It seems overbuilt for the task of holding up an empty unfuelled stage.
They could probably have done the entire process while keeping the stage suspended from the crane, since a crane is evidently part of the process anyhow. But placing it on the mount would work better, I think.
Quote from: ravedave on 12/30/2014 02:57 pmIf they are offloading to a port where there is a cruise ship next door then obviously the rocket will have to be free of hazardous materials, right? This means they will have to 'safe' the rocket at sea somewhere.They will probably allow residual LOX to boil off after landing. The TEA/TEB ignition fluids could be expended by emptying the tanks during ignition of the landing burn. That leaves some residual RP-1 in the fuel tank, which is no more hazardous than all the gasoline in the cars parked in the Carnival lot.
If they are offloading to a port where there is a cruise ship next door then obviously the rocket will have to be free of hazardous materials, right? This means they will have to 'safe' the rocket at sea somewhere.
And one last thought - I've thought up to this point that SpaceX's (and Tesla's to a lesser extent) methodology was to have installations / employment in multiple states (multiple Senate jurisdictions). With the placement of concrete and steel we see that this Jacksonville location is more than just a port of the moment, they have some desire to use Jacksonville for some TBD time into the future. I would have guessed that they would have gone a few more miles up the coast into Georgia (or Charleston, as they planned for retrieval of the kaboomed stages) but not the case.
No, Jacksonville location is just a port of the moment because CRS flights go north. Most commercial ones would go due east and south of the Cape.
To be honest, I don't see how or why this four part stand could be used.Remember SpaceX lost the F9R-Dev because the launch mounts did not include hold-down features. It was stated that if such features had existed, as they do on the launch pad, the TEL, they would have held that rocket and shut down the engines in a launch abort. If this stand was an exact copy it might not be able to secure the first stage against wind. If they do bolt to these it seems to leave them with as many processing steps as they start with. They still need to get the stage horizontal.Is the first stage still road transportable with the legs attached and folded? Does it still conform to the height and width limits for highway travel? If not, then they might have to remove the legs before trucking the stage back to CCAFS.And what tells us that this four part stand is made of concrete? Was that an observation from up close or a conclusion from the color in the images?
Approximately zero ports east of CCAFS.Not saying it isn't the case that they'll move on, I just think that your argument is full of water.
Quote from: Jim on 12/30/2014 08:07 pmNo, Jacksonville location is just a port of the moment because CRS flights go north. Most commercial ones would go due east and south of the Cape.Approximately zero ports east of CCAFS.Not saying it isn't the case that they'll move on, I just think that your argument is full of water.Mark
Perhaps the support ship has been based at Jacksonville this whole time, so this isn't exactly a new development? How far back in time can we trace the non-barge members of this fleet? After all, the sailors and support crew have to have a home somewhere, it will get old quick flying to Jacksonville and living out of a suitcase for every (landing-capable) launch.
Guice Offshore LLC (“GO”) is a marine service provider and owner focused on meeting and exceeding the offshore needs of a broad array of clients including oil and gas companies, government agencies, vessel owners and special project clients, in the US Gulf of Mexico and select International marketsWe deliver value to our clients by providing honest and dedicated customer service coupled with extensive experience operating high quality fleets that emphasize safety of personnel, assets and the environment
The fact that the stand cannot hold a F-9 while it is firing, does not mean it can't hold it against the wind just fine. Who knows, it might just be the stand from McGregor.Matthew
Quote from: matthewkantar on 12/30/2014 09:34 pmThe fact that the stand cannot hold a F-9 while it is firing, does not mean it can't hold it against the wind just fine. Who knows, it might just be the stand from McGregor.MatthewLooks to be the same size and construction, including the Blue clamps on the top but minus the McGregor blast shielding on the top and sides facing into the F9/M1D exhaust, which seems right as there will be no launch from the newly installed F9 supports.
Another day, another peeper:
Quote from: meekGee on 12/31/2014 04:58 pmAnother day, another peeper:cropped:
This is a fun thread... Almost makes me happy the launch was postponed... And I wonder what SpaceX folks are calling the barge. I don't think it is called "the barge" internally.
Quote from: OxCartMark on 12/30/2014 08:42 pmApproximately zero ports east of CCAFS.Not saying it isn't the case that they'll move on, I just think that your argument is full of water.Well, you thought wrong and it is your argument that is all wet. There is a port at CCAFS, which would be more accessible and more practical for those launches vs Jax.