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.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 05/01/2015 11:58 amRemember 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.
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
Lifting one over the others requires less than 10m vertical... 3x3 frontal area is just about right for a 12m core.
Quote from: Jdeshetler on 04/30/2015 11:23 pmHere 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 cranesAfter 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.
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.
Why build an oversized building (height and 3x 90 ton cranes) as they apparently are?
Quote from: AncientU on 05/01/2015 01:48 amQuote from: Lars-J on 04/30/2015 09:33 pmA 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.
Quote from: Lars-J on 04/30/2015 09:33 pmA BFR would require a whole new integration building. This is built for FH/F9.Why?
A BFR would require a whole new integration building. This is built for FH/F9.
Oversized center landing pad that no one could plausibly explain...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/01/2015 02:24 amQuote from: AncientU on 05/01/2015 01:48 amQuote from: Lars-J on 04/30/2015 09:33 pmA 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.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/01/2015 11:55 amWhy build an oversized building (height and 3x 90 ton cranes) as they apparently are?It isn't oversized. This has to fit in it.