Author Topic: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)  (Read 188019 times)

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Perhaps they know something with regards to the potential timing of LC-49 approvals. So with efficiencies of scale, they decided to build the pieces of its next OLT & M in prep. They want to have 39A up and running by January. (So let's say March.) It will take that time to build all the tower segments, (and associated swing-arms, chopsticks, etc) and OLM parts for LC-49. Maybe they plan on having approvals by early next year to start prepping the site. They'll have the Tower and Mount ready to go. It's the only thing that makes sense. imo.

Or just having spares for when they frag the tower on a catch attempt?

They are far more likely to damage “soft” items like hydraulic components, fluid lines, and other support system parts than structure elements of the tower. There’s not that much dense, heavy material in a returning booster compared to the mass of the tower itself, and said booster will certainly use a similar profile as a landing F9 - it will maintain an IIP well away from infrastructure until the landing burn starts.

Unless the chopsticks fail entirely and break off the tower, any physical damage of a significance will probably be repaired by welding in-situ. And frankly, if the chopsticks break off the tower entirely, some engineers will have effed up years before hand anyway. 
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5583
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4391
  • Likes Given: 1792
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #201 on: 09/13/2022 05:56 pm »
Perhaps they know something with regards to the potential timing of LC-49 approvals. So with efficiencies of scale, they decided to build the pieces of its next OLT & M in prep. They want to have 39A up and running by January. (So let's say March.) It will take that time to build all the tower segments, (and associated swing-arms, chopsticks, etc) and OLM parts for LC-49. Maybe they plan on having approvals by early next year to start prepping the site. They'll have the Tower and Mount ready to go. It's the only thing that makes sense. imo.

Or just having spares for when they frag the tower on a catch attempt?

They are far more likely to damage “soft” items like hydraulic components, fluid lines, and other support system parts than structure elements of the tower. There’s not that much dense, heavy material in a returning booster compared to the mass of the tower itself, and said booster will certainly use a similar profile as a landing F9 - it will maintain an IIP well away from infrastructure until the landing burn starts.

Unless the chopsticks fail entirely and break off the tower, any physical damage of a significance will probably be repaired by welding in-situ. And frankly, if the chopsticks break off the tower entirely, some engineers will have effed up years before hand anyway.
The SH will land with some amount of propellant in the tanks. I recall a guess of 20 tonne? This might have a tendency to go boom after a bad catch.

Offline rsdavis9

Perhaps they know something with regards to the potential timing of LC-49 approvals. So with efficiencies of scale, they decided to build the pieces of its next OLT & M in prep. They want to have 39A up and running by January. (So let's say March.) It will take that time to build all the tower segments, (and associated swing-arms, chopsticks, etc) and OLM parts for LC-49. Maybe they plan on having approvals by early next year to start prepping the site. They'll have the Tower and Mount ready to go. It's the only thing that makes sense. imo.

I was actually thinking of heat damage from 20t of fuel burning and wrecking the temper of the steel of tower. Not a good comparison but remember 9/11? Difference being steel under load and then heating it.


Or just having spares for when they frag the tower on a catch attempt?

They are far more likely to damage “soft” items like hydraulic components, fluid lines, and other support system parts than structure elements of the tower. There’s not that much dense, heavy material in a returning booster compared to the mass of the tower itself, and said booster will certainly use a similar profile as a landing F9 - it will maintain an IIP well away from infrastructure until the landing burn starts.

Unless the chopsticks fail entirely and break off the tower, any physical damage of a significance will probably be repaired by welding in-situ. And frankly, if the chopsticks break off the tower entirely, some engineers will have effed up years before hand anyway.
The SH will land with some amount of propellant in the tanks. I recall a guess of 20 tonne? This might have a tendency to go boom after a bad catch.

I was actually thinking of heat damage from 20t of fuel burning and wrecking the temper of the steel of tower. Not a good comparison but remember 9/11? Difference being steel under load and then heating it.

EDIT: fixed my bad quote and I was the one that bolded the previous comment.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2022 07:04 pm by rsdavis9 »
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 976
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #203 on: 09/13/2022 06:26 pm »
Perhaps they know something with regards to the potential timing of LC-49 approvals. So with efficiencies of scale, they decided to build the pieces of its next OLT & M in prep. They want to have 39A up and running by January. (So let's say March.) It will take that time to build all the tower segments, (and associated swing-arms, chopsticks, etc) and OLM parts for LC-49. Maybe they plan on having approvals by early next year to start prepping the site. They'll have the Tower and Mount ready to go. It's the only thing that makes sense. imo.

Or just having spares for when they frag the tower on a catch attempt?
It would be inefficient to build all the pieces of your launch & landing infrastructure just to store them in a shed in case of a mishap. Much more efficient to just build duplicate pads, which is what they're doing. The question remains as to where. I still think this is all for LC-49.

(on a side note, when you bold text from someone's post, just make sure to point out that you were the one to do so, in case there is any confusion further down the thread.  :))
« Last Edit: 09/13/2022 06:26 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • London
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #204 on: 09/13/2022 07:03 pm »
There was talk of adding crew capability to SLC-40 as a backup in case of a RUD at 39A.

That would require a tower for crew access.

Something like half-a-dozen sections (give or take a couple) should give the required height. Add a crew access arm (plus maybe a lightning rod) and bingo.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Perhaps they know something with regards to the potential timing of LC-49 approvals. So with efficiencies of scale, they decided to build the pieces of its next OLT & M in prep. They want to have 39A up and running by January. (So let's say March.) It will take that time to build all the tower segments, (and associated swing-arms, chopsticks, etc) and OLM parts for LC-49. Maybe they plan on having approvals by early next year to start prepping the site. They'll have the Tower and Mount ready to go. It's the only thing that makes sense. imo.

Or just having spares for when they frag the tower on a catch attempt?

They are far more likely to damage “soft” items like hydraulic components, fluid lines, and other support system parts than structure elements of the tower. There’s not that much dense, heavy material in a returning booster compared to the mass of the tower itself, and said booster will certainly use a similar profile as a landing F9 - it will maintain an IIP well away from infrastructure until the landing burn starts.

Unless the chopsticks fail entirely and break off the tower, any physical damage of a significance will probably be repaired by welding in-situ. And frankly, if the chopsticks break off the tower entirely, some engineers will have effed up years before hand anyway.
The SH will land with some amount of propellant in the tanks. I recall a guess of 20 tonne? This might have a tendency to go boom after a bad catch.


An open-air deflagration or low-order detonation won’t damage the structural elements at all.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Perhaps they know something with regards to the potential timing of LC-49 approvals. So with efficiencies of scale, they decided to build the pieces of its next OLT & M in prep. They want to have 39A up and running by January. (So let's say March.) It will take that time to build all the tower segments, (and associated swing-arms, chopsticks, etc) and OLM parts for LC-49. Maybe they plan on having approvals by early next year to start prepping the site. They'll have the Tower and Mount ready to go. It's the only thing that makes sense. imo.

I was actually thinking of heat damage from 20t of fuel burning and wrecking the temper of the steel of tower. Not a good comparison but remember 9/11? Difference being steel under load and then heating it.


Or just having spares for when they frag the tower on a catch attempt?

They are far more likely to damage “soft” items like hydraulic components, fluid lines, and other support system parts than structure elements of the tower. There’s not that much dense, heavy material in a returning booster compared to the mass of the tower itself, and said booster will certainly use a similar profile as a landing F9 - it will maintain an IIP well away from infrastructure until the landing burn starts.

Unless the chopsticks fail entirely and break off the tower, any physical damage of a significance will probably be repaired by welding in-situ. And frankly, if the chopsticks break off the tower entirely, some engineers will have effed up years before hand anyway.
The SH will land with some amount of propellant in the tanks. I recall a guess of 20 tonne? This might have a tendency to go boom after a bad catch.

I was actually thinking of heat damage from 20t of fuel burning and wrecking the temper of the steel of tower. Not a good comparison but remember 9/11? Difference being steel under load and then heating it.

EDIT: fixed my bad quote and I was the one that bolded the previous comment.

There’s a LOT more difference with 9/11 than the load - prevailing winds at elevation, much more mass of (LIQUID) propellants burning, and a bunch of open elevator shafts acting as chimneys. SH will have very little propellant left, all of which will escape and immediately begin evaporating. Not the same at all.

Seriously, you guys think SpaceX havne’t thought about obvious stuff like this?
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Tommyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #207 on: 09/13/2022 09:25 pm »
There was talk of adding crew capability to SLC-40 as a backup in case of a RUD at 39A.

That would require a tower for crew access.

Something like half-a-dozen sections (give or take a couple) should give the required height. Add a crew access arm (plus maybe a lightning rod) and bingo.
That sounded like a good idea to me at first, but it doesn't explain the parts for another SH launch table being prepped.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48467
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82205
  • Likes Given: 37085
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #208 on: 09/13/2022 10:23 pm »
twitter.com/gregscott_photo/status/1569674383165390849

Quote
These arrived at the SpaceX dock at Port Canaveral recently and were unloaded onto transport trucks. Could they possibly be Starship transport stands headed to NASA? What do you think? @FarryFaz @CSI_Starbase

https://twitter.com/gregscott_photo/status/1569769056554684419

Quote
I have just confirmed they are Starship transport stands headed out to Roberts Rd at NASA. Starships will soon sit on these being readied for launch on 39A!

Offline Hamish.Student

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 427
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #209 on: 09/14/2022 12:13 am »
Quote
I have just confirmed they are Starship transport stands headed out to Roberts Rd at NASA. Starships will soon sit on these being readied for launch on 39A!
 
 
Roberts Rd at NASA? I assume NASA in this case = KSC? Just a weird way to refer to it, too ambiguous for my liking.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39280
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25271
  • Likes Given: 12122
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #210 on: 09/14/2022 03:27 am »
Apart from LC-39A and LC-49 the only other place SpaceX is thinking of putting a launch and landing tower is at SLC-47 but that place is tiny and needs more development. So far no place other than LC-39A is showing any sign of getting a tower of any kind. Not LZ-1, not LZ-2, not SLC-40. Work hasn't even begun on LC-49. Any work on a third tower and its location will be seen for miles (literally, Harry will get sat pics of it and we'll know even before anyone can go fly and take pics of it).
SLC-4?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AmigaClone

Apart from LC-39A and LC-49 the only other place SpaceX is thinking of putting a launch and landing tower is at SLC-47 but that place is tiny and needs more development. So far no place other than LC-39A is showing any sign of getting a tower of any kind. Not LZ-1, not LZ-2, not SLC-40. Work hasn't even begun on LC-49. Any work on a third tower and its location will be seen for miles (literally, Harry will get sat pics of it and we'll know even before anyone can go fly and take pics of it).
SLC-4?
If by SLC-4 you are referring to the Falcon 9 launch complex and RTLS pad those are located in California, so there would be no sign of potential work to launch SS from Vandenberg SpaceX's facilities in Florida.

There was a LC-4 at CCSFS but that and the nearby pads 1, 2, and 3 have long since been demolished an are at a pert of the base not accessible to the general public.

The parts for an additional orbital launch mount would likely eventually go to LC-49, but any more intensive work on that would likely wait until after the OLM at LC-39A is operational.

As for parts identified as components of another tower - Are you sure it would be a third Mechzilla?

Two other possibilities exist = possibly being a crew access tower for SLC40 or structural components of the Vertical Integration Tower for Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy built by request from the Space Force?

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • UK
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1942

Offline pyromatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 3425
  • Likes Given: 19

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #214 on: 09/22/2022 03:39 am »
https://twitter.com/Lolomatico3d/status/1572621781839519747

Quote
#SpaceX is preparing to build another Launch tower at the Cape (OLIT 3.0).

First indicators have been spotted a few weeks ago in one of @GregScott_photo's flyovers.
Now, on the latest flyover you can see the first beams for the tower segments being prepared for assembly.


https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1572576192229933056

Quote
Structural steel for the 3rd Orbital Launch Integration tower has been arriving rather quickly to the Roberts Road facility. No columns on site yet.

Really wondering what the timeline on that third tower is looking like
@elonmusk
 

📸: @GregScott_photo

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6188
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9453
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #215 on: 09/22/2022 09:25 am »
That particular pile of parts was placed there in August. The parts in the pile may have been delivered even earlier, as there was an even larger pile still present as the last segments were undergoing final assembly.

Offline Tangilinear Interjar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • California
  • Liked: 888
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #216 on: 09/22/2022 03:56 pm »
People are wondering where the next tower would be located why not LC-39a? They already have two towers near(ish) to each other, why not three? There seems to be plenty of room there still and both towers could share the same GSE systems.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #217 on: 10/01/2022 12:43 pm »
From reddit: New tower segment seen on the road at Houston, TX, seems to be heading towards the Cape
« Last Edit: 10/01/2022 12:44 pm by su27k »

Online danneely

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 593
  • Johnstown, PA, USA
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 679
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #218 on: 10/01/2022 03:12 pm »
People are wondering where the next tower would be located why not LC-39a? They already have two towers near(ish) to each other, why not three? There seems to be plenty of room there still and both towers could share the same GSE systems.

Are we even sure it's going to be a Starship tower?  SpaceX recently committed; to adding a tower to LC-40 for Dragon access.  They could build the basic structure for that using the Starship template to save time vs creating a new design from scratch.

Offline jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • United States
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 2667
Re: SpaceX Florida - Overall (Roberts Road to 39A and LC-49)
« Reply #219 on: 10/01/2022 03:59 pm »
People are wondering where the next tower would be located why not LC-39a? They already have two towers near(ish) to each other, why not three? There seems to be plenty of room there still and both towers could share the same GSE systems.

Are we even sure it's going to be a Starship tower?  SpaceX recently committed; to adding a tower to LC-40 for Dragon access.  They could build the basic structure for that using the Starship template to save time vs creating a new design from scratch.

They also still need to build a vertical integration tower for falcon 9 at 39a.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1