Author Topic: Pad 39A - Transition to SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut - Thread 1  (Read 302726 times)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Remember that the cranes will need enough room to lift one Falcon-9 CCB over another with reasonable head room and without getting it too close to the crane. That in part explains the height. A ~3 x 3 CCB diameter frontal area sounds right to me.
"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 dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Was Vandy's HIF sized for FH?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Remember that the cranes will need enough room to lift one Falcon-9 CCB over another with reasonable head room and without getting it too close to the crane. That in part explains the height. A ~3 x 3 CCB diameter frontal area sounds right to me.

And a CCB weighs what? 30 tonnes? Less?

Lifting one over the others requires less than 10m vertical... 3x3 frontal area is just about right for a 12m core.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 12:41 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Remember that the cranes will need enough room to lift one Falcon-9 CCB over another with reasonable head room and without getting it too close to the crane. That in part explains the height. A ~3 x 3 CCB diameter frontal area sounds right to me.

And a CCB weighs what? 30 tones? Less?

Lifting one over the others requires less than 10m vertical... 3x3 frontal area is just about right for a 12m core.

Don't forget about the TEL.  If they have contingency plans for removing a core while on the TEL they need clearance for that as well.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2892
Why would they need to lift one core over the other? It should be enough to lift them from the floor on the left and on the right and place them on the TE.

They need to have the building wide enough that they can place them on the ground and have enough space in the middle that the TE can enter. Unless the crane bridges can lift all three at once. I see already three crane hooks on one of them.

I don't think they would remove the central core from the stack while leaving both side cores in their places on the TE. Maybe that assumption is wrong.


Offline Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 3673
  • Likes Given: 3551
Here is a close up shot of -eumel-'s video, it seems to show there are one 50 tons and three 90 tons bridge cranes:
Label 1 - 50 tons single span bridge crane.
Labels 2,3,4 - 90 tons double spans bridge cranes

After looking at Advanced Overhead System's web site, it turns out that it is not overhead crane but a box girder so it is just three 50 tons box girders w/ built in catwalks.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Don't forget that they're building a set of tracks to the pad where they used inflatable tires/trucks for FH at Vandenburg.  What changed?

They are also leasing 39A for twenty years, with up front discussions of FX/FXX for the pad.
Raptor being built, announcement on MCT later this year...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
The pad structure remains covered. Curious...
If there is revealed a double position engagement strucure (I.e., centering two different diameter cores) when the pad is uncovered, then it will be settled.
A similar structure was seen in the models for Boca Chica pad.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Oversized center landing pad that no one could plausibly explain...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Lifting one over the others requires less than 10m vertical... 3x3 frontal area is just about right for a 12m core.

The fairing is 13M tall.  If the encapsulated payload is transferred vertically they'll need 15m+ just for dealing with the payload (as Jim pointed out a while back.)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Here is a close up shot of -eumel-'s video, it seems to show there are one 50 tons and three 90 tons bridge cranes:
Label 1 - 50 tons single span bridge crane.
Labels 2,3,4 - 90 tons double spans bridge cranes

After looking at Advanced Overhead System's web site, it turns out that it is not overhead crane but a box girder so it is just three 50 tons box girders w/ built in catwalks.

I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion.  A girder is the basis for an overhead crane.  It's sitting on the side rails where the cranes would go.  Seems to be a crane.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Here is a close up shot of -eumel-'s video, it seems to show there are one 50 tons and three 90 tons bridge cranes:
Label 1 - 50 tons single span bridge crane.
Labels 2,3,4 - 90 tons double spans bridge cranes

After looking at Advanced Overhead System's web site, it turns out that it is not overhead crane but a box girder so it is just three 50 tons box girders w/ built in catwalks.
Huh? Those are clearly bridge cranes. I work under a similar one every day.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 03:12 pm by Robotbeat »
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 douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Why would they need to lift one core over the other? It should be enough to lift them from the floor on the left and on the right and place them on the TE.

They need to have the building wide enough that they can place them on the ground and have enough space in the middle that the TE can enter. Unless the crane bridges can lift all three at once. I see already three crane hooks on one of them.

I don't think they would remove the central core from the stack while leaving both side cores in their places on the TE. Maybe that assumption is wrong.

I don't think the TE will be brought into the hangar until all the complete FH is assembled on the floor. The total weight of the vehicle (minus payload and fairing) should be less than 100 tons, allowing two 50 ton bridge cranes to lift it. Once lifted, the TE would be brought in beneath the suspended FH which would be then lowered on to it.

Assembling the vehicle first gives more working space. Remember the TE runs on two sets of rails which are set apart almost the width of the hangar, so bringing it in requires the floor to be almost cleared. Essentially the MO for FH would be the same as F9, with extra assembly, of course.
Douglas Clark

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

Why build an oversized building (height and 3x 90 ton cranes) as they apparently are?

It isn't oversized.  This has to fit in it.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 04:13 pm by Jim »

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
A BFR would require a whole new integration building. This is built for FH/F9.
Why?

As I recall either Shotwell or Musk stated that Pad 39A was too small for their future BFR, and that a new pad would have to be built.  I think they mentioned the flame ducts as the main constraint.

Not to pull things further off-topic with discussion of the BFR, but there's always the unconstructed area designated for pad LC-39C for such a venture. SpaceX is trying to adapt LC-39A for FH/F9 but not remove its historical flavor, and trying to make a pad be capable of launching many spacecraft just isn't done historically. Else, we'd see greater launch flexibility as Falcons and Atlases and Deltas could use any ol' pad.

Even close siblings like Saturn V and I-B were too different to use the same pad, and for Skylab, they built the "milk-stool" platform to help the I-B use the V gantry.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Oversized center landing pad that no one could plausibly explain...

I think I have that particular one figured out.  The center pad is the "crash pad", and can take an off-nominal landing with better containment.   All stage will aim for it, and then divert to the smaller pads.

(If they were truly off-nominal landing pads, then we should have had a small center pad and 4 larger gravel-surrounded side pads.)

As for the building size, I don't know.  It doesn't seem THAT oversized, and I'm not sure if it's that much more expensive to splurge - not when the construction is so simple. Maybe all the existing hangers are just really tight, and this one has more breathing room.

The argument FOR the hanger being BFR 1.0 compatible is that in all previous cases, "planning for the present" did not get in the way of operations.   Here, 3-4 years from now, this pad will be very busy.  Replacing the hangar at that point will require a prolonged stand-down.  So why not over-size now?



ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Isn't the current hanger a little close to the pad for a BFR type of rocket?  I would think an Antares type failure could do some very serious damage to a hanger located that close to the pad.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
A BFR would require a whole new integration building. This is built for FH/F9.
Why?

As I recall either Shotwell or Musk stated that Pad 39A was too small for their future BFR, and that a new pad would have to be built.  I think they mentioned the flame ducts as the main constraint.

Not to pull things further off-topic with discussion of the BFR, but there's always the unconstructed area designated for pad LC-39C for such a venture. SpaceX is trying to adapt LC-39A for FH/F9 but not remove its historical flavor, and trying to make a pad be capable of launching many spacecraft just isn't done historically. Else, we'd see greater launch flexibility as Falcons and Atlases and Deltas could use any ol' pad.

Even close siblings like Saturn V and I-B were too different to use the same pad, and for Skylab, they built the "milk-stool" platform to help the I-B use the V gantry.

Historically, there haven't been landing pads at the Cape either.  39B is supposedly being developed to accommodate multiple vehicles.  There is no reason that 39A cannot also be for multi-vehicle use, especially since the developer has lots of insight (I dare say more than we have, or NASA has for 39B) into what else might need the pad.

As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results...

Note: I don't think it is OT at all.  The pad is certainly being prepared for Falcon Heavy debut, but we're (I'm) seeing inconsistencies that may indicate the facility is being readied for more than that.  (To be honest, I'm looking for any shred of evidence that forward looking plans are in place for BFR at 39A and am asking for help examining several of the new/changed features from Vandenberg which was the original pad developed for Falcon Heavy's debut.)
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 04:53 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

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

Why build an oversized building (height and 3x 90 ton cranes) as they apparently are?

It isn't oversized.  This has to fit in it.

THAT has to fit into Vandy's HIF, which I believe is quite a bit shorter (and has lower-than-reported bridge crane capacity).  I expect that a BFR strongback would be about the same size/thickness -- the base plate would obviously have to be larger and would dictate the height of the HIF doorway.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Why would they need to lift one core over the other? It should be enough to lift them from the floor on the left and on the right and place them on the TE.

They need to have the building wide enough that they can place them on the ground and have enough space in the middle that the TE can enter. Unless the crane bridges can lift all three at once. I see already three crane hooks on one of them.

I don't think they would remove the central core from the stack while leaving both side cores in their places on the TE. Maybe that assumption is wrong.


They will all be mated before the lift onto the TEL.  The cores won't be individually lifted onto the TEL.

Tags:
 

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