Falcon Heavy?

AFAIK, the GSE and T/E at Vandy is currently not FH block 5 capable, IIRC it was originally made for FH, but the 1.2 version. Again, AFAIK. Someone else may know better than I.

I assume that the modifications to the Vandenberg infrastructure mentioned in the article would be to enable FH launches, and would involve both GSE and T/E / launch pad upgrades, or a replacement of the T/E with a new build.

[ulm_atms]

both FH capable pads

Is VAFB "FH capable" though, truly? I know the very first "wide body" TEL SpaceX built was at Falcon Heavy but it never got outfitted with additional hold downs and tail service points, and the TEL at LC39A is noticeably different than the one at VAFB. Also, does VAFB have the subcooled LOX volume capacity for Falcon Heavy?

I think he means "capable" but not operational.  SpaceX said TEL work and other pieces are required for FH at VAFB, but that it's physical pad/flame trench is good to go.  They just haven't had the need to finish it till now.  My understanding anyways.

[russianhalo117]

both FH capable pads

Is VAFB "FH capable" though, truly? I know the very first "wide body" TEL SpaceX built was at Falcon Heavy but it never got outfitted with additional hold downs and tail service points, and the TEL at LC39A is noticeably different than the one at VAFB. Also, does VAFB have the subcooled LOX volume capacity for Falcon Heavy?

The mounts for the remaining tanks already exist.

both FH capable pads

Is VAFB "FH capable" though, truly? I know the very first "wide body" TEL SpaceX built was at Falcon Heavy but it never got outfitted with additional hold downs and tail service points, and the TEL at LC39A is noticeably different than the one at VAFB. Also, does VAFB have the subcooled LOX volume capacity for Falcon Heavy?

I think he means "capable" but not operational.  SpaceX said TEL work and other pieces are required for FH at VAFB, but that it's physical pad/flame trench is good to go.  They just haven't had the need to finish it till now.  My understanding anyways.

Yes. In addition to deluge (upgraded recently), SSS (added recently), FIREX (upgraded), and GSE plumbing (partially completed), conduit to the Launch Mount are run. Mounts for the remaining tanks exist. The TEL, RF and LM have already been stated that they would be modified or replaced.

[Arb]

Yes. In addition to deluge (upgraded recently), SSS (added recently), FIREX (upgraded), and GSE plumbing (partially completed), conduit to the Launch Mount are run. Mounts for the remaining tanks exist. The TEL, RF and LM have already been stated that they would be modified or replaced.

SSS = Sound Suppression System
FIREX = SpaceX Fire Suppression System
GSE = Ground Support Equipment
TEL = Transporter/Erector/Launcher
RF = Radio Frequency/Facility/???
LM =Launch Mount (though my mind insists Lunar Module...)

[ClayJar]

TEL = Transporter/Erector/Launcher
RF = Radio Frequency/Facility/???
LM =Launch Mount (though my mind insists Lunar Module...)

RF = Reaction Frame (the launch deck piece)

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Also would need second landing LZ pad (somewhere). Currently only one pad. Also would need a ASDS for catching the center stage. So a third ASDS is going to be needed. Such that it could be occasionally dispatched to the West coast. Usage would be about 1 or 2 times in a year. The cape is likely to need an extra ASDS soon anyway with an increase in cape launch rates instead of average ~2 a month this year to an average of ~3 a month in 2021 with a possibility of even more in 2022. With max number per month from the cape as high as 5 (3 Starlink launches at every 9 day and 2 on the other pad at 14 day). A quirk of timing could even allow a 6 launch in a month just from the cape with a VAFB launch too it would be 7 in one month. Note that no new hardware or anything is needed to make this come true. Just the sats all waiting in line and ready to go with boosters also waiting in line and ready to go.

[DaveJes1979]

Further confirmation of continued SpaceX pad development at Vandenberg:

https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/

"SpaceX is however charging the government for the cost of an extended payload fairing, upgrades to the company’s West Coast launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force in California, and a vertical integration facility required for NRO missions."

That sentence perhaps suggests the 'vertical integration facility' is for Vandy, however the previously announced upgrade is for pad 39A in Florida.

West coast vertical integration can't be ruled out: 

"Shotwell noted that the Aug. 7 contract does not completely cover all infrastructure expenses and other costs will be included in future Phase 2 bids."

both FH capable pads

For some reason the article omits an explicit mention of Falcon Heavy, but that seems strongly implied.  Especially if they are looking at extended payload fairings.

It would indeed be a treat for us Californian rocket fans if this is correct, and we will get to view some Heavy launches. I just couldn't see ever flying to Florida just for that experience.

[SoCal_Eyeball]

Vandenberg misses out on Space Command headquarters

https://www.pacbiztimes.com/2020/11/20/vandenberg-misses-out-on-space-command-headquarters/

> SpaceX currently operates Vandenberg’s Space Launch Complex 4, which has two landing pads

Is this bad reporting, or based on inside knowledge of the upgrade activity going on at SLC4 ?

Only Falcon Heavy would require two landing pads.

[gongora]

Vandenberg misses out on Space Command headquarters

https://www.pacbiztimes.com/2020/11/20/vandenberg-misses-out-on-space-command-headquarters/

> SpaceX currently operates Vandenberg’s Space Launch Complex 4, which has two landing pads

Is this bad reporting, or based on inside knowledge of the upgrade activity going on at SLC4 ?

Only Falcon Heavy would require two landing pads.

It looks like it's just sloppy editing.

[SoCal_Eyeball]

A recently posted new job description for Mission Manager, Vandenberg includes the following sentence:

> This unique location is SpaceX’s primary site for polar and high-inclination orbital missions.

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4983760002?gh_jid=4983760002

This seems to belie previous speculation that most polar launches would be moving to Florida.

A related Tweet today from Michael Sheetz:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1338558087477784576

[danneely]

A recently posted new job description for Mission Manager, Vandenberg includes the following sentence:

> This unique location is SpaceX’s primary site for polar and high-inclination orbital missions.

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4983760002?gh_jid=4983760002

This seems to belie previous speculation that most polar launches would be moving to Florida.

A related Tweet today from Michael Sheetz:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1338558087477784576

Not that surprising, for most of the year they've been building Starlink faster than they can launch from Florida.  While moving most polar launches to Florida because the Cape has easier to work with management may have been the plan a few years ago, shifting anything they can back to Vandenberg now would reduce range congestion.

[SoCal_Eyeball]

A few miscellaneous items:

The SpaceX careers page for Vandenberg has 32 open positions, the most in a very long time.  Two of them mention Falcon Heavy (possibly a cut and paste from FL job description) and at least one other mentions Starship but unlike other positions, does not list "willing to travel" as one of the requirements:  Launch Build Reliability Engineer-  https://www.spacex.com/careers/  Probably means nothing, but something to ponder.

Local news article from March 4th includes several hi-res photos from November's F9 launch of Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich satellite including cute one of little girls wearing homemade Dragon flight suits:
 https://syvnews.com/news/local/military/military-officials-plan-to-rename-vandenberg-air-force-base-more-launches-in-2021/article_7fc2607f-5094-51a9-8f42-eacc6bf97c88.html 

As headline notes, base is expected to soon be renamed Vandenberg Space Force Base.  Will need to rename this thread to VSFB.  Also, if TLDR, since base missed out on being named HQ for U.S. Space Force it might receive consolation as location for USSF basic training.

Article also says there are three SpaceX launches scheduled for 2021, but I count seven per Michael Baylor's Next Spaceflight:  https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/agency/upcoming/1/

[sdsds]

From another thread:

Vandenberg would actually be perfect [for an early Starship landing attempt] but I can’t see them approving it.

Why not?