Author Topic: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?  (Read 5397 times)

Is there a thread that tracks LC-39A modifications from F9 to Heavy and back?
« Last Edit: 07/14/2023 01:27 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70493
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #1 on: 07/14/2023 01:27 am »
Is there a thread that tracks LC-39A modifications from F9 to Heavy and back?
I don't believe so.  Thank you, you have started one!
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #2 on: 07/14/2023 01:31 am »
Is there a thread that tracks LC-39A modifications from F9 to Heavy and back?
I don't believe so.  Thank you, you have started one!
I think a reconfig is also needed for a Crew Dragon launch, so maybe track all three configs here.

Does cargo Dragon use the Crew Dragon config or the normal F9 config?

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70493
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #3 on: 07/14/2023 01:36 am »
Is there a thread that tracks LC-39A modifications from F9 to Heavy and back?
I don't believe so.  Thank you, you have started one!
I think a reconfig is also needed for a Crew Dragon launch, so maybe track all three configs here.

Does cargo Dragon use the Crew Dragon config or the normal F9 config?
They do late loads of time-sensitive cargo, accessing via the crew arm, so yes.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #4 on: 07/14/2023 03:11 am »
Is there a thread that tracks LC-39A modifications from F9 to Heavy and back?
I don't believe so.  Thank you, you have started one!
I think a reconfig is also needed for a Crew Dragon launch, so maybe track all three configs here.

Does cargo Dragon use the Crew Dragon config or the normal F9 config?
They do late loads of time-sensitive cargo, accessing via the crew arm, so yes.
OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). The data will be noisy because reconfig is not the only thing that determines interval between launches. Even if we assume that "plain" F9 launches have an infinite demand (Starlink), the FH and Crew configs are demand-constrained, and there are overall constraints due to ASOG availability, weather, and range availability.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37434
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21437
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #5 on: 07/14/2023 11:48 am »

OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). T

no.  There is no pad configuration difference between F9 and crew.  Just use of the white room
« Last Edit: 07/14/2023 11:48 am by Jim »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5989
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9162
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #6 on: 07/15/2023 09:02 am »

OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). T

no.  There is no pad configuration difference between F9 and crew.  Just use of the white room
Depends on if the TE is counted as part of the pad: the top most portion of the strongback (fairing support strap) is removed for Dragon launches, and the Dragon umbilical connection section added.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #7 on: 07/15/2023 02:22 pm »

OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). T

no.  There is no pad configuration difference between F9 and crew.  Just use of the white room
Depends on if the TE is counted as part of the pad: the top most portion of the strongback (fairing support strap) is removed for Dragon launches, and the Dragon umbilical connection section added.
Thanks: this is what I was referring to. For purposes of scheduling, this part of the ground infrastructure associated with a launch at LC-39A. I have no idea. IS this TE reconfig typically on the critical path?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37434
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21437
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #8 on: 07/16/2023 11:59 am »

OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). T

no.  There is no pad configuration difference between F9 and crew.  Just use of the white room
Depends on if the TE is counted as part of the pad: the top most portion of the strongback (fairing support strap) is removed for Dragon launches, and the Dragon umbilical connection section added.
Thanks: this is what I was referring to. For purposes of scheduling, this part of the ground infrastructure associated with a launch at LC-39A. I have no idea. IS this TE reconfig typically on the critical path?

That is minor.  The issue is the holddowns and tail service masts on the reaction frame for the side boosters.  The removal and reinstallation is critical path from Jupiter 3 to Psyche.

Offline lrk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #9 on: 07/28/2023 03:00 pm »

OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). T

no.  There is no pad configuration difference between F9 and crew.  Just use of the white room
Depends on if the TE is counted as part of the pad: the top most portion of the strongback (fairing support strap) is removed for Dragon launches, and the Dragon umbilical connection section added.
Thanks: this is what I was referring to. For purposes of scheduling, this part of the ground infrastructure associated with a launch at LC-39A. I have no idea. IS this TE reconfig typically on the critical path?

That is minor.  The issue is the holddowns and tail service masts on the reaction frame for the side boosters.  The removal and reinstallation is critical path from Jupiter 3 to Psyche.

Why do they need to remove the side booster holddowns/TSMs when converting back to F9?  Seems like they could leave them in place for a few F9 missions, and just re-install the plugs with the two F9 holddowns between FH missions? 

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1431
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #10 on: 07/28/2023 03:36 pm »

OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). T

no.  There is no pad configuration difference between F9 and crew.  Just use of the white room
Depends on if the TE is counted as part of the pad: the top most portion of the strongback (fairing support strap) is removed for Dragon launches, and the Dragon umbilical connection section added.
Thanks: this is what I was referring to. For purposes of scheduling, this part of the ground infrastructure associated with a launch at LC-39A. I have no idea. IS this TE reconfig typically on the critical path?

That is minor.  The issue is the holddowns and tail service masts on the reaction frame for the side boosters.  The removal and reinstallation is critical path from Jupiter 3 to Psyche.

Why do they need to remove the side booster holddowns/TSMs when converting back to F9?  Seems like they could leave them in place for a few F9 missions, and just re-install the plugs with the two F9 holddowns between FH missions?
There are 4 hold-downs on an F9 and 8 on an FH due to not enough room. 3 on each booster and 2 on the center core. It is primarily the 2 normally there hold-down masts on the F9 that are removed for FH because that is where the booster tank and engines are. Then have to be added back for an F9 because 2 is not enough, need four for stability as well as to be able successfully hold the vehicle down. The hold-downs capabilities are rated for the FH so that 8 is enough 100% rating. But 2 on F9 is not would be 133% of rating.

Offline lrk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #11 on: 07/28/2023 07:27 pm »

OK, I guess that means there is a 3x3 matrix of reconfig times, (F9,Crew,FH)x(F9,Crew,FH). T

no.  There is no pad configuration difference between F9 and crew.  Just use of the white room
Depends on if the TE is counted as part of the pad: the top most portion of the strongback (fairing support strap) is removed for Dragon launches, and the Dragon umbilical connection section added.
Thanks: this is what I was referring to. For purposes of scheduling, this part of the ground infrastructure associated with a launch at LC-39A. I have no idea. IS this TE reconfig typically on the critical path?

That is minor.  The issue is the holddowns and tail service masts on the reaction frame for the side boosters.  The removal and reinstallation is critical path from Jupiter 3 to Psyche.

Why do they need to remove the side booster holddowns/TSMs when converting back to F9?  Seems like they could leave them in place for a few F9 missions, and just re-install the plugs with the two F9 holddowns between FH missions?
There are 4 hold-downs on an F9 and 8 on an FH due to not enough room. 3 on each booster and 2 on the center core. It is primarily the 2 normally there hold-down masts on the F9 that are removed for FH because that is where the booster tank and engines are. Then have to be added back for an F9 because 2 is not enough, need four for stability as well as to be able successfully hold the vehicle down. The hold-downs capabilities are rated for the FH so that 8 is enough 100% rating. But 2 on F9 is not would be 133% of rating.

The hold-down clamps that support the rocket, and the TSMs that supply propellants are two different things. 

There are cutouts in the reaction frame for the side boosters, that are usually filled in with two "plugs" that each have a F9-specific hold down clamp.  The other two F9 hold downs in the middle are also used for the center core. 

I'm talking about the other 6 side booster hold downs and 4 TSMs.  These are what Jim was referring to as needing to be removed and reinstalled between FH missions.  I am wondering why they can't be left in place for F9 missions? 

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5989
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9162
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #12 on: 07/31/2023 05:57 pm »
The hold-down clamps that support the rocket, and the TSMs that supply propellants are two different things. 

There are cutouts in the reaction frame for the side boosters, that are usually filled in with two "plugs" that each have a F9-specific hold down clamp.  The other two F9 hold downs in the middle are also used for the center core. 

I'm talking about the other 6 side booster hold downs and 4 TSMs.  These are what Jim was referring to as needing to be removed and reinstalled between FH missions.  I am wondering why they can't be left in place for F9 missions?
The other two hold-downs for the centre core (only present for single-stick) sit on the insert plugs. That means the insert plugs need to be present for single-stick F9. To install the insert plugs, the side-booster holddowns and the 'bridge' pieces (that sit under and support the centre-to-booster linkages from beneath on the pad) need to be removed. This is because they mount to the same hardpoints on the reaction frame. Plus, they prodtrude over the cavities (would not support the booster if they didn't) so would need to be removed before the plugs are installed anyway, so may as well leave them off to avoid damaging them. See attached image:
« Last Edit: 07/31/2023 05:59 pm by edzieba »

Offline gsa

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Kennedy LC-39A Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy modifications?
« Reply #13 on: 08/10/2023 08:08 am »
The hold-down clamps that support the rocket, and the TSMs that supply propellants are two different things. 

There are cutouts in the reaction frame for the side boosters, that are usually filled in with two "plugs" that each have a F9-specific hold down clamp.  The other two F9 hold downs in the middle are also used for the center core. 

I'm talking about the other 6 side booster hold downs and 4 TSMs.  These are what Jim was referring to as needing to be removed and reinstalled between FH missions.  I am wondering why they can't be left in place for F9 missions?
The other two hold-downs for the centre core (only present for single-stick) sit on the insert plugs. That means the insert plugs need to be present for single-stick F9. To install the insert plugs, the side-booster holddowns and the 'bridge' pieces (that sit under and support the centre-to-booster linkages from beneath on the pad) need to be removed. This is because they mount to the same hardpoints on the reaction frame. Plus, they prodtrude over the cavities (would not support the booster if they didn't) so would need to be removed before the plugs are installed anyway, so may as well leave them off to avoid damaging them. See attached image:
Judging by the pictures in this post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58119.msg2493684#msg2493684 they don't need to remove the side-booster holddowns to insert the plugs. Maybe it's because the plugs are inserted from below.
Your point about the bridges remains valid, I guess.

Tags:
 

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