Great article! If the FSS has crew access ambitions, does that mean they'll be launching F9 from that pad too, or does it mean a manned FH?
Yes, F9 will be flying from 39A. Currently it is SpaceX's only planned manned pad, though they could certainly also launch a manned FH from there.
New article on FH, with outlines and some updates and photos via L2:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/02/falcon-heavy-production-39a-hif-rises/
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 02/18/2015 11:43 pmNew article on FH, with outlines and some updates and photos via L2:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/02/falcon-heavy-production-39a-hif-rises/Superb article as always, Chris.One fact check: Hasn't the ink dried on the LC-13 approval itself?
I was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word.
Quote from: CJ on 02/19/2015 06:22 amI was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. It does have the facetious quotes around it, though ... clearly not intended to be a serious reference!
Quote from: kch on 02/19/2015 01:56 pmQuote from: CJ on 02/19/2015 06:22 amI was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. It does have the facetious quotes around it, though ... clearly not intended to be a serious reference! You had me in a panic then! Yeah, Barge is just because the news site gets a huge amount of passing traffic where a lot may be reading an article for the first time here. Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship could result in confused faces. Barge helps them visualize it.
Great article, Chris.After mentioning the HIF construction, you write: "The structure will be adjoined to a new payload building behind the HIF, which will be even higher." When I first read the article I though you had written about tall habitat payloads, or something like that, but I can't find it now. Is this something I can learn about by joining L2?
My question is, how steep is the ramp up to the pad? The transporter erector and rocket are going to be on rails, would you be able to use an airport tow tractor like at SLC-40. It seems that it would have to be a pretty big one for Falcon Heavy, perhaps even tracked like a snow cat, or would two be better using a push pull arrangement. At least one, that was pushing would be a requirement it would seem, because if it is pulling and something bad was to happen like something breaking with the tow attachment or the tow vehicle its self and the rocket and erector rolled back down the ramp into the HIF needless to say would be a bad day. Wonder what spacex is planning to do.
Maybe this was covered earlier somewhere else - Why is the shuttle rotating service tower being left in place, is it too expensive to remove?
Great article! If the FSS has crew access ambitions, does that mean they'll be launching F9 from that pad too, or does it mean a manned FH? 28 Merlin engines; that's a lot! (I'm counting the Merlin Vac). I hope I can see a launch someday. I was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word.
Great article as always Chris, I am excited to see the progress pictures as they come out and I do have to wonder if 39A will be ready for FH this summer, seems like a lot of work is needed to the pad before summer, but knowing the pad updates are underway is awesome!!
Quote from: CJ on 02/19/2015 06:22 amGreat article! If the FSS has crew access ambitions, does that mean they'll be launching F9 from that pad too, or does it mean a manned FH? 28 Merlin engines; that's a lot! (I'm counting the Merlin Vac). I hope I can see a launch someday. I was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. I believe they aren't human-rating FH at present and the article links to Dragon V2 when discussing the FSS so I assume Chris is referring to Commercial Crew launches.
I believe they aren't human-rating FH at present and the article links to Dragon V2 when discussing the FSS so I assume Chris is referring to Commercial Crew launches.
Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 02/19/2015 09:36 pmI believe they aren't human-rating FH at present and the article links to Dragon V2 when discussing the FSS so I assume Chris is referring to Commercial Crew launches. The internet is your friend. I lifted this directly from the SpaceX website just 30 seconds ago:Quote Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.
Quote from: clongton on 02/20/2015 12:57 amQuote from: Endeavour_01 on 02/19/2015 09:36 pmI believe they aren't human-rating FH at present and the article links to Dragon V2 when discussing the FSS so I assume Chris is referring to Commercial Crew launches. The internet is your friend. I lifted this directly from the SpaceX website just 30 seconds ago:Quote Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.That's true but, although I don't know where on the internet, I know I've read somewhere that they are not now going to human rate FH right away. Just like they aren't doing cross feed right away either.
That's true but, although I don't know where on the internet, I know I've read somewhere that they are not now going to human rate FH right away. Just like they aren't doing cross feed right away either.
Yeah, now I was pretty much saying it was a done deal in draft, but given the lack of a comment back from SpaceX on the five pad depiction in the cool video they put out, because they can't speak about it too much before it's all a done deal, I thought "proposed" would work best for that representation.We know that is where they will land (reported it last year). We know they have a deal with the USAF, but technically it's still their proposed site until they have some sort of announcement or groundbreaking. I remember the situation with 39A and they preferred it wasn't classed as done until Ms Shotwell took to the podium like she did. So that's the story behind "proposed". But we all know that's where it will be.
45th Space Wing, SpaceX sign first-ever landing pad agreement at Cape CanaveralBy 45th Space Wing Public Affairs, / Published February 10, 2015PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) -- Brig. Gen. Nina Armagno, the 45th Space Wing commander, recently signed a five-year leasing agreement with SpaceX that will allow for the creation of the first-ever "Landing Pad" at Launch Complex 13 at historic Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.SpaceX plans to repurpose the launch complex to successfully support their construction of a vertical-landing facility suitable for the return of reusable first-stage boosters of their Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles that are currently launched from LC-40 at CCAFS."The way we see it, this is a classic combination of a highly successful launch past morphing into an equally promising future," Armagno said. "It's a whole new world, and the 45th Space Wing is committed to defining and building the Spaceport of the future."LC-13 was originally used for operational and test launches of the Atlas ICBM, and Atlas B, D, E and F missiles were also test launched from there.It was the most-used and longest-serving of the original four Atlas pads.Now it will be used in an amazing new way."For decades, we have been refining our procedures for getting successful launches skyward here on the Eastern Range. Now we're looking at processes on how to bring first-stage rockets back to earth at the first landing pad at the Cape," she said. "We live in exciting times here on the space coast."
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 02/20/2015 02:58 amThat's true but, although I don't know where on the internet, I know I've read somewhere that they are not now going to human rate FH right away. Just like they aren't doing cross feed right away either.Garrett Reisman of SpaceX mentioned it very clearly in response to a question in a presentation he did late in 2014. While he was not sure about many things regarding Falcon Heavy he was very clear in this point. They are not going to manrate Falcon Heavy. At least not initially.
Quote from: guckyfan on 02/20/2015 06:53 amGarrett Reisman of SpaceX mentioned it very clearly in response to a question in a presentation he did late in 2014. While he was not sure about many things regarding Falcon Heavy he was very clear in this point. They are not going to manrate Falcon Heavy. At least not initially.No, he was NOT clear on that. He specifically said he wasn't involved in the FH program and wasn't familiar with the status. Clear as mud.
Garrett Reisman of SpaceX mentioned it very clearly in response to a question in a presentation he did late in 2014. While he was not sure about many things regarding Falcon Heavy he was very clear in this point. They are not going to manrate Falcon Heavy. At least not initially.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/20/2015 12:39 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 02/20/2015 06:53 amGarrett Reisman of SpaceX mentioned it very clearly in response to a question in a presentation he did late in 2014. While he was not sure about many things regarding Falcon Heavy he was very clear in this point. They are not going to manrate Falcon Heavy. At least not initially.No, he was NOT clear on that. He specifically said he wasn't involved in the FH program and wasn't familiar with the status. Clear as mud.Yes he said that. He was not familiar with the status in most points, that was also clear. But this is the one point connected to his line of work and he was absolutely clear on this one point. Not on the others as I already mentioned in my first post.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 02/19/2015 02:03 pmQuote from: kch on 02/19/2015 01:56 pmQuote from: CJ on 02/19/2015 06:22 amI was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. It does have the facetious quotes around it, though ... clearly not intended to be a serious reference! You had me in a panic then! Yeah, Barge is just because the news site gets a huge amount of passing traffic where a lot may be reading an article for the first time here. Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship could result in confused faces. Barge helps them visualize it.The guys out on the tug moving it around call it a barge. I'll take a real working sailor's opinion over Elon's somewhat wishful naming conventions any day. Though I would understand if maintaining fully positive relations with the company required use of the S-word in all "official" capacities.
Quote from: guckyfan on 02/20/2015 06:53 amQuote from: oiorionsbelt on 02/20/2015 02:58 amThat's true but, although I don't know where on the internet, I know I've read somewhere that they are not now going to human rate FH right away. Just like they aren't doing cross feed right away either.Garrett Reisman of SpaceX mentioned it very clearly in response to a question in a presentation he did late in 2014. While he was not sure about many things regarding Falcon Heavy he was very clear in this point. They are not going to manrate Falcon Heavy. At least not initially.No, he was NOT clear on that. He specifically said he wasn't involved in the FH program and wasn't familiar with the status. Clear as mud.
In order for the FH to NOT be man-rated they would have to un-man-rate the F9 v1.1 and remove the design components and redundancies that make it a man-rated vehicle.
Quote from: clongton on 02/21/2015 08:29 pmIn order for the FH to NOT be man-rated they would have to un-man-rate the F9 v1.1 and remove the design components and redundancies that make it a man-rated vehicle.Isn't there a difference between building a sytem to standards which will allow man-rating, and actually going through the process of man-rating it?
Just wondering - who is the authority that designates a rocket as "man rated"?Is it NASA? Does it apply only for carrying NASA personal, or going to NASA destinations?Basically - if SpaceX wants to put a manned Dragon on top of an FH, carrying its own people and going to its own destination - who's in charge of "man rating"?
Basically - if SpaceX wants to put a manned Dragon on top of an FH, carrying its own people and going to its own destination - who's in charge of "man rating"?
Quote from: kdhilliard on 02/21/2015 08:48 pmQuote from: clongton on 02/21/2015 08:29 pmIn order for the FH to NOT be man-rated they would have to un-man-rate the F9 v1.1 and remove the design components and redundancies that make it a man-rated vehicle.Isn't there a difference between building a sytem to standards which will allow man-rating, and actually going through the process of man-rating it?Bingo. Falcon Heavy is designed to the standards, but that's not enough for it to be human-rated. There's a process to go through.Falcon Heavy may use mostly the same hardware as Falcon 9, but it's not identical. If it were that simple, it wouldn't be taking SpaceX so long to get Falcon Heavy flying. All the changes need to be reviewed for their impact on the safety of the overall system.
There was a long running discussion on a different thread last year about what constitutes man-rating a launch vehicle. Bottom line is the redundancies built in to allow a human occupied spacecraft to safely escape in the event of an anomoly. F9 already qualifies on that score and it would take a deliberate effort on the part of SpaceX to not have the FH be man-rated, because the redundancies are already built in to the vehicles employed.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/21/2015 08:55 pmQuote from: kdhilliard on 02/21/2015 08:48 pmQuote from: clongton on 02/21/2015 08:29 pmIn order for the FH to NOT be man-rated they would have to un-man-rate the F9 v1.1 and remove the design components and redundancies that make it a man-rated vehicle.Isn't there a difference between building a sytem to standards which will allow man-rating, and actually going through the process of man-rating it?Bingo. Falcon Heavy is designed to the standards, but that's not enough for it to be human-rated. There's a process to go through.Falcon Heavy may use mostly the same hardware as Falcon 9, but it's not identical. If it were that simple, it wouldn't be taking SpaceX so long to get Falcon Heavy flying. All the changes need to be reviewed for their impact on the safety of the overall system.There was a long running discussion on a different thread last year about what constitutes man-rating a launch vehicle. Bottom line is the redundancies built in to allow a human occupied spacecraft to safely escape in the event of an anomoly. F9 already qualifies on that score and it would take a deliberate effort on the part of SpaceX to not have the FH be man-rated, because the redundancies are already built in to the vehicles employed.
Lets look at another aspect of SpaceX (and in fact Elon Musk's) general methodology at achieving goals, and first I want to characterize it by a different term than reactionary, pragmatic, short term, long term, agile etc. In all of Elon's businesses the term opportunistic comes to mind. I don't mean anything negative by this, I simply mean that some of what Jim characterized as reactive, is seizing opportunities that pull towards the goal at hand. just as a catamaran sailor might find a combination of wind and wave that lets him surf beyond his hull speed close to the direction he wants to travel, SpaceX, for example might find an economic tax benefit in exploiting the realization of a loss of sunk costs at a certain time. SpaceX has one publicly announced overriding long term plan, it also has many other plans some publicly announced, some leaked by Elon in his slightly careless and definitely atypically casual PR style, and some simply assumed by the outsiders who imagine correctly (a small portion of the time) where things are going, and of course those plans no one outside knows about. SpaceX has demonstrated plenty of changes to its methods of reaching the overall goal from where it speculated on methods in the past, many of those changes involved seizing opportunities as they arose (Pad 39A, specific launch missions, operating a farm around McGregor etc.).
The Air Force is in the process of certifying Falcon 9, and it's been stated that Falcon Heavy will require a separate certification process that has not even started yet.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/22/2015 05:34 pm The Air Force is in the process of certifying Falcon 9, and it's been stated that Falcon Heavy will require a separate certification process that has not even started yet. I don't believe that is correct - it has not been stated that FH would need a separate certification. For example Delta-IV came off the line certified but when Delta-IVH was launched there was NO additional certification required - why? Because it used previously certified hardware. Is that not the same for FH? Once F9 v1.1 is certified, then stacking 3 of them to make FH is no different than stacking 3 Delta-IV's to make a heavy.
Quote from: clongton on 02/22/2015 10:24 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/22/2015 05:34 pm The Air Force is in the process of certifying Falcon 9, and it's been stated that Falcon Heavy will require a separate certification process that has not even started yet. I don't believe that is correct - it has not been stated that FH would need a separate certification. For example Delta-IV came off the line certified but when Delta-IVH was launched there was NO additional certification required - why? Because it used previously certified hardware. Is that not the same for FH? Once F9 v1.1 is certified, then stacking 3 of them to make FH is no different than stacking 3 Delta-IV's to make a heavy.If I recall correctly, the DIVH had a test flight because the Air Force was not completely confident in it. They wanted to test the rocket before they flew any critical payloads on it.The DIVH is a different vehicle configuration, even if it features commonality with the other members of the DIV family. The FH is the same way; SpaceX (or the potential customers) is not completely confident in it either, hence they intent to give it a flight test.You would think that a triple-core configuration wouldn't need to be flight tested if it was really similar to the single-core configuration. Clearly, that is not the case. And if you need to test a rocket, it would make sense that it would need to be certified, regardless of the commonality shared.
Quote from: ISP on 02/22/2015 11:02 pmQuote from: clongton on 02/22/2015 10:24 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/22/2015 05:34 pm The Air Force is in the process of certifying Falcon 9, and it's been stated that Falcon Heavy will require a separate certification process that has not even started yet. I don't believe that is correct - it has not been stated that FH would need a separate certification. For example Delta-IV came off the line certified but when Delta-IVH was launched there was NO additional certification required - why? Because it used previously certified hardware. Is that not the same for FH? Once F9 v1.1 is certified, then stacking 3 of them to make FH is no different than stacking 3 Delta-IV's to make a heavy.If I recall correctly, the DIVH had a test flight because the Air Force was not completely confident in it. They wanted to test the rocket before they flew any critical payloads on it.The DIVH is a different vehicle configuration, even if it features commonality with the other members of the DIV family. The FH is the same way; SpaceX (or the potential customers) is not completely confident in it either, hence they intent to give it a flight test.You would think that a triple-core configuration wouldn't need to be flight tested if it was really similar to the single-core configuration. Clearly, that is not the case. And if you need to test a rocket, it would make sense that it would need to be certified, regardless of the commonality shared.Furthermore, the Air Force was right. That first flight of the DIVH had an anomaly, you may recall, and the DemoSat payload failed to reach its target orbit.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 02/22/2015 11:07 pmQuote from: ISP on 02/22/2015 11:02 pmQuote from: clongton on 02/22/2015 10:24 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/22/2015 05:34 pm The Air Force is in the process of certifying Falcon 9, and it's been stated that Falcon Heavy will require a separate certification process that has not even started yet. I don't believe that is correct - it has not been stated that FH would need a separate certification. For example Delta-IV came off the line certified but when Delta-IVH was launched there was NO additional certification required - why? Because it used previously certified hardware. Is that not the same for FH? Once F9 v1.1 is certified, then stacking 3 of them to make FH is no different than stacking 3 Delta-IV's to make a heavy.If I recall correctly, the DIVH had a test flight because the Air Force was not completely confident in it. They wanted to test the rocket before they flew any critical payloads on it.The DIVH is a different vehicle configuration, even if it features commonality with the other members of the DIV family. The FH is the same way; SpaceX (or the potential customers) is not completely confident in it either, hence they intent to give it a flight test.You would think that a triple-core configuration wouldn't need to be flight tested if it was really similar to the single-core configuration. Clearly, that is not the case. And if you need to test a rocket, it would make sense that it would need to be certified, regardless of the commonality shared.Furthermore, the Air Force was right. That first flight of the DIVH had an anomaly, you may recall, and the DemoSat payload failed to reach its target orbit. And it was never Human rated.
MP99, Where does "F9 has margins of 1.4" come from? I hope you aren't saying that just because it is "man rated", whatever that means.
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/23/2015 07:08 amMP99, Where does "F9 has margins of 1.4" come from? I hope you aren't saying that just because it is "man rated", whatever that means.The 40% over-engineered number came out years ago, with respect to the Falcon 9. I don't have the quote. Supposedly, a rocket is expected to withstand 25% more stress than nominal before potentially having problems. The Falcon was deliberately overbuilt to have a 40% margin.The downside is the extra strength requires extra mass (more material) to absorb those stresses. And there is some debate out there with regards to what is the baseline stress that the 40% margin is calculated from. Once they've retrieved a first stage, they will have a much better handle on what those stresses really were, though telemetry has surely told them many of the real numbers by now.
hasn't Elon said in the past that all of the side core's thrust would be passed into the center core through the thrust structures at the base of the rocket?that would mean that pushing a payload 3 times as heavy as the falcon 9 would put 3 times the stress on the center core. That would definitely eat into that 40 percent engineering margin.
The decision to quit using a five-year-old TEL on CCAFS Pad 40 after 5 F9 v1.0 launches, is quite different. It is merely a decision the company made where, considering all costs and benefits, they apparently determined that it would be better to build an entirely new TEL for F9 v1.1 and following, rather than reuse the old one. In other words, that five-year-old TEL was a sunk cost to SpaceX, at the time of the decision to not continue using it was made. Ditto with the old propellant loading infrastructure. Once it is built and in the past, it too is a sunk cost. New times, new knowledge, and new decisions on trades on the part of SpaceX engineers make that old, already-built propellant-loading infrastructure a sunk cost.So, yes, they are quite different decisions; and Lobo's point was a fine one.
I may have missed this but will LC-39A also be used for CRS and crewed launches using Falcon-9 v.1.1?
How is that any better than Chris's article? The photos are old too.
Spaceflight Now mentioned in their article that SpaceX will do vertical integration of payloads on LC-39A. How would this work? And what would happen if there is a scrub requiring rocket to be rolled back to HIF for repairs?
Quote from: MarekCyzio on 02/25/2015 12:54 pmSpaceflight Now mentioned in their article that SpaceX will do vertical integration of payloads on LC-39A. How would this work? And what would happen if there is a scrub requiring rocket to be rolled back to HIF for repairs?Presumably no different from DeltaIV, which is horizontally integrated, rolled to the pad, with the payload attached there vertically?
I'd put my money on some sort of crane mounted to the FSS to lift payloads and then swing out of the way during launches. Just not sure how you would keep it out of the way of the lightning mast.
I seem to remember that NASA used a big crane to lift LC-39B's RSS off of its hinges before they flew Ares-I-X. Any chance of SpaceX being allowed to use that?
Quote from: StuffOfInterest on 02/26/2015 11:13 amI'd put my money on some sort of crane mounted to the FSS to lift payloads and then swing out of the way during launches. Just not sure how you would keep it out of the way of the lightning mast.We do not know if the existing FSS structure is sturdy enough to be extended up + have a crane on top. I suspect this is one of the reasons why we won't see inaugural Falcon Heavy launch this year. SpaceX needs to convert LC-39A to allow vertical payload integration (crane, accesss platforms etc.) + crewed access (white room + access arm + crew escape system).
Vertical integration is Vandenberg, not the Cape, as I understand it. And human access can certainly be scheduled around the FH debut, it's not needed until 2017/2018.
SpaceX plans to add payloads to the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets at pad 39A while they stand upright, a shift in the company’s operations concept at other launch facilities.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/25/2015 09:47 amI may have missed this but will LC-39A also be used for CRS and crewed launches using Falcon-9 v.1.1?Yes. The stated plan, I believe, is for 39A to do NASA (mostly CRS and crewed Dragon) launches, with LC40 doing AF launches and Boca Chica handling commercial GTO.
Basically to avoid using 39A for some of everything they'd need a major re-do of SLC-40.
Is the RSS even as high as the payload on a Falcon 9? The Shuttle rode very low on the stack so the RSS didn't need to go high in the sky.I'd put my money on some sort of crane mounted to the FSS to lift payloads and then swing out of the way during launches. Just not sure how you would keep it out of the way of the lightning mast.Edit...RSS is only 130' high with structure on it extending to 189' from pad floor (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-prep.html#stsover-rss)Falcon 9 (1.1) is 224' high.
Quote from: gongora on 02/26/2015 03:10 pmBasically to avoid using 39A for some of everything they'd need a major re-do of SLC-40.They're going to need that anyway (IMHO), although I agree not any time soon. If we're looking at the major pad work ahead for SpaceX, in roughly chronological order:- 39A: F9, FH, CC capable, VI capable- VAFB: F9 (refurb, ongoing), FH, VI capable- BCSP: F9, FH- SLC-40: FHVAFB F9 refurb needs to be done in time for Jason-3 in the middle of the year so that has to be completed pretty soon to not delay that launch. VAFB FH + VI need is much later so 39A has to take priority next, although I expect some get-ahead VAFB FH + VI work. I'd expect completing VAFB FH + VI next possibly in parallel with BCSP work. SLC-40 coming last. I would imagine at this point that 39A could handle all EC DOD/USAF payloads (VI) and CC along with some CRS flights while SLC-40 would handle some CRS flights and commercial. Can't remember hearing of any plans for VI at SLC-40 in the future? But I could be forgetting...Currently we can pencil in BCSP being completed in 2017 (as per news that the newest SES orders will fly from there in 2017) although we'll see how long it takes them to get 39A completed since SpaceX has said that will come first. So this would put my projected start of work to modify SLC-40 to be FH capable no earlier than 2018, most likely.I'm guessing SpaceX would tackle that before they start work on the fifth pad they mention on and off. We'll probably start to hear about SpaceX investigating that fifth pad sometime in maybe a year's time, that's a shot in the dark.Obviously there's a LOT of assumptions being made here, so please season with a large portion of salt, and watch your sodium intake levels.
They need to land some DoD payloads before they'll need to have the equipment to vertically integrate them built. They can launch FH with non-DoD payloads without that until then.
Yea, in order for LC-40 to start launching DoD/USAF payloads, it'll need to be upgraded to handle FH, and also need some sort of service struction to integrate vertically.
Quote from: Lobo on 02/26/2015 04:05 pmThey need to land some DoD payloads before they'll need to have the equipment to vertically integrate them built. They can launch FH with non-DoD payloads without that until then.the equipment has to happen before the landing of payloads.
Quote from: MarekCyzio on 02/26/2015 12:00 pmQuote from: StuffOfInterest on 02/26/2015 11:13 amI'd put my money on some sort of crane mounted to the FSS to lift payloads and then swing out of the way during launches. Just not sure how you would keep it out of the way of the lightning mast.We do not know if the existing FSS structure is sturdy enough to be extended up + have a crane on top. I suspect this is one of the reasons why we won't see inaugural Falcon Heavy launch this year. SpaceX needs to convert LC-39A to allow vertical payload integration (crane, accesss platforms etc.) + crewed access (white room + access arm + crew escape system).Vertical integration is Vandenberg, not the Cape, as I understand it. And human access can certainly be scheduled around the FH debut, it's not needed until 2017/2018.
Quote from: Lobo on 02/26/2015 04:24 pmYea, in order for LC-40 to start launching DoD/USAF payloads, it'll need to be upgraded to handle FH, and also need some sort of service struction to integrate vertically.I don't see why they need VI at LC-40, just FH. 39A should be able to handle all of the EC DOD work for quite some time, I'd imagine. The only other thing that *needs* to be at 39A is CC and my understanding is we won't see more than one flight a year.
I was under the impression that in order to win a payload all that was needed was for the LV to be certified and a plan, agreed upon with USAF, to support VI (assuming VI is required) in time for launching. Maybe you're implying that the AF won't agree to "future plans" and will require actual hardware to be in place or that they'll need to be significantly along the path to VI for a "plan" to be approved? If that's the case, do you also think it will hold true for DoD launches by F9?
Quote from: deruch on 02/26/2015 10:48 pmI was under the impression that in order to win a payload all that was needed was for the LV to be certified and a plan, agreed upon with USAF, to support VI (assuming VI is required) in time for launching. Maybe you're implying that the AF won't agree to "future plans" and will require actual hardware to be in place or that they'll need to be significantly along the path to VI for a "plan" to be approved? If that's the case, do you also think it will hold true for DoD launches by F9?I think VI is part of certification.
Is it possible that DoD's insistence on built VI hardware is why certification was delayed six months at the last minute?
Quote from: woods170 on 02/26/2015 07:12 amQuote from: MrEarl on 02/26/2015 06:56 amJust a thought; if a heavy has an unexpected violent disassembly on the pad would the building survive since it so close? Doesn't matter. The HIF is of a relatively simple and cheap construction. Even if it would be completely leveled, it could be rebuilt in months. Rebuild of the HIF won't be the long pole in the tent. Fixing the problem with the rocket would be much more time consuming.Rebuilding of the [building] wouldn't be the long pole but outfitting it would. Cranes take time to order and receive. The vehicle checkout equipment would have replaced. And then there is the spacecraft prop support equipment.
Quote from: MrEarl on 02/26/2015 06:56 amJust a thought; if a heavy has an unexpected violent disassembly on the pad would the building survive since it so close? Doesn't matter. The HIF is of a relatively simple and cheap construction. Even if it would be completely leveled, it could be rebuilt in months. Rebuild of the HIF won't be the long pole in the tent. Fixing the problem with the rocket would be much more time consuming.
Just a thought; if a heavy has an unexpected violent disassembly on the pad would the building survive since it so close?
Can we leave the "what if the rocket blows up" discussion alone? It was concern trolling. Don't fall for it.
SpaceX’s crew transportation system will launch from the historic Apollo and Shuttle launch location, LC-39A on NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. We have made excellent progress renovating the complex over the last year; construction will be completed by mid-2015. SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year. Taking advantage of the existing launch tower, SpaceX will add a crew gantry access arm and white room to allow for crew and cargo ingress to the vehicle. The existing Space Shuttle evacuation slide-wire basket system will also be re-purposed to provide a safe emergency egress for the Dragon crew in the event of an emergency on the pad that does not necessitate using the Crew Dragon’s launch abort system.
Quote from: cscott on 02/27/2015 02:45 pmCan we leave the "what if the rocket blows up" discussion alone? It was concern trolling. Don't fall for it.Can you explain why you consider this to be trolling? Twice during the last year, a rocket blew up just above the pad, seriously damaging nearby equipment. So it's not just a hypothetical concern.Now it is certainly possible that SpaceX deals with this risk by hoping it does not happen, then re-building as quickly as possible if it does. If that's their plan, and they've said that's their plan, then there is no point in further discussion.<snip>So I'm not saying SpaceX was either stupid or smart to build it so close. There are clearly tradeoffs involved, and potential damage in a launch accident is one of them. I was asking about their approach to dealing with this risk.
Here is some new information about 39A pad modifications to support crew launch, source: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdfQuoteSpaceX’s crew transportation system will launch from the historic Apollo and Shuttle launch location, LC-39A on NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. We have made excellent progress renovating the complex over the last year; construction will be completed by mid-2015. SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year. Taking advantage of the existing launch tower, SpaceX will add a crew gantry access arm and white room to allow for crew and cargo ingress to the vehicle. The existing Space Shuttle evacuation slide-wire basket system will also be re-purposed to provide a safe emergency egress for the Dragon crew in the event of an emergency on the pad that does not necessitate using the Crew Dragon’s launch abort system.
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/27/2015 09:02 pmHere is some new information about 39A pad modifications to support crew launch, source: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdfQuoteSpaceX’s crew transportation system will launch from the historic Apollo and Shuttle launch location, LC-39A on NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. We have made excellent progress renovating the complex over the last year; construction will be completed by mid-2015. SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year. Taking advantage of the existing launch tower, SpaceX will add a crew gantry access arm and white room to allow for crew and cargo ingress to the vehicle. The existing Space Shuttle evacuation slide-wire basket system will also be re-purposed to provide a safe emergency egress for the Dragon crew in the event of an emergency on the pad that does not necessitate using the Crew Dragon’s launch abort system.Excellent find. Can anybody find a link to video of the congressional testimony?
Here is some new information about 39A pad modifications to support crew launch, source: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf
I see three trenches in that photo.
In the bottom photo it looks like it uses 2 rails for a single core. There are 3 footings about to be poured in the upper picture, is that for 3 rails? 6 rails? Are they changing the system slightly to only need 1 rail per core? I'm not sure we have enough information yet to know what's what there.edit: I just looked closer at the top picture. I wasn't seeing it properly. While we see 3 footing trenches in the center foreground, that's only for the upper stage area. In the areas where the side boosters would be located, a little bit deeper into the picture, you can see that there are additional footings for them out to the sides as well. They are out by where the series of dark posts stick up.
They needn't have the cores on rails all the time. Just some non-mobile supports would work, and of course the trucks the bring in new cores.The ability to hoist cores over other cores is probably part of the reason for the taller building.
You can see how far along it has got already from the image Chris had used from the continually updated L2 thread in the latest SpaceX article.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spacex-falcon-9-debut-dual-satellite-mission/