do I understand that article correctly that on holddown release the strongback will drop to the horizontal position? If so, that should make for a (n already) visually interesting launch
If the strongback is going to go horizontal, is there a separate umbilical tower? It seems like that would add additional complexity to the launch system that hasn't been present on the other pads.
will falcon 9/Falcon heavy enter ( be assembled for launch)and exit to the pad from the same doors in the HIF?
do I understand that article correctly that on holddown release the strongback will drop to the horizontal position? If so, that should make for a (n already) visually interesting launch
do I understand that article correctly that on holddown release the strongback will drop to the horizontal position? If so, that should make for a (n already) visually interesting launch
They did that for the Antares rocket launches.
do I understand that article correctly that on holddown release the strongback will drop to the horizontal position? If so, that should make for a (n already) visually interesting launch
They did that for the Antares rocket launches.
will falcon 9/Falcon heavy enter ( be assembled for launch)and exit to the pad from the same doors in the HIF?
See attached images. Rocket goes in one door, and out the other! :D
will falcon 9/Falcon heavy enter ( be assembled for launch)and exit to the pad from the same doors in the HIF?
See attached images. Rocket goes in one door, and out the other! :D
Question:
If you look at the photos of the strongback test and compare it to the render (not sure if that's SpaceX's official render or one of Nathan's)--isn't the strongback on the wrong side now in the render? It's shown there where it drops towards the HIF, but the photos appear to show the strongback dropping away from the HIF.
It might be a photographic illusion, so I could be wrong.
EDIT: I'm probably wrong. It's like looking at lunar craters in photos where the orientation makes them appear to be domes and not holes. I look at it again and see the strongback falling towards the HIF as in the render...
I notice that the render shows the 8 hold downs for FH, but only 2 seem attached to the F9. There was discussion about the base plate having interchangeable configs to allow 4 hold downs on the F9. I wonder if the render is slightly wrong here.
I notice that the render shows the 8 hold downs for FH, but only 2 seem attached to the F9. There was discussion about the base plate having interchangeable configs to allow 4 hold downs on the F9. I wonder if the render is slightly wrong here.
I was wondering the same thing. Also, if the T/E is intended to go "full" horizontal at T=0 wont it need that center assembly shown in the red outline in the image below? That assembly, given its position in the exhaust deflection stream, is going to get a hell of a taste of the launch temps and pressures. If it is at that location at T0, what is securing it? What are the wheels made of (they look pneumatic/puffy)?
Is it likely they won't have that assembly there during launch? If so, then the strong back will not go full horizontal after T0?
I notice that the render shows the 8 hold downs for FH, but only 2 seem attached to the F9. There was discussion about the base plate having interchangeable configs to allow 4 hold downs on the F9. I wonder if the render is slightly wrong here.
I was wondering the same thing. Also, if the T/E is intended to go "full" horizontal at T=0 wont it need that center assembly shown in the red outline in the image below? That assembly, given its position in the exhaust deflection stream, is going to get a hell of a taste of the launch temps and pressures. If it is at that location at T0, what is securing it? What are the wheels made of (they look pneumatic/puffy)?
Is it likely they won't have that assembly there during launch? If so, then the strong back will not go full horizontal after T0?
do I understand that article correctly that on holddown release the strongback will drop to the horizontal position? If so, that should make for a (n already) visually interesting launch
I notice that the render shows the 8 hold downs for FH, but only 2 seem attached to the F9. There was discussion about the base plate having interchangeable configs to allow 4 hold downs on the F9. I wonder if the render is slightly wrong here.
do I understand that article correctly that on holddown release the strongback will drop to the horizontal position? If so, that should make for a (n already) visually interesting launch
Should be similar to the launch of the Soyuz. The vertical supports are held upright by the mass of the vehicle on the pad but as soon as Soyuz lifts off the supports they swing away and down pretty rapidly. F9/F9H have a completely different mechanism, but the visual effect should be similarly spectacular.
I notice that the render shows the 8 hold downs for FH, but only 2 seem attached to the F9. There was discussion about the base plate having interchangeable configs to allow 4 hold downs on the F9. I wonder if the render is slightly wrong here.
I was wondering the same thing. Also, if the T/E is intended to go "full" horizontal at T=0 wont it need that center assembly shown in the red outline in the image below? That assembly, given its position in the exhaust deflection stream, is going to get a hell of a taste of the launch temps and pressures. If it is at that location at T0, what is securing it? What are the wheels made of (they look pneumatic/puffy)?
Is it likely they won't have that assembly there during launch? If so, then the strong back will not go full horizontal after T0?
I've read somewhere that SpaceX closed that part of the flame trench and during the launch exhaust flames/vapor would go only in one direction (away from the pad).
I think I read it in Chris article.
do I understand that article correctly that on holddown release the strongback will drop to the horizontal position? If so, that should make for a (n already) visually interesting launch
They did that for the Antares rocket launches.
Do you have a link to a picture of that? From what I remember Antares would just tilt it back a little further at liftoff. Maybe 45 degrees. Not horizontal...
will falcon 9/Falcon heavy enter ( be assembled for launch)and exit to the pad from the same doors in the HIF?
And the latest article to get us all up to speed:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/spacex-conducts-rollout-39a-te/
And the latest article to get us all up to speed:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/spacex-conducts-rollout-39a-te/
The big SpaceX on the water tower is cool too! :)
No matter what logo you stick to it, a water tower is uncool.
The big SpaceX on the water tower is cool too! :)
...
The new Full Thrust Falcon will have a higher thrust/weight parameter even with heavier 2nd stage and will lift off fasterA little higher, maybe, but not that much different (especially during the first second). T/W will still likely be in the typical liquid rocket range (maybe 1.3-ish versus 1.2-ish previously). Still more like an Atlas or an R-7 or a Proton than a Zenit.
I have a hypothesis that one reason people constantly think the F9 launch is slow is an illusion of sorts. It is slow, but I think it "looks" even slower because it's such a tall rocket. Same reason that a 747 looks like it is just hanging in the air on final approach even though it's going at least 130 mph.The new Full Thrust Falcon will have a higher thrust/weight parameter even with heavier 2nd stage and will lift off fasterA little higher, maybe, but not that much different (especially during the first second). T/W will still likely be in the typical liquid rocket range (maybe 1.3-ish versus 1.2-ish previously). Still more like an Atlas or an R-7 or a Proton than a Zenit.
- Ed Kyle
I have a hypothesis that one reason people constantly think the F9 launch is slow is an illusion of sorts. It is slow, but I think it "looks" even slower because it's such a tall rocket. Same reason that a 747 looks like it is just hanging in the air on final approach even though it's going at least 130 mph.I think that's a good guess. I remember being in San Antonio and seeing a C-5A fly overhead after takeoff from Lackland AFB. It looked like it was going too slow to stay in the air and I had to keep reminding myself how big it really is.
What a missed opportunity Elon. Look at all that roof real estate - where's the solar city panels feeding a bank of powerwalls?
...That's not supposed to be a flame trench, it's supposed to be a concrete ramp up to the pad. The South-facing flame trench has been filled in. The render is inaccurate in showing the South flame trench as still there.
...That's not supposed to be a flame trench, it's supposed to be a concrete ramp up to the pad. The South-facing flame trench has been filled in. The render is inaccurate in showing the South flame trench as still there.
The south flame trench still appears to be there in the photo. I'm guessing it has been blocked off as previously discussed. The TE hydraulics would be housed there below the level of the pad apron. Of course the trench may still be filled in, but I doubt it.
This image is from an angle I had not seen before (from the NASA commercial crew presser) - but it looks like it is a few weeks old:Three images were added to the NASA Kennedy (PAO) photostream and CCP "album", link to the latter:
EDIT - found a better version of the image!
It would be so wonderful if a photo, an extreme closeup of the flame trench and launch mount, etc. could be posted on site here. ;D
It would be so wonderful if a photo, an extreme closeup of the flame trench and launch mount, etc. could be posted on site here. ;D
I agree; I want to see the water deluge system if it's installed already.
This image is from an angle I had not seen before (from the NASA commercial crew presser) - but it looks like it is a few weeks old:Three images were added to the NASA Kennedy (PAO) photostream and CCP "album", link to the latter:
EDIT - found a better version of the image!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/albums/72157647244171004
They're easier to find right now on the photostream / "all images" link since they were recently posted:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/
Attached the other two here.
James Dean @flatoday_jdean 16m16 minutes ago
Pad 39A update: SpaceX in Jan. will start removing the shuttle-era Rotating Service Structure (RSS).
Most excellent. Dean also mentioned they'll be replacing the current Lightning mast with a newly designed "Y" shaped mast. Too bad they couldn't install an "X" shaped mast. :)
Since it's been reported they intend to begin installing the Crew Access Arm as well, I wonder if they still need to add another level to the FSS?
Carol Scott of SpaceX says if they do manage to land the Falcon9 first stage they will use it as the test article for Pad39AWell, I don't think many of us expected they would go straight to reflying the very first stage landed...
http://m.space.com/31248-spacex-may-try-land-based-rocket-landing.html?cmpid=514648
I did. :)Carol Scott of SpaceX says if they do manage to land the Falcon9 first stage they will use it as the test article for Pad39AWell, I don't think many of us expected they would go straight to reflying the very first stage landed...
http://m.space.com/31248-spacex-may-try-land-based-rocket-landing.html?cmpid=514648
I did. :)Carol Scott of SpaceX says if they do manage to land the Falcon9 first stage they will use it as the test article for Pad39AWell, I don't think many of us expected they would go straight to reflying the very first stage landed...
http://m.space.com/31248-spacex-may-try-land-based-rocket-landing.html?cmpid=514648
I thought they were talking about taking the first landed stage to Spaceport America and reflying it to failure.
I did. :)Carol Scott of SpaceX says if they do manage to land the Falcon9 first stage they will use it as the test article for Pad39AWell, I don't think many of us expected they would go straight to reflying the very first stage landed...
http://m.space.com/31248-spacex-may-try-land-based-rocket-landing.html?cmpid=514648
I thought they were talking about taking the first landed stage to Spaceport America and reflying it to failure.
By test article, do they mean flight article or would the stage be used for fit checks and GSE validations then shipped off to New Mexico?
I don't think that she meant to imply that it would be reflown. I think she meant that it would be used for fitting and final adjustments of the ground support equipment. It will be interesting to see if it goes to Spaceport America for high altitude tests or if it is disassembled and tested to fine tune their reuse design.It's a bit ballsy even by SpaceX standards to go directly to reflying like that, even if it's a throwaway launch....
Carol Scott of SpaceX says if they do manage to land the Falcon9 first stage they will use it as the test article for Pad39A
http://m.space.com/31248-spacex-may-try-land-based-rocket-landing.html?cmpid=514648
Carol Scott of SpaceX says if they do manage to land the Falcon9 first stage they will use it as the test article for Pad39A
http://m.space.com/31248-spacex-may-try-land-based-rocket-landing.html?cmpid=514648
The caption to the image is calling the landing complex, landing site 1 which is less confusing than calling it. LC-1.
I don't think that she meant to imply that it would be reflown. I think she meant that it would be used for fitting and final adjustments of the ground support equipment. It will be interesting to see if it goes to Spaceport America for high altitude tests or if it is disassembled and tested to fine tune their reuse design.It's a bit ballsy even by SpaceX standards to go directly to reflying like that, even if it's a throwaway launch....
But they've surprised us before, so who knows. They are not afraid of failures along the way, that's for sure.
Personally, I'd have expected a spaceport America launch.
I did. :)Carol Scott of SpaceX says if they do manage to land the Falcon9 first stage they will use it as the test article for Pad39AWell, I don't think many of us expected they would go straight to reflying the very first stage landed...
http://m.space.com/31248-spacex-may-try-land-based-rocket-landing.html?cmpid=514648
I thought they were talking about taking the first landed stage to Spaceport America and reflying it to failure.
Well, unless somebody screws up really bad, they should be able to ship it just fine to NM after using it for fit checks at 39A. That seems most likely to me.I don't understand SpaceX's involvement with NM spaceport. Any input or pointers in the right direction appreciated...
I don't understand SpaceX's involvement with NM spaceport. Any input or pointers in the right direction appreciated...SpaceX has signed a lease at Spaceport America and is/was building infrastructure there to use as a high-altitude flight test facility. News about that has gotten quiet lately, so it is unclear at this point if they are planning on fully developing and using it.
Well, unless somebody screws up really bad, they should be able to ship it just fine to NM after using it for fit checks at 39A. That seems most likely to me.I don't understand SpaceX's involvement with NM spaceport. Any input or pointers in the right direction appreciated...
User 'jardeon' on Reddit posted this neat panorama of 39A:
(source https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3v0q5l/panoramic_image_of_lc39a_december_1_2015/ )
It does show that the distance between the SpaceX horizontal assembly hangar is not as close to the pad as it appears in many photos.
Especially for a rocket loaded with nearly 3 million pounds of kerosene and liquid oxygen. The VIF at LC41 looks to be more than 1500' distant, for a substantially smaller rocket.User 'jardeon' on Reddit posted this neat panorama of 39A:
(source https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3v0q5l/panoramic_image_of_lc39a_december_1_2015/ )
It does show that the distance between the SpaceX horizontal assembly hangar is not as close to the pad as it appears in many photos.
I don't know but 1200' is close for me
Especially for a rocket loaded with nearly 3 million pounds of kerosene and liquid oxygen. The VIF at LC41 looks to be more than 1500' distant, for a substantially smaller rocket.User 'jardeon' on Reddit posted this neat panorama of 39A:
(source https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3v0q5l/panoramic_image_of_lc39a_december_1_2015/ )
It does show that the distance between the SpaceX horizontal assembly hangar is not as close to the pad as it appears in many photos.
I don't know but 1200' is close for me
- Ed Kyle
Good thing it was an order of magnitude cheaper than that VIF then.
Was there a better option available? Share the VAB with SLS and whatever else uses 39B? Could they have built the HIF further back on the causeway? I've always assumed there were external constraints that limited their choices (leases, environmental impact, logistical requirements.)User 'jardeon' on Reddit posted this neat panorama of 39A:
(source https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3v0q5l/panoramic_image_of_lc39a_december_1_2015/ )
It does show that the distance between the SpaceX horizontal assembly hangar is not as close to the pad as it appears in many photos.
I don't know but 1200' is close for me
User 'jardeon' on Reddit posted this neat panorama of 39A:
(source https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3v0q5l/panoramic_image_of_lc39a_december_1_2015/ )
It does show that the distance between the SpaceX horizontal assembly hangar is not as close to the pad as it appears in many photos.
I don't know but 1200' is close for me
User 'jardeon' on Reddit posted this neat panorama of 39A:
(source https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3v0q5l/panoramic_image_of_lc39a_december_1_2015/ )
It does show that the distance between the SpaceX horizontal assembly hangar is not as close to the pad as it appears in many photos.
I don't know but 1200' is close for me
Especially for a rocket loaded with nearly 3 million pounds of kerosene and liquid oxygen. The VIF at LC41 looks to be more than 1500' distant, for a substantially smaller rocket.
- Ed Kyle
I guess everybody else in the business places their integration building much farther away... Oh wait. :D Aren't you even more concerned here, since solids are in play?
I guess everybody else in the business places their integration building much farther away... Oh wait. :D Aren't you even more concerned here, since solids are in play?
The Delta IV integration building is more than 3000' away. That isn't the integration building, it is the MST which are always on the pad.
does anyone know what is going on with the curved roof structure seen in that photo at the base of the water tower (yes, I know its further back than that)? Looks like some sort of open ended building, Im assuming its temporary.
Don't be nitpicky about terms, you know exactly what I mean. Vertical integration of payload and SRBs happens in that building (MST). Yes, the 1st and 2nd stages are horizontally assembled further away, but the MST is still where additional integration happens, a critical piece of infrastructure for the Delta IV.
Was there a better option available? Share the VAB with SLS and whatever else uses 39B? Could they have built the HIF further back on the causeway? I've always assumed there were external constraints that limited their choices (leases, environmental impact, logistical requirements.)They did consider alternate locations. One was closer to the VAB, along the crawlerway.
does anyone know what is going on with the curved roof structure seen in that photo at the base of the water tower (yes, I know its further back than that)? Looks like some sort of open ended building, Im assuming its temporary.
Well spotted that man.
Looks similar to the tent-with-shipping-container-walls on the landing pad at Vandenberg.
Good thing it was an order of magnitude cheaper than that VIF then.
How do you know that?
I've seen similar sheet metal sided building built for $2-3 million. Are you going to tell me that VIF was built for less than $20 million?
And the HIF might cost more than the VIF because it needs a longer travel distance for its cranes. The cranes might cost as much as the buildings.
I've seen similar sheet metal sided building built for $2-3 million. Are you going to tell me that VIF was built for less than $20 million?
It is just a sheet metal building that is tall
And the HIF might cost more than the VIF because it needs a longer travel distance for its cranes. The cranes might cost as much as the buildings.
I've seen similar sheet metal sided building built for $2-3 million. Are you going to tell me that VIF was built for less than $20 million?
It is just a sheet metal building that is tall
- Ed Kyle
does anyone know what is going on with the curved roof structure seen in that photo at the base of the water tower (yes, I know its further back than that)? Looks like some sort of open ended building, Im assuming its temporary.
Well spotted that man.
Looks similar to the tent-with-shipping-container-walls on the landing pad at Vandenberg.
No it doesn't
There is no evidence here that the ends or sides are open.
The white lines are not inside the structure. They are bracing for the water tower.
The grey objects are not part of the structure. They are in the foreground.
We are grasping at straws here.
Faster processing? SLC 41 still hasn't had its annual flight rate surpassed. It will likely see eight launches this year.And the HIF might cost more than the VIF because it needs a longer travel distance for its cranes. The cranes might cost as much as the buildings.
I've seen similar sheet metal sided building built for $2-3 million. Are you going to tell me that VIF was built for less than $20 million?
It is just a sheet metal building that is tall
- Ed Kyle
Even if a HIF building cost more, the whole building is a fraction of the cost of one rocket, and money is saved due to faster processing.
Faster processing? SLC 41 still hasn't had its annual flight rate surpassed. It will likely see eight launches this year.And the HIF might cost more than the VIF because it needs a longer travel distance for its cranes. The cranes might cost as much as the buildings.
I've seen similar sheet metal sided building built for $2-3 million. Are you going to tell me that VIF was built for less than $20 million?
It is just a sheet metal building that is tall
- Ed Kyle
Even if a HIF building cost more, the whole building is a fraction of the cost of one rocket, and money is saved due to faster processing.
- Ed Kyle
Also, annual flight rate has not yet been surpassed, but SpaceX has demonstrated two weeks from hardware arrival at SLC-40 to flight, multiple times. Has SLC-41 done so?The quick Falcon 9 turnarounds were done through a bit of sleight of hand, with the vehicles being processed, then swapped back to the industrial area hangar while another launch took place, then back to SLC 40. It was part of a "catch up" effort after some of the common Falcon 9 delays of the time.
The quick Falcon 9 turnarounds were done through a bit of sleight of hand, with the vehicles being processed, then swapped back to the industrial area hangar while another launch took place, then back to SLC 40. It was part of a "catch up" effort after some of the common Falcon 9 delays of the time.
Maybe Falcon 9 will fly eight or more times from one pad in a year one day, matching or beating Atlas 5. It was on pace this year until that failure, which left its pad empty for six months while Atlas continued to click off launches. Success seems to me more important than rapid-fire pace in the long run.
- Ed Kyle
Yes sir. And unfortunately those MST's have a habit of being rather expensive. Any on-pad all-out explosion of say Delta IV will not completely destroy the MST, as it is built very sturdy, but it will also not leave it undamaged given the close proximity to the pad & vehicle. Given that both the MST for Delta IV, and the HIF for Falcon 9 (heavy) are critical pieces of launch infrastructure, locating them close to the pad is inherently risky. I don't see the point of having an argument over who's infrastructure is more at risk.
I guess everybody else in the business places their integration building much farther away... Oh wait. :D Aren't you even more concerned here, since solids are in play?
The Delta IV integration building is more than 3000' away. That isn't the integration building, it is the MST which are always on the pad.
And the HIF might cost more than the VIF because it needs a longer travel distance for its cranes. The cranes might cost as much as the buildings.
I've seen similar sheet metal sided building built for $2-3 million. Are you going to tell me that VIF was built for less than $20 million?
It is just a sheet metal building that is tall
- Ed Kyle
Even if a HIF building cost more, the whole building is a fraction of the cost of one rocket, and money is saved due to faster processing.
This photo showed the new concrete cover w/ metal fences over the south flame trench with gaps.
They have the HIF at LC-39A. Parallel processing of multiple stages is possible there. Even parallel processing of a Falcon 9 and a Falcon Heavy. Stages can be preprocessed there and then transported to LC-40 for final processing.
This is a problem with most comments on NSF.I'd say the bigger problem with (some) comments on NSF is that they rehash discussions we have already had, when there is in fact nothing new about anything being discussed here.
And the HIF might cost more than the VIF because it needs a longer travel distance for its cranes. The cranes might cost as much as the buildings.
I've seen similar sheet metal sided building built for $2-3 million. Are you going to tell me that VIF was built for less than $20 million?
It is just a sheet metal building that is tall
- Ed Kyle
Even if a HIF building cost more, the whole building is a fraction of the cost of one rocket, and money is saved due to faster processing.
This is a problem with most comments on NSF. The focus mostly is on one item and not the "big picture"
ok we are talking money...
so if the building is taken out you have cleanup EPA & physical costs
you have the loss of the building; loss of any quick return to flight ie lots of costs
then you have the investigation, and that's a whole different matter. Not only replacing the building but should the building be placed back in the same location. Further, you have contracts; Crew to ISS, any Dod, launch contracts. Clearly, you can talk all you wish about Russian engines, and "Access to Space". Loss of this building would clearly hurt assured access to space and this would clearly cost tons of funds.
I'm sure I could ramble on, however these quick thoughts are a quick example of where focus, and the "big picture" needs to be considered.
I have a question for those in the know.
Will the side paneling on the FSS at pad 39A be sealed up so that the tower can have environmental controls? Or are the wall panels just a wind break?
It seems to me that the ongoing maintenance costs for the FSS goes way down- and the comfort level for workers goes way up- if they have an HVAC system that blows cool dry air in there instead of corrosive warm salt air.
Would it be helpful and/or more viable to skip temperature control and focus on dehumidification?
Even just enclosing the FSS tower ought to reduce salt corrosion....
It permeates everywhere. And enclosing actually makes it more intolerable for the workers.
Bringing this over from L2 because it's really not an L2 discussion even if it's a good one!
...
A 280 ton air-cooled, commercial chiller unit would do the trick for that volume, and a similar water-cooled 300 ton chiller is only about the size of a car. Both are a dime a dozen used, and new ones go for $100k. So, basically, subtract $100k plus power from the expected annual servicing costs of the FSS due to humidity and salt corrosion to come up with the ballpark cost/benefit analysis over the lifetime of the Pad 39 contract.
Win win for the tower and the workers inside IMHO.
Enclosing it without installing an A/C makes intolerable. Enclosing it with an A/C system makes it nice inside. It's not a huge volume to cool and dehumidify (about 5,600,000 ft volume using FSS outside measurements and not including the steel framework volume).
A 280 ton air-cooled, commercial chiller unit would do the trick for that volume, and a similar water-cooled 300 ton chiller is only about the size of a car. Both are a dime a dozen used, and new ones go for $100k. So, basically, subtract $100k (plus power usage) from the expected annual servicing costs of the FSS due to humidity and salt corrosion to come up with the ballpark cost/benefit analysis over the lifetime of the Pad 39 contract.
Win win for the tower and the workers inside IMHO.
Bringing this over from L2 because it's really not an L2 discussion even if it's a good one!
...
A 280 ton air-cooled, commercial chiller unit would do the trick for that volume, and a similar water-cooled 300 ton chiller is only about the size of a car. Both are a dime a dozen used, and new ones go for $100k. So, basically, subtract $100k plus power from the expected annual servicing costs of the FSS due to humidity and salt corrosion to come up with the ballpark cost/benefit analysis over the lifetime of the Pad 39 contract.
Win win for the tower and the workers inside IMHO.
The water cooled chiller type shown before requires a cooling tower and a few water pumps, just showing the inside unit doesn't tell the whole story. None of this changes the fact that it can be done. Air cooled chillers make more sense for this application, or even DX units like home air conditioners.
Has Pad A now been fully reconfigured for the Falcon 9 Heavy, with the exception of removal of the Rotating Service Structure next month? :)
Has Pad A now been fully reconfigured for the Falcon 9 Heavy, with the exception of removal of the Rotating Service Structure next month? :)
Still no lightning towers. That is the most visible indication, and I expect that even though they said they could launch with the RSS in place, I believe the plan is to remove it first.
QuoteI see only one limiting factor and that is available orders.
And the willingness of the Titusville, Canaveral, and Cocoa Beach communities to put up with 1 to 4 sonic booms a week now that we have the results of a returning booster in hand....
It is entirely possible returning boosters will be required to land during daylight hours because the nearby residents demand their sleep.
It's one thing to hear ocassion all loud noises from over there (and it drives tourism). It's another to have it multiple times a day and week.
And other orbital operators are coming there too.
A couple times per month at the Cape sounds more realistic. They'll be doing most of their launches out of Texas once that becomes fully operational.
This isn't much different than Shuttle during its heyday, which had bigger sonic booms as well as louder launches. Or Saturn V and its huge launches.A couple times per month at the Cape sounds more realistic. They'll be doing most of their launches out of Texas once that becomes fully operational.
They have two pads. "A couple of times a month" means one launch per month per pad with 1 to 3 boosters returning to make sonic booms each launch (hense my 1 to 4 per week comment). We know they want a launch tempo higher than that. Addionally, 3 double sonic booms in the middle of the night is not going to go over well with population. And the Sierra Club militia is going to freak out over the bird well-being.
If you slept through the launch, I doubt if the return will wake you.A couple times per month at the Cape sounds more realistic. They'll be doing most of their launches out of Texas once that becomes fully operational.
They have two pads. "A couple of times a month" means one launch per month per pad with 1 to 3 boosters returning to make sonic booms each launch (hense my 1 to 4 per week comment). We know they want a launch tempo higher than that. Addionally, 3 double sonic booms in the middle of the night is not going to go over well with population. And the Sierra Club militia is going to freak out over the bird well-being.
If you slept through the launch, I doubt if the return will wake you.A couple times per month at the Cape sounds more realistic. They'll be doing most of their launches out of Texas once that becomes fully operational.
They have two pads. "A couple of times a month" means one launch per month per pad with 1 to 3 boosters returning to make sonic booms each launch (hense my 1 to 4 per week comment). We know they want a launch tempo higher than that. Addionally, 3 double sonic booms in the middle of the night is not going to go over well with population. And the Sierra Club militia is going to freak out over the bird well-being.
If you slept through the launch, I doubt if the return will wake you.A couple times per month at the Cape sounds more realistic. They'll be doing most of their launches out of Texas once that becomes fully operational.
They have two pads. "A couple of times a month" means one launch per month per pad with 1 to 3 boosters returning to make sonic booms each launch (hense my 1 to 4 per week comment). We know they want a launch tempo higher than that. Addionally, 3 double sonic booms in the middle of the night is not going to go over well with population. And the Sierra Club militia is going to freak out over the bird well-being.
Not to mention the fact that they live in the lightning and thunder capital of the world. If they're not sleeping through what I imagine are regular storms every night now....... ???
Not to mention the fact that they live in the lightning and thunder capital of the world. If they're not sleeping through what I imagine are regular storms every night now....... ???
Excellent point, so how does the loudness of a lightning strike compare with the sonic boom of a returning stage? I have heard some pretty frightening loud lightning strikes when relatively near by, but no experience on the sonic boom.
Interesting, for down-range center core landing, Falcon heavy have a payload of up to 7.5tons (can not remember the source), then I guess they have a pretty certain target market.
Why would a customer want to buy a FH re-usable contract for $90M?I guess they wouldn't, but the 90M is for expendable. More hassle with recovering/ASDSing, but saves ton of money (assuming the hole reusability thing goes well).
QuoteI see only one limiting factor and that is available orders.
And the willingness of the Titusville, Canaveral, and Cocoa Beach communities to put up with 1 to 4 sonic booms a week now that we have the results of a returning booster in hand....
It is entirely possible returning boosters will be required to land during daylight hours because the nearby residents demand their sleep.
It's one thing to hear ocassion all loud noises from over there (and it drives tourism). It's another to have it multiple times a day and week.
And other orbital operators are coming there too.
1 to 4 per week? I think it has been discussed here that a practical limit at Canaveral is 24 SpaceX launches per year.
also which other orbital operators are going there who would have RTLS going on?
Not to mention the fact that they live in the lightning and thunder capital of the world. If they're not sleeping through what I imagine are regular storms every night now....... ???
Excellent point, so how does the loudness of a lightning strike compare with the sonic boom of a returning stage? I have heard some pretty frightening loud lightning strikes when relatively near by, but no experience on the sonic boom.
Rotating Service Structure set to come down this month. Any word on the start date? ;)
Rotating Service Structure set to come down this month. Any word on the start date? ;)
I believe they said it had already been started. I am sure there is a lot of preparation work before we see pieces being lowered to the ground.
I guess they wouldn't, but the 90M is for expendable. More hassle with recovering/ASDSing, but saves ton of money (assuming the hole reusability thing goes well).
...You don't know that.
$90M is their current listed re-usable price....
I thought "up to 6.4 ton" means dual launch like arian 5.
More than 6.4 will cost the stated 135m$.
The point is we don't know.
And wasn't flight 16 - ABS-3A & Eutelsat 115 West B a dual manifest?
The source is Barry Matsumori at the 2013 Singapore Satellite Forum. See YouTube.
Nobody does, its simply what they list though.
Unless someone wants to explain me how an expendable FH weighing something like 1,400tons does only 6.4tons to GTO (while the stated performance is listed in the same page below btw).
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities)
Not to mention the fact that they live in the lightning and thunder capital of the world. If they're not sleeping through what I imagine are regular storms every night now....... ???
Excellent point, so how does the loudness of a lightning strike compare with the sonic boom of a returning stage? I have heard some pretty frightening loud lightning strikes when relatively near by, but no experience on the sonic boom.
Nobody does, its simply what they list though.
Unless someone wants to explain me how an expendable FH weighing something like 1,400tons does only 6.4tons to GTO (while the stated performance is listed in the same page below btw).
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities)
Just a quibble: the SpaceX page pointed to gives FH's capability to GTO as 6.4 metric tons, which is about 7 English tons.
Nobody does, its simply what they list though.
Unless someone wants to explain me how an expendable FH weighing something like 1,400tons does only 6.4tons to GTO (while the stated performance is listed in the same page below btw).
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities)
Just a quibble: the SpaceX page pointed to gives FH's capability to GTO as 6.4 metric tons, which is about 7 English tons.
Actually, that page lists FH capability to GTO as 21,200 kg. The 6.4 tonne figure is the maximum mass that the listed price of $90M applies to. Presumably, greater masses to GTO get negotiated individually.
Nobody does, its simply what they list though.
Unless someone wants to explain me how an expendable FH weighing something like 1,400tons does only 6.4tons to GTO (while the stated performance is listed in the same page below btw).
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities)
Just a quibble: the SpaceX page pointed to gives FH's capability to GTO as 6.4 metric tons, which is about 7 English tons.
Actually, that page lists FH capability to GTO as 21,200 kg. The 6.4 tonne figure is the maximum mass that the listed price of $90M applies to. Presumably, greater masses to GTO get negotiated individually.
By 'English' ton I presume you mean the American short ton (2000Lbs), a ton this side of the pond is 2240Lbs :)
It can be very confusing to someone brought up with the metric system, it can be confusing to us Brits, we have a mixed unit environment, we use imperial and metric! And that the US also use pints and tons which are different to the imperial values just makes life more confusing still. ;)
On behalf of the rest of the world:
(http://stfuhero.com.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/568e847b0e320.png)
And you know the thing that really gets me? is that the reason that metric works is that it has a standardised system of units and prefixes, and yet the yanks mess that up as well by using the unit "mT", which translates to everyone else as "milli-tons" (i.e. Kilograms). And then we realise what is meant, we roll our eyes and wonder how on earth the USA became a technologically advanced society.
And you know the thing that really gets me? is that the reason that metric works is that it has a standardised system of units and prefixes, and yet the yanks mess that up as well by using the unit "mT", which translates to everyone else as "milli-tons" (i.e. Kilograms). And then we realise what is meant, we roll our eyes and wonder how on earth the USA became a technologically advanced society.
I doubt that the US put men on the world. ;)Tell that to a Selenian and see what they have to say about it!
Quote from: mikelepage link=topic=38802.msg1471354#msg1And you know the thing that really gets me? is that the reason that metric works is that it has a standardised system of units and prefixes, and yet the yanks mess that up as well by using the unit "mT", which translates to everyone else as "milli-tons" (i.e. Kilograms). And then we realise what is meant, we roll our eyes and wonder how on earth the USA became a technologically advanced society.
As an engineer I agree in principle.
On behalf of Americans I'll remind you that imperial units won two world wars, invented the atomic bomb and put men on the moon.
On behalf of the readers of the site, we really need to get back on topic.
EDITED: typo. I really hate posting to forums from my phone.
And you know the thing that really gets me? is that the reason that metric works is that it has a standardised system of units and prefixes, and yet the yanks mess that up as well by using the unit "mT", which translates to everyone else as "milli-tons" (i.e. Kilograms). [...]
Quote from: mikelepage link=topic=38802.msg1471354#msg1And you know the thing that really gets me? is that the reason that metric works is that it has a standardised system of units and prefixes, and yet the yanks mess that up as well by using the unit "mT", which translates to everyone else as "milli-tons" (i.e. Kilograms). And then we realise what is meant, we roll our eyes and wonder how on earth the USA became a technologically advanced society.
As an engineer I agree in principle.
On behalf of Americans I'll remind you that imperial units won two world wars, invented the atomic bomb and put men on the moon.
On behalf of the readers of the site, we really need to get back on topic.
EDITED: typo. I really hate posting to forums from my phone.
Tell that to the Mars Climate Orbiter.
(Oh, and imperial didn't win world wars, or invent the atom bomb. That was people. Imperial just happened to be in use at the time, and has now been replaced almost everywhere with something better)
I'm assuming pad 39A+ associated facilities is currently only able to handle 1x FH at a time? Once it comes time to increase launch rate, is there any benefit to using more than one [HIF per pad/Falcon Heavy per HIF] so they can go tag-team? or is it easier to just have multiple, separate pads set up for Falcon Heavy?
08/28/13 Delta 4H D364 NROL 65 ~17000 VA6 254x999x97.9 LEO/S
01/20/11 Delta 4H D352 NROL-49 VA6 250x1020x97.9 LEO/S
They will need to be able to launch FH from both pads, because of this:Okay, enlighten us. What does two Delta Heavy launches, two and half years apart and over two years ago, have to do with the need to launch two Falcon Heavies in quick succession (thereby needing both pads)?08/28/13 Delta 4H D364 NROL 65 ~17000 VA6 254x999x97.9 LEO/S
01/20/11 Delta 4H D352 NROL-49 VA6 250x1020x97.9 LEO/S
They will need to be able to launch FH from both pads, because of this:Okay, enlighten us. What does two Delta Heavy launches, two and half years apart and over two years ago, have to do with the need to launch two Falcon Heavies in quick succession (thereby needing both pads)?08/28/13 Delta 4H D364 NROL 65 ~17000 VA6 254x999x97.9 LEO/S
01/20/11 Delta 4H D352 NROL-49 VA6 250x1020x97.9 LEO/S
Worse: These were Vandenberg launches (VA6). The earlier question was about LC-39A and LC-40A in Florida, after all. I don't think there's any question that the Vandenberg pad will be used for Falcon Heavy. It was built for it from the get-go.
It is my mistake rpapo, I understood the question wrong. Instead of reading LC-40 in guckyfans' post, my mind went to the Vandenberg base as the second pad that could hold the Heavy. Thus, I thought that the question was made without knowing that FH has to launch from Vandenberg, since its a DoD EELV requirement for some missions. :-[No problem. When I made my comment I wasn't entirely awake either, or I would have immediately realized what you were thinking. But returning to the topic of the moment, I would believe it a good move on SpaceX's part to make both Florida pads capable of handling Falcon Heavy, and I suspect they will do so, with or without the need to launch two FHs in close time sequence. After all, if reusability pans out, they will probably want to use FH any time a normal F9 couldn't do full RTLS with a given payload. Cleanup of the used cores, (hopefully) minor maintenance, plus $600,000 combined fuel costs for three cores still beats the cost of building a new rocket and trucking it in from Hawthorne for the next launch. The integration and launch costs should be the same in either case.
But returning to the topic of the moment, I would believe it a good move on SpaceX's part to make both Florida pads capable of handling Falcon Heavy, and I suspect they will do so, with or without the need to launch two FHs in close time sequence. After all, if reusability pans out, they will probably want to use FH any time a normal F9 couldn't do full RTLS with a given payload. Cleanup of the used cores, (hopefully) minor maintenance, plus $600,000 combined fuel costs for three cores still beats the cost of building a new rocket and trucking it in from Hawthorne for the next launch. The integration and launch costs should be the same in either case.I think they will develop Boca Chica before modifying SLC40 for FH. SLC40 is going to be very busy and I don't think they will want to shut it down for however long it takes to modify it for FH anytime soon.
I think a problem with working on SLC-40 for FH is that - as other people have said - the site will be very busy for the following years. They would need to work on the TE, the pad itself and maybe even do a HIF enlargement to process the three cores.
I think a problem with working on SLC-40 for FH is that - as other people have said - the site will be very busy for the following years. They would need to work on the TE, the pad itself and maybe even do a HIF enlargement to process the three cores.
I don't really see how SLC-40 can be converted to support FH without *significant* reworking. As has been noted in the forum before, the flame trench could handle FH thrust but it is rotated 90 degrees from where it would need to be. So either A) redo the flame trench or B) build a new horizontal assembly building off to the side and have the T/E approach the pad where an FH would be aligned with the flame trench.
(EDIT: see image... current flame trench in red, FH cores in blue, and the redevelopment needed to use the current flame trench in green)
The current horizontal assembly building at SLC-40 is also probably too small to handle an FH - it can barely fit a F9FT as is.
No, as much as SpaceX say they might do this, I just don't think it makes much sense. They'll already have one FH pad on each coast, and Texas coming online after that. I just don't see there being that many FH launches to make an SLC-40 conversion necessary.
Previous documents on this site (both non-L2 and L2) said that FH would be from a new pad designated SLC-40A and would be located adjacent to the existing SLC-40 pad where the retracted park position of the old Titan MST was.I think a problem with working on SLC-40 for FH is that - as other people have said - the site will be very busy for the following years. They would need to work on the TE, the pad itself and maybe even do a HIF enlargement to process the three cores.
I don't really see how SLC-40 can be converted to support FH without *significant* reworking. As has been noted in the forum before, the flame trench could handle FH thrust but it is rotated 90 degrees from where it would need to be. So either A) redo the flame trench or B) build a new horizontal assembly building off to the side and have the T/E approach the pad where an FH would be aligned with the flame trench.
(EDIT: see image... current flame trench in red, FH cores in blue, and the redevelopment needed to use the current flame trench in green)
The current horizontal assembly building at SLC-40 is also probably too small to handle an FH - it can barely fit a F9FT as is.
No, as much as SpaceX say they might do this, I just don't think it makes much sense. They'll already have one FH pad on each coast, and Texas coming online after that. I just don't see there being that many FH launches to make an SLC-40 conversion necessary.
I believe it was LC-40B (SLC is Vandemberg's nomenclature). And it had an MST.SLC is correct for Cape Canaveral AFS. The LCs of Cape Canaveral AFS were redesignated SLC in 1998.
Pretty sure that is a brain cramp and he meant Orbcomm2.Yeah, oops. Post edited.
From Buzz's birthday celebrations, The transporter/erector has now been painted.
Quote: We made a special birthday visit to Launchpad 39A at KSC where #Apollo11 launched from. Now it's where @SpaceX does.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 2m2 minutes ago
Shotwell: we’ll post updated Falcon Heavy performance numbers later this week/early next week.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 2m2 minutes ago
Shotwell: we’ll post updated Falcon Heavy performance numbers later this week/early next week.
Yikes, how am I going to be able to focus on anything else until these come out!
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 7m7 minutes ago
Shotwell: we have completed and activated LC-39A for F9 and Falcon Heavy missions.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 7m7 minutes ago
Shotwell: we have completed and activated LC-39A for F9 and Falcon Heavy missions.
For 'activated' I take this to mean for non-crewed and non-government (military) payloads? (At the moment anyway)
SpaceX just tweeted this pic of the new TE at pad 39ANotably, it shows the HIF facing side. The stuff that connect to the rocket is on the other side.
Certainly seems way bigger and beefier than even the Vandenberg TEL. Gives some credence to folks who have suggested that the Vandenberg TEL will need to be rebuilt for FH, despite being theoretically built for it.Vandenberg TEL doesnt have to be entirely rebuilt. Only the base and the top removeable section of TEL needs to be replaced with a new one. The SLC-39A TE is specifically built for its pad and has a streamlined design. We may see the other TEL's replaced in the future, but currently this is not planned.
Certainly seems way bigger and beefier than even the Vandenberg TEL. Gives some credence to folks who have suggested that the Vandenberg TEL will need to be rebuilt for FH, despite being theoretically built for it.
It looks different because Musk knows it will be seen as part of how the public will see SX, as in hagiography.
With SLS to the side, as an afterthought rooted in the past.
add:
The more I think about it, the point of 39A has less to do with any kind of operational need to have govt missions fly, as it does in controlling the narrative of the story of govt vs commercial spaceflight via side-by-side comparison between 39A and 39B. Didn't think so much of this prior, but as it is happening step by step, you reach a point where the reality sets in...
I don't think there was that much intent to "stage it". Just think about what we already know is coming, and the timelines, and the price tags, and you really don't need to have them physically side-by-side to make the point.
I've heard of this, but not from personal experience. I usually take war stories with a grain of salt...I don't think there was that much intent to "stage it". Just think about what we already know is coming, and the timelines, and the price tags, and you really don't need to have them physically side-by-side to make the point.
I see you've never met Musk before in business. In person, he takes this to a sometimes unbearable level. So much so that in prior companies, whole business teams have walked out the door on him.
I can't think of a time he hasn't staged things. And still am being impressed by the "art" of it, knowing all that.
You got a point. SpaceX really is building "machines of beauty and grace" ....Yes. In engineering, in business and in art.
It looks different because Musk knows it will be seen as part of how the public will see SX, as in hagiography.
With SLS to the side, as an afterthought rooted in the past.
add:
The more I think about it, the point of 39A has less to do with any kind of operational need to have govt missions fly, as it does in controlling the narrative of the story of govt vs commercial spaceflight via side-by-side comparison between 39A and 39B. Didn't think so much of this prior, but as it is happening step by step, you reach a point where the reality sets in...
Is it missing the top "grappler" thing? I realize we're looking at the back, but I think we'd be able to see it if it was there. Is it no longer needed?It's an incomplete system (and yes, we're looking at the backside in the picture). It's missing a ton of gear at this incarnation - starting with the actual launch platform.
Could easily be the case that it's installed after the rocket is added.
...It's missing a ton of gear at this incarnation - starting with the actual launch platform...
Per KSC guys in L2, the massive crane - that had been arriving in parts over recent days/weeks - is now up at 39A ahead of RSS removal. It's absolutely massive (taller than the FSS!) All visual sightings, no pics of it now erected yet (only pics pre-erection). Challenge to anyone (as it's a weekend) to get a camera lens on this crane.
Per KSC guys in L2, the massive crane - that had been arriving in parts over recent days/weeks - is now up at 39A ahead of RSS removal. It's absolutely massive (taller than the FSS!) All visual sightings, no pics of it now erected yet (only pics pre-erection). Challenge to anyone (as it's a weekend) to get a camera lens on this crane.
since they are taking down the tower that was used to ferry the astronauts all the way up to the top to board the shuttle, how are they going to load the crew onto the dragon? Are they going to build another tower in its place? Dont tell me they're going to board the crew while the Falcon 9 is horizontal?
since they are taking down the tower that was used to ferry the astronauts all the way up to the top to board the shuttle, how are they going to load the crew onto the dragon? Are they going to build another tower in its place? Dont tell me they're going to board the crew while the Falcon 9 is horizontal?
...but I believe they *are* building a new crew entrance, since Dragon is substantially higher up than the shuttle deck was.
The crane in its "not erected" stance! :)
(Screenshot as the tweet went missing as I was RTing it for some reason)
Don't worry Casey, there's still dreamers! @SpaceX controls pad 39A you helped save. Now about those those cranes...
I wonder if they'll move the TE down the hill before bringing up the crane? That type of crane has been known to fail under load (see the Big Blue collapse in Milwaukee) so it would make sense to have valuable hardware as far away as possible during operations.Any piece of equipment will fail if you ignore the ratings (Max windspeed in this instance). It's not the crane's fault that the operators were incompetent and
I wonder if they'll move the TE down the hill before bringing up the crane? That type of crane has been known to fail under load (see the Big Blue collapse in Milwaukee) so it would make sense to have valuable hardware as far away as possible during operations.
Any piece of equipment will fail if you ignore the ratings (Max windspeed in this instance). It's not the crane's fault that the operators were incompetent and wreckless.
I'm excited to see LC-39A with a hammerhead crane again, like it had back in the Apollo days. Any word on when SpaceX plans to begin work on that?
I'm excited to see LC-39A with a hammerhead crane again, like it had back in the Apollo days. Any word on when SpaceX plans to begin work on that?
What hammerhead?
No and the new photos in L2 show it in the wrong position to take down the RSS. So probably using it for something else at the pad first. We're asking.Chris, all of the pictures I have seen so far show it more so in position to remove remaining shuttle elements and steel off of the FSS first than RSS.
Right now.
Crane's in the "down" position, perhaps to safe it from the winds. That's my guess, nothing more.Right now.
Not to sound dumb, but anything significant this photo tells us? They have not started removing the RSS?
A good look at those enormous rainbirds in that photo. Assuming the yellow railing is 4' high, I get a quick-and dirty estimate of the rainbirds at 57'. :o That seems ridiculously big.
Could they be backed off from the rocket far enough that that actually makes sense? Or am I way off on the height?
A good look at those enormous rainbirds in that photo. Assuming the yellow railing is 4' high, I get a quick-and dirty estimate of the rainbirds at 57'. :o That seems ridiculously big.
Could they be backed off from the rocket far enough that that actually makes sense? Or am I way off on the height?
Pure speculation - These are oversized for an F9 family vehicle but are right sized for a larger follow on vehicle. 39A is the eventual BFR launch site.
I thought Musk or Shotwell said that 39A was too small for the BFR? Is the flame trench big enough for a 12-15m rocket?
I thought Musk or Shotwell said that 39A was too small for the BFR? Is the flame trench big enough for a 12-15m rocket?
They have said it consistently and again very recently. The flame trench is wide enough but not capable of the full thrust.
Still one of my pet ideas is that they will do initial test flights from LC-39A. Partly fueled and with only part of the engines installed or firing. Good enough to do a lot of MCT testing before they need the full BFR pad. Getting permission for that pad and building it may well be the long pole for the project.
What does TTCS stand for in this case? It's obviously not telemetry, tracking and command.
SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy now expected to launch in November.
Shotwell: we’ll likely launch Falcon 9 from LC-39A before the Falcon Heavy initial launch there. SES interested in launching there. #satshow
A few photos were posted over on reddit. Sure looks like there are some chunks of the fixed or rotating service structure sitting on the ground in front of and to the right of the crane. Also some priming paint the same color as the new GSE has appeared on the FSS.The chunks that have been removed resided on the north side of the FSS. The entire gantry holding the External Tank Hydrogen Vent Umbilical and Intertank Access Arm is gone. See image below.
http://imgur.com/a/OoPq8 (http://imgur.com/a/OoPq8)
For comparison, More stuff came downThanks guys for pointing this out! I never picked up on the change until you guys posted the two images for comparison!
For comparison, More stuff came downThe GOX vent arm, along with it's access and maintenance gantry, and the crew access arm had already been removed shortly after the pad was leased to SpaceX. Those items were removed by NASA, in late summer and fall of 2014, for preservation.
Just look at the pad surface for all the material that is waiting to be scrapped. Also one the FSS Orbiter wing protection doors has been pulled and removed from its rails and placed on the pad surface.A few photos were posted over on reddit. Sure looks like there are some chunks of the fixed or rotating service structure sitting on the ground in front of and to the right of the crane. Also some priming paint the same color as the new GSE has appeared on the FSS.The chunks that have been removed resided on the north side of the FSS. The entire gantry holding the External Tank Hydrogen Vent Umbilical and Intertank Access Arm is gone. See image below.
http://imgur.com/a/OoPq8 (http://imgur.com/a/OoPq8)
I'm not sure this was done via the big crane. Just noticing that the structure is gone.
Edit: the gantry was visible in images from last August, but appeared gone in images from last November. So, the big crane probably did not remove it.
You're correct. Edited the image I provided earlier. See below.Just look at the pad surface for all the material that is waiting to be scrapped. Also one the FSS Orbiter wing protection doors has been pulled and removed from its rails and placed on the pad surface.A few photos were posted over on reddit. Sure looks like there are some chunks of the fixed or rotating service structure sitting on the ground in front of and to the right of the crane. Also some priming paint the same color as the new GSE has appeared on the FSS.The chunks that have been removed resided on the north side of the FSS. The entire gantry holding the External Tank Hydrogen Vent Umbilical and Intertank Access Arm is gone. See image below.
http://imgur.com/a/OoPq8 (http://imgur.com/a/OoPq8)
I'm not sure this was done via the big crane. Just noticing that the structure is gone.
Edit: the gantry was visible in images from last August, but appeared gone in images from last November. So, the big crane probably did not remove it.
What about the structure, top left of the FSS, just below the lightning conductor?That is where the GOX vent arm and associated maintenance gantry were located in stowed position. Those were removed in 2014.
That appears to be gone too, or it is just the angle of the photos?
https://youtu.be/9C8vHsC35dA (https://youtu.be/9C8vHsC35dA)Take-aways from that vid:
- SpaceX and NASA in the middle of designing the crew acces arm for pad 39A (sounds like a combined effort)
- SpaceX working mainly on the FSS this year
- Every time the question came up about the RSS coming down the response was: "contact SpaceX"
- First demo mission (the unmanned one) is in 2017
Wondered if anybody knew what the columns with the flat angled caps are for, that Spacex has erected on either side of the fame trench? Are they for the water deluge system or something else. Picture link below.they are called Rain Birds and are primarily used for the Water Deluge System (WDS) but also serve as the above ground portion of the Sound Suppression System (SSS). As with all other SpaceX pads the SSS is activated first followed just before liftoff by the WDS.
http://i.imgur.com/2F1eZmG.jpg
Any word on whether or not they've started tearing down the Rotating Service Structure?FSS this year, with RSS very unlikely this year. There is not a pressing need to demolish it until US National Security Vertical Integration requirements kick in at which point it must be demolished to make room for the additions necessary to support this.
The pressing need for getting rid of the RSS has just been alleviated, courtesy of the fact that inital crew launch from 39A has been delayed by no less than eight months, to august 2017.Any word on whether or not they've started tearing down the Rotating Service Structure?FSS this year, with RSS very unlikely this year. There is not a pressing need to demolish it until US National Security Vertical Integration requirements kick in at which point it must be demolished to make room for the additions necessary to support this.
Which side of FSS will the Crew Access Arm go? If on the RSS side wouldn't that necessitate RSS being removed, or would the arm be above RSS on the 2 new FSS levels?AFAIK, It hasn't been revealed yet to anyone as to which side of the FSS the Dragon 2 CAA would go on, but given the height of the present launcher it would have to go on either the top existing FSS level or the first new FSS Extension Level. Until I see an upright F9 Upgrade launcher on the pad it is difficult to pinpoint where it would actualy go. I'm hoping its the Existing top level as the required Service Arms and payload integration mechanisms for National security payloads in some design evaluation documents talk about those arms mounted on the top two/three levels of the extended FSS. Since the final design has not been selected yet (at least publicly), I will let time play out and let someone else post the final design. This year is solely about stripping and upgrading the FSS first ahead of outfitting for Commercial Crew and National Security
I went by the pad yesterday. The crane was either removing or adding something to the 215' level of the FSS.if you can photograph it in a few days time then i can compare it to the most recently posted one and see what has changed (can be L2 if you choose).
I went by the pad yesterday. The crane was either removing or adding something to the 215' level of the FSS.if you can photograph it in a few days time then i can compare it to the most recently posted one and see what has changed (can be L2 if you choose).
the latest one uploaded so far is from the week of the 23rd of MarchI went by the pad yesterday. The crane was either removing or adding something to the 215' level of the FSS.if you can photograph it in a few days time then i can compare it to the most recently posted one and see what has changed (can be L2 if you choose).
Is there a current picture ( taken THIS week perhaps) on L2 that the public can see on here? I do think we ALL deserve to see at least ONE overall photo of the pad per week.
Image from 3 days ago, looks like a tent was erected:
pic.twitter.com/C2LtEzaJJI
Older but closer image, no tent in this one dated 26th of April but you can see a smaller crane removing items from the RSS:
https://twitter.com/Mike_Macedonia/status/725053271996403713
What is the meaning of the EMPTY sign on the fence? It was earlier also on the door of the HIF...it means that there is not a rocket on the pad as well as its associated fuel, ordinance, et cetera. In other words nothing hazardous for rockets is present
Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk
But we saw an EMPTY sign on the hangar door, then not too long after SpaceX posted a photo of the CRS-8 and Orbcomm stages in there together. So the meaning isn't just "no rocket here"...What is the meaning of the EMPTY sign on the fence? It was earlier also on the door of the HIF...it means that there is not a rocket on the pad as well as its associated fuel, ordinance, et cetera. In other words nothing hazardous for rockets is present
Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk
But we saw an EMPTY sign on the hangar door, then not too long after SpaceX posted a photo of the CRS-8 and Orbcomm stages in there together. So the meaning isn't just "no rocket here"...
New 39A images from SpaceX flickr account, showing the three cores in the hangar: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/with/26428481444/
If they don't start launching these soon, Elon is going to end up on an episode of Hoarders.
Matthew
Toured KSC yesterday, no cores on any SpaceX pads. Crane is obviously still there. Delta IV Heavy was the only visible vehicle. Posting phone photos.
Up close tour, 'Explore' variant. The tour guide lies, both sides do not get the same view from the bus.Especially if you want to take pictures. Right side has the better view of the VAB, left side has the better view of pad 39A:
Glad you got those tour tickets. I was going to recommend that to you. A bunch of driving past nondescript buildings with verbal commentary assuring us that something really cool was inside... but for a SpaceX (or pad) fan, a really nice drive around three sides of LC-39A, which by itself made it worthwhile for me. Sit on the right side for good views of the VAB, on the left for good views of LC-39A.
Up close tour, 'Explore' variant. The tour guide lies, both sides do not get the same view from the bus.Especially if you want to take pictures. Right side has the better view of the VAB, left side has the better view of pad 39A:
Not sure if this has already been discussed somewhere, but I noticed that in the images released with the Red Dragon announcement, you can see the interior of the FSS through the cladding.
Some sort of wire mesh?
http://www.tylerdesignmesh.com/us/applications/facade-with-architectural-mesh/
Renders are indeed just that: renders. They are not necessarily any indication of what reality actually looks like.Not sure if this has already been discussed somewhere, but I noticed that in the images released with the Red Dragon announcement, you can see the interior of the FSS through the cladding.
Some sort of wire mesh?
http://www.tylerdesignmesh.com/us/applications/facade-with-architectural-mesh/
I wouldn't put too much stock in the accuracy of that render. If you compare the TE in the render to the photo of the real one posted up-thread you can see that there is quite a bit of difference.
Repeat after me
Rockets are not like LEGO elements.
Rockets are not like LEGO elements.
Rockets are not like LEGO elements.
(one guy in the back) Rockets are not like legos.
SMACK!!!! Told you not to say that.
Rockets are not like LEGO elements.
Rockets are not like LEGO elements.
Rockets are not like LEGO elements.
Rockets are not like LEGO elements.
All other things being equal, pad 39A might be preferred for single-stick F9 launches with long launch windows. Since it will be capable of launching the Falcon Heavy, 19A will have at least 3x the sub-cooled LOX and kerosene capacity needed for a single core. So SpaceX would be able to recycle several times, if needed, during a long launch window, loading each time with optimally cold fuel.
Does anyone know if SpaceX pre-cools Lox tanks (with Lox flowing through and then vented or reprocessed) before filling them with sub-cooled Lox? Not sure if significant gains are to be had, but they seem to be squeezing every bit of performance and margin from their system.
SpaceX - Falcon Heavy - 39A Update 06-06-2016
USLaunchReport
Published on Jun 7, 2016
We noticed some big changes from a few months ago, especially under the tent and above. We are getting much closer to Falcon Heavy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-6-aDbVqvM?t=001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-6-aDbVqvM
Would it actually be necessary to remove the RSS before they launch? It isn't going to be in the way and the tower is where the new plumbing will go. Clearly they are going to remove it eventually, presumably to reduce maintenance costs, but why not leave it until next year?No, reason is a few pages earlier in this thread.
At historic Launch Pad 39A at Kennedy, where Apollo and space shuttle missions began, SpaceX is taking down the rotating service structure designed to handle shuttle payloads. They've also removed more than 500,000 pounds of steel from the fixed service structure and are building shielding around the tower to protect from the blast of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. Its Crew Access Arm also is under construction and is slated to be installed on the tower later this year.
Was it known before that there's what looks an awful lot like an MLP under the tent? That's news to me, at least. I wonder what it's for. Are they salvaging steel for cladding the FSS? Am I wrong about it being an MLP?It is, presumably, the launch table
It seemed too far from where the TEL always came to rest for that, but comparing its location to the rainbirds makes it obvious that it's the launch table, now that I hear you say it. Thanks.Was it known before that there's what looks an awful lot like an MLP under the tent? That's news to me, at least. I wonder what it's for. Are they salvaging steel for cladding the FSS? Am I wrong about it being an MLP?It is, presumably, the launch table
Will there be a day in which SpaceX does a test of the new Sound Suppression System at 39A?Yes...? If you're asking whether SpaceX plans to test a subsystem of their launch complex before actually launching a rocket from there, then I think it's quite obvious that the answer is going to be yes. If you're asking whether any information about the planning for or date of such an upcoming test has been publicly released, then...I haven't seen any info yet.
Will there be a day in which SpaceX does a test of the new Sound Suppression System at 39A?Yes...? If you're asking whether SpaceX plans to test a subsystem of their launch complex before actually launching a rocket from there, then I think it's quite obvious that the answer is going to be yes. If you're asking whether any information about the planning for or date of such an upcoming test has been publicly released, then...I haven't seen any info yet.
All launch center subsystems will be tested, including the water deluge system with the new rainbirds.Will there be a day in which SpaceX does a test of the new Sound Suppression System at 39A?Yes...? If you're asking whether SpaceX plans to test a subsystem of their launch complex before actually launching a rocket from there, then I think it's quite obvious that the answer is going to be yes. If you're asking whether any information about the planning for or date of such an upcoming test has been publicly released, then...I haven't seen any info yet.
I mean the newly installed rainbirds.
Not sure if this has already been discussed somewhere, but I noticed that in the images released with the Red Dragon announcement, you can see the interior of the FSS through the cladding.
Some sort of wire mesh?
Not sure if this has already been discussed somewhere, but I noticed that in the images released with the Red Dragon announcement, you can see the interior of the FSS through the cladding.
Some sort of wire mesh?
At historic Launch Pad 39A at Kennedy, where Apollo and space shuttle missions began, SpaceX is taking down the rotating service structure designed to handle shuttle payloads. They've also removed more than 500,000 pounds of steel from the fixed service structure and are building shielding around the tower to protect from the blast of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets.
My supposition has always been that the whole reason for the cladding was to make it weather tight enough for air conditioning to prevent the steel structure from needing the constant anti-corrosion maintenance it does now. If my supposition is correct, then mesh isn't going to do much good. The render may be depicting translucent polycarbonate panels.
IMO your statement is a bit too general in nature Jim. The climate on some of the islands of the province of Zeeland in my home country is as corrosive as the one affecting structures at the Cape and KSC. There are quite a few structures over here that have their (metallic) insides protected from corrosive action by means of AC. Drop the moisture level and salt-air corrosion decreases significantly.
My supposition has always been that the whole reason for the cladding was to make it weather tight enough for air conditioning to prevent the steel structure from needing the constant anti-corrosion maintenance it does now. If my supposition is correct, then mesh isn't going to do much good. The render may be depicting translucent polycarbonate panels.
It would require too much AC and in the end, still not help. AC is only used for comfort and not to protect structures.
The climate on some of the islands of the province of Zeeland in my home country is as corrosive as the one affecting structures at the Cape and KSC. There are quite a few structures over here that have their (metallic) insides protected from corrosive action by means of AC. Drop the moisture level and salt-air corrosion decreases significantly.
The climate on some of the islands of the province of Zeeland in my home country is as corrosive as the one affecting structures at the Cape and KSC. There are quite a few structures over here that have their (metallic) insides protected from corrosive action by means of AC. Drop the moisture level and salt-air corrosion decreases significantly.
I think technically it's the dehumidificatoin action that is providing benefit but conventional AC (not swamp coolers) is one of the best ways to dehumidify
If they are putting up shielding to protect from the blast of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, what kind of damage was the FSS getting from Shuttle launches? Was NASA spending millions cleaning it up after every launch or every couple? Or does their (SpaceX) purported launch frequency just make it more economical to mitigate launch damage from the outset?
At 0:18 in the video we're shown a long, low "SpaceX Falcon Support Building" which appears to be south-south-west of the HIF and may have formerly been the "Butler Building".
Anyone have any more info about this, either it's current use by SpaceX or it's previous history?
A quick Google brings up not much except a hint that "Butler Building" might be a generic/trade name for a prefabricated building.
Anyone have any more info about this, either it's current use by SpaceX or it's previous history?
Elon MuskVerified account
@elonmusk
Can't wait to see all three cores of Falcon Heavy come back for landings! First two will be almost simultaneous.
https://t.co/ryMiewZM4L
Interesting equipment around the HIF, is it helium?They are the N2 trailers SpaceX employs during Stage 1 safing operations.
http://www.imagli.net/danielrainey
Interesting equipment around the HIF, is it helium?They a the He trailers SpaceX employs during Stage 1 safing operations.
http://www.imagli.net/danielrainey
[T]hat shape trailer is almost always helium.To follow up: trailers with thin tubes like this are used for transporting *gases under high pressure*. Helium does not liquefy at a reasonable temperature, so it has to be transported like this.
Some new photos from the tent on LC-39A. The best I have seen yet. Still no idea what it is inside there. Taken during a bus tour.
Pictures were on the german forum Raumcon Index
https://www.raumfahrer.net/forum/smf/index.php?topic=11024.msg369069#msg369069
(http://www2.pic-upload.de/img/31379303/Axel01A.jpg)
(http://www2.pic-upload.de/img/31379305/Axel02A.jpg)
I believe this will be where the F9Hvy will be transferred to the TEL. Note how the TEL can roll right up to this area. There are 3 stands the appropriate distance apart to accommodate the Triple bodied F9H. The reused OTV (from another NSF thread) will also be avle to move the F9H to this stand then move to the TEL?
Any thoughts JIM... somebody turn on the JIM Bat signal
I am sorry, I misread the last part of your post. Yes, we agree.
For me, it is the first time seeing this kind of truck transporting nitrogen (compressed vs. liquid) and I see plenty of it in the place I work.
I believe this will be where the F9Hvy will be transferred to the TEL. Note how the TEL can roll right up to this area. There are 3 stands the appropriate distance apart to accommodate the Triple bodied F9H. The reused OTV (from another NSF thread) will also be avle to move the F9H to this stand then move to the TEL?
Looks like Vandenberg.