Author Topic: Pad 39A - Transition to SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut - Thread 2  (Read 248157 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

Good thing it was an order of magnitude cheaper than that VIF then.

How do you know that?

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
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
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.)
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Lars-J

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

 ::) No one said it was far away... I'm merely stating that in most pictures published recently, due to the perspective and foreshortening, it appears to be even closer than it actually is. See this image for a comparison:
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 06:42 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
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?
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 06:49 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

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. 
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 06:55 pm by Jim »

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
It's interesting that this point about the closeness of the hangar to the pad has come up again. I've always thought the hangars at SLC-40 and Vandenberg  are too close to the pad. It seems to me that there was no need to endanger the hangar in the event a Falcon suffers an Antares type failure. (Of course, the point is totally moot since they're not going to tear down the existing buildings and reconstruct them farther back.)

I remember Musk emphasizing rapid roll out targets for Falcon. I wonder if that was the driver behind the decision to site them so close.
Douglas Clark

Offline Lars-J

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

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.

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.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 07:21 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • London
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 433
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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

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.

When somebody repeatedly has shown a bias, I will be nitpicky.  Especially, when they are wrong.
The MST is designed to different criteria than sheet metal hangars.

Also, solid or liquid is not a factor. 
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 08:03 pm by Jim »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 968
I just don't know why ULA needs to be brought into every SpaceX discussion and vice versa. The HIF is where it is for many reasons. SpaceX knew the risk/rewards and decided accordingly as to what worked for "them".

Besides, if a FH ever had a RUD at or above the pad, HIF damage would be the least of their problems.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
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. 

It could be that it doesn't matter how close it is to the pad.  If things go really bad they won't need a HIF anymore because Launch Complex 39 Pad A itself will just be a giant hole in the ground. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 08:27 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5102
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.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline sublimemarsupial

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 3


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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428

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
« Last Edit: 12/03/2015 09:36 pm by Jim »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351

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.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203

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.

 - 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.

Offline dorkmo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 848
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.

We'd probably be able to have more confidence with at least one more photo from a different angle but from what i can see i'd say there could possibly be containers on either side supporting the tent structure in between. its either open front and dark inside, or black tarp front. the roof has a different shape compared to vandenburg's.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351

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.

 - 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.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 12/04/2015 02:55 am by edkyle99 »

Offline sublimemarsupial

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 3

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.

 - 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.

 - Ed Kyle

One of these is a simple sheet metal building. The other is not.

You can purchase a used 90T bridge crane for ~ $30,000. No way Elon would let SpaceX buy a crane two orders of magnitude more expensive then that.

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?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
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. 

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
« Last Edit: 12/04/2015 04:41 am by edkyle99 »

Tags:
 

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