Author Topic: Falcon Heavy into production as Pad 39A HIF rises out of the ground  (Read 74229 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

« Last Edit: 02/19/2015 12:19 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline nadreck

Nice article Chris!  What chance is there of a similar 'mid-term' update sometime soon on the Dragon2
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline CJ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Liked: 1282
  • Likes Given: 540
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. :P



Offline Owlon

  • Math/Science Teacher
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Vermont, USA
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 118
Top notch, as always!


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.

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
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.

Is Falcon Heavy going to be human-rated rather than just Falcon 9 (R)?

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
FH flying this summer seems optimistic, since the pad isn't finished  and there will be an extensive period of on-pad testing and check out required before flight.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
For me, the best part of this is to see LC-39A coming back to life!
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
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/

Superb article as always, Chris.

One fact check: Hasn't the ink dried on the LC-13 approval itself?  One site thinks so.

http://www.astrowatch.net/2015/02/spacex-and-air-force-sign-first-ever.html
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Cool artlcle, thanks very much.

The article makes clear that new RP-1 tanks are being installed.  Are they going to be in the same place as the Saturn-era tanks?  Just thinking of the photos padrat has provided of the old RP-1 infrastructure, will any of it be re-used, or is it all new? 

Offline Chris Bergin

Thanks to all, chaps! ;D

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/

Superb article as always, Chris.

One fact check: Hasn't the ink dried on the LC-13 approval itself?

And thanks to you too! :)

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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807

I was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. :P

It does have the facetious quotes around it, though ... clearly not intended to be a serious reference!  ;)

Offline Chris Bergin


I was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. :P

It does have the facetious quotes around it, though ... clearly not intended to be a serious reference!  ;)

You had me in a panic then! ;D

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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634

I was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. :P

It does have the facetious quotes around it, though ... clearly not intended to be a serious reference!  ;)

You had me in a panic then! ;D

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.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1082
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 4080
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?

Offline b ramsey

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2015 03:06 pm by b ramsey »

Offline Chris Bergin

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?

Firstly, thanks very much!

And on that question - that was my fault. I felt that line (which was part of a L2 discussion about building height) was too convoluted after publishing, so chopped the end off it....but the CMS didn't update the article change for an hour due to a cache issue, so silly me! ;D

Nothing really too that.

And if that was L2 info, I'd still expand on it in here for you. No way would I want someone joining L2 for a bit of info. People should only ever join L2 because they like the entire site and want to support it. (I know some only join for the cool stuff, but we really make an effort to turn things around for everyone on the site. Such as those new HIF photos were only hours old).
« Last Edit: 02/19/2015 03:02 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline brettreds2k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
  • Charlotte, NC
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 42
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!!
Brett
www.facebook.com/brett.lowenthal1

Orbiters I have visited in retirement:

[ ] Enterprise
[X] Discovery
[X] Atlantis
[ ] Endeavour

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 251
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.

As others have noted in previous Falcon Heavy forums, SpaceX may be considering a cog rail system like that on Pikes Peak.

I am curious about the leveling mechanism (if any) for dealing with the incline. It's not vertical like Saturn V or STS .

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 329
Having watched several Apollo and Skylab launches, this space old timer derives satisfaction from the fact that the 39A FSS was made from sections of the old Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2) tower.  How neat to see that old steel standing tall with F9H almost half a century after it was originally fabricated.
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP (@KSC, not Baikonur!), STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink G4-24, Artemis 1
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch), Tiangong

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 3041
I think the next huge news will be "First Falcon Heavy in McGregor for stand testing". Probably May or June. Good 3 months should be plenty to make the 28 Merlins, make the 3 cores and the 2nd stage, while taking care of other F9R business in parallel. Enough speculating.

Before people blast me for "3 months is wayy to long", I agree. I'm just trying to add a lot of pading, in case it takes another month before core production starts, and in case SpaceX decides to build one core at a time, with normal F9R production proceeding in parallel. I understand they can make 3 cores in parallel, so I'm assuming a worst case 1/3 of production space for FH, the other 2/3 for F9R. Being pessimistic here. build one, verify a lot of stuff, build the next one, verify a lot of stuff, build the last core, verify, then ship to McGregor.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Maybe this was covered earlier somewhere else - Why is the shuttle rotating service tower being left in place, is it too expensive to remove?

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Maybe this was covered earlier somewhere else - Why is the shuttle rotating service tower being left in place, is it too expensive to remove?
My understanding is that SpaceX wanted to use explosives to demolish it and NASA rejected that approach.  SpaceX doesn't want the RSS, but they're in a rush to get 39A operational so they are working around it for now.

Edit: I can't find a reference, but this is what I recall...
« Last Edit: 02/19/2015 09:25 pm by mme »
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
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. :P

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 cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Chris Bergin

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!!

End of the year is what the KSC guys estimate, but that's not official.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

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. :P

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.


Yeah, that text is actually linked to the Dragon V2 articles :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
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.

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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 2685
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.

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.

Offline Owlon

  • Math/Science Teacher
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Vermont, USA
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 118
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.

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.

Right. That's very similar to the language they've used regarding Dragon carrying crew, and clearly there is a lot of engineering work between the current Dragon and the upcoming crewed version.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
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.

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.

It probably also matters who would be flying on the Falcon Heavy pushed Dragon - NASA, a commercial customer, or just SpaceX personnel.  If it's non-government I'm sure their certification process will have a lower bar than if they go through NASA.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
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.

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.

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 533
Around the time STS was wrapping up, two or three folks around these parts were quite vocally predicting one or both of the 39 pads would be cold forever. Now both are just abouy bustling with life again, well as much as a pad ever does. Sometimes, its nice to be an optimist.

Offline MP99

+1 from me!

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.

I assume this is pretty official re them taking it over?
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/565808/45th-space-wing-spacex-sign-first-ever-landing-pad-agreement-at-cape-canaveral.aspx

Quote
45th Space Wing, SpaceX sign first-ever landing pad agreement at Cape Canaveral
By 45th Space Wing Public Affairs, / Published February 10, 2015

PATRICK 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."

Cheers, Martin

Offline Chris Bergin

I've changed the line from:

"SpaceX's proposed landing site at Cape Canaveral's SLC-13"

To:

"SpaceX's proposed - albeit a deal has been signed with the USAF - landing site at Cape Canaveral's SLC-13"

Doesn't flow brilliantly, but the only other way is to add another para, but that would break the flow of the article.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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.

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.
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 guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
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.

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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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.

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.
No, it wouldn't be intimately connected. It's launch vehicle design and build, not crew vehicle certification.
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 anonymousgerbil

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 61

I was, however, shocked to see ASDS refereed to with the B-word. :P

It does have the facetious quotes around it, though ... clearly not intended to be a serious reference!  ;)

You had me in a panic then! ;D

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.

Also, the company that actually owns it seems to be under the impression that it's a barge, so there's that.   ;)

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
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.

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.

The Internet is indeed your friend. Check out 32:40 on the video.

http://spaceref.biz/company/spacex/future-in-space-operations-teleconference-with-spacex-garrett-reisman.html

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.


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.

He is in charge of the Dragon V2 program. I am sure that if the FH guys were planning to man-rate soon and use FH to launch crew they would tell him.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2015 08:19 pm by Endeavour_01 »
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
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.

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.

That doesn't make any sense at all because the FH core and the FH boosters are both the F9 v1.1 with hardware added to enable the coupling. F9 v1.1 IS a man-rated LV. Both use the same lower and upper stage. 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. That is not going to happen.

Bottom line is that the company web page - approved by Elon Musk - specifically states that the FH was (already) designed from its inception to be a man-rated vehicle. I will take that as gospel until Elon himself states otherwise because it was HE that stated it would be a man-rated launch vehicle.

Garrett Reisman needs to have somebody proofread his statements before he makes them. He is not very good at shooting from the hip - he never was.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2015 08:31 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1082
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 4080
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.

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?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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.

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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
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"?

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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"?

My understanding is that it has to be human-rated by NASA before it can do jobs for NASA.  Since NASA is currently the only paying customer, that's really the only human-rating that matters right now.

Carrying humans to a private space station would fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA, which has taken a much more relaxed approach.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

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"?

FAA

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Good. So there isn't really a reason for NASA rating an FH.

The FAA, as far as I can tell from the VG saga, is really letting thing fall where they may (I didn't mean it to come out this way when I started the paragraph...)

Let's see who will fly people on FH first.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
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.

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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
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.

Sure, but there are bound to be subtle details.  Just for the purpose of discussion, suppose that the launch trajectory of Falcon Heavy is just different enough to put the Dragon v2 in-flight abort system in a black zone.  Moving too fast too low, or something like that.  Or the v2 escape system isn't *quite* fast enough to escape from *three simultaneous* exploding boosters, although it does fine for a single F9.

This might be obvious to the engineers, and have an obvious fix (perhaps tweaking the trajectory, perhaps upgrading the Dragon v2 superdracos, rather than making any change to F9H).  But they are not making those changes right now, because Dragon v2-on-F9R is the critical path.  This is more often the pragmatic SpaceX way -- know where the limits of your current design are, have a plan for fixing them in the future, but don't actually *do* the work until you have to, in order to get version 1 out the door without delay.  By the time they get to version 2, their original plan for addressing the limitations may have changed -- but that's why you have a version 1: so you can learn from it.

Tesla seems to operate the same way -- all the Tesla model S ever made had a funny little cutout in the frunk (front trunk).  It was only in the past few months where the "dual motor" (all wheel drive) model S was announced & released, when we discovered that that funny space in the frunk was meant all along to carry a second drive motor.   It was obvious that it was "designed in" from the start, but that's a long cry from all the work required (supply line, manufacturing, qualification, etc) to actually put the dual motor variant into production.

Similarly, I expect that Falcon Heavy has man-rating-shaped "holes" in its design, which they clearly intend to fill in with the proper redundancies/trajectory improvements/dragon upgrades/whatever later.  But those holes aren't going to be filled in by the time of the Falcon Heavy's debut.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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.

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.

FH delays are due at least in large part to the replacement of F9 v1.0 as assumed for early FH booster (shown in the early simulations for FH) by v1.1.  The progress on M1D/F9 v1.1 obviated the need for a FH based on the old booster version.  More-rapid-than-expected advancements in recovery of boosters (landing legs, grid fins, ASDS, landing pads, etc.) again postponed FH -- and customer demand did not require it earlier, either.  I'd be surprised if the hooks weren't in FH based on v1.1 for human rating

FH evolution is a perfect example of pragmatism winning over 'planning' -- the plan for an FH was there, but progress dictated it be delayed until the new booster was shaken down/optimized.  The FH that emerges will be quite a launcher!!!

Another set of examples of planning for the future coupled with pragmatic implementation involve all of the provisions in v1.1 for RTLS/landing legs -- itself a huge evidence of planning for the future.  Landing legs were built before the first v1.1 launched, early launches were flown as tests, when GN2 control proved inadequate/too heavy it was replaced by grid fins, when barrier or additional requirements to landing on land were encountered (USAF imposed I'd assume), ASDS was born, etc., etc., etc... This is quite a different realization of the reusable boosters plan than the original parachute drop into the ocean, but I think it much better.

Building out four launch pads is not 'planning for the present' -- each will have lessons learned from previous versions, but collectively, they are laid groundwork for the future.

Yes, the ground infrastructure is behind the curve... but at least there is a curve.  Would anyone prefer that SpaceX plan and develop $500M worth of ground facilities as done for Ares I/V before launching anything?
« Last Edit: 02/22/2015 03:51 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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.

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.

You're simply ignoring what I said earlier and repeating what you initially said.  Falcon Heavy still isn't just three Falcon 9s duct-taped together.  There are differences.  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.  Human rating by NASA is similar.  It requires a process that would have to be done for Falcon Heavy separately from Falcon 9.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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.).

I definitely think 'opportunistic' is a feature of SpaceX character!  Your example of catamaran sailing is excellent -- the wave you surf needs to be heading in your generally intended direction.  (Unless, of course, you are just kicking around on your Hobie and want to fly a bit...)  The faster you are going, the easier it will be to catch it.  Global WIFI constellations are one such wave they are looking to catch; this opportunity is both created by their lowering of launch costs and their realization that it's not difficult to seriously undercut the established prices by introducing innovative technology and development methods.  Maybe not part of the original plan to lower launch costs, but just one of the (un?)expected sources of increased demand.

Introducing the FH will (may) also allow them to catch and ride as yet imagined opportunities.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2015 05:41 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
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.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2015 10:24 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline ISP

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
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.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

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.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 2685
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.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
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.

Neither is the Delta IV Medium, so I don't know how that is relevant. Air Force certification is not directly linked to "man-rating".

Offline Joey S-IVB

  • Arrowhead, the Avro kind
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Space Cadet
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 1000
HIF is just a ruggedized steel building, similar in construction to a big box store like Walmart or Best Buy. They are easy to construct, but also easy to disassemble. Even the concrete pad that's the building's base is relatively easy to remove. So if SpaceX's needs change, and the BFR is small enough to launch from LC-39A, than SpaceX can disassemble the current HIF and build a new and larger building. They're relatively cheap compared to the rest of the infrastructure required.

Offline MP99

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.

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.
F9 has margins of 1.4. Given the amount of commonality but the extra thrust, it would not take much for some elements of FH to dip under 1.4.

In particular, ISTM the upper mounting points between booster and core are under tremendous stress. If a booster and core are determined to go in different directions (especially a shearing stress) with 1.5 mlbf thrust each, I just don't see how that mechanism could stop it. I suspect that the three boosters will be "flying in formation", with the core "navigating", and each booster's goal being simply to "follow" such that it minimises stresses to the upper mount points.

This becomes a more difficult problem once you get failures in one or more Merlins.

I suspect that the coordination of the three cores is critical to maintaining the 1.4 margin. Nothing new in this, any vehicle can get outside its envelope, but perhaps will need some flights before they tune the algorithms to maintain the margins.

Cheers, Martin

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
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.
« Last Edit: 02/23/2015 07:09 am by Lars-J »

Offline rpapo

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.
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.

And thinking back on it a little, was the 40% margin was set in comparison to the Merlin 1C's performance, or the expected future performance of the Merlin 1D or E?  At the time the 40% margin was talked about, Falcon 9 1.1 was still way off in the future.

EDIT: Believe it or not, that last paragraph was written while the next post was being written.  Hrissan thinks rather loudly, for me to pick it up on the other side of the world...  8)
« Last Edit: 02/23/2015 10:21 am by rpapo »
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline hrissan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Novosibirsk, Russia
  • Liked: 325
  • Likes Given: 2432
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.
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.
But may be some of that 40% margin were "eaten" during 1.0 -> 1.1 transition? If someone stumbles upon Elon, it would be a good question...

Offline coal_burner

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 287
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.

Offline Zardar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Limerick, Ireland
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 344
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.

It's not quite as bad as that!
At liftoff, each side core has to lift itself, so only the 'extra' thrust would be transferred to the base of the middle core.
Also, the middle core would be throttled back at (or shortly after) liftoff (to save propellent for later, after the side boosters separate), so it needs the extra thrust from the sides just to make up the shortfall (all transferred to the base of the rocket), so the thrust loads are reasonably similar to normal.
Coming close to separation, yes, the side boosters will be transferring significant extra thrust to the core (since they are almost empty themselves), but the overall rocket will still be throttled back to keep loads within limits.
Yes, the center core will have to carry some extra loads along its length, even when sitting static on the pad, since there will be 20-40 tonnes of extra stuff up the top of the rocket, but compared to the normal mass of the core+fuel+stage2+payload at the point in time when the sides are expected to separate (~2 mins?), its certainly not multiples of the usual load, and should be already accommodated in the core's existing structural design margins.



Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437

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.

Ahhh...thanks.  :-)

Also, maybe someone knows this for sure.  When they built the F9v1.0 TEL, did they have F9v1.1 in the works yet?  I got the impression that v1.1 came along after they started launching v1.0 and had more data on the Merlin, F9's performance, learned various lessons, and got the bug to try a reusable booster lead to a quick upgrade to v1.1.
If my understanding is correct, then they didn't build a TEL with the -intent- of using it for just a short time and scrapping it.   Their plans changed after it was built which were seen as more advantageous than continuing to use the original TEL on the original F9. 
With BFR, SpaceX is fully aware and in early development for it while this new HIF is being built.    If they were to plan to launch BFR from 39A and and have it's HIF in that location, then that would be a different scenario than the v1.0 TEL I think.   It would make little sense to build a HIF that couldn't accomodate BFR if they had near term future plans to integrate BFR in that location.  The buildings may not be super expensive...but they aren't -that- cheap either I wouldn't think, and there's added construction time in having to tear down an existing structure.

Again, as I understand how things unfolded for the v1.0 TEL.

« Last Edit: 02/24/2015 05:10 pm by Lobo »

Offline Chris Bergin

So overnight this thread went to the dogs.

It went properly off the rails via the use of a single, harmless, but apparently incendiary word. That was then quoted by pretty much everyone else, including some very bad posts that took offense to it - and the thread jogged off into the sunset. Remember, don't report a bad post, quote it and then respond to it, because when the mod deals with the bad post, the responses are culled too, obviously.

And I'm boring myself now.

The posts that survived are in a standalone thread, but locked - because the main points were answered and all future posts are bound to head into a pointless back and forth between a few members of a certain opinion, bumping down good threads.

Carry on with the subject of this thread............
« Last Edit: 02/24/2015 12:54 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
I may have missed this but will LC-39A also be used for CRS and crewed launches using Falcon-9 v.1.1?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Owlon

  • Math/Science Teacher
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Vermont, USA
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 118
I 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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162

Offline Harold KSC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
  • Liked: 11877
  • Likes Given: 60
How is that any better than Chris's article? The photos are old too.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
How is that any better than Chris's article? The photos are old too.

First: where did you get the notion that the referenced article is supposedly any better (or less good) than Chris' ?

Second: Progress in those two photos is slightly further along, compared to those in Chris' article.
This is a public thread. I can't copy the excellent, and very up-to-date, images from L2 here. That would be a violation of forum rules. So, in this public thread, that is about progress of the construction of the HIF, we'll have to make do with what's available from public sources (such as SFN).
When showing images from another public source it is decent practice to reference the source of those images, hence the link and the credit-line.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2015 08:25 pm by woods170 »

Offline MarekCyzio

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?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Here are some more pictures, taken yesterday: http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2015/02/going-up-part-2.html

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
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?
Presumably no different from DeltaIV, which is horizontally integrated, rolled to the pad, with the payload attached there vertically?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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?
Presumably no different from DeltaIV, which is horizontally integrated, rolled to the pad, with the payload attached there vertically?

Yes, but "how" exactly they will do that remains to be scene.  Pad 37 has a very large mobile Service structure that can access the entire LV vertically once it's integrated so it doesn't need to go back horizontal.  Would SpaceX have something that complex?  That'd be quite expensive I'd think.

I more expect there to be something much more minimal.  Just adequate to take an encapsulated vertical payload in it's PLF and hoist it up to mating on a Booster + upper stage stack.  If there's a problem such that it requires a roll back, the payload could be demated and then the stack put horizontal again and then rolled back into the HIF which is set up to access it's length.  The payload could then be put back on a truck and taken someplace for clean storage until the stack is ready again. 

They may be able to attach such apperatus to the FSS and thus not need any separate structure.  Or they could construct some sort of mobile gantry that would retract likely to the flame duct side of the pad.  A 3rd option could be that once they remove the Shuttle RSS, they build a new simple one in it's place that then rotates around to mate an encapsulated payload to the top of the stack.  As the track, hing system, etc are already there. 

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 920
  • Likes Given: 231
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.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2015 11:16 am by StuffOfInterest »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
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?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline MarekCyzio

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.

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).

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
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?
Perhaps they will have no choice. They apparently proposed a plan involving explosives which was nixed.  So some kinder, gentler approach will be needed.

I wouldn't expect to see the RSS go anywhere before the first FH flight, though.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
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.

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.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
I have been told the RSS of 39B was cut and put down in pieces. The huge structure seems too big to put down in one piece. No idea how long that takes and if it can be done gradually between launches.

SpaceX need vertical integration both at the West Coast and the East Cost. So they must do it at 39A.

Offline MarekCyzio

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
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.

Source: http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/02/25/falcon-heavy-rocket-hangar-rises-at-pad-39a/

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
I 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.

I have a hard time believing 39A won't fly a combination of NASA, AF, and commercial payloads even after Boca Chica is open.  NASA should only be 5-6 flights a year for ISS even when crew is flying.  Their first vertical integration capability (probably required for many AF payloads) on the east coast should be at that pad, and if they have more FH flights than they are permitted to launch from Boca Chica then the overflow would need to use 39A.  Basically to avoid using 39A for some of everything they'd need a major re-do of SLC-40.

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Basically 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: FH

VAFB 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.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2015 03:42 pm by abaddon »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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.

No, the Shuttle RSS is to low.  It would need to be removed and a taller Falcon specific one built in it's place.  Just saying I don't know why they couldn't build a new one for paylaod integration and have it attached to the FSS and rotate instead of being free standing and pull back like the LC-37 MSS does.  Other LV's have had rotating service structures, not just STS.  The service strucutre at Kodiak rotates I believe.  SpaceX could use the existing RSS track and FSS mounts to build a new one.  It could be more "minimal" than a free standing MSS as it would be anchored to the FSS.

But a crane and new payload access arm (or arms) built on to the FSS might work too.  Be interesting to see what their plans are.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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.

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).

They don't need to do that right away though.  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.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
I think they are just deferring the vertical payload modifications until later, since the first few flights don't need them. (or am I wrong) The important part is to get the pad up and running for FH.

As schedule allows, they can go in and gradually transform the tower (or replace it) to create vertical integration capability. It will be needed for crew access as well.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Basically 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: FH

VAFB 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.

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.  Upgrading it to handle FH isn't just as easy has making the HIF bigger and building a the larger TEL, a new HIF needs to be built at 90 degrees to the existing one so FH can come to the pad from the back of the flamte ducts.  If FH sits on the LC-40 pad as F9 does now, flame duct will be out it's side and one outboard booster and the core's exhaust would undercut the booster closest to the duct.  I don't think that'll work.  It'll need to sit on it like Titan did, and how FH will sit on SLC-4E's pad so each booster's exhaust goes straight out the flame duct.  Then some sort of service structure added on top of that.   All the hydraulics and everything on the pad will need to be moved/upgraded accordingly. 
So those are some pretty major upgrades that would keep LC-40 off line for quite awhile I'd think, leaving just 39A was their only operational East Coast pad, so they'd still be bottlenecked in their manifest.

So I think LC-40 will continue to handle uncrewed and non USAF/DoD payloads that don't require FH.  Once LC-39A is ready, it'll handle commercial FH and F9 launches.  At which  time they'll start construction on Boca Chica (probably late 2015/early 2016?). That'll give them two operational East coast pads to help relieve bottleneck.  Once in service, 39A will be upgraded to handle USAF/DoD integration, and then later upgraded to handle crewed Dragon launches.  (Those can be worked on while 39A is in use, so the pad won't have to go offline.)
Once Boca Chica is finished and handling commerical F9 and FH payloads and when their manifest allows it, they will probably take LC-40 off line and upgrade it to handle FH, although I doubt they'll add any means of vertical integration to it as that will be handled by 39A.  Once LC-40 comes back on line, then they can launch FH from all 3 East coast pads, which will give them more flexibility one where to allocate payloads.  Also, the version of FH with all 3 cores recovered may be a configuration that flies quite frequently, so I think they'd want to be able to launch it from LC-40 and not just leave it a F9 only pad.

Just my guess any way.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2015 04:30 pm by Lobo »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
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.

the equipment has to happen before the landing of payloads.

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
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.

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.

« Last Edit: 02/26/2015 05:05 pm by abaddon »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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.

the equipment has to happen before the landing of payloads.

Yes, good point.  I should have stated that differently. 
They can start working on their commercial manifest backlog first and can complete the vertical integration equipment while launching those, so they can go try to land some DoD payloads.  They don't need the vertical integration equipment right away to operate the pad.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
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.

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.

The ORR of the launch facilities for crew is in mid-2016 per CCtCAP milestones.
First crewed flight milestone is in 4Q2016.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2015 05:51 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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.

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.

They don't.  I'd actually misread gongora's comment above and thought he was saying they might do VI at LC-40 with a major re-do of the pad.  So I was pointing out why they most likely wouldn't.
Gongora was actually staying they'd do VI at 39A, I just reread his statement.  That's what I get for reading too fast!  :-)

VI will be at 39A on the East coast, and 40 and Boca Chica will handle payloads that don't require VI.  40 will probably get an upgrade to handle FH (no VI) afer Boca Chica is operational, once their manifest will allow for it to be taken off line for the time [6 months plus?] needed to make it accomdate FH.

39A will handle crewed launches, USAF/DoD, and whatever other normal payloads need a place to launch if there are slots open in it's schedule.  They may only get a couple East Coast USAF/DoD payloads per year for some time as ULA will still have the lion's share of them.  Commercial crew plus commercial cargo plus that probably won't keep 39A full year around, assuming around a 1/launch per month launch rate (which is about what LC-40 is doing on average lately).  So they'll probably have a few commercial sat launches per year mixed in for some time, if LC-40 and Boca Chica's schedules are full.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
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.

the equipment has to happen before the landing of payloads.

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?
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
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?

I think VI is part of certification.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
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?

I think VI is part of certification.

The AF, until relatively recently, was stating that they were attempting to get the F9 certified by the end of last December.  How could anyone have possibly been under the impression that VI was going to be finished and ready by that deadline?  If established VI capability is a hard requirement for certification, I can't imagine that the AF would have been making the statements they were in the run up to the deadline for awarding NROL-79.  IMHO, it would only have made sense if they were willing to accept an agreed upon plan&schedule for creating VI capability in time for the launch. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Is it possible that DoD's insistence on built VI hardware is why certification was delayed six months at the last minute?

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Is it possible that DoD's insistence on built VI hardware is why certification was delayed six months at the last minute?

maybe.  But if so, why wouldn't they have just said so instead of the more amorphous 20% left to do and "real engineering process".  Certainly the failure of SpaceX to meet a clearly defined and very explicit AF requirement should have been an easy explanation for why they didn't meet the December deadline.  Plus it shouldn't trigger a "review of the process" by Sec. James.  Have there been any signs that SpaceX is hurriedly working towards building VI capability for the F9 that will be ready within 3 months (new mid year deadline for F9 certification)?  To my mind, that's the problem with that argument.  I haven't seen evidence of SpaceX doing much construction for VI if that's the hold up.  Like I said earlier, I always assumed that they only had to lay out a plan for VI that was agreeable to the AF to achieve certification.  Maybe that wouldn't be enough to actually win a payload and they would have to demonstrate construction progress along that plan as well.

But with the new deadline for F9 certification we may soon start to see signs of their prep for VI at Pad 39A. 

This was all canvassed towards the end of the NROL-79 thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36119.0
« Last Edit: 02/27/2015 03:08 am by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Is it possible that DoD's insistence on built VI hardware is why certification was delayed six months at the last minute?

No, that is quite implausible... Both parties expected certification to be done months ago, and we all know that VI was quite a bit off even then.

VI is must be a requirement some (most?) classes of payloads - but not all - otherwise none of this circus for the last 6 months makes any sense.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
Just 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.
Given that the HIF is close to the pad, might it make sense for SpaceX to have on hand spares for the long lead time items?

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Can we leave the "what if the rocket blows up" discussion alone?  It was concern trolling.  Don't fall for it.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
Can 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.

But it also seems possible they have at least thought about this, and perhaps taken some precautions.  After all, to very rough numbers, they would like to launch every 30 days, and each launch of a FH will bring in about $30M.  So the cost of having a dead HIF is about a million dollars a day.   Now of course, you also need to find and fix the flaw in the rocket, but if SpaceX can do this on Russian time scales, then it's entirely possible that re-building and re-outfitting the HIF would be on the critical path.

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.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
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

Quote
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.

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Can 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.

A suggestion...

Given: SpaceX is working under greater constraints at KSC. In contrast, their facility at Boca Chica is a clean-slate design, fully under their control.

Now: Measure the distances between the HIFs and pads at 39A and Boca Chica. Compare and contrast.
Bonus: do the same for 4E at Vandy.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2015 10:24 pm by dglow »

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
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

Quote
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.

Excellent find. Can anybody find a link to video of the congressional testimony?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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

Quote
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.

Excellent find. Can anybody find a link to video of the congressional testimony?

Very interesting but expected.  But good to have some verification.  Thanks Lars.  I think we all figured there'd be a crew access arm attached to the FSS, and the STS emergency egress system would be used. (be sort of silly not to). 



One big question....how will they handle vertical payload integration there?  I'm dying for some details on that. 

Online Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 3673
  • Likes Given: 3551
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

One of the last photo catch my attention, a submerged foundations for tracks to support the middle core and no outer tracks for boosters inside the new HIF?

I wondered how can they rotated the boosters while it is on the side for accessing and installing legs when there is no support track? Maybe they are installing and accessing while it is on middle track then move aside when it was done?

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
I see three trenches in that photo.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
I see three trenches in that photo.

So do I.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
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. 
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 08:44 pm by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 366
The former Titan 3/4 launch infrastructure used dual standard gauge railroad tracks to move the mobile launch platforms (and bring in the solid fuel booster segments and liquid fuels).   Nearly all of that facility and the tracks are gone now, but the surviving tracks are still used to transport the assembled rockets to the pads.  Of course, the  Soviet N-1/Energia used a very similar system.

I can't tell for certain how many rails will be used here, or if the tracks will be standard gauge.  The transporter/erector might use only two rails to form a super broad gauge track.  But I'm guessing from the rebar that it'll be four rails.

Offline Zardar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Limerick, Ireland
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 344

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.

The SpaceX 39A HIF can allegedly accommodate 5 cores (according to tweet from last week that i can't currently find. I think it was a florida today journalist).
So they would need 5 sets of internal rails to hold the 5 cores. (and 3 up the ramp externally)
That would give them the capacity to process multiple F9 campaigns in parallel. (although elbow room might get a bit tight!)
They could possibly also 'swap' F9 missions/cores if they wanted to (if they needed to delay the next mission), but if a F9H was in the hanger, it would have to go out first since it would block the center track. (unless the HIF is constructed 'off-center' relative to  the launch mount - I can't tell for sure from any of the construction photos seen so far?)

Edit: found the reference:
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/568850459991142400



« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 09:32 pm by Zardar »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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.
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 woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
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.

Bingo!

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 140
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/


Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 920
  • Likes Given: 231
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/

Although more visually impressive the structural frame is probably the quickest part of the whole hangar construction.  Ground works take a lot of time to prepare but then the frame comes in on trucks and goes up over a couple of weeks.  Fitting out the inside will probably be the longest part.

This is kind of like watching the house being built up the street from mine.  A month to prepare the site and form the foundations.  A week to put up the framing.  Finally, three more months to skin it and do all the interior outfitting (HVAC, elec, plumb, drywall, etc).

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0